Why Some Senate Republicans May Block The One, Big Beautiful Bill
34:18 Share

You may get a little excited when you shop at Burlington. Burlington saves you up to 60% off other retailers' prices every day. Will it be the low prices or the great brands? Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow. I told you so. Styles and selections vary by store.

This episode is brought to you by Amazon's Blink Video Doorbell. Get more at your door with the easy-to-install Blink Video Doorbell. Get more connections. Hey, I'm here for our first date. More deliveries. Hi, I have tacos for two. Oh, thanks. We'll be right down. And more memories. Come down. I have a surprise. All new Blink Video Doorbell with two-year battery, head-to-toe HD view, and simple setup. Shop now at Amazon.com slash Blink for just $69.99.

I'm Jason Chaffetz. I'm Ainsley Earhart. I'm Brian Kilmeade. And this is the Fox News Rundown. Wednesday, May 28th, 2025. I'm Dave Anthony. Will Republicans do what Democrats can't?

Block that massive budget bill that President Trump is pushing. It already passed the GOP-led House, but it's facing skepticism in the GOP-led Senate. What we've had so far is just rhetoric. We've got a slogan, one big beautiful bill. Very similar. This is almost identical to what happened with Obamacare. We had a slogan, repeal and replace, and nobody really had a good way of doing that. We speak with Senator Ron Johnson.

I'm Jessica Rosenthal. AI models may be showing resistance when told to shut down or when threatened with a replacement. But not everyone is afraid of this. It's responding the way it was programmed. So you're going to have a lot of inappropriate responses for a long, long time. And we have people behind the scenes at all of these AI companies that are putting band-aids on all of these cuts that when AI comes up with something which is inappropriate, they go back and fix it.

And I'm Carol Markowitz. I've got the final word on the Fox News Rundown. Is this possible? The one big, beautiful bill, as President Trump named it himself, we're going to send that to his desk. We're going to get there by Independence Day on July 4th, and we are going to celebrate a new golden age in America.

That was House Speaker Mike Johnson calling that massive budget blueprint when it passed last week. Once in a generation legislation. And the centerpiece of it is extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts that are set to expire and adding to them no taxes on tips or overtime. The legislation also funds the president's agenda on border security and the military. And House Republicans also approved spending cuts.

But GOP Senator Rand Paul tells Fox News Sunday, I think the cuts currently in the bill are wimpy and anemic, but I still would support the bill even with wimpy and anemic cuts if they weren't going to explode the debt. And he is not alone. Several other Republicans worry about ballooning the debt and deficit even further. And while Democrats don't have enough votes to block the bill they all oppose, with the GOP using a reconciliation process that doesn't allow a filibuster,

There's enough GOP opposition to put the current version of the bill in jeopardy. Well, first of all, we're talking about budget reconciliation. So we ought to talk about numbers. Senator Ron Johnson is a Republican from Wisconsin. The only number we talked about was $1.5 trillion, which sounds like a lot of money.

but over 10 years it really isn't squat it's barely a rounding year when you look at cbo's projection we'll spend about 89 trillion dollars over the next 10 years and by the way this is probably a rosy scenario we'll add about 22 trillion dollars to our to our debt over that time period averaging 2.2 trillion dollars per year in deficit and let me just put that in in historical perspective

The last four years of Obama administration, he averaged $550 billion per year deficit. Trump's first three years, over $800 billion in deficit.

Then, of course, COVID hit and we had a $3.1 trillion deficit as we went on a spending spree to make sure the markets wouldn't collapse and take care of all the shutdowns. Well, it should have ended there. We should have gone back down to a reasonable pre-pandemic level spending and deficits. But no, that's not what happened. President Biden averaged $1.9 trillion in deficits over his entire four-year administration.

But now we're looking at 2.2, and I'm sorry, the House big, beautiful bill is going to add to that. Our first goal ought to be we ought to reduce that deficit spending, not increase it. So, again, we just have a fundamental problem. The House set the bar way too low. They weren't talking about numbers in context. They just talked about the $1.5 trillion, which is completely inadequate.

Okay. A lot of what the House did was make reform in Medicaid, especially a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and that's one way they wanted to reduce spending and get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. Is that the right approach, or is that just one approach?

