Full Interview:
Full Transcript:
Guy Benson: And with that, let’s turn to our next guest. Condoleezza Rice is the Tad and Dianne Taube Director here at the Hoover Institution. She, of course, served as Secretary of State of the United States, and before that, National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush. It is an honor and a pleasure to have you back.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: It’s always great to be with you.
Guy Benson: It occurs to me in giving that introduction that you served in those two key positions in the Bush administration. The current Secretary of State is doing both of those jobs at the same time, and he makes jokes about it, people chuckle, but you actually know: what do those jobs entail, how are they different, and what would you think some of the challenges might be trying to do them concurrently?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Well, I think one thing to recognize about the National Security Advisor is it’s very particular to the President. And so there’s no standard job description, if you will, for a National Security Advisor. Yes, you have to coordinate the government, and yes, you’re the President’s principal advisor, but presidents are different in what they need from their national security advisors. My impression with Marco Rubio, who’s doing a great job, is that because the President essentially makes a lot of his decisions right there in the Oval Office, that proximity is very important for Marco to be there and to be able to work through those things with the President. So I think that works for them, and nobody from the outside can micromanage what the National Security Advisor should do.
I also think he’s doing a good job as Secretary of State. He is being selective in where he engages. I think he has been very engaged in the Western Hemisphere, which both fits his own background and the fact that the promotion of the Western Hemisphere is more important in American foreign policy in this administration. But I don’t see that he’s missed a beat in getting to the NATO summit or going to Asia with the President, so I think he’s managing it very well. When I was Secretary, we were fighting two big wars, and there was a lot of–I think I was in Baghdad nine times, I was in Afghanistan 11 times or something like that. So it always is different where the Secretary of State has to be and when. And I think Marco’s doing a fantastic job, really.
Guy Benson: I want to return to diplomacy in a little while. First though, last week there was a major political event here in the country, the midterm elections, of course. You don’t delve too much into politics and I understand that. Some of our listeners wish you would, but that is water under the bridge at this point. There are many patriotic Americans, mostly right of center, who were very distressed by the outcome last week. They’re concerned about the future of the country. I wonder if you have any broad thoughts about what we just saw.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Well, first of all, American democracy is American democracy, and the American people will have their opportunity to change course if they wish in the way that they behave in elections. But I think something else is going on underneath. Yes, there were questions about the war and particularly the impact on the price of refined products, so gasoline, diesel, et cetera. There were questions about how the tariffs were relating to a so-called affordability crisis.
But there also is something going on in American politics with a kind of windshield wiper. The American people are becoming pretty impatient with their leaders in Washington. So they’re impatient because affordability isn’t there in the Biden administration. Then they’re impatient with the Trump administration. And that’s something that I think we have to look at more closely. Why are the American people not patient enough with governments? It seems to be almost a-ideological for certain groups. So when you look and try to understand what were the constituencies, what’s the base of either party, it seems to be somewhat scrambled right now. I just observe that as a political scientist. As I said, I studied international politics because I didn’t understand American politics. But that, to me, may be the real story–that we’re seeing this kind of back and forth.
Guy Benson: Meaning…
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: “You didn’t solve my problem in the two years that I gave you, so I’m going to go back the other way.” And we’ve been seeing that for a while.
Guy Benson: Is the impatience fair or is it unfair to the political leaders?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: The question that I think we have to ask is, what is the source of the impatience? It looks to me that there are some structural issues. There are issues about what is happening to real wages in the face of inflation. There are questions about whether a young family can afford a house. There are questions about whether family formation is being delayed because people can’t afford to have children. Those are real societal problems. It goes, to me, to the question of: is the social contract between the American citizen, their government, and the economy in good shape? And it feels frayed.
I don’t want people to read the election as, “Oh, it was just about this issue or about that issue.” Because to me, this issue of what we are doing with the social contract–are people getting the skills that they need coming out of the China shock, when we know that a lot of people got left on the sidelines? Are we going to have an AI shock in which people are going to need different sets of skills? What’s happening to our educational system where, in K-12 education for the poorest of our kids, I can look at your zip code and tell whether you’re going to get a high-quality education? So these are some fundamentals that we need to worry about.
