Latest / Pod Save America / “America’s Next Top MAGA.”

Transcript

“America’s Next Top MAGA.” · Pod Save America

0:00
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has had a busy summer loosening gun
0:02
Speaker 1: restrictions in states, overturning Roe v. Wade, and severely threatening
0:06
Speaker 1: our Miranda rights. I'm Leah Lippman, and each week on
0:08
Speaker 1: Strict Scrutiny, I'm joined by my co-hosts and fellow law professors,
0:12
Speaker 1: Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw, to break down the latest
0:14
Speaker 1: headlines and the biggest legal questions facing our country. It's
0:17
Speaker 1: more important than ever to understand the repercussions of these
0:20
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions and what we can do to fight
0:22
Speaker 1: back in the upcoming midterm elections. Listen to new episodes
0:25
Speaker 1: of Strict Scrutiny every Monday, wherever you get your podcasts.
0:49
Speaker 2: Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.
0:52
Speaker 3: I'm Dan Pfeiffer.
0:53
Speaker 2: On today's show, Democrats try to govern while Republicans fight
0:56
Speaker 2: each other over Lauren Boebert and vaccine requirements. Law professor
1:00
Speaker 2: Leah Littman joins to talk about the Supreme Court case
1:03
Speaker 2: that may end Roe versus Wade as we know it.
1:06
Speaker 2: And Dr. Mehmet Oz shakes up the 2022 midterms by
1:09
Speaker 2: carpetbagging his way into the Pennsylvania Senate race. But first,
1:14
Speaker 2: if you're in the market for a quick, smart, hilariously
1:17
Speaker 2: written rundown of the news every night, Subscribe to Crooked's
1:21
Speaker 2: What A Day newsletter at crooked.com slash newsletters. And if
1:26
Speaker 2: you're binging movies, television, and comic books over your holiday break,
1:29
Speaker 2: then don't miss out on new episodes of X-Ray Vision
1:32
Speaker 2: with Jason Concepcion. This month, Jason will revisit the Spider-Man
1:36
Speaker 2: franchise ahead of the release of the much-buzzed-about Spider-Man No
1:40
Speaker 2: Way Home. You can catch episodes of X-Ray Vision every
1:43
Speaker 2: Friday wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's get
1:47
Speaker 2: to the news. We talked on Tuesday's pod about what
1:51
Speaker 2: President Biden and Democrats in Congress are focused on right now,
1:54
Speaker 2: avoiding a government shutdown and a catastrophic default, passing an
1:58
Speaker 2: economic plan that would lower costs for most people, and
2:01
Speaker 2: bringing an end to the pandemic, which Joe Biden just
2:03
Speaker 2: gave a speech about this morning, talked about providing more
2:08
Speaker 2: cheap at-home testing, more vaccinations, more boosters, etc. But today
2:14
Speaker 2: we thought we'd check in on what Republicans are up to,
2:17
Speaker 2: which is doing their best to fuck this all up
2:19
Speaker 2: and fight culture wars so they can win the midterms.
2:22
Speaker 2: To wit, House Republicans are fighting with each other over
2:25
Speaker 2: what to do about Congresswoman Lauren Boebert suggesting that Congresswoman
2:29
Speaker 2: Ilhan Omar is a terrorist because she's Muslim, and Senate
2:33
Speaker 2: Republicans are fighting with each other over whether to shut
2:36
Speaker 2: down the government unless Joe Biden stops trying to get
2:39
Speaker 2: people vaccinated. Let's start with Boebert's hateful garbage and Congresswoman
2:45
Speaker 2: Omar's response. Here's a clip.
2:47
Speaker 3: And there she is, Ilhan Omar. And I said, well,
2:52
Speaker 3: she doesn't have a backpack.
2:53
Speaker 4: We should be fine.
2:55
Speaker 5: So we only had one floor to go.
3:03
Speaker 6: And I was like, do I say it or not?
3:05
Speaker 3: And looked over. And I said, oh, look, the jihad
3:07
Speaker 3: squad decided to show up for work today.
3:10
Speaker 6: But the most pervasive is the constant suggestion that that
3:14
Speaker 6: all Muslims are terrorists and should be feared. So when
3:19
Speaker 6: a sitting member of Congress calls a colleague member of
3:23
Speaker 6: the jihad squad and falsifies a story to suggest that
3:30
Speaker 6: I will blow up the Capitol, it is not just
3:34
Speaker 6: attack on me. but on millions of American Muslims across
3:39
Speaker 6: this country.
3:40
Speaker 2: So that was the first clip was, of course, from
3:43
Speaker 2: a fundraiser that Boebert had attended in September. She's also
3:48
Speaker 2: reportedly said it a few other times. This is something
3:50
Speaker 2: she enjoys saying because she's fucking nuts and an awful person.