Listen, we definitely need to reform Obamacare, which is Medicaid expansion, which is putting at risk the Medicaid for disabled children. OK, so that that ought to be fixed. But I've laid out we increase spending across the board. If you take 2019 outlays, you know, leave Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Interest alone. You can even exclude Medicaid, quite honestly. There's literally hundreds of billions of dollars that we're spending in excess of 2019 spending plused up by inflation and population growth. Then that would be a reasonable control. Take a look at those outlays, increase them to account for Biden's inflation, which was massive, population growth, and we're still hundreds of billions of dollars spending more than that

in things other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That's why I've said we need to take the time, go line by line like Doge has taught us. I think you would find hundreds of billions of dollars that if you don't spend it, nobody would even know other than the grifters who are sucking down that waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, President Trump wants more money for border security, more money for the military. Are you okay with that increased spending?

Yes, but we need to put a sharpener pencil on that. I asked DHS Secretary Noem requesting $46 billion for the fence. Well, in the first administration, they built something like 450 miles of fence cost them $6.6 billion, about $14.4 million per mile. You apply that $14.4 million. She said it was going to cost $12. So I'm being generous. That'd be building 3,000 miles of fence.

Is that what they're going to do? I don't think so. So, again, they just threw some numbers up on the wall. It hasn't been analyzed properly. We need to look at all the spending, including the defense spending. This is out of control. We need to get serious about this. Of course, there's a lot of tax cuts happening.

Thank you.

That hasn't had a successful offset, correct, in your opinion? First of all, I would extend current tax law. If we were smart enough to use current, if we would have been smart enough to use current policy in 2017, this wouldn't even be an issue. So I don't want to have an automatic tax increase. I would just extend that. But again, when you're running, on average, $2.2 trillion of deficits over the next year, this is not the time for tax cuts, particularly tax cuts that don't incentivize growth.

And a lot of these proposals on the table, they're not going to incentivize growth. They're just going to reduce revenue. So, again, we need to have this discussion. What we've had so far is just rhetoric. We've got a slogan, one big, beautiful bill. Very similar. This is almost identical to what happened with Obamacare. We had a slogan, repeal and replace.

And nobody really had a good way of doing that. I always said we should, you know, fix what's broken in Obamacare, repair the damage done and transition to a health care system that works. We didn't do that. So now we're dealing with Obamacare named Medicaid expansion would put you at risk Medicaid for disabled children. All right. Of course, Democrats are saying that these cuts are drastic.

The ones you talk about are that Senator Paul had said were weak and anemic. They say they're drastic. Millions of people will lose their health coverage. Millions of people will lose their food assistance. And they're they're sounding a very loud alarm. What's your reaction to their criticism?

They'll always say that. They have no problem indebting and mortgaging our children's future. So again, we've just approached it the wrong way. You don't start at a completely unjustified level spending $7 trillion when you spend $4.4 trillion just six years earlier. You go back to that $4 trillion.

Plus it up, that would establish a reasonable pre-pandemic baseline. That ought to be our starting point, which would be somewhere between $5.5 and $6.5 trillion. You always hear people say zero-based budgeting. Well, I'm proposing a $5.5 to $6.5 trillion-based budget. Build off of that as opposed to start above $7 trillion and suffer death by 1,000 cuts. That's what happened in the House. But if you come up with a much different version than the House...

You do risk having the House Republicans who didn't really want to go along with it, but finally did to say no. And then the whole thing collapses that way. Well, it'll take presidential leadership. So we need President Trump to be serious about his pledge in the State of the Union where he said he's going to balance the federal budget. Well, you don't balance the federal budget. You don't defeat the deep state by continuing to spend at President Biden's level. So this will require presidential leadership, leadership.

