Robert Lighthizer

And there's lots of Democrats who do, lots of them. Getting those people to buy in, I think, is really, really important.

So the answer is no, and it's particularly true in the short term, right? Because the markets are affected more by the Fed than they are other things. I mean the market's basically – Affected as much by, you know, they're going to have interest rates go down as it is anything else. I think in a general way. That's kind of kind of suppose that's that's a little weird.

So the answer is no, and it's particularly true in the short term, right? Because the markets are affected more by the Fed than they are other things. I mean the market's basically – Affected as much by, you know, they're going to have interest rates go down as it is anything else. I think in a general way. That's kind of kind of suppose that's that's a little weird.

So the answer is no, and it's particularly true in the short term, right? Because the markets are affected more by the Fed than they are other things. I mean the market's basically – Affected as much by, you know, they're going to have interest rates go down as it is anything else. I think in a general way. That's kind of kind of suppose that's that's a little weird.

And it's very often.

And it's very often.

And it's very often.

It's macroeconomics. But the notion sort of is that, well, if interest rates go down, you're going to have economic activity increase. So it's not crazy, but it's sort of off-centered. I mean, to me, long term, it's fair to say, what will the markets do, right? Right. Will these companies become richer under this system? American companies become richer under this system?

It's macroeconomics. But the notion sort of is that, well, if interest rates go down, you're going to have economic activity increase. So it's not crazy, but it's sort of off-centered. I mean, to me, long term, it's fair to say, what will the markets do, right? Right. Will these companies become richer under this system? American companies become richer under this system?

It's macroeconomics. But the notion sort of is that, well, if interest rates go down, you're going to have economic activity increase. So it's not crazy, but it's sort of off-centered. I mean, to me, long term, it's fair to say, what will the markets do, right? Right. Will these companies become richer under this system? American companies become richer under this system?

The metric for me is did workers get richer? That's the metric for me. But if that happens, it should be reflected in the market. So I think looking at a short term is very disruptive, very destructive, not right. Looking at a long term makes some sense, but it's not my metric. Okay. My metric after national defense, my metric is do most Americans do relatively better in real terms?

The metric for me is did workers get richer? That's the metric for me. But if that happens, it should be reflected in the market. So I think looking at a short term is very disruptive, very destructive, not right. Looking at a long term makes some sense, but it's not my metric. Okay. My metric after national defense, my metric is do most Americans do relatively better in real terms?

The metric for me is did workers get richer? That's the metric for me. But if that happens, it should be reflected in the market. So I think looking at a short term is very disruptive, very destructive, not right. Looking at a long term makes some sense, but it's not my metric. Okay. My metric after national defense, my metric is do most Americans do relatively better in real terms?

And if they did, the country is better off and the economy has done what it is supposed to do. I actually – this is sort of in 1996 when Bob Dole, who I worked for, you'll remember, as chief of staff and he was chairman of the finance committee. I wrote a speech that sort of made this point that the purpose of an economic policy is to generate wealth for the midsection.

And if they did, the country is better off and the economy has done what it is supposed to do. I actually – this is sort of in 1996 when Bob Dole, who I worked for, you'll remember, as chief of staff and he was chairman of the finance committee. I wrote a speech that sort of made this point that the purpose of an economic policy is to generate wealth for the midsection.

And if they did, the country is better off and the economy has done what it is supposed to do. I actually – this is sort of in 1996 when Bob Dole, who I worked for, you'll remember, as chief of staff and he was chairman of the finance committee. I wrote a speech that sort of made this point that the purpose of an economic policy is to generate wealth for the midsection.

The richer, they'll take care of themselves. The poor, you have programs for. But you want to take – this is the purpose of it. And it was funny. I got all the smart people with all this resentment in me wanting to have him make this speech, which he agreed was right. He was a populist Midwestern guy.

The richer, they'll take care of themselves. The poor, you have programs for. But you want to take – this is the purpose of it. And it was funny. I got all the smart people with all this resentment in me wanting to have him make this speech, which he agreed was right. He was a populist Midwestern guy.

The richer, they'll take care of themselves. The poor, you have programs for. But you want to take – this is the purpose of it. And it was funny. I got all the smart people with all this resentment in me wanting to have him make this speech, which he agreed was right. He was a populist Midwestern guy.

And finally, I think when it was all over and we didn't really have a shot at the end, he just said, I just got to keep Lighthizer from grunting. So I'll give this speech. And he ended up giving it. So was he a good guy? He was a good guy. Bob Dole was a good guy. He was, you know, it's funny. There's like, there's kind of like different Bob Dole's when you live to be 97 or something.