The good news is that I do think at the state level, you’re starting to see some places that address these. I’ve been very impressed with what has happened, for instance, in places like Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana in education. We just had Governor Sanders here yesterday; she’s terrific, what she’s been doing. So the Founding Fathers gave us more than just Washington, and I’ve even been telling my students these days: go work for a mayor, go work for a governor. You might see that governability is perhaps working better at sublevels, closer to the people–which was always the intent of our design.
Guy Benson: I want to rewind 20 years because I’m actually having some flashbacks, and I’d imagine you probably are as well. 2006, you’re Secretary of State, there are wars underway, Iraq was not going well, and there was a midterm election. We remember how that went. It was a brutal one for the Republican Party.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: As President Bush said, “a thumping,” I think, was what he said.
Guy Benson: A thumping, and here we are with another thumping with a few parallels, though not exactly the same. How does an administration react internally to an electoral shock to the system that way? You can look at history and your experience and maybe extrapolate it or not onto the current administration, but how do you pivot in some ways when the judgment’s been rendered so clearly by the public, while you also still have priorities and an agenda that you don’t want to just abandon for the people who believe in you and voted for you?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Well, you’re President of the United States until there’s another election and another inauguration. Continuing to act in that way is very important, but it’s also important to know what your priorities are. And here I’ll make a separation. Actually, in foreign policy, presidents have a lot of latitude and power. So what do you want to do in foreign policy? You mentioned the problems that we were having in Iraq. President Bush ordered the surge.
Guy Benson: Right. Controversially.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Controversially, and of course there was a different Congress, but he did it, and it worked. It turned the state of that war. So how do you want to deal with issues like Iran and Ukraine, I would say, and have a plan to do that?
The other thing is, I know that there are differing views about this even in our political spheres, but I would hope that maybe there’s some room for immigration policy reform. We really need to think hard about what we’re doing to get the best talent to the United States of America. In 2007, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy had a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It failed by one vote. When I think back, I think, could we maybe have done something then? And one question for the President is–he said at one point that he might want to do something on immigration.
Guy Benson: He just said it the other day.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: He said it the other day. So maybe looking at whether or not there’s room to do that. My point is, presidents still have a lot of power. They still have a lot of latitude. Figuring out and having priorities for how you use that would be very important, I think.
Guy Benson: Since you brought up immigration–I wasn’t planning to go there, but I do think it’s interesting–there is a question about whether this president would be willing truly to, let’s say, moderate on certain issues and get a deal done with the opposition, which will have these big majorities in Congress. Does the opposition necessarily want to work with him and hand him some sort of victory, even if they like a lot of it, because they want to maybe fight him for two years and then win the next election? And then you’ve got a lot of conservatives–and frankly, I’ve become more of one of these kinds of conservatives recently–who have become sort of radicalized on immigration given the failures of the last administration. If we have a party that is pro-illegal immigration in this country, I don’t want to give any concessions to them on this because they will take those and not address the real problem on security. That’s a lot of tricky moving pieces here.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Well, let me take this out of the realm of politics for a moment and talk about the policy here. This president has solved the border problem. What do you want to do with the fact that you’ve solved the problem? Do you now want to listen to the voices that say, “You know, the economy needs immigration”? Do you want to listen to the voices that say, “If we don’t have immigration, we have the same demographic sclerosis that Europe and Japan have”?
Given what he’s done–and what he has done in a very short period of time to fix that border is remarkable; I remember those pictures of millions of people flooding across the border, that’s not a safe country–now that you’ve solved that problem, what does make sense in terms of immigration? What makes sense in terms of high-skilled immigration, the people who are the best talents who want to come here and be part of the AI revolution or part of the robotics revolution? What do we want to do there? What do you want to do about agriculture, which is crying that they need people to do difficult jobs?
Having done what he’s done on the border, maybe there’s some room for the President to think about what he wants to do next on immigration. And I am with you: a country has to control its borders. Going all the way back to the formation of the state system 300 years ago, controlling your borders was key. But now that he’s done that, what does he want to do with that victory? That’s a question that I hope he’ll have people around him who will help him think about, because that’s a real legacy issue in a lot of ways.