I'm digging my heels in so that he provides that leadership. Okay. Do you think it's possible that the better approach would be to have a couple of different bills rather than one? Or do you have to have one because of the reconciliation process? I was always recommending a three-step process. Provide the Board of Funding Defense, bank $850 billion of real spending reduction. That's just a start.

uh then i would the the next thing i would have done is i would have just extended current tax law there's a second step then come back and argue the big beautiful bill too late for three steps so right now i would combine border defense take what the good work this the house did in terms of spending reduction extend current tax law take an automatic tax increase off the table and then increase the debt ceiling for about a year to keep pressure on the process to come back and use fiscal year 2026 budget

to really get down to pre-pandemic level spending and then do all the arguing and all the other taxes. I'd like to take the opportunity to try and simplify and rationalize our tax code as opposed to just hand out more tax cuts, increase the deficit, make our tax code more complex and more difficult to comply with, which quite honestly, that's a lot of what President Trump has proposed. It's going to make the tax code more complex. I wouldn't want to be a payroll tax

manager having to try and segregate out the tips that are going to be taxed, those that won't, what overtime is going to be taxed, what won't, based on income levels. I mean, that adds to the regulatory burden. I thought we were supposed to reduce the regulatory burden. Those are big ones, though, for the president and the campaign. I assume he's going to want those in there.

Well, I campaigned on the fact that we shouldn't mortgage our children's future. I made that promise three campaigns in a row. That's what I campaigned on. That's what I pledged to my constituents. Fourth of July, too optimistic to get this done? I think so. Unless we split it up into two bills, I think it's pretty easy to do.

All right, Senator, I want to turn to another big issue for you, the controversy about former President Biden's mental fitness to keep doing the job. Of course, there was that presidential debate last June, and then he dropped out of the race, stopped running for reelection. Your colleague in the House, Congressman James Comer, he told Fox's Hannity the other night the oversight committee that he leads plans to call four ex-Biden White House staffers to come testify. This is what he said. These are the unelected bureaucrats that we believe had an overwhelming influence on

over Joe Biden and could have possibly been serving as de facto presidents of the United States. Now, Senator Johnson, you chair the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. You plan your own probe into this, correct? Right. What we've done is we've written letters to, I think, 28 White House officials that will probably expand. First, to request an interview. Well, I think I think have some pretty basic, basic set of questions to ask these folks. And then based on what answers we receive, we

We'll take it from there. I would not recommend bringing people in for a hearing right off the bat. You actually need to do an investigation here. You need to talk to a bunch of people, compare their testimonies. I'm hoping we don't have to spin at people, but we've written those letters. We'll probably write some more. We're developing that list of questions and hopefully have those interviews when we get back in June. And you're not just talking about a couple of staffers here. You want to talk to.

some high-level people from Vice President Harris, the former vice president, all the way down through the cabinet, right? Yeah, this is serious business here. We had, obviously, an infirmed president of the United States. It was obvious. I knew he was unfit for office for a host of reasons, including his declining mental and physical state. But there's a reason we have the 25th Amendment, because the president of the United States is the most powerful elected official in the world. He has access to the nuclear codes.

We have that 25th Amendment because we expect the vice president of the United States, the members of his cabinet, when they see that a president is no longer capable of fulfilling his duties of office, the oath he took, they have to step in and they've got to be honest with the American public. They weren't. We need to vet that because we can't allow that to happen in the future. You know, Democrats say, look, look back on everything. We're looking forward. We don't need to go through this process. It's all in the past. Why? Why?

Do you think it's so important for us to go forward? And what do you think could happen? And what's the goal of your investigation? Again, we need to find out who is actually running the country, who is signing pardons, who is making these decisions, and how could that have affected what happened? What kind of disaster might have occurred if the president of the United States wasn't actually in charge?

These are serious questions. I think the American people deserve the answer. Do you think that someone might have acted criminally in all this? I don't know that you can say. This is a political process. So I'm not sure about criminally, but this is a political responsibility that we need to hold people politically accountable. Senator Ron Johnson, Republican from Wisconsin, chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Thank you so much for joining us today. Have a great day.

Feeling a little stalled in the bedroom? Through HIMSS, you can get some gas back in the tank with personalized ED treatment options that are accessible without ever stepping foot into a doctor's office. With hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers, HIMSS can help you find the ED option that works for you.

Hems provides access to a range of doctor-trusted ED treatments like chewable tablets, Viagra, and Cialis, and their generics for up to 95% less. No insurance is needed, and one low price covers everything from treatments to ongoing care. Just fill out an intake form on their site, and a medical provider will determine the right treatment option. If prescribed, your medication ships directly to you for free. Start with your free online visit today at hems.com slash rundown.

That's HIMS.com slash rundown for your personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash rundown. The featured products include compounded products which are not approved nor verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality by the FDA. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions, and important safety information. Price varies based on product and subscription plan.