3:55
Speaker 2: Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar have both been
3:58
Speaker 2: kicked off all House committees for promoting violence against Democrats.
4:03
Speaker 2: You think the same thing should happen to Boebert here?
4:06
Speaker 3: I think we should just start out by saying how
4:09
Speaker 3: dangerous this rhetoric is. The Republican Party is a political
4:13
Speaker 3: party that has normalized violence as a legitimate political solution.
4:18
Speaker 3: That's what happened in the Capitol in January. That is
4:21
Speaker 3: what happened when– and we know that people take the
4:26
Speaker 3: words from Republican politicians and right-wing media figures and act
4:30
Speaker 3: on them. It's what happened in Texas where someone took
4:34
Speaker 3: an assault rifle to a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood because they
4:38
Speaker 3: were afraid of replacement theory, something that a number of Republicans,
4:41
Speaker 3: including but primarily Tucker Carlson, talk about. We saw that
4:45
Speaker 3: with the pipe bombs that a Trump supporter mailed to
4:47
Speaker 3: a group of people who also happened to be the
4:49
Speaker 3: exact same group of people that– including reporters that Donald
4:52
Speaker 3: Trump attacks all the time. So this is dangerous and
4:56
Speaker 3: this is putting someone at risk and not just Ilhan Omar,
4:59
Speaker 3: every Muslim. This idea that she points out that a
5:02
Speaker 3: Muslim is a terrorist is very, very dangerous and has
5:07
Speaker 3: gotten many people already hurt and killed in this country.
5:12
Speaker 3: I think the question about the committees is complex. I
5:19
Speaker 3: don't think Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have any option
5:22
Speaker 3: other than to kick her off her committees because you
5:25
Speaker 3: simply cannot allow a member of Congress to direct violence
5:30
Speaker 3: at another member of Congress without sanction. The system cannot work.
5:35
Speaker 3: And in a normal world with a normal Republican Party,
5:37
Speaker 3: this would be an overwhelmingly bipartisan move. It was only
5:41
Speaker 3: a couple of years ago that they all kicked, Republicans included,
5:44
Speaker 3: kicked Steve King, the white supremacist congressman from Iowa, off
5:49
Speaker 3: his committees. Now, a decade too late, and only when
5:52
Speaker 3: he became a political problem, not because they had a
5:53
Speaker 3: moral opposition to what he was saying. But here we are.
5:57
Speaker 3: Even though it's the right thing to do, I think
5:59
Speaker 3: there's a problem. Here's the rub, which is Lauren Boebert
6:03
Speaker 3: isn't a relevant human being, but she is the picture
6:06
Speaker 3: of relevancy. In a normal world, there's something interesting about her.
6:10
Speaker 3: She's got no idea, no platform, no story. She is
6:13
Speaker 3: just a junior member of Congress. And in a normal world,
6:16
Speaker 3: she would wander the halls of Congress for a decade
6:19
Speaker 3: in anonymity until one day she was fortunate enough to
6:23
Speaker 3: chair a subcommittee, right? That's what her life would be.
6:26
Speaker 3: But that's not the world we live in anymore. We
6:27
Speaker 3: live in an attention economy. And what she has figured
6:31
Speaker 3: out is the way to have relevance, to have importance,
6:35
Speaker 3: have political powers to gain attention. How do you gain attention?
6:38
Speaker 3: In right-wing circles, you do horribly outrageous and offensive things.
6:42
Speaker 3: And you're doing it for the specific purpose of provoking
6:45
Speaker 3: a response. And the harsher that response, the greater validation
6:50
Speaker 3: your action is of your importance and your relevance. And
6:53
Speaker 3: so while I think Democrats absolutely should kick her off
6:56
Speaker 3: her committees, we should do that knowing, I think knowing
7:00
Speaker 3: full well that it's not a deterrence. It's going to
7:02
Speaker 3: mean that more Republicans do what she did because this
7:06
Speaker 3: is their only path to power. And this is, I mean,
7:11
Speaker 3: this is the, I mean, it's a sad statement about
7:13
Speaker 3: our media ecosystem as a Republican party, but this is
7:15
Speaker 3: sort of where we are. Yeah.
7:17
Speaker 2: I think the broader question is what is the best
7:20
Speaker 2: way to prevent the Republican politicians, Republican pundits, more and
7:25
Speaker 2: more people in the Republican Party from inciting violence against Democrats.
7:30
Speaker 2: That's what we're talking about here. And I do think
7:32
Speaker 2: that as we're trying to figure out, okay, if we're
7:34
Speaker 2: going to kick people off committees, what's a fair standard?
7:37
Speaker 2: I don't think it's calling people names or just purely
7:41
Speaker 2: offensive language. And I don't think that's what we're talking
7:44
Speaker 2: about here. We're talking about language that incites violence. That's
7:48
Speaker 2: Marjorie Taylor Greene has uttered that kind of language. Paul
7:51
Speaker 2: Gosar by posting an image, has tried to incite violence.