Guy Benson: And he is uniquely positioned to act or not act in a number of ways here.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Ways here.
Guy Benson: Back to foreign policy. Iran played a significant role in this election–the conflict. I have been broadly supportive of the President’s policy vis-à-vis the regime in Iran. I do have some questions, I’ve been puzzled by a few things and frustrated by a few things, but directionally, I think it is overdue and correct. It had negative externalities domestically; you addressed those earlier. It clearly had some sort of effect on voters and the election. I think some of that might be a little overblown in the scheme of things, but it had an impact, no doubt. Now what? Because the election has happened, we see the results, the Commander-in-Chief is still the Commander-in-Chief, and he seems to believe there’s some unfinished business over there. As you think about this strategically, militarily, and diplomatically, what are the options now?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: I was glad to see the President say that he didn’t think a large-scale kinetic military operation was on the table. Now, he can change his mind, but our allies need a little breather. The region needs a little breather to reconstruct some of the defenses, to reconstruct some of the oil and gas infrastructure. It’s amazing what’s getting through the Strait of Hormuz now, thanks largely to the U.S. naval presence. I wish we’d done the blockade earlier.
Guy Benson: Why don’t we get more credit for that?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: I don’t know, because the stories now of the alternative routes… You know, the Strait of Hormuz is actually a wasting asset for the Iranians, because people are learning to do it without the Strait of Hormuz, or to use American military assets to make it safer. So my biggest–if you call it a criticism or concern–is we didn’t do the blockade earlier, because everybody kind of knew that the Strait of Hormuz was going to be an issue.
The blockade puts the Iranians in a very bad position. So too do all of the Treasury sanctions that are being imposed, because no country wants to run afoul of American Treasury sanctions. I can tell you that from having watched these sanctions in action.
Guy Benson: And we just had Secretary Bessent here last week on the show, and he was very pleased with how hard these are biting.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Absolutely. I think we had a bit of a false start with the last memorandum of understanding because it released some of the pressure, and the Iranians are pretty smart. They used that moment to fill their supply, their storage. They got $6 billion that they could put into relieving some of the pressure. So I hope we don’t relieve the pressure again, because this is a really important point.
The other thing that this president did well was going all the way back to June of two years ago, when we severely damaged the Iranian nuclear capability.
Guy Benson: Midnight Hammer.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: At Midnight Hammer. They’re not going to be able to build a nuclear weapon for a while thanks to that as well, so we have some time. Strategic patience is hard because it doesn’t feel like you’re getting anywhere, but actually I think that’s the best course, and they’re feeling it. You have to recognize–I’ve heard this statistic, and I have no reason not to believe it–that the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, owns 40 percent of the Iranian economy. At some point, they’re going to realize that 40 percent of nothing is nothing. You don’t get regime change in the streets with a regime like this, because they can kill enough people, as they have, to keep that from happening. But within the regime, can you get people to start to think, “Maybe there’s a way we should do something serious”? Not “we’re all going to pretend that the Iranians have some kind of control of the Strait of Hormuz”–that would be a disaster. Not “we’re going to give you back a few billion dollars and then you’ll let us come inspect your nuclear program,” when of course inspections with the Iranians are, shall we say, challenging.
So I think the administration has it set up effectively. If I were asked–and I’m not, but if I were asked–I would say something along the following lines: “We’re now enforcing a stable situation in the Middle East. The blockade is going to stay in place. The Treasury sanctions are going to stay in place.” Apparently, from time to time, when the IRGC wants to fire on a tanker or a ship, we’ve taken down those missile sites. That seems to me something that’s sustainable, and the President doesn’t then have to restart the war.
Guy Benson: And that status quo that you just described is so vastly improved from the status quo of two years ago.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Absolutely. Because the Iranian nuclear program has been severely damaged, Iran’s conventional capability has been severely damaged, and our friends in the region now know who their friends are–and their friends are not the Chinese and Russians. I think you’ve had a greater integration with those in the region in terms of defense capability and intelligence sharing that will redound to the benefit of the region eventually. So I think the President’s done a lot; it’s now just being patient enough to see it actually have an effect.
