Latest / 3 Martini Lunch – Political Humor & Commentary / Abdul El-Sayed's Deceptive Shift on 'Medicare for All'

Transcript

Abdul El-Sayed's Deceptive Shift on 'Medicare for All' · 3 Martini Lunch – Political Humor & Commentary

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Welcome to the Three Martini Lunch.
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: Grab a stool next to Greg Karambas of Radio America
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: and Jim Garrity of National Review.
• 0:10
  Speaker 3: Three Martini's coming up. So glad you're with us for
• 0:14
  Speaker 3: the Thursday edition of the Three Martini Lunch. Jim Garrity
• 0:17
  Speaker 3: is away today. Here in his place is Charlie Cook,
• 0:20
  Speaker 3: Senior Editor at National Review Online and host of the
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: Charles C.W. Cook Podcast. Charlie, it's always great to have
• 0:25
  Speaker 3: you back.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Thanks for having me.
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: Absolutely. Well, lots to get to today. It hasn't gotten
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: as much attention as usual. And I think that's part
• 0:32
  Speaker 3: of the story here. But this week was the opening
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: of the UN General Assembly. Trump spoke there a couple
• 0:38
  Speaker 3: of days ago. But for the most part, it's the
• 0:41
  Speaker 3: UN ranting against Israel, the outgoing secretary general saying Gaza
• 0:45
  Speaker 3: is the worst thing he's ever seen in his time
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: at the UN. And people are out there pointing out
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: plenty of worse things happening in many different parts of
• 0:52
  Speaker 3: the world right now. But the fun parts at the UN, Charlie,
• 0:57
  Speaker 3: are when people actually tell the UN the truth. It's
• 0:59
  Speaker 3: not pleasant for the UN to hear, but it's important
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: for the UN to hear. And perhaps nobody does it
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: better than Argentinian President Javier Millet, who says the UN
• 1:09
  Speaker 3: started with noble intentions, but has devolved considerably since then.
• 1:13
  Speaker 4: That's to say it's become a useless organization whose only
• 1:17
  Speaker 4: purpose is to sustain a cast of fatally arrogant parasites
• 1:22
  Speaker 4: masquerading as well-intentioned bureaucrats. I would remind them of what
• 1:27
  Speaker 4: Mises said. Good people do not think about controlling the
• 1:30
  Speaker 4: lives of their fellow human beings. Those who were supposed
• 1:33
  Speaker 4: to guarantee collective security and human rights failed in their task. Instead,
• 1:38
  Speaker 4: they allowed chaos, violence, and international terrorism to flourish.
• 1:42
  Speaker 3: That's exactly right. The translator needs to learn a little
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: bit more about Ludwig von Mises there, but I'll cut
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: her some slack. Also, according to Fox News, he went
• 1:50
  Speaker 3: on to accuse the UN of promoting pandemic lockdowns that
• 1:53
  Speaker 3: he labeled genocide, sheltering bloodthirsty dictatorships, voting against Israel while
• 1:58
  Speaker 3: ignoring Islamic terrorism, and pushing a gender agenda, environmental extremism,
• 2:02
  Speaker 3: and unchecked immigration.
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: And so.
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: Unfortunately, there aren't that many world leaders who, A, believe
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: that and also are willing to say it, but it's
• 2:12
  Speaker 3: great to hear it when it does happen.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: Well, mark the moment, Greg, because this former Englishman is
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: about to praise an Argentinian, which doesn't come easily to us,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: and not just because of the World Cup. He's right.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: What he says is right, and it's so refreshing to
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: hear it. I've had this view of the UN for
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: a long time. And I think there's two problems with
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: the UN, right, in 2026. One is structural. That is
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: to say, if you believe, as I do, that the
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: United States is a great country, and that it's better
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: than all of the other countries, and that, in fact,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: there are only a handful of other good countries in
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: the world, then by definition, if you create an assembly
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: that is full of those countries... and you allow them
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: to vote on things, then you're going to have a
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: system that is far less virtuous than America on its own.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: So the very fact that everyone assembles in the same
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: place means that it's destined to do some pretty silly things.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: But it's also set up for a different world. I
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: understand the instinct. We saw it after World War I,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: the League of Nations, which of course spectacularly failed. We
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: saw it after World War II with the UN for
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: understandable reasons. But the UN Security Council, for example, is
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: just the people who were on the right side at
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: the end of World War II. It doesn't really reflect
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: what we would do now. You know, one of those
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: countries is at war. If we load them, another one
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: is our number one geopolitical foe. So, you know, it's
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: just an outdated setup, even if you like it. But
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: you shouldn't like it because, as he said, it spends
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: all of its time ignoring real problems in the world,
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: obsessing over fake or marginal ones, and frankly opposing the
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: interests of the countries in the world that provide its
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: geopolitical stability. So I just I don't understand why we
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: take it seriously. Perhaps we don't at the moment under
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: this president, but we have a democratic president in 2028.