7:55
Speaker 2: And I think that the Lauren Boebert situation falls into
7:58
Speaker 2: that category as well. Another thing that Ilhan Omar did
8:03
Speaker 2: this week at her press conference is she played a
8:05
Speaker 2: voicemail of a death threat that she received just about
8:09
Speaker 2: an hour or two after these comments from Boebert surfaced.
8:13
Speaker 2: And when you listen to that, you realize how scary
8:16
Speaker 2: it must be for her and how scary it must
8:19
Speaker 2: be for Muslims across the country. when they hear a
8:23
Speaker 2: member of Congress who has some position of authority, even
8:27
Speaker 2: if she's quite junior, saying that all Muslims are terrorists
8:32
Speaker 2: because they're Muslim, because of their religion, which is the
8:34
Speaker 2: most anti-American thing that I can think of. And so
8:37
Speaker 2: you're right. Here's the thing. Republicans take the House. Are
8:41
Speaker 2: they gonna kick Democrats off their committees? Yeah, probably. Probably
8:46
Speaker 2: a lot more than just a few Democrats. They might
8:48
Speaker 2: kick them all off their committees. I mean, who knows?
8:52
Speaker 2: Who the fuck knows? But, like, I don't know that
8:55
Speaker 2: we can sort of change our behavior or base our
8:59
Speaker 2: behavior on what they might do. I do think it's
9:01
Speaker 2: important for us to have a fair standard. I think
9:03
Speaker 2: if members of Congress are calling each other fucking assholes,
9:06
Speaker 2: that's probably not enough to get them kicked off the committee.
9:09
Speaker 2: I really do. You know, like, I think that we
9:11
Speaker 2: can't take it too far. But incitements of violence, yeah,
9:14
Speaker 2: that should fucking qualify. That should qualify.
9:16
Speaker 3: I mean, John, Republicans are trying to kick members of
9:18
Speaker 3: their own party off the committees for the mortal sin
9:21
Speaker 3: of supporting a bill that Mitch McConnell supports.
9:23
Speaker 6: Roads.
9:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, roads.
9:25
Speaker 3: So I'm getting the sense they're probably going to kick
9:27
Speaker 3: some Democrats off.
9:28
Speaker 2: I think you're exactly right. Inciting violence by supporting roads.
9:32
Speaker 2: Roads and bridges.
9:33
Speaker 3: Like right beneath inciting violence is supporting bipartisan roads and bridges.
9:38
Speaker 3: Those are the two things that get you cut from
9:40
Speaker 3: your committees.
9:41
Speaker 2: So there is exhaustingly another angle to the story, which
9:45
Speaker 2: is the intraparty feud that erupted when Republican Congresswoman Nancy
9:49
Speaker 2: Mace called Boebert's comments disgusting. Marjorie Taylor Greene then tweeted
9:55
Speaker 2: that Nancy Mace is trash. And Nancy Mace then called
9:59
Speaker 2: Greene bad. crazy by tweeting a bat emoji, a poop emoji,
10:03
Speaker 2: and a clown emoji. I'm saying these words. I can't
10:07
Speaker 2: believe I'm saying this. Here we are, 2021. Here's your
10:11
Speaker 2: political analysis for the day. It, of course, went on
10:15
Speaker 2: from there. I believe there were some Twitter dunks over
10:17
Speaker 2: a misspelling of the word yore. which is always a
10:20
Speaker 2: sign that you really fucking nailed someone on Twitter. If
10:23
Speaker 2: you're getting them over the grammatical error about your, that's
10:27
Speaker 2: always the best dunk. Kevin McCarthy met with both Republicans
10:31
Speaker 2: in a failed attempt to stop the fight, but of
10:33
Speaker 2: course still refuses to say anything publicly about Bovert's comments
10:36
Speaker 2: because he needs the support of every deranged monster in
10:39
Speaker 2: his caucus in order to become speaker. Dan, do you
10:42
Speaker 2: have a reaction to either the emojis, the grammar mishap,
10:47
Speaker 2: Or what this entire fight says about the internal dynamics
10:50
Speaker 2: of the Republican Party?
10:51
Speaker 3: Well, I would like to give you some credit first,
10:54
Speaker 3: which is because our lives are so boring. At a period,
10:59
Speaker 3: I'm sure before 6 a.m. recently, I texted you the
11:03
Speaker 3: Marjorie Taylor Greene tweet. And you said, haven't been on
11:06
Speaker 3: Twitter yet. Has everyone started dunking on her for confusing
11:10
Speaker 3: your– with an apostrophe– and Y-O-U-R? And then lo and behold,
11:14
Speaker 3: then we all had a good chuckle at how annoying
11:16
Speaker 3: people can be. And lo and behold, here comes Nancy
11:18
Speaker 3: Mace in her response, which I'm sure there was a
11:21
Speaker 3: whole committee of Republican staffers who worked on this to
11:25
Speaker 3: dunk on her for grammar.