Guy Benson: There are reports about a bit of a blow-up, a shouting match between our president and the Israeli prime minister–at least for now, because they’ve got their elections. They’ve got a whole system over there that seems pretty wild the way they have their elections. Whatever is true or not about that exchange, this is sort of at a dicey time. Israel is being scapegoated in ways that are shocking to me, including in this country by an awful lot of people, and I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on that separately. But the question I had for you is, widening it out a little bit: what happens in your experience as a diplomat when there are necessary and very difficult, sensitive, acrimonious conversations with allies? With your adversaries and enemies, you know, that’s a different ballgame. But when you have to have that tough talk, what are the sensitivities at play?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Let me let you in on a little historical secret. These kinds of flare-ups with the Israelis happen a lot, because while we are allies and while we have strategic interests in common about the nature of the Middle East, about terrorism and so forth, the Israelis are an independent actor and sometimes they act in ways that you don’t like. I can remember several “discussions”–and I’m putting them in air quotes–with the Israelis about what they were doing in Lebanon, or what they were doing in Gaza. And you never knew, because we kind of didn’t put it in the newspapers.
But yeah, there can be some real tensions. I do think that there are some aspects of our security support for Israel that may be overdue for a look at what we really need to continue to support, and what they now need to pick up support for.
Guy Benson: Which is what Trump has just announced, right?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Right, and that’s fine. Allies do that all the time. You know, it has been 50 years now since the Camp David Accords gave us the formula for what we were going to do for Israeli security. Israel is a much more defense-capable, secure country than it was in many ways, mostly because, by the way, they have now defeated all of the Arab armies that questioned their existence. Yes, we defeated the Iraqis for them, but when you think about it from the point of view of the security environment–yes, there’s still Hezbollah, yes, there’s still Hamas and terrorism, but the Arab armies are gone, and I still believe that you’re going to see the modernizers in the region anxious to normalize with Israel at some point.
Guy Benson: And even those terror groups that you mentioned are diminished.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Diminished. And so, yeah, take a look at what we need to continue to do, what only we can do, and what the Israelis can do on their own. But I would like to have it done in the context of “this is still a valued ally.” Maybe that’s what you’re really saying: can we have this as a conversation between allies, not a conversation between acrimonious parties? I think that’s really the issue. But they need to get through their democratic process first, figure out who’s going to be their prime minister. I said at a talk the other night, I’m really very cautious about telling other democracies how to organize their politics. So I think just sitting on the sidelines and seeing what they do is pretty important here.
Guy Benson: There has been this move, and it’s accelerated massively since October 7th. We had you on this show days after October 7th; I believe it might’ve been your first on-air discussion of what happened that terrible day in 2023. Now you flash forward to 2026: especially among young people, views of Israel have really spiraled. There seems to be this movement–largely on the left, but there are elements of the right as well–where any problem that comes up, there’s a fixation with blaming this tiny Jewish state the size of New Jersey half a world away. Is that just old-school antisemitism reborn? What’s going on?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Well, I would separate what you’re hearing from some young people who I think simply don’t always know the history. One of my colleagues, shortly after October 7th–when the chant was, “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”–asked his class, an international relations class at Stanford University, “From what river to what sea?” And they had no idea. So some of this is we haven’t really taught the history of the Middle East in a way that positions what Israel has had to endure, what the Israeli state has had to do to survive given that everybody in the region at one point wanted them gone, and what the nature of terrorism really is.
If you look at Gaza, yes, I might quarrel with some of the things that the Israelis have done in Gaza. But I can tell you that the real problem in Gaza is Hamas. I can tell you that Hamas executes its own people because they aren’t loyal or they are spies for Israel. I can tell you that Hamas cares not one whit about the benefits to the Palestinian population as a whole. They hold them hostage; they sacrifice them. One of the problems with fighting Hamas is that they burrow into apartment buildings, so it’s Grandma Hamas, Children Hamas now. What do you do? You end up taking civilian casualties because you’re trying to take out Hamas.
So I wish that we had more focus on the nature of Hamas, what they do, the way that they operate, and then you’d have a better understanding of what the Israelis have faced in the Middle East. You know, Guy, I spent a lot of time trying to get a Palestinian state. I still think it’s ultimately going to be the best answer, but it’s not because of the Israelis that there’s no Palestinian state. Back in 2000, President Clinton tried to do it, and Yasser Arafat balked.
