DR. MARVIN TREIGER
Podcast: 38 minutes
(Prof. Margesson was delayed and unable
to appear on air. This show is a full 3 hours with
Marv Treiger on these subjects & more.)
JIMMY SENGENBERGER: Saturday night is always alright for “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” right here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS. And it is, as always, a pleasure and a privilege to be with you. Thanks for joining us. If you want to join into the festivities, give us a call. (303) 696-1971 – our telephone number, you may well want to call in this evening.
So in a little bit, we will be joined in studio by a liberal Regis University professor Robert Margesson for a vibrant discussion with our other guest. Dr. Marv Treiger is, of course, a former marxist radical from the 1960’s when he & bunch of comrades on the 50th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution bolted from the Communist Party because it was, as I say, too CINO for him – too Communist in Name Only. He has since become a conservative & a Trump supporter. And Dr. Marv Treiger rejoins us here on the program for the whole show. Good evening Marv. How are you, my friend?
DR. MARVIN TREIGER: I’m really doing terrific. I’m so happy to be on the show – I’m looking forward to where it will go and what will arise.
SENGENBERGER: Yes. Oh, absolutely and there’ll be a lot of things we’ll sink our teeth into, especially when Rob’s able to get here. But hey, let’s just have our conversations first with you, Marv Treiger.
And so, I want to start by asking you about something that is going on. Later on we’re going to talk with Rob and with yourself about ~~ we’ll see where the discussion goes but maybe a little bit about whether a Buddhist like yourself can be a Trump supporter, we’ll talk about understanding the Left. But I want to start with, kind of, the Left in America today in this age of Donald Trump. And I want you to react to this comment from the Chairman of the Democratic Party about an upstart Democrat congresswoman-to-be, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Here’s what he had to say about this self-described Democratic Socialist:
BILL PRESS: What’s [sic] this tell you about where the Democratic Party’s going today?
THOMAS PEREZ: Well, my daughter’s ~~ I have three kids, two of whom are daughters, one just graduated college, one is in college, and they were both texting me about their excitement over Alexandria because, you know, she really represents the future of our party. She ran a spirited campaign. I have great respect for Joe Crowley. Joe Crowley is a good Democrat, he was one of the sponsors of the Medicare-for-All bill, he’s fought the good fight…
SENGENBERGER: Alright. So we heard him say the future of the Democratic Party is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is a self-described Democratic Socialist, in fact I have audio we’ll play in a moment, on what Democratic Socialism is for her. But where is the Democratic party at this moment in your mind?
TREIGER: Well, I think that that’s Tom Perez, the Chairman of the DNC —
TREIGER: — that this quotation was from. And yeah, the idea that she represents the future of the party – his comment to that effect. And she, by the way, was a Bernie supporter in the primaries and is part of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is a Left-wing organization, which has very far-out positions. The thing about this is that there is an increasingly hardline, vocal, intolerant, harassing section of the Hard Left in America that we see every day in one place or another, driving people out of restaurants, trying to tear down border walls, just going all sorts of illegal ways. But the thing about it is that that’s the part that has been so directly frustrated and thwarted and part of the #Resistance against the election of Trump that they’re overt. The rest of the Democratic Party, the mainstream of the Democratic Party, which is growing smaller and smaller although the people who vote Democrat are just usually just ordinary Americans, fine people that aren’t ideologically committed. That section of the leadership of the party is also very Left but they kind of subdue their rhetoric a little bit. The Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers not very much, they don’t subdue it, but they subdue it a little bit and the reason is that they want to get reelected and to get elected. Once they come into power, then we see their full policy in practice as we saw during the whole Obama regime.
So I think the Democratic Party is not, you know, your Pappy’s Democratic Party. It’s a new animal and it no longer can be appropriately called the loyal opposition party but it’s a party that has been kind of tainted and affected by many anti-American, anti-patriotic, anti-constitutional views and I think that it’s essential to prevent them from coming to power again.