11:26
Speaker 2: And now you got her. You got her.
11:28
Speaker 3: There's nothing on this planet that would make me side
11:32
Speaker 3: with Marjorie Taylor Greene. If I had been in a
11:34
Speaker 3: desert for a month, I would not accept a glass
11:36
Speaker 3: of water from her. But Nancy Mace, you almost put
11:39
Speaker 3: me there by responding with the grammar dunk. Was there
11:45
Speaker 3: something bigger here than that?
11:48
Speaker 2: There's the Kevin McCarthy of it all.
11:49
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's an impotent loser. He has no control. The
11:57
Speaker 3: way this played out for Kevin McCarthy is the product
12:00
Speaker 3: of how Republican leaders in the House have been doing
12:02
Speaker 3: this since the Tea Party folks showed up in 2010.
12:06
Speaker 3: John Boehner catered to these people. Paul Ryan catered to
12:10
Speaker 3: these people. Kevin McCarthy became Speaker only because he proved
12:13
Speaker 3: himself the most willing to appease the most extreme flank
12:18
Speaker 3: of the party. And so this is why the tail
12:20
Speaker 3: always wags the dog of the party. Kevin McCarthy is
12:22
Speaker 3: a caretaker of this crazy caucus, nothing more, nothing less.
12:27
Speaker 2: You know, Marjorie Taylor Greene said the other day, we're
12:30
Speaker 2: not the fringe of the party, we're the base. And
12:33
Speaker 2: she's right. Yeah. Totally agree with Marjorie Taylor green.
12:35
Speaker 3: My God, this is almost, this is one and a
12:38
Speaker 3: half agreement with Marjorie Taylor green.
12:40
Speaker 2: But it's like, I do think not to dive back
12:43
Speaker 2: into the Virginia results. We're not going to do that,
12:45
Speaker 2: but like.
12:46
Speaker 3: I have that later. So it's good.
12:48
Speaker 2: Okay, good. What Glenn Young can pulled off there. I
12:51
Speaker 2: do not think will be easy for the party as
12:53
Speaker 2: a whole. Uh, like, and look, voting is different than
12:57
Speaker 2: internal Republican party dynamics within the house, of course, but like,
13:01
Speaker 2: Kevin McCarthy is going to do whatever it takes to
13:03
Speaker 2: keep these people happy. The Marjorie Taylor Greene's and the
13:05
Speaker 2: Lauren Boebert's and the Paul Gosar's and all the crazy
13:08
Speaker 2: in his caucus, because otherwise he will lose his job
13:11
Speaker 2: or he'll lose his chance to become speaker if Republicans
13:14
Speaker 2: take the House. And you know what that means? That
13:16
Speaker 2: means we'll get an even crazier leader. We've been saying
13:19
Speaker 2: this for a while. We lost John Boehner. We got
13:21
Speaker 2: Paul Ryan, who was further right. We lost Paul Ryan.
13:23
Speaker 2: We got Kevin McCarthy, who was further right. We lose
13:25
Speaker 2: Kevin McCarthy. I mean, we're just We're on an inevitable
13:28
Speaker 2: path until Marjorie Taylor Greene is fucking speaker here.
13:30
Speaker 3: Or Trump. So can't forget that.
13:33
Speaker 6: Right.
13:33
Speaker 2: And so I think what it says about that is
13:35
Speaker 2: like you see people like Nancy Mace and good for
13:37
Speaker 2: Nancy Mace for going after Lauren Boebert on this and
13:41
Speaker 2: standing her ground. Like, I applaud that. But what does
13:44
Speaker 2: that mean? It probably means Nancy Mace is going to
13:45
Speaker 2: get a primary challenge. And if she doesn't, she's still
13:48
Speaker 2: probably going to be, you know, marginalized within the caucus,
13:51
Speaker 2: much like Liz Cheney has been or Adam Kinzinger, who's
13:54
Speaker 2: now retiring.
13:55
Speaker 6: Right.
13:55
Speaker 2: Like, this is just... You might get a few exceptions
13:58
Speaker 2: here and there that stand up to these people, but
14:00
Speaker 2: they're going to be marginalized or they're going to be
14:01
Speaker 2: beaten in a primary eventually. It's just that's not where
14:04
Speaker 2: the party is headed.
14:05
Speaker 6: Yeah.
14:05
Speaker 3: In the Republican Party, you're either siding with Marjorie Taylor
14:07
Speaker 3: Greene and Donald Trump or you're auditioning for a cable
14:10
Speaker 3: job on MSNBC. Those are the two things.