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: They will take the United Nations very seriously and they shouldn't.
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: No, that's exactly right. And I've noticed a shift to Charlie,
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: you know, back in, you know, a decade or two ago,
• 4:37
  Speaker 3: Kofi Annan was on TV all the time. And then
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: Ban Ki-moon was on TV all the time. They're constantly
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: injecting themselves into these. international events usually on the wrong
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: side you almost always are condemning israel and so forth
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: now i feel like they're just not even really a
• 4:50
  Speaker 3: part of the conversation and all these things where are
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: they on russia and ukraine where are they on all
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: these other issues in the world it seems like they're
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: silent except for this one week in september now.
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: Although i think there's a positive side to that issue
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: imply which is people perhaps care care a lot less
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: i think perhaps the public has recognized problem. I would
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: compare it in some regards to the universities. You know,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: I remember when I was a kid, my and my family,
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: none of my family went to university. I remember that
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: if a university professor said something on the radio, then
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: they would take it quite seriously. Because, you know, he
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: was a university professor, he was well educated, he probably
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: came from an institution that had an impressive name. And
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: now that's just not the case. In fact, if a
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: university professor comes on the radio, now my dad's likely
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: to roll his eyes. And the irony of that is
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: my dad actually went back to college, did college in
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: his late 60s. So he now has a degree. And
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: he's much less interested in appeals to authority. And I
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: think perhaps the UN suffers from the same fate. In
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: the 1990s, it was peaceful enough in the world, and
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: the stakes were low enough that if, I don't know
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: who was the guy then, was it Kofi Annan in
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the 90s? If he came on the radio and said something, okay. Now,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: it's like, okay, well, why are you talking? What exactly
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: have you achieved? So I think that's probably a good development.
• 6:16
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 6:16
  Speaker 3: Uh, again, and I'll just quote this, uh, Von Mises
• 6:19
  Speaker 3: quote again, that Millet said, good people do not think
• 6:22
  Speaker 3: about controlling the lives of their fellow human beings. And
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: for way too many countries around the world, including the
• 6:27
  Speaker 3: UN itself, uh, what they would like to do sometimes, uh,
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: it's exactly the opposite. So good on Millet. He's, he's
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: fun to watch. He's making some progress down there and Charlie,
• 6:35
  Speaker 3: good for you. I know that wasn't easy. Uh, I
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: know you disagree over soccer, uh, sorry, football, uh, and
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: also the Falkland islands and probably some other things, but, uh,
• 6:46
  Speaker 3: It's good to have a refreshing statement there at the
• 6:49
  Speaker 3: podium at the UN because we don't get it very often.
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: There are lots of different reasons to maybe seek some help.
• 6:55
  Speaker 3: And this episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. The UN could
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: use a lot of help, certainly. But if you could
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: wake up tomorrow and be better at just one thing,
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: what would it be? Would it be maybe being on time,
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: being less stressed, spending more time with your kids? We've
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: talked about doom scrolling this week and lots of other things. Well,
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: what would it be? Well, you want to get better
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: at that thing and better towards achieving that goal. And
• 7:17
  Speaker 3: that goal is defined by you. And for BetterHelp, it's
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: a BetterHelp therapist who really gets you. BetterHelp is a
• 7:23
  Speaker 3: focus on global emotional well-being with thousands of therapists and
• 7:26
  Speaker 3: millions of members in more than 100 countries. And as
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: the ratings will tell you, 4.9 out of 5 on
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: all these different rating systems. you will get progress most
• 7:35
  Speaker 3: likely with BetterHelp. So sign up and get 10% off
• 7:38
  Speaker 3: at betterhelp.com slash 3ML and start feeling better. That's 10%
• 7:42
  Speaker 3: off at betterhelp.com slash 3ML. All right, Charlie, we've talked
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: a lot about Abdul El-Sayed on this podcast, but he
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: just keeps giving us more and more material. And in
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: addition to being a radical in so many different ways,
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: He's also a really frequent liar. His big issue, his
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: big issue throughout this whole thing, other than demonizing Israel,
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: of course, has been Medicare for all. We're doing Medicare
• 8:09
  Speaker 3: for all. He's the doctor, never licensed, but he passed
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: med school, but he keeps calling himself a doctor. And
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: so he's been out there saying over and over again,
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: private insurance is evil and we're going to get rid
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: of it. Medicare for all. Everybody's going to be happy. But,
• 8:21
  Speaker 3: you know, the polls are tight in Michigan. So now
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: he's trying to qualify himself. But that's why we have
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: the Internet. It can be good. Here's El-Sayed with what
• 8:29
  Speaker 3: he said yesterday. just the other night, as well as
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: what he said repeatedly on the campaign trail.