SENGENBERGER: You know, this just made me think of another clip I have, this one was very interesting. So, it’s from April 20th so it’s a few months back, four months ago or so, little less than four months. And it was on Bill Maher’s show, in fact it was Bill Maher along with Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels and Jordan Peterson who, of course, has gained a lot of traction for his discussion about the identity politics of the Left. And to your point about where the Democrats are politically right now, I want to play this clip because it’s Bill Maher explaining why today is different in terms of standing up against Trump from any previous president:
BILL MAHER: If he was just a regular Republican president with Republican policies I would say you’d have a point. But what is so alarming is the assault on democratic norms, what we were talking about here today. Things like threatening to put people in jail, threatening to put journalists in jail, wanting military parades, praising dictators, wanting to be a dictator. I mean, we are at a moment here, this is ~~ I try to impress on the people who are too young to remember a lot of presidents and a lot of elections, how incredibly different this is than anything that every came before. I never much liked the other Republicans who were in office but I have a renewed respect for them. George — [Applause] – Ha! George Bush and Mitt Romney would not have tried to do this s**t, they just wouldn’t.
JORDAN PETERSON: What about Nixon?
MAHER: Nixon got caught and he gave himself up, basically.
MICHAEL AVENATTI: Well, although this president makes the Watergate burglars look brilliant.
SENGENBERGER: So everything, all bets are off because Donald Trump is somehow fundamentally different from any past president. What do you say, Dr. Marv Treiger?
TREIGER: Well, I would say that there is some truth to that but not at all in the way that Bill Maher and his guests seem to think. If we go back for a moment to Ronald Reagan and his extraordinary accomplishments in ending the Cold War and in reviving the American economy and in fact resuscitating the American spirit under the assault that took place as a consequence of the extremism of the 1960’s. Immediately thereafter the father, the elder Bush, when he was campaigning talked about creating a “kinder and gentler” America. Well, one might ask, kinder and gentler from whom? The previous president? And the Bushs decided to become kind of respectable, moderate kind of conservatives in the Republican Party, and they saw Bill Clinton who was moving from, who eventually moved and said, “The era of big government is over,” to a kind of moderate Democratic Party and then, you know, just like in the old days maybe the Democrats would replace the Republicans, the Republicans would replace the Democrats and we would all be just fine. Well, during that epoch what actually was going on was that the deep state was being increasingly strengthened, the huge bureaucracy was increasingly being peopled by people who were committed to the establishments, to the way things are done. And it all got so completely out of whack under Obama that Donald Trump arose really as a new kind of Republican, so that much is true. And he was an outsider, a pragmatist – I won’t go into too much of it now because I’d like to discuss this with Dr. Margesson – but he certainly has shown himself to not be authoritarian in any way.
People don’t realize that the President has the legal powers to declassify all classified documents – he hasn’t done that. He has the legal power to fire Mueller and the special counsel – he hasn’t done that. He has the legal power to do many of these things but instead he has restrained himself so that there’s an unfolding process which he is confident will reveal both his innocence and the culpability of those who are going after him as a much better way to go about it. And he has fought the battle in the public arena with dialogue, rallies, tweets and things like that.
So this is ~~ I don’t see any authoritarian streaks nor is there any recognition (by critics-MT) of our Constitution, which is so institutionalized and structured that a balance of power is so strong in it that there are many checks on anyone who would seek to become a dictator. And as far as rounding people up and imprisoning in them, well, I have to agree with Bill Maher on that except that it’s been basically the MS-13 Salvadorian gangs, the bloody killers that are being thrown in prison. The people who are being thrown in prison at the present moment in a very unjust way are being thrown in prison by Mueller. Paul Manafort is now under twenty-three-hour-a-day lockdown in his cell, making it extremely difficult to communicate with his lawyers and to conduct a proper defense.
So you mentioned one or two other things, I don’t think they were too pertinent, I don’t exactly recall them, but if you go down his list, it really is hollow. And by the way, even perhaps a more severe criticism, it’s unfunny. I mean, Bill Maher is supposed to be funny, a comedian –-
SENGENBERGER: Well, yeah, serious discussions, he has his humorous stuff but more than anything his show is more of a serious discussion of the issues, even if they’re flat-out Left-wing and wrong usually.
TREIGER: Okay, I’ll grant that.
SENGENBERGER: But I mean, it’s still a fair point, there is a lack of humor that is going on among those on the Left. I mean, even if you look at Samantha Bee, the one who, wasn’t it Sarah Sanders that she called, or, no. Who was it that she called the C-word, was it Sanders?
TREIGER: I think it was, yeah.
SENGENBERGER: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
TREIGER: She followed that —
SENGENBERGER: It was, I think it was.