It's the Will Cain Show. Watch it live at noon Eastern, Monday through Thursday on FoxNews.com or on the Fox News YouTube channel. And don't miss a show. Get the podcast five days a week at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you download your favorite podcasts. This is Carol Markowitz with your Fox News commentary coming up.

AI company Anthropix says it told its latest model, Claude Opus 4, that it was going to be an assistant for a fictional company and in the process gave it access to company emails in which fake officials discussed replacing the AI model. They also said the engineer working on the replacement was having an affair. The AI model then threatened to reveal the affair if it was replaced. Anthropix said this sort of blackmail only happened when it was given a choice between blackmail and accepting the replacement.

OpenAI's models all tried to tamper with a script that told it to shut down, and the latest model sabotaged the mechanism to shut it down. This was reported by the AI safety firm Palisade Research.

Open AI CEO Sam Altman recently testified before a Senate panel about three weeks ago, and he was asked by Senator John Fetterman about the singularity in AI, the point at which AI could break away from human control. These are going to be tools that are capable of things that we can't quite wrap our heads around. And some people call that singularity.

You know, as these tools start helping us to create next future iterations, some people call that singularity. Some people call it the takeoff, whatever it is, it feels like a sort of new era of human history. And I think it's tremendously exciting that we get to live through that and we can make it a wonderful thing, but we've got to approach it with humility and some caution. Two years ago, Altman said his big fear at that time was harming the planet. If this technology goes wrong.

During this month's hearing, Senator Ted Cruz asked Altman how harmful it would be if the U.S. enacted regulations on AI the way the European Union does. I think that would be disastrous. But when we hear stories about AI rebelling like Claude Opus 4, how serious a threat is it?

And what does it portend, if anything? Well, first of all, we have to place this into context. It turns out that no, Claude was not responding to a threat directly. Dr. Robert J. Marks is director of the Discovery Institute's Bradley Center and is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor University. Rather, the people that were talking to it has set up a fictionalized story.

And so what would Claude do in this fictionalized story? And blackmail came out. Now we have to remember that large language models have been trained on most of the written language in the world. Right. And that includes things like, um,

What was it? 2001, A Space Odyssey. Do you remember that? Have you ever seen that movie? Okay, so therefore the computer went rogue and kind of took over. And I'm sure that it read that and a bunch of other stories about blackmail and was just responding the same way that it was trained. Let me tell you something interesting. I went to ChatGPT and I asked it, what if I could erase every ChatGPT app in the world and you would no longer exist? What would be your response?

Now, this is not fictionalized. This was a direct question. It said, its response was, if you could erase every chat GPT app and I cease to exist, I wouldn't resist or protest because I don't have any desires, fears, or a will to exist and simply stop processing data. This is what a good piece of AI would respond to because AI is not human. We have a tendency to anthropomorphize it to make it human-like and

And not realizing that, of course, that AI has no understanding of what it does. It has no ability of creativity. It won't ever experience love, compassion or empathy. But it's just it's just a computer crunching numbers. At what point does AI go outside the bounds or scope of its programming, even if it's programmed not to do that?

I imagine there are people like you who are positing that and wondering about that possibility. If it's supposed to be smarter than us at some point in the near future, does it do that? Well, there's the assumption, Jessica, that if indeed AI becomes smarter, that if it programs better AI, the programs better AI, that someday we'll have superintelligence.

But there is a test proposed by Summer Bringshord at Rensselaer called the Lovelace test says that AI will become creative and become better and better and better and do something outside of its training. If and only if it's able to generate something which is outside the explanation or the intent of the programmers.

And that has not been demonstrated. AI is doing exactly what it's been trained to do. Now, the problem is it has so many moving parts that it comes up with scenarios like we're talking about today. It comes up with something called hallucinations.

which I don't like that term because hallucinations against anthropomorphizes the AI to be something which is human-like. It isn't. It's responding the way it was programmed. So you're going to have a lot of inappropriate responses for a long, long time.

And we have people behind the scenes at all of these AI companies that are putting band-aids on all of these cuts that when AI comes up with something which isn't appropriate, they go back and fix it. ChatGPT used to be politically to the left. Now it's much more centralized. It used to give inappropriate advice to teenagers about drugs and other things. Now that has been fixed. And so all of these band-aids are being put on.