• 8:33
  Speaker 5: I don't think we need to ban anybody from having
• 8:35
  Speaker 5: private insurance. I don't think we need to ban anybody
• 8:37
  Speaker 5: from having private insurance. I advocate for a government takeover
• 8:39
  Speaker 5: of health insurance because health insurance offers no value. What
• 8:42
  Speaker 5: Medicare for All does is it does away with the
• 8:46
  Speaker 5: private insurance market.
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: Instead of having a whole.
• 8:48
  Speaker 5: Bunch of payers, you have one payer, and that is
• 8:50
  Speaker 5: the federal government. Medicare for All guarantees you a public
• 8:53
  Speaker 5: health care plan and eliminates your private one. Medicare for
• 8:56
  Speaker 5: All comes in and says, no more of this insurance industry.
• 8:59
  Speaker 5: One insurance, and that is the government of the United States.
• 9:02
  Speaker 5: What you have is the state operating as your insurance company.
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: So there it is over and over again, Charlie. I
• 9:08
  Speaker 3: think most people, if they pay attention to what Medicare
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: for All means, is that the government is the single payer.
• 9:13
  Speaker 3: So him trying to now backskate and suggest that, oh, no, no,
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: we can keep some form of private insurance. Sounds a
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: lot like if you like your doctor, you can keep
• 9:21
  Speaker 3: your doctor.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is really worrying on a couple of levels.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: The first is that he's clearly lying, and that is
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: not great. The second is that even if we did
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: what he has retreated to, it would be fatal for
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: private health insurance. And Americans like private health insurance. I
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: think nearly 200 million private health plans are in operation
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: in the United States. The Democrats learned... what happens when
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: you mess with people's private health insurance last time around.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: Of course, if you remember last time around, there was
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: this big debate. over the so-called public option, which Joe
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: Lieberman in Connecticut helped to kill. And the reason that
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Lieberman did that was not for any of the silly
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: reasons of which he's been accused, but because he understood
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: that the federal government is doesn't have any of the
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: limitations on its operation that people in, I'll say, the
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: real world do. And in the sense that the federal government,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: as we have learned, will just borrow and borrow and
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: spend and spend and pander and pander. And so if
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: you allow a public option in, or in Al-Said's case,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: if you allow Medicare for all so-called to exist alongside
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: private health insurance, then the government will just use taxpayer
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: money and borrowed money to undercut the private health insurance
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: that it already regulates and controls. And over time, it
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: will take over the industry and people won't really have
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: a choice. It's because private health insurance will become unviable.
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: So he hasn't really retreated away. He's lying, of course,
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: but he hasn't really retreated away from his position. All
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: he's done is slowed it down. If he were to
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: be taken at face value with his first set of statements,
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: there would be some big day in America where the
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: federal government would come in. They would make your private
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: health insurance illegal. The private health insurers would be absorbed
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: and you would have a government plant like in Britain.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: It doesn't work, by the way. It's absolutely horrible. Please
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: don't do it. But if he takes the second position,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: that would just happen over 10 years. They would slowly
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: squeeze out private health insurance. They would move people onto
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: the public rolls, and eventually they would end up in
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: the same place. The key here is if you don't
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: want that to happen, then you need to vote against
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: this because it's not as if you can get out
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: of it. This is a one-way ratchet. There is no
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: universe in which the federal government would take over the
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: provision of health care in the United States. And then
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: people would say, actually, I don't like it. And then
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: we would go back to the status quo ante. This
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: is the thing I'm the most worried about in the
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: next five years in American politics, because I have lived
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: under this in England and it doesn't work properly. You know,
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Americans are quite rightly impatient. They like high quality and
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: fast services. That's why we spend a lot in health
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: care in this country. It's because we're very rich and
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: we're very impatient. In Britain, it's three years now to
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: get a hip operation. You can't get to see a
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: doctor because we have government rationing. So he's not, he
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: is lying, but he's not even lying to take a
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: position that is antithetical to his initial one. He's just
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: taking the slower version of it. They're both catastrophic.