TREIGER: — after she did the severed head —
SENGENBERGER: Or was it Ivanka? I don’t remember, it was ~~ either way, it was, it blends together because they’re constantly doing all sorts of often times sexist assaults against women in the Trump Administration or within the Trump circle of people.
We’re going to take a break here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” NewsTalk 710 KNUS. We’ve got Dr. Marv Treiger on the line coming up in a little while here in studio, Dr. Rob Margesson and they’re going to duke it out on some understanding of the Left. Can a Buddhist be a Trump supporter like Marv is a Buddhist teacher? And more, here on 710 KNUS, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” (303) 696-1971 – don’t go anywhere.
SENGENBERGER: Whisky rock n’ rollin’ back here on 710 KNUS, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.” Thanks for joining us, being a part of the program. (303) 696-1971, our telephone number. Dr. Marv Treiger joining us here on the show. Dr. Rob Margesson will in studio shortly.
You know Marv, it’s so interesting when we look at the reaction to the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy deciding that he will retire. This news came out a couple of Wednesdays ago and you had folks on the Left go apoplectic about it. What do you think of the significance of the decision from Justice Kennedy at this point in our history to retire and what we will expect coming after this Monday when President Trump, I think at 7:00 p.m. Mountain Time, announces primetime his pick for the Supreme Court?
TREIGER: Well, I think, you know, Justice Kennedy, it was reported had said to a staffer, someone, that he, one of the reasons he was waiting to resign when he did – you know, he’s only eighty-one-years-old and he’s apparently in good health so, you know, he had other things he wished to do in life and that’s fine – but he seems to have, and the rumor is, that he deliberately chose resigning while there was a Republican president. And the Republican president was Donald Trump. And so I think that is a very important part of all of this and also Justice Gorsuch, you know, was once an aide or —
SENGENBERGER: Clerk, clerk.
TREIGER: — clerk for him. And I think he looked forward to spending some time with his former clerk being a Supreme Court Justice as well. But one thing that I would like to just say about Justice Kennedy who was, I think, often underrated. And that is, you know, he’s often spoken of as the swing judge or the judge whose 5-4 one way or 5-4 another way and therefore, you know, it’s kind of swinging back and forth, which may suggest something, you know. But he had actually profound and deep principles that he never moved from and those were the principles of free speech.
TREIGER: And I would say that that is one of the things that we can really be thankful that we had such a justice on the court. Now, the other conservative justices are also for free speech but he particularly kind of like that was that card he played forward the most, and so I really respect and regard that as important.
So now we’re on the verge of a new nomination and we’ll find out Monday who it’s going to be. I have deep confidence in the Federalist nominations and I’ve reviewed or looked at a number of the judges and what their strengths and weaknesses are. And I think whichever one it’s going to be is going to be a home run.
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, you know what struck me so much about this, Marv, is the fact that I don’t think ever in the history of the Supreme Court appointment process has there been a President of the United States who has done so much due diligence in coming up with a list of folks that will work well for this position. I mean, you look at George W. Bush, he had his flaw with Harriet Miers and that didn’t work out so well while Alito, Roberts have mixed histories on the bench in terms of where they’ve fallen on issues, you think of Roberts and the Obamacare decision upholding the individual mandate and so forth, you look at the appointments of Kennedy who’s had a mixed bag and a mixed history on the court as well. You look at David Souter who was appointed by a Republican, and Earl Warren appointed by Eisenhower and so forth. You look at that legacy and I don’t think that there’s ever been so much of a review process where he’s come up with this list and determined to stand by the list that had all this research done.
TREIGER: I think there’s two things historically that contributed to this. One was the effect of borking, which was when a conservative, clear-minded outspoken conservative justice was completely demolished characterologically, not accurately but, you know, by the Democrats, and it really changed the quality of all examinations of justices, that took place. And then I think the revival amongst the American people of an appreciation of Conservative values in the face of especially what took place during the Obama years. Trump comes along. Now Trump was a political novice and didn’t have a lot of experience but he has and has shown again and again great instincts. Well, his instinct was here knowing the importance of this issue and knowing the importance of the Constitution, he decided to turn to the experts to provide him with a wide range of potential nominees that would in fact be Conservative and would not do some of the things that the justices that you described did in terms of backtracking.
SENGENBERGER: Right. So hold that thought right there —
TREIGER: So that was brilliant.