Guy Benson: And then an intifada.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: And then they had an intifada, right. And in 2008, we had an agreement–a proposal from Ehud Olmert after the Israelis had evacuated Gaza–and ultimately, I think because he was fearful of Hamas, Abbas couldn’t do it. So I really do feel for the Palestinian people, because this is actually a very tolerant people, the great majority of them, and they are entrepreneurial, particularly in the West Bank. But I think we need to understand that Hamas is not representative of the interests of the Palestinian people. Maybe that would start to center the way we think about what’s going on there.
Guy Benson: You’re a student of history, particularly vis-à-vis Russia. Here we are yet again, another annual visit to the Hoover Institution, and we’re always extremely grateful for the invitation and to be here. But here we are having another conversation about this war in Ukraine, started by the Russians, grinding on with terrible casualties, seemingly no end in sight, bickering, concessions, escalations. Has anything changed in your mind? What are you looking for here?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Well, a couple of things have changed, and it’s that the Russian position has worsened, I think. First of all, they had 46,000 casualties in September and maybe 50,000 in October. It is said that if you take the average life expectancy of a Russian soldier at the center of the front, it’s something like 28 minutes. So this is bad, and Vladimir Putin had hoped he could fight this war with the poor boys from Dagestan and Khabarovsk. He’s run out of those poor boys, and the North Koreans turn out not to be very good at this. So is he really going to move…
Guy Benson: He’s hiring mercenaries.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Is he really going to mobilize the blond boys from Moscow and St. Petersburg? We’ll see. The Ukrainians have also managed to strike deep into Russia so that he can’t pretend that this war is “out there” as opposed to affecting Russia.
So what has he decided? Having tried different strategies, his strategy now is to try to make the Ukrainian people suffer, with civilian casualties, going after the grid to make it cold in the winter–because that’s why he goes after the grid, to deny them heat for the winter. I do believe if they can survive this year–the Ukrainians, that is–and we continue to supply them, the two most important things that we need to supply them are continued intelligence cooperation, and when something like Starlink comes up, we need to make sure they can use it.
I think that this war, as a colleague of mine, former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, often says, might just stop. Not with an agreement, because I’m not sure that either side has an agreement; Putin just can’t believe that this little thing called Ukraine can’t be defeated by the great Russian people. That’s who he is. But might it just peter out, become kind of traded shots here and there, with the bulk of the kinetic war beginning to abate?
And if that happens, Ukraine will be in a pretty good position. They have the second-largest land army in Europe. It’s battle-hardened. They have a highly sophisticated defense industry that Europe and the United States are trying to leverage. They will have greater integration into NATO in terms of intelligence cooperation and training, because I think they probably have greater integration than some members of NATO. And maybe the most important thing is they can hold at risk things that the Russians care about, like their oil and gas industry, it turns out, and their Black Sea fleet.
Guy Benson: Leverage.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Leverage. And so maybe, even if the lines were to kind of stabilize where they are… But I’m worried about the Ukrainian people in these next several months. It could be a very brutal winter.
Guy Benson: We will be watching, of course, with concern. We were talking about matters of great global import right before the break. Let’s turn to a very different subject. We like to end with this when we have our opportunities with you: sports. We’re both big sports fans. We’re both college sports fans, and here we have yet another seismic change coming in college football: the expansion of the playoff to 24 teams is coming. I know some people like it and think it’s a good thing, and I get the arguments for it. But you’re seeing conference title games going away. You’re getting a sense of, does the regular season really matter very much anymore? Are you watering down the importance of competition?
And then in the broader constellation of college sports with NIL and the transfer portal–I know there’s legislation on this that you should feel free to weigh in on–it just feels like to a college sports fan at my core, someone who really cares deeply (I bleed purple for Northwestern, but I also love the traditions and the game in general), it just feels like everything is happening very, very quickly. There’s a concern that they are ruining things. I’m not saying that some reforms weren’t necessary, but it seems like the pendulum has swung very fast and very dramatically. How do you puzzle through the landscape?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: I think the problem is we’ve lost the connection between student and athlete. If you’re transferring every year, you’re not about to have a good academic experience. It’s not even the point anymore. I do think that the person who’s played for nine years probably ought to consider whether this is actually going to be their profession or if they can move on. So I think there are a lot of pieces.
