In the American constitutional system of three different branches, conflict - and I mean that peaceful, vigorous debate - it's a feature of our system, not a bug. We need less all-or - winner-take-all politics.

We should vigorously debate policy differences. We have too much all-or-nothing in American politics.

The president is the president. And every American, regardless of who you voted for, if you voted for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Donald Duck, I don't really care. We should all hope that the president does a good job, that he's surrounded by wise counselors, that he advances U.S. interests.

I didn't go to Harvard because I thought they had good academics. I went because they had crappy enough sports so they'd let me play.

People think if they voted for somebody, they should reflexively defend everything they do or say. And if you voted against somebody, you should just as reflexively oppose everything they do or say. It's not very helpful. What's more constructive for our kids is to go on a case-by-case basis, evaluating particular policies.

There are two ways that you can go wrong in our long-term fight against jihadis. One would be to not acknowledge that terrorism and especially jihadi-motivated terrorism, comes from specific places in the world and is connected to specific ideologies. But another way to fall off a cliff and harm our long-term interests would be to imply that the U.S. is at war with Islam.

D.C. is known as Hollywood for ugly people.