SENGENBERGER: Dr. Marv Treiger, we’re up against a hard break, I apologize. We’ll come right back. More with Marv Treiger, Rob Margesson in studio soon, stay with us here on 710 KNUS.
SENGENBERGER: Never takin’ a left turn on a red light, and trying to avoid it on a green light, too, with “The Jimmy Sengenbeger Show”. NewsTalk710 KNUS. Dr. Marv Treiger, our guest. En route, Professor Rob Margesson will be here shortly.
Marv, we were just talking about, of course, the Supreme Court appointment and what it means and its significance. And you mentioned the borking in the 1980’s, Robert Bork and what happened there. Ever since then, obviously, there’s been more of a contentious notion of surrounding Supreme Court appointments. How contentious do you think this will be? And if he does choose, the President does choose Amy Coney Barrett to be the Justice appointment, will the Democrats try to get away with a religious test for office?
TREIGER: Oh, that’s such a great question Jimmy. Let me just say to sort of wrap up that little piece before our break —
TREIGER: — that President Trump was the first, when he was, you know, running for office the first Republican to ever put forward a list of the candidates that he would choose from. No other Democrat or Republican had done that, so that underscored the growing importance of the Supreme Court within the United States. And it was something that he did because he knew that the Conservative base of the Republican Party was extremely concerned with the fact that the Democrats had been using increasingly the courts to substitute for Congress, which means to substitute for the elected voices of the people. So that’s what brought it to the fore as a key issue and that was a brilliant stroke. But we could really say that in that sense the people created Donald Trump. Donald Trump didn’t create the people. He found the brilliant way to connect to them.
So now to your point about the current justices, well, I think that it is going to be contentious. You have to remember that when Gorsuch was nominated, the Democrats, would have been much wiser for them to – because he was such a, I mean they couldn’t lay a glove on him – to have simply gone for and supported the nomination but instead they forced the extension of the broken filibuster rule that Harry Reid had broken for lower level judge appointments and instead what they did was force that rule to be gone. They would have had a little stronger case a second time around when it mattered more to them this time but they didn’t do that. So they were hysterical the first time and they’re behaving hysterically this time.
I don’t think there’s much likelihood, by the way, even if whoever the three are nominated, that we’re going to see any fundamental change in Roe v. Wade —
SENGENBERGER: Can I stop you there? Can I just stop you there?
SENGENBERGER: Because you’re bringing up a very important point, and there’s another clip, I want to play this because this is the line that’s going on in the media and this is actually pretty funny. From John Oliver last Sunday, he hosts “Last Week Tonight,” a very leftist show on HBO. And he was poking fun at, but agreeing with, Jeffrey Toobin – who, by the way, is a CNN legal commentator, and when I was in college I read a book on the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin and he knows better than to say the things that he’s been saying on Roe v. Wade and this appointment but take a listen to this:
JOHN OLIVER: The consequences here will almost certainly be extremely grim. Just watch CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin seemingly visit every single show on CNN to do whatever the exact opposite of sugarcoating is:
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Roe v. Wade is doomed, it is gone because Donald Trump won the election… Abortion will be illegal in quite a significant part of the United States soon all this fantasy talk about, ‘oh, I don’t know if Roe v. Wade s going to be overturned,’ of course it’s going to be overturned! Roe v. Wade is going to disappear. It arrived in 1973 and it will die shortly.
ANDERSON COOPER: Jeff, I heard you say earlier that within eighteen months that abortion could be illegal in as many as twenty states.
TOOBIN: No, I said abortion will be illegal in as many as twenty states, because Roe v. Wade is dead today.
OLIVER: Wow! I would not want to hear Jeffrey Toobin tell his daughter that their dog passed away. [Imitating Toobin] ‘Sweetheart, Baxter was taken to a farm upstate and then shot in the face! He’s dead now he’s dead he’s got no face anymore!’ But look, I’m happy to say here that there is actually some good news because it turns our there is a constitutional loophole that allows Democrats to ~~ I’m obviously lying here, there is no good news. Everything is terrible now!
SENGENBERGER: “Everything is terrible now” and Roe v. Wade is going away. I just, I’d been wanting to get that in tonight, thanks for the opportunity, Marv. Go ahead and respond.
TREIGER: [Chuckling] Yeah, yeah, you’re welcome. Well, okay, so let’s suppose Amy, who’s the one of the three that they’re most hysterical about with regard to —
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, the mother of seven, yeah.