14:14
Speaker 2: How should Democrats handle these divisions aside from watching with
14:18
Speaker 2: a mix of amusement and horror?
14:21
Speaker 3: Well, it's been a long year, John. 2021 has not
14:25
Speaker 3: been great. Is it 2021?
14:27
Speaker 2: I thought it was still 2020. I feel like we've
14:29
Speaker 2: been stuck in 2020 for five years now.
14:31
Speaker 3: I mean, whatever year it is, it's not an awesome year.
14:35
Speaker 3: It's almost over, which I can't really believe. Can we
14:38
Speaker 3: just have some fun here? Do we have to spin
14:40
Speaker 3: this into some bigger strategic conversation and just.
14:43
Speaker 2: We definitely don't. No, we definitely don't.
14:45
Speaker 3: I mean, that's probably... People probably don't tune in for
14:48
Speaker 3: us to just have our own personal therapy, but... Ultimately,
14:53
Speaker 3: what Democrats have to do with this, and I'm sure
14:56
Speaker 3: everyone wants to do with it, is to use all
14:59
Speaker 3: of these things, a series of data points of Republicans
15:02
Speaker 3: being out of the mainstream, irresponsible, extreme, dishonest, crazy, whatever
15:09
Speaker 3: it is you want to use to paint a picture
15:10
Speaker 3: of a party that cannot be allowed anywhere near control
15:15
Speaker 3: of government again. And sort of one way to think
15:17
Speaker 3: about it is we have been living for a long
15:20
Speaker 3: time now in a state of chaos. all the Trump
15:23
Speaker 3: presidency was chaos. Then we had a pandemic and now
15:26
Speaker 3: it feels like we're just swerving from crisis to crisis.
15:28
Speaker 3: And some of that is real. Like we're like, before
15:31
Speaker 3: we started to record this, you and I were talking
15:33
Speaker 3: about like the latest tweets we've read about Omicron or
15:36
Speaker 3: Omicron or however you pronounce it. And we're just going to.
15:39
Speaker 2: Keep, we're just going to keep mispronouncing it just to
15:41
Speaker 2: spite the variant.
15:43
Speaker 3: That'll show it. Your, your.
15:46
Speaker 1: Cool.
15:48
Speaker 3: And, And Biden won in part because he was seen
15:53
Speaker 3: as a person to manage that crisis, right? And I
15:55
Speaker 3: think there is a way to which you can probably,
15:57
Speaker 3: this has to be fine-tuned, but you can, if you
16:00
Speaker 3: want normalcy and steadiness and end of the pandemic and
16:04
Speaker 3: an end to inflation and end to whatever else, that
16:07
Speaker 3: this group of people is not the people who are
16:08
Speaker 3: going to help you get that. I think that there's
16:10
Speaker 3: a chance to at least use some of these things
16:11
Speaker 3: to tell that story.
16:13
Speaker 2: Also, if you look back at 2020, you know, we
16:15
Speaker 2: had the conversation that we always talked about how Trump
16:18
Speaker 2: was like, different than the Republican Party and that he
16:21
Speaker 2: was much worse. And one of the things that might
16:24
Speaker 2: have done is given some voters permission to say, OK,
16:26
Speaker 2: I want to vote against Trump, but I want to
16:27
Speaker 2: vote again. I want to vote for Republicans in Congress.
16:30
Speaker 2: And I do think that holding up more of these
16:33
Speaker 2: Republicans in Congress and elsewhere in the country, other elected
16:37
Speaker 2: officials that are Republicans, some of the crazier ones as
16:40
Speaker 2: proof points as to why it's not just Trump, but
16:43
Speaker 2: it's the entire party and actually showing what Boebert and
16:47
Speaker 2: Green and Gosar are doing and making them the faces
16:50
Speaker 2: of the Republican Party, which, as Marjorie Taylor Greene said,
16:53
Speaker 2: they're the base, not the fringe. Like, let's show people
16:56
Speaker 2: why that is. And I do think that's probably important
17:00
Speaker 2: to communicate to voters in the next few years. Meanwhile,
17:05
Speaker 2: in the Senate, Republicans Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Ron
17:08
Speaker 2: Johnson want to shut down the government unless Democrats agree
17:11
Speaker 2: to defund President Biden's vaccine requirement. All 50 Republican senators
17:15
Speaker 2: oppose the vaccine requirement, but most of them don't think
17:17
Speaker 2: it's worth a shutdown. Some of them telling Politico it would, quote,
17:20
Speaker 2: reflect poorly on their party. They all fought about this
17:24
Speaker 2: during their caucus lunch on Wednesday. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy
17:28
Speaker 2: told reporters Mitch did not say a word. He ate
17:31
Speaker 2: his chicken. He ate two pieces. Why do you think
17:34
Speaker 2: Mitch was so quiet and not that hungry?