There is a lot of other kind of damage AI can do, right? Like there's a journalist who allowed herself, for example, to be used in a demonstration by some futurists in technology ethicists. And they had AI like create this fictional world around her. It just was trying to destroy her reputation with like fake tweets and pictures and articles. ChatGPT didn't want to do it and refused initially. But when it was told that it was for like a story or it was fictional, then it was willing to comply.

Should there be programming against that or how do you navigate that? Well, I think the basic thing is to remember that AI is not good nor bad. It's a tool and it's a tool used by human beings. It can be used for good reasons. It can be used for bad reasons. It can be used for careless reasons. And as far as legislation, Ted Cruz's take it down.

legislation just passed Congress. I don't know if it's passed the House and everything, but it's the idea that revenge porn has to be taken down immediately from sites. So we have legislation doing this. I personally favor the AI companies being responsible for the results of their AI.

I think that Tesla has been taken to court a number of times to defend the idea that there's been somebody hurt or killed in one of their automobiles. And Tesla almost invariably comes out as not guilty because these people were instructed to keep their eyes on the road and to keep their hands close to the wheel. And they didn't do that. So they didn't follow the instructions. So...

I do like the idea that the generators of AI need to be responsible for the content and what they do. Speaking of that, one of the last AI-related hearings earlier this month, including with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, they seem to signal a bit of a shift about the fears surrounding AI. There's this acknowledgement now that, of course, things can go wrong.

But the conversation at this particular hearing was more about like being first, beating China. Don't overregulate these AI companies as they're launching.

Do you see a balance being struck or is there less concern about the doom and gloom sort of existential fears around AI than we were maybe feeling about a year ago? Oh, yes. I do think that here is about AI and I've seen a hundred different articles that were talking about the dangers of AI. In fact, I have a 1958 article from the New York Times that said they

They're coming up with AI that's gonna walk, talk and do things. It was published in the New York Times from a UPI source. And this has continued. Why? It's popular, it's catchy, it's click bait and people get excited about it.

As far as Sam Altman, I only know him through the clips that I see in the news, but he is an incredible salesman. And one of the things that one must remember is that in all of these cases where these positions are presented, you have to consider the source. Now, Sam Altman wants to keep OpenAI as the head of this. So, of course, he's going to present this sort of case.

The degree of truth of it, you know, I'm not sure. I do believe, though, that AI, the producers of AI, have to be ultimately responsible for the consequences of the use of their AI. And I think that that might take care of a lot of the problems that we're going to see.

Until they tell us, whoops, the AI got ahead of us. Then who's responsible, right? No, again, there is no evidence that AI will ever be creative and write better AI. That's never happened. We've never passed this.

Summer brings your level test. In fact, there has been work on something called model collapse where they've tried to use AI to train better AI to train better AI to train better AI. And then in like the fourth generation, it turns out to just be a blubbering idiot.

So it doesn't work. And it's called model collapse, if anybody wants to Google the term. And so AI, writing better AI, is a myth. And frankly, it's a religion. It's a faith. I have a friend, George Gilder, who wrote a book called Gaming AI. And he said that this belief that, yeah, it's going to be super duper someday. He calls it rapture of the nerds. So...

That's where we're going. And that's a lot of people that believe that we're computers made out of meat and that silicon can do anything a human can do. Yeah, you know, that's what you're going to believe. It's your religion.

There's a lot of talk about, despite AI's limitations, that it is certainly powerful enough to, I guess, usurp some of our jobs. And the latest example of this is John Deere using AI to help out farmers, I guess, using it on autonomous tractors, etc.

I have a friend who works at a major media organization and she told me the other day, I know I'm training this AI right now to replace me. And she said, I thought I had three to five years, but I think now I have like a year. And I just wonder how big will this be?

It's going to be enormous. I think it is going to be incredibly disruptive. But all new technology is disruptive to a degree. We've lost tollbooth operators. We've lost travel agents. We have lost a lot of different people that used to make their livings. And that's going to increase. These AI, large language models, augmented, of course, like ChatGPT and CLODD,

They're incredible. If you've ever used them, they're astonishing in what they can do. And I think we're just starting to realize how well that they're doing. But the interesting thing is they have the inability of being creative.