TREIGER: — of seven, or however numbered, you know. So that’s the one they’re most concerned about, and we’ll get to exactly that point, that litmus test that they’re invoking.
So she becomes a justice and so some issue comes before the court relative to the right to life and abortion but it won’t take that form. It’ll take the form of what is constitutionally the realm of jurisprudence to determine things such as childbirth. And the true precedent in the United States is that childbirth is something left to the states, it was not in the Constitution and it was left to the states during its entire existence until 1973. So therefore precedent cuts both ways. However, the Roberts Court – and he’s the Head of, the Chief Justice of the Court – the Roberts Court has shown itself to continually take cases that are narrow in their application and he’s concerned about the reputation of the Court – and I mean this in the best sense that the Court is one of the three equal branches of government and so doesn’t want its reputation to be impugned – and so he is not likely to press forward on such an issue. Now, if there were a further justice, then I think that the scales would tip and that under those conditions I think that Roe v. Wade would probably be limited in certain important respects. How exactly and why? You know, we don’t know. But at that distance, see – it’s likely probably distant, I don’t know, there could be another justice, Ginsberg perhaps who knows who it might be but it might happen within a two-term presidency of Donald Trump – is a gift that should happen. Then I think we’re going to see a country in which the people, living in communities, living in states with different approaches to life and values, city and country and Midwest and coast, will be able to organize their communities along the lines that they feel is appropriate for the health of children, of marriage, of freedom, all these things, and we’ll take different forms. And even if that takes place, I’m sure there’ll be groups, you know, that will, if someone’s in a state where abortion isn’t permitted, they’ll be organizers that can, you know, whisk them to a state where it is permitted, there’ll be all kinds of stuff going on. This is the kind of subject, because it’s so intense and there’s such powerful competing views. I mean, being pregnant having a baby, that’s a commitment, eighteen years or twenty years of your life, or nowadays twenty-six years of the parent. On the other hand, a living human being – does civilized society snuff living human beings, which is formed at the very moment of conception as science is itself now showing? These are competing and powerful interests. So this will be something that will be argued, I won’t say ‘til the end of time but certainly ‘til the end of the Republic and it should be.
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, but, but Marv, it’s not going to happen. Roe v. Wade isn’t going away.
TREIGER: It may go away in the future sometime, as I outlined a potential scenario, but it won’t over the current fight at all. And that’s the hysteria of the Left saying that it will and that it’s doomed.
SENGENBERGER: And here’s the biggest thing that I think goes to your point, though, in terms of at least under the Roberts Court, and I don’t think it’s going to go away anytime in the future, but we don’t need to have that discussion in terms of this. There’s this theory here, you’re right. Here’s the biggest example for the Roberts Court: the Obamacare decision. He wrote that 5-4 decision, it wasn’t Anthony Kennedy who jumped onboard, it was John Roberts who joined onboard to make the case – and I think that’s because he was specifically looking at the institutional viability of the Supreme Court, if you will, at least in his mindset – that he did it specifically because he didn’t want to be seen as though the court was overstepping its bounds or something like that. He’s very hesitant to blemish the reputation of the Supreme Court of the United States. And that I think is a prime example of where you’re right on that point because the decision in the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare was a pretzel and he wrote it and that’s why.
TREIGER: Yeah. I think that’s the case, and, right. So, I’m so sorry that Jeffrey Toobin’s face got blown off but there was still one thing left to remind us of him, it was the puddle of tears on the table in front of him. So unfortunately he writes well but he can get emotionally involved in such a way that leads him to say outlandish things.
SENGENBERGER: Yeah, oh no doubt about it. I mean, you think about this guy and his, the fact that he seemed like, for many years, reasonable thinker, he’s a student of Alan Dershowitz. He was his professor at I think it was Harvard back in the day and whatnot. Jeffrey Toobin is a political guy now, he’s not an objective person in any legal sense, he’s extremely partisan and vicious at this time and bitter over what’s going on. And I think that goes to our question in the beginning of this of this hour, Marv, which talks about where the Democratic Party is now in terms of their animosity towards Donald Trump.