17:36
Speaker 3: I do not believe this story.
17:39
Speaker 2: You think he had more than two bites?
17:40
Speaker 3: No, I think he was.
17:41
Speaker 2: You think he really went after that chicken?
17:43
Speaker 3: No, I think he drank the chicken's blood. I'm just
17:49
Speaker 3: going to beat these Mitch McConnell vampire of democracy jokes
17:52
Speaker 3: into the ground for at least the rest of 2021.
17:54
Speaker 2: Again, yeah, he was a turtle. Then he was an
17:56
Speaker 2: old crow. Now he's a vet. We're just sort of
17:58
Speaker 2: all over the place on Mitch McConnell. We can't even
18:00
Speaker 2: fucking get a message on Mitch McConnell, let alone the
18:03
Speaker 2: Republican Party.
18:04
Speaker 3: Why do you think we can't win elections against a
18:06
Speaker 3: party personified by Marjorie Gellergren? I mean, Mitch McConnell obviously
18:10
Speaker 3: knows that this is a doomed effort. They would obviously
18:14
Speaker 3: make the party look bad because vaccine mandates are popular.
18:17
Speaker 3: The Politico Morning Consult poll, which tracks this, the support
18:21
Speaker 3: for vaccine mandates, they test a whole series of them
18:24
Speaker 3: about where people would accept mandates. Government employees, majority support. Employers,
18:28
Speaker 3: majority support. Businesses, majority support. It has majority support. And
18:33
Speaker 3: so shutting down the government over something that is not
18:36
Speaker 3: popular is never– A great idea. And it's not going
18:40
Speaker 3: to end with the end of the vaccine mandate. It's
18:42
Speaker 3: just going to end with Republicans looking bad over a
18:45
Speaker 3: period of time. And so he's trying to avoid a
18:47
Speaker 3: bunch of Ted Cruz types from forcing that situation from happening.
18:53
Speaker 2: The last morning console poll that asked voters about this question,
18:58
Speaker 2: it was November 10th. So it wasn't that long ago.
19:01
Speaker 2: only 39% of voters do not think that vaccine should
19:05
Speaker 2: be required for employees of businesses with at least a
19:07
Speaker 2: hundred workers, federal contractors, or healthcare workers, 30% of Republicans
19:11
Speaker 2: support it. So, um, I will say, you know, by
19:14
Speaker 2: the time you're all listening to this, either Thursday evening
19:17
Speaker 2: or Friday, um, Biden just told reporters that he talked
19:20
Speaker 2: to Schumer and McConnell and there will be no shutdown
19:23
Speaker 2: over this quote, unless somebody decides to act totally erratic. Yeah. Hey, man,
19:29
Speaker 2: have you met the Senate Republican caucus? You got fucking
19:32
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz in there. Mike Lee. Who knows? So I
19:35
Speaker 2: don't know. I mean, it looks like they may avoid it.
19:37
Speaker 2: But all it takes is one loony tune Republican senator
19:41
Speaker 2: to gum up the works.
19:42
Speaker 3: There are a handful of those.
19:44
Speaker 2: So there are a handful of those. So we will
19:46
Speaker 2: see what happens. We'd be remiss if we didn't mention
19:49
Speaker 2: the story from yesterday. here that former White House Chief
19:52
Speaker 2: of Staff Mark Meadows' upcoming memoir reveals that Donald Trump
19:55
Speaker 2: tested positive for COVID three days before his debate with
19:59
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, a time period in which he exposed his staff, reporters,
20:03
Speaker 2: Gold Star families, and everyone at the debate to a
20:07
Speaker 2: deadly illness. What a cool guy. What a cool guy.
20:12
Speaker 2: This story has outraged many people, rightly so, myself included.
20:16
Speaker 2: What do we even do with this information?
20:19
Speaker 3: We write it down. We pin it on a board.
20:23
Speaker 3: We put it on the mirror. We get it tattooed somewhere,
20:26
Speaker 3: memento style. And we remember that every time we're annoyed
20:31
Speaker 3: at Joe Manchin or Joe Biden hasn't delivered on this
20:34
Speaker 3: promise or that or We're frustrated and sick of politics
20:38
Speaker 3: that this guy is looming in the wings to be
20:41
Speaker 3: the next president of the United States in a few years.
20:43
Speaker 3: We never forget that.
20:44
Speaker 2: He's a front runner. Front runner for the nomination. He's
20:46
Speaker 2: almost a lock. It's not about looking backwards. It's not
20:51
Speaker 2: about what happened in the past. This is the guy
20:53
Speaker 2: who wants to be the next president.
20:55
Speaker 1: Yeah.