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's the more complicated and more consequential
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: version of the Mamdani grocery stores, right? I mean, you
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: undercut the private sector competition, so they're forced out of business.
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: And then you know, you're left with your disaster of
• 12:55
  Speaker 3: a system is the only option. And so the people
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: who think they don't like the current system, and let's
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: not pretend that the current system is perfect. There are
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: some problems with it. But compared to Canada or the
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: UK or others who have gone down the single payer route,
• 13:08
  Speaker 3: it's so much more preferable. But the media, you know,
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: just carries the water on this, just like they did
• 13:14
  Speaker 3: during the Clinton debate. Somehow we still won back in
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: the 90s, did it on Obamacare. They were all for
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: the public option. They'll be all for it again. So
• 13:22
  Speaker 3: it's It's tough to fight against, but it's always amazing
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: to me that when we have these other examples of
• 13:29
  Speaker 3: why it doesn't work and how it doesn't work, that
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: people still want to go down this road. It's crazy.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: Well, they think it does work, Greg. They don't see,
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: but they do. They don't see the problems. There's the
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: obvious first order problem, which is that the healthcare that
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: is provided in countries that aren't the United States is
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: less good. It's slower. The rationing is worse. Americans wouldn't
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: like it. And one of the comments that I've made
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: quite frequently is this absolutely gross fetishization of Luigi Mangione
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: really ought to alarm politicians. Because if you believe, which
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: of course I don't because it's revolting, that it is
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: okay for people whose healthcare has been rationed to commit
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: violence against those they believe to be responsible, then in
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: a single payer system, all you're doing is you are
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: moving the locus of violence from the private sector to
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: the public sector. So suddenly it's the HHS secretary who
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: is in the crosshairs. Obviously, we don't want that. But
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: the key point there is that there would still be rationing.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: So that's the first bit. But the second bit is
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: once you go down that road and you guarantee people
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: this sort of government-provided health care, then you have to
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: raise taxes. And if you look at every other country
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: in the world, they don't tax billionaires to do this.
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: They tax the middle class. The tax rates for people
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: who earn very little are pretty high in Canada and
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: the United Kingdom and Australia and France and Germany. They
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: also have a 20% VAT in most of those countries
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: that sits on everything they buy. And when you do that,
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: you actually crowd out the economy that we quite like
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: as Americans with our innovation, our big companies, our standard
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: of living, our GDP is one and a half times
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: that of Europe. This is not an accident. So to me,
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: this would be the Rubicon. And he wants to cross
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: it now slightly slower than before, but he still wants
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: to cross it. And the answer should be no.
• 15:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely right. Michigan voters, you've got a lot of
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: reasons not to want this guy. And we'll talk about
• 15:26
  Speaker 3: another one of those reasons in just a second, because
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: Hasan Piker, I know you're going to be shocked, has
• 15:31
  Speaker 3: said something truly outrageous again. So we'll get into that.
• 15:39
  Speaker 3: All right, Charlie, one of the reasons Abdul El-Sayed has
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: been such a topic of conversation is because during his
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: competitive primary campaign against Haley Stevens and for a while,
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: Mallory McMorrow, he decided to bring in that Twitch streamer
• 15:53
  Speaker 3: from California, as he only refers to Hasan Piker now.