TREIGER: Well, I think that it’s, like I say, what is kind of like the subtext of the Democratic Party – and I’m really interested in subtext, it’s one of the reasons why I ended up supporting Donald Trump – the subtext of the Democratic Party is that ‘how are we going to bring Socialism in without calling it that?’. And that, I think is the essence of their dilemma. So they try to find this way and that way, okay, well, one way would be, let’s not have borders. If we don’t have borders, well then the greatest obstacle to Socialism in the world would no longer – which is the United States – would no longer be a boundary country and people coming in with values from all these other countries would vote Democratic and so we could go that way. Or maybe we’ll have no prisons, I mean you name it. They have all these kind of, like, sideways ~~ or let’s abolish ICE, that will help us get no borders. They have all these sideways kinds of positions, the purpose of which, ultimately, is to undermine Democratic Capitalism and the Constitution, to take the choice of what goes on in this country away from its own citizens, give it to the courts, give it to the executive, give it to the Supremes, give it to the mob in the streets, give it to the illegals crossing, but by all means not the voters.
SENGENBERGER: You know, we’ll pick up on that aspect of this conversation in the next two hours when we have Dr. Rob Margesson, liberal professor at Regis University. Here in studio, we’ve got Dr. Marv Treiger on the line, it’s NewsTalk 710 KNUS, our telephone number (303) 696-1971.
SENGENBERGER: Six minutes before the top of the hour, Jimmy Sengenberger back with you, NewsTalk 710 KNUS. Thanks for joining us, being a part of the program. Dr. Marv Treiger on the line, in the next two hours Dr. Rob Margesson will be joining us here in studio and were going to talk about understanding the Left, and can a Buddhist like Marv Treiger support Donald Trump as he does. In the meantime, here is Michael Moore from, I think this was by now a couple of weeks ago, and he was describing on television the nature of the United States of America as a country in terms of our political perspective:
MICHAEL MOORE: The majority of Americans are very liberal, they take the liberal position on most issues, they believe that women should be paid the same as men, they believe that there’s climate change, go down the list, they don’t believe people should be thrown in jail for smoking marijuana, go down the list. The majority of fellow American are liberal and we the Democrats have won the Presidency, the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. The Republicans have only won once since 1988, in 2004 with Bush. That’s the only time they’ve won the popular vote! The country we live in doesn’t want the Republicans in the White House! [Audience: “That’s Right!”, Applause] They don’t want them running the country! We’re the majority! We’re the majority! And I don’t know ~~ on that positive note –-
STEPHEN COLBERT: Electoral College.
MOORE: Electoral College! Get rid of it!
SENGENBERGER: Marv Treiger, your reaction to Micahel Moore there.
TREIGER: Oh my, let’s see. Well, first, our system is a Republic, and it’s a democratic republic. It’s not, nor was ever intended to be, a pure democracy governed simply by majority rule. And that was the great wisdom of the Founding Fathers, because if you had simple majority rule you would have the danger of a majoritarian tyranny, that is to say some eloquent speaker or some particular issue of the moment or places where people gather in large numbers can get roused up and riled up, take a position with some tremendous consequences that deprive the minority of rights. So he’s overlooking and sidestepping the whole concept of how we’re constituted and why we’ve lasted so long and why we’ve been able to do so in such an extraordinary way. So that would be one thing I would say.
Now as far as the positions, you know, if really positions ~~ if you take polls, and there have been a number of polls taken on many, many questions, depending on the question you ask you get a certain particular answer and that can then shape what it is that one wishes to do. So like, let’s just take abortion. So, something like 63% at the present time do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, okay. At the same time – and I don’t have the exact numbers but I believe it’s in the 60’s as well – a majority of the population wants to limit abortion to between twenty and twenty-five weeks. And there have been more and more people coming around to appreciate the whole question of the right to life. That’s been a growing force in the country, ever since Roe v. Wade. And so it depends on what questions you ask.
So I think that would be how I would approach it. And Michael Moore, he himself speaks for a very tiny radical minority, his views in toto would be extremely small and tiny. So, you know, everyone is going to be a little unhappy. If we go back to Obama’s presidency, Obama during the time of his presidency lost for the Democratic Party something like 1,250 seats in both state legislatures and in Congress —
SENGENBERGER: That’s a great point.
TREIGER: — he was a disaster for the party.
SENGENBERGER: He was a disaster politically for the Democrats, no doubt about it. We’re at the top of the hour, Dr. Marv Treiger, our guest shortly joined by Dr. Rob Margeson here in studio for a little bit of disagreement here on 710 KNUS. Stay with us.
[End of First Hour]