In that regard, Guy, I’d just want to make an appeal: I actually think the legislation that Cruz and Cantwell sponsored–77 votes in the Senate, it’s in the House–I really hope that the House will take it up. I know it’s tough with the calendar and everything, but that would do a lot about the transfer portal, it would do a lot about eligibility issues, and it would put some controls on agents, which are a real problem right now.
Guy Benson: That’s a Wild West.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: It’s a Wild West, and for some 19-year-old that’s told “Texas wants you” and then he finds out actually they don’t, I think that would help. I am someone who believes NIL was a good idea when it was you get paid for your name, image, and likeness, but it’s eroded.
So what are we seeing? I was on the first College Football Playoff committee. We had four slots. Maybe four was too few; 24 is a lot. And I do think we’re going to start to see the separation of football becoming something else that’s not related to the rest of college sports. Even the conferences–I think the conference structure is kind of in danger here.
Guy Benson: Isn’t that a tragedy to me?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Well, yes, except conference realignment… I miss the rivalry with USC. I hate to say that, because for somebody who went to Notre Dame and works at Stanford to say you miss USC, you miss the rivalry. I miss the rivalry. But I think the conferences and bowl games are not going to mean very much. I can see why, because it’s very, very popular. But I worry a little bit about dilution, too, because what you don’t want is “NFL Lite.” College football needs to be something more than just a lighter version of the NFL.
Guy Benson: With a marching band.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: With a marching band. And I worry a little bit that that might be at stake.
Guy Benson: I do too.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: So piece by piece, I think if we could get the legislation, that would be great. If we can start to think about really protecting–and this is another thing the legislation does–really protecting the Olympic sports and, by extension, women’s sports. You know, the United States actually is the Olympic movement. United States colleges are the Olympic movement. And I think we could end up really compromising something that’s very important. So yes, I’m worried, but there are some steps that we could take that would at least arrest the downward spiral that we’re in.
Guy Benson: Do you think–because I’m sort of a limited-government kind of guy–is there a role for the federal government to be coming in and moving some of these levers? I’m kind of convinced that there was a need for this, but I’m still a little skeptical of it. It sounds like you think ultimately it’s the right thing.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: I think ultimately everybody has things they would like to have changed about this bill, but it is the bill that got through the Senate with 77 votes. And I, too, am a limited-government person. But what we were starting to get was a patchwork of states acting. So what was going to go down in Oklahoma, or Oregon, or Texas, or Alabama, or California didn’t bear any relationship, and that then really begins to break the lens.
Guy Benson: Chaos, total chaos.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: I think that’s when the federal government needed to step in, and I’m grateful to Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz for taking that up and for getting it through the Senate. We’ll see what happens in the House.
Guy Benson: Finally, Week 1 of the NFL schedule: Christine and I were traveling to an event in Kansas City for KCMO, our great affiliate. We were invited to Monday Night Football–Chiefs, Broncos. The Chiefs blew your team out that night.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: That’s right.
Guy Benson: The Broncos have steadied ever since, and they’re looking pretty darn good. How are you feeling about the Broncos?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: I’m a believer in this team because I’ve seen the results, you know. I do have to say I love being a limited owner, a minority owner. It is stressful. A good friend of mine who doesn’t know much about football sent me a note and said, “The Broncos now hold the record for one-score games,” and I thought, yeah, that makes it actually pretty stressful because it’s a one-score game. But I like this team. I think Bo Nix is playing really well. It’s a long season, and what happens in Week 1 isn’t always where this ends up. So I’m hopeful and optimistic. But it’s a long season and there are a lot of really good teams in the AFC, so we’ll see where this goes.
Guy Benson: Dr. Condoleezza Rice, here on the Guy Benson Show, the director at the Hoover Institution, former U.S. Secretary of State. We appreciate your time very much. Thank you.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice: Thank you.