• 15:56
  Speaker 3: But back then they were joined at the hip. There's
• 15:58
  Speaker 3: that famous picture of them fist bumping. He brought him
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: in several times, brought him into rallies. They even had
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: a pool party the night before the primary. I mean,
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: These guys were about as joined at the hip as
• 16:08
  Speaker 3: you could be in terms of a surrogate and a candidate. Now,
• 16:11
  Speaker 3: of course, he won't actually denounce Piker or anything specific
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: that he said, but he is trying to distance himself
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: and saying, why is everybody paying attention to this and
• 16:20
  Speaker 3: so forth? Well, the reason people pay attention to him is, A, again,
• 16:23
  Speaker 3: because you invited him onto the campaign trail and because
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: he says things like America deserved 9-11. And things like this,
• 16:30
  Speaker 3: where he dreams of, and this is just within the
• 16:33
  Speaker 3: Democratic Party, reinstituting China's cultural revolution.
• 16:36
  Speaker 6: I will throw you in prison. OK, I want to
• 16:40
  Speaker 6: put you physically behind a prison. I want Chinese style
• 16:46
  Speaker 6: communism to happen inside of the Democratic Party right now. OK,
• 16:50
  Speaker 6: I want to do cultural revolution when I see that.
• 16:53
  Speaker 3: OK, so putting them behind the prison means he wants
• 16:56
  Speaker 3: to just shoot them. So, I mean, I don't know
• 17:00
  Speaker 3: what the issue was that he was mad about with
• 17:01
  Speaker 3: the Democratic Party. But Charlie, the fact that this guy
• 17:06
  Speaker 3: still has such a huge following and had a huge
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: following to the point where not just Abdul El-Sayed, but
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: Francesca Hong and others have wanted him on the campaign trail.
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: I think Grant Plattner was either cozy with him and
• 17:16
  Speaker 3: maybe even had him up there. I can't remember for sure.
• 17:19
  Speaker 3: Tells you kind of where the Democratic Party is right now,
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: or at least a big chunk of it.
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm trying to think what could prompt me To
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: publicly say anything approaching what he just said in that clip.
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, I can really, maybe the Holocaust. Maybe if
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: someone said to me, how would you react if you
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: saw the SS guards in 1945? Yeah, maybe. What an
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: extraordinary series of sentences to hear uttered in the United
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: States in 2026. You say you don't know what it
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: was he was responding to. I can't imagine what it was.
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: that he was responding to. And of course, al-Sayed is
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: taking the classic path of the coward here, which we
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: see in other circumstances. For example, on the trans issue,
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: where Democrats took a really, really aggressive position, a position
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: that has not been taken at any point in all
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: of American history. And then when 80% of the public said,
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: we don't like that. We think that's a bit crazy.
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: They said, why do you care so much about this issue?
• 18:23
  Speaker 5: No. No.
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: You're the one who has to account for why you
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: allied yourself with those positions. We don't have to apologize
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: for noticing. We don't have to apologize for asking you
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: why you appeared with this guy. You have to explain.
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: It's incumbent on you. So he doesn't want to do it.
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: And so he makes it sound as if this is
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: some irrational obsession that appeared ex nihilo on the right,
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: which isn't true. He should be held to account for this.
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: People on the right would certainly be held to account,
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: have been held to account with whom they choose to associate.
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: I think that the Hassan Paika phenomenon is baffling, and
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: I think he's a strange attention-seeking guy who's probably not
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: that bright. So what worries me much more is when
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: those people who are seeking power have chosen voluntarily of
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: their own volition to ally themselves with him, as so
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: many have. You don't get to say after that, oh, well,
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: you know, maybe he was just being hyper. You didn't
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: have to do it. That was a choice. He didn't
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: come into the middle of the stage halfway through the
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: event and start talking about Against the wishes of security,
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: he was invited there. And that shows a lack of judgment.
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: And we ought to remember, this is the Senate. The
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: Senate is often maligned. especially on the left. But the
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: Senate is actually the federal institution outside of the Supreme Court,
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: on which the representatives have the longest terms. Senators outlast presidents.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: They serve for six years. So when I hear people
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: who wish to be in the Senate arguing, in effect,
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: that they had a momentary lapse of judgment. I want
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: to know when that was. We've seen this in Texas
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: with Tallarica. Oh, I misspoke. Oh, that was ill-advised.
• 20:25
  Speaker 4: No, no, no, no.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: That was less time ago than your Senate term would
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: be had you won back then. El-Sayed wants to be
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: in the Senate until 2032. I think it matters if
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: you got sucked in to the fat that is Hasan Piker.
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: So this isn't a distraction. This matters.
• 20:48
  Speaker 3: Absolutely, it matters. And in the case of Tallarico, I
• 20:51
  Speaker 3: don't think he pivoted until after he won the primary.