20:56
Speaker 2: Most likely. And what he did was knowingly expose people
21:01
Speaker 2: to a deadly disease is what he did. Including his
21:06
Speaker 2: political opponent. And Gold Star military families who he blamed
21:14
Speaker 2: for potentially giving him COVID.
21:16
Speaker 3: That's the underwritten part of this. He knew he already
21:19
Speaker 3: had COVID when he met with them and blamed them anyway.
21:21
Speaker 2: Because they wanted to hug and kiss me. And he
21:25
Speaker 2: had fucking COVID. The man is... I don't think he's
21:29
Speaker 2: a good person. I do not think so.
21:31
Speaker 1: We....
21:33
Speaker 2: Well, we've talked a lot about how Democrats should focus
21:35
Speaker 2: on defining the Republican Party head of the midterms. How
21:38
Speaker 2: would you weave everything we've just covered from Boebert to
21:42
Speaker 2: Green to Mace to the vaccine requirements to Trump giving
21:47
Speaker 2: people COVID? Is there any way to weave that into
21:49
Speaker 2: some kind of coherent narrative about the Republican Party, aside
21:52
Speaker 2: from the fact that they're all fucking nuts, which I
21:54
Speaker 2: don't know if... Maybe that's– Yeah, I mean that is
21:58
Speaker 2: super coherent. It's believable. I don't know if disengaged swing
22:02
Speaker 2: voters will buy that, but I think it's a start maybe.
22:04
Speaker 3: If you expose them to this information, they just might.
22:07
Speaker 3: I mean I think it– we talked many years ago
22:11
Speaker 3: about potential frames for running against Trump pre-pandemic. One of
22:15
Speaker 3: the ones that we talked about was chaos and corruption
22:18
Speaker 3: because we looked at a lot of focus groups which
22:20
Speaker 3: showed that what drove people crazy– was the constant chaos,
22:24
Speaker 3: the tweeting. He was always in our face. And then
22:27
Speaker 3: when that was magnified by a deadly pandemic and a historic, gigantic,
22:32
Speaker 3: immediate recession, that brought the cost of that before us.
22:36
Speaker 3: And I think there is something about chaos in the
22:39
Speaker 3: Republican Party. And maybe it's not we need this super snappy,
22:44
Speaker 3: paragraph-tested message that folks don't want, but more just the
22:48
Speaker 3: idea of Republicans have branded Democrats not with some specific slogan,
22:54
Speaker 3: a way in which they've just thrown a bunch of
22:57
Speaker 3: stuff out there that buttressed a narrative that made some
23:02
Speaker 3: voters think Democrats were out of touch and not American.
23:06
Speaker 3: And so is there something we can do that is chaotic, incompetent,
23:10
Speaker 3: and dangerous? Something like that. We're going to just constantly
23:13
Speaker 3: see these data points because people aren't reading the stories,
23:16
Speaker 3: watching the long segment on CNN or the NBC News.
23:20
Speaker 3: They're just seeing a bunch of stuff. Do we have
23:23
Speaker 3: the capacity to elevate enough things that give people this
23:25
Speaker 3: broader emotional response to the Republican Party that is negative?
23:29
Speaker 2: Yeah. One of the challenges, I think, is the chaos
23:34
Speaker 2: in these last couple of years, or ever since Joe
23:38
Speaker 2: Biden has become president, is not necessarily only from the
23:41
Speaker 2: Republican Party. It's from sort of external circumstances in the world,
23:44
Speaker 2: the pandemic, the economic challenges, inflation, et cetera, not caused
23:49
Speaker 2: by Biden and the Democrats, but it's out there. And
23:54
Speaker 2: I wonder if, I mean, what is true? We talked
23:57
Speaker 2: about this a little on Tuesday's pod, but what is
24:00
Speaker 2: true about the Republicans? What's true about them right now
24:02
Speaker 2: is that they hate Democrats more than they care about
24:07
Speaker 2: the country, that they only want to fight for themselves
24:11
Speaker 2: and their own power and not fight for the actual
24:14
Speaker 2: people who they're supposed to represent in this country, be
24:17
Speaker 2: them Democrats or Republicans. And they're wasting time, you know,
24:23
Speaker 2: in fights, yelling at people, inciting violence. They're trying to
24:29
Speaker 2: like stop people from being protected by vaccines. All of
24:32
Speaker 2: this shit just so that they can like hold on
24:35
Speaker 2: to power and own the libs. That's basically why it
24:39
Speaker 2: seems like they want to have power as opposed to
24:42
Speaker 2: what Joe Biden and the Democrats are doing, which is
24:44
Speaker 2: fighting as hard as they can to fix all of
24:47
Speaker 2: these problems. And they aren't fixed yet, and nothing's perfect,
24:51
Speaker 2: and we're not there yet. But at least voters can
24:54
Speaker 2: know that Biden and Democrats are focused on these problems
24:57
Speaker 2: and focused on fixing them, while the Republicans are only
25:00
Speaker 2: focused on trying to win.