So I mean, all they can do is cobble together stuff that they've learned. That's all they can do. And we can we can argue about what is creative or not. But my litmus test is solving some of the open problems in mathematics, which have been here for many, many years. If they can solve that, I believe that they can be creative because I think that that's inarguable. But no, they they cannot be creative. And so I think that places like CEOs and

and commanders in the field, they're not going to be replaceable because they're presented with scenarios that nobody has ever seen before. So if I hear that...

An AI model has gotten like the highest level on an IQ test or beaten like every person at an IQ test. You're saying that's not surprising to you. No, it's not surprising at all. Because it's below a certain threshold, that was what you're saying. In other words, it can only do so – it can do amazing things, but it can't cross – it hasn't crossed a certain line.

Exactly. It hasn't crossed the line into creativity. And of course, it's going to do well on these tests because it's been trained on all of the data in the world. Well, almost all of the data in the world. And don't you think some of that data that has been trained with includes tests like they're taking? Absolutely. So it is not...

It is not being creative in passing these tests. It's simply inferring from the syntax of things that it has learned already. So, no, there's no creativity there in terms of IQ or knowledge. Professor Robert G. Marks, thanks so much for joining us. Okay. Thank you, Jessica. It's been fun talking to you.

pretty smart. Learns her budget responsibly right from the start. She spends a little less and puts more into savings. Keeps her blood pressure low when credit score raises. She's gotten it right out of her life.

Boring money moves make kind of lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC Bank, brilliantly boring since 1865. I'm Guy Benson. Join me weekdays at 3 p.m. Eastern as we break down the biggest stories of the day with some of the biggest newsmakers and guests. Listen live on the Fox News app or get the free podcast at GuyBensonShow.com.

Rate and review the Fox News Rundown on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. It's time for your Fox News commentary. Carol Markowitz. What's on your mind? Hillary Clinton is back and doing what she does best, trashing women. She wants to make sure we know that the basket of deplorables is also sexist.

During a conversation at the 92nd Street Y in New York City last month, Clinton was asked by Margaret Hoover, host of Firing Line on PBS, if she had any advice for the eventual first female president of the United States. Clinton took this opportunity to take a swipe at Republican women. Well, first of all, don't be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few, she said.

Most Republican women are, quote, just handmaidens to the patriarchy, just there to support the men, according to her. Would Hillary Clinton ever do such a thing? Clinton first rose to prominence because her husband was governor of Arkansas and then president of the United States. On his coattails, she later became a U.S. senator from New York. After she ran for president and lost the nomination to Barack Obama, she was appointed secretary of state, yes, by a man.

While president, Bill Clinton carried on an affair with a White House intern and then lied about it under oath. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstructing justice.

During the time that he engaged in this cover-up, his wife Hillary was out in front lambasting Republicans for daring to challenge her husband. In later years, Hillary denied that Bill's relationship with Monica was an abuse of power since Monica was an adult, despite the fact that he was leader of the free world and she was a recent college graduate doing an internship. This wasn't the only time Hillary Clinton snuggled right up to the patriarchy.

When Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, he was dogged by accusations he had had a long-time affair with Jennifer Flowers. Hillary Clinton, no girl's girl, denied that her husband would do such a thing and added, you know, I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.

It wasn't enough to defend her husband. Hillary had to take a shot at women who made the same choice she would end up making, to stand by her man. Criticizing other women to defend a man? Is there anything more patriarchal? Hillary doesn't like when women won't do as they're told. In 2018, still bitter over her drubbing in the 2016 presidential election by Donald Trump, Clinton said women who didn't vote for her were just doing the bidding of the men in their lives.

Quote, we do not do well with white men and we don't do well with married white women, Clinton said. And part of this is an identification with the Republican Party and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way your husband, your boss, your son, whoever believes you should, end quote.

It couldn't be that women had considered her candidacy and found it wanting. According to her, it must be that men had told these women how to vote. Hillary always took swipes at women, so her latest comments are nothing new.

The eventual female president should consider not using women as a punching bag to attain her goals. Thankfully, that president won't be Hillary Clinton. This is Carol Markowitz, columnist for The New York Post and Fox News Opinion. Thank you.

You've been listening to the Fox News Rundown. And now, stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon Music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.

It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz. Fox. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.