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: So it's not like he had some epiphany shortly after
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: all those radical statements, you know, four or five years ago.
• 21:00
  Speaker 3: And so it's all damage control right now, knowing that
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: in that state, his previously stated positions are not going
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: to do too well for him. There was a poll
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: earlier this month, Charlie, from YouGov and CBS News. And
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: the question was, how does a Democratic socialist endorsement affect
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: your likelihood to vote for a candidate? Among all voters,
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: more likely 26%, less likely.
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: 42%, no impact, 32%.
• 21:23
  Speaker 3: But among Democratic voters, more likely 51%, no impact, 41%,
• 21:26
  Speaker 3: less likely 8%. So this idea that there's a lot
• 21:37
  Speaker 3: of hand-wringing over this in the Democratic Party, maybe there
• 21:40
  Speaker 3: is in the institutions in Washington with the DNC and
• 21:43
  Speaker 3: some of the campaign committees coming off of Capitol Hill.
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: But in terms of the rank-and-file Democrats, this is just
• 21:47
  Speaker 3: where they are right now.
• 21:48
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: Look, I'm aware that there are some issues on which
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: Republicans are out of step with the majority. And I'm
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: aware that I hold many positions that I consciously understand.
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: to be a minority position. For example, I am more
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: pro-life than the average American. I wish that weren't the case,
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: but it is. You have to start from where you
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: are and understand whether you're in the majority or not.
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: So I say this with full humility. The Democratic Party
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: has gone crazy, and it has adopted a bunch of
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: assumptions and policies that that are out of step with
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: the majority. Now, that doesn't mean that everything they believe
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: is out of step with the majority. Clearly, it's not.
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: And it doesn't mean that they aren't going to win
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: a whole bunch of elections in 2026 and beyond.
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: They are.
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: But that statistic that you just noted is a good
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: example of where something quite strange has happened to the
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: Democrats in the Trump era. When a majority of Democrats
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: feels warmly enough towards socialists, that they would be more
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: likely to vote for a candidate if they were associated
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: with those socialists, but the general public does not, then
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: we should call it what it is, which is extremism.
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: And the DSA in its actual form is far worse
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: than it sounds and may sound to those who are
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: asked polling question in the abstract. The DSA is openly
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: in favor of abolishing almost our entire constitutional order. If
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: you listen to their leaders, this isn't me characterizing them.
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: They've said this on TV. They want to get rid
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: of the Senate and the presidency and the Supreme Court.
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: They abhor the constitution. They don't believe in federalism. You know,
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: this is not a group that is fluffy and nice.
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: It's not just the Swedish, which is the retreat you
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: often hear on the left. This is a radical group.
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: And the fact that Democrats are indulging them is an indictment.
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: Absolutely the case.
• 23:52
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: Well, when we come back, we'll have a little more fun. Again,
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: somehow El-Sayed fits in the story, but not too much.
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: Kamala Harris back on the campaign trail, stumping for El-Sayed.
• 24:02
  Speaker 3: And let's just say it's classic Kamala. We'll be right back.
• 24:10
  Speaker 3: All right, Charlie, still a lot of speculation about whether
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: Kamala Harris will run for president a third time in 2028.
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: Jim and I both think that Gavin Newsom's pronouncement that
• 24:20
  Speaker 3: he won't run if she does means she won't. But
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: we'll find out, I guess, in due time, in the
• 24:25
  Speaker 3: next few months, certainly. But she was in Michigan earlier
• 24:29
  Speaker 3: this week, stumping for Abdul El-Sayed. I assume the reason
• 24:32
  Speaker 3: is because Abdul El-Sayed got trounced in the black vote
• 24:35
  Speaker 3: during the primary against Haley Stevens. And so he's trying
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: to shore that up heading into the general election. So
• 24:40
  Speaker 3: Not sure how much progress he'll make on that front
• 24:42
  Speaker 3: with the woman who didn't carry Michigan two years ago.
• 24:45
  Speaker 3: But they sat down for a roundtable and this was
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: on abortion. This is the same if you saw the
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: clip about the lady talking about black birthing people. This
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: is the same event. And so here's Kamala Harris still
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: not realizing that DEI is not exactly what the Democrats
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: want to be saying out loud. But she says basically
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: the exact same thing three times here. And so Kamala
• 25:06
  Speaker 3: Harris is in mid-season form.
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: Here's another fact. The attack on DEI is an attack
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: on maternal care. An attack on DEI to recognize diversity, equity,
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: and inclusion is an attack by definition on maternal care,
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: including the need to protect black women from in connection
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: with their pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care.
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: A five second sentence turns into a 30 second paragraph.
• 25:41
  Speaker 3: And if you can see the video, El Sayed is like,
• 25:44
  Speaker 3: I don't know why I'm sitting next to this woman.
• 25:45
  Speaker 3: She can't spit out a complete thought. But Charlie, I
• 25:47
  Speaker 3: know how much you love her. So I'm sure you're
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: glad to see her back with great comments like that.
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, she's particularly egregious in this respect. But what
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: she's doing there is a species of what I've taken
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: to calling everything is everything politics, which has been the
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: hallmark of the Democrats since Obama left office, maybe toward
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: the end of his second term, which is to say
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: that they don't believe that there are lots of different
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: causes or corners of our politics. They believe that everything
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: is linked to everything else. This is fundamental intersectionality. And
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: so you get these incredible sentences during, for example, the
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: Build Back Better effort where Kirsten Gillibrand said that childcare
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: is infrastructure. This is because they were trying to sell
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: their bill as infrastructure because infrastructure is popular with Americans.
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: And then they tried to tack onto it this childcare
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: proposal that Bernie Sanders wanted. So she said childcare is infrastructure.
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: You get this with abortion is a climate issue, which
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: is a real thing. that Planned Parenthood has tweeted out.
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: And there it's, well, DEI is black birthing. It's totally
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: incoherent and fundamentally totalitarian. I'll add a small T to
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: that because I don't think Kamala Harris is a totalitarian.
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: But that is a totalitarian philosophical assumption, right? That you just,
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: you can't separate anything out. And she's not only not
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: smart enough to be able to express it properly. I
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: think she's probably not smart enough to even understand what
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: she's doing, which is why she got to the third
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: one and couldn't find a way to end it. So
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: this is her being her, but it's also the movement
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: to which she belongs, having lost the ability to talk
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: about any discrete topic within its confines.
• 27:48
  Speaker 5: Just amazing.
• 27:49
  Speaker 3: Will she run or no?
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: I think she wants to. I mean, you say that
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: she's gone to Michigan to help him shore up the
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: black vote. That's one interpretation. I think that's true. Another
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: is that she's running and wants him to return the
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: favor when she does. And Michigan's obviously full of a
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: lot of Arab Americans, too. And she's going to want
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: their vote. So I think she intends to. I just
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: my my presumption here does end up where yours is
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: in that. I think she wants to run. I think
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: she's going to run. But I think there's going to
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: come a crunch point next year where she sits down
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: and looks at the lay of the land and the
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: fundraising potentials and polling and is essentially told by her advisors,
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't.
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: I think that's probably where we're headed. I've had that
• 28:34
  Speaker 3: feeling for a long time, but you never know. Ambition
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: is pretty strong in these people.
• 28:38
  Speaker 5: So we will see.
• 28:40
  Speaker 3: Charlie, always great to have you with us. We'll do
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: it again tomorrow.
• 28:42
  Speaker 4: See you then.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: Great to talk.
• 28:43
  Speaker 3: Charlie Cook, Senior Editor at National Review Online, host of
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: the Charles C.W. Cook Podcast. In for Jim Garrity today.
• 28:50
  Speaker 3: As I said, he'll be back tomorrow. In the meantime,
• 28:52
  Speaker 3: please subscribe to the 3 Martini Lunch Podcast. If you
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: don't already, please tell your friends about us as well.
• 28:56
  Speaker 3: We'd love to have them listening and subscribing. Also, thank
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: you for your five-star ratings and your kind reviews. Please
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: keep those coming. They help us out a lot. Get
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: us on your home devices. All you have to say
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: is play 3 Martini Lunch Podcast. Follow us all on X.
• 29:09
  Speaker 3: Charlie is at Charles CW Cook, E at the end
• 29:12
  Speaker 3: of Cook, on X. Jim is at Jim Garrity. I'm
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: at Greg Karumbas. And follow 3 Martini Lunch on Facebook
• 29:18
  Speaker 3: and Instagram. Have a great Thursday. Join us again Friday
• 29:21
  Speaker 3: for the next 3 Martini Lunch.