25:01
Speaker 3: So, you know, there are two ways in which this
25:03
Speaker 3: plays out. One is inflation gets better, economy strengthens even more,
25:08
Speaker 3: pandemic is behind us by the time people start voting
25:10
Speaker 3: next fall. And then it is, do you want normalcy
25:13
Speaker 3: or do you want to be taken back to what
25:14
Speaker 3: we had before? Do you want to take the car out,
25:18
Speaker 3: put the car.
25:18
Speaker 2: Back in the ditch? No, please don't start.
25:21
Speaker 3: Something that is relevant to no one. Or things are
25:26
Speaker 3: still bumpy and tumultuous and turbulent. Maybe that's some pandemic.
25:29
Speaker 3: Maybe it's some other thing that's happening in the world.
25:31
Speaker 3: And if the world is on fire, do you want
25:34
Speaker 3: to hire a bunch of arsonists to be in charge?
25:36
Speaker 3: That's sort of how you're thinking about it. And I
25:38
Speaker 3: think these aren't knowable propositions, but there's a lot more
25:41
Speaker 3: information we can learn based on changing circumstances on the
25:44
Speaker 3: ground and talking to voters about what they're actually looking for.
25:48
Speaker 3: And ultimately, all of this is about trying to make
25:51
Speaker 3: it more of a choice and less of a referendum
25:53
Speaker 3: when people go to the polls, which is actually more
25:55
Speaker 3: possible than people think because of polarization.
25:58
Speaker 2: We could certainly benefit here from some quantitative data polling,
26:02
Speaker 2: qualitative data focus groups. Again, focus groups are different than polls.
26:08
Speaker 2: They give you a little more context, a little more
26:10
Speaker 2: richness to what people are actually talking about, and then
26:12
Speaker 2: you match them up.
26:13
Speaker 3: I'm going to use my gut in Twitter to substitute
26:16
Speaker 3: for those things.
26:17
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's fine, too. It's either the best social science
26:21
Speaker 2: we have available, even though it's not perfect and can
26:24
Speaker 2: be wrong, or your gut in the Twitter comments. Either one, totally.
26:28
Speaker 2: They're both the same. When we come back, Dan will
26:32
Speaker 2: talk to Professor Leah Lippman about the Supreme Court oral
26:36
Speaker 2: arguments in the Mississippi abortion case that happened this week.
26:48
Speaker 3: Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a major case
26:51
Speaker 3: that will determine the future of abortion rights in the
26:53
Speaker 3: United States. Joining us now to break down what happened
26:56
Speaker 3: is Michigan Law School professor and co-host of the podcast,
26:58
Speaker 3: Strict Scrutiny, Leah Littman. Leah, welcome to the pod.
27:01
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me.
27:03
Speaker 3: So a lot of the commentary and reporting from folks
27:07
Speaker 3: who observed the arguments yesterday was quite pessimistic about the
27:10
Speaker 3: future of Roe. What was your take on what happened?
27:13
Speaker 1: Roe is going to end. The only question is when
27:16
Speaker 1: and how. There's no question that the Supreme Court is
27:19
Speaker 1: going to uphold the Mississippi statute, which prohibits abortions more
27:22
Speaker 1: than 15 weeks after a person's last period. And if
27:25
Speaker 1: and when they uphold that statute, they will be eviscerating
27:28
Speaker 1: the core of the protections in Roe versus Wade. Roe
27:31
Speaker 1: held that states cannot prohibit women before viability, before the
27:36
Speaker 1: point at which a fetus is viable outside of the womb,
27:39
Speaker 1: from deciding to have an abortion. And Mississippi's statute concededly
27:44
Speaker 1: prohibits abortions before viability. So no matter whether the Supreme
27:47
Speaker 1: Court issues the words Roe versus Wade is overruled, they
27:50
Speaker 1: will be eviscerating the protections of that decision when they
27:53
Speaker 1: uphold the Mississippi statute. Now, I think a lot of
27:56
Speaker 1: people thought the Supreme Court was going to try to
27:58
Speaker 1: avoid issuing the words Roe versus Wade is overruled because
28:02
Speaker 1: they didn't want to provoke backlash. But it's not clear
28:06
Speaker 1: that the conservative justices actually care about that. I think
28:08
Speaker 1: they are comfortable enough with their position of power that
28:11
Speaker 1: five of them might pull the trigger in this case.
28:14
Speaker 3: So because there had been, as you point out, there's
28:16
Speaker 3: been a lot of discussion about a world in which
28:19
Speaker 3: Roe is eviscerated but not overturned, much as they have
28:22
Speaker 3: done with the Voting Rights Act over a long period now.
28:26
Speaker 3: Were they to go the route of eviscerating but not overturning,
28:29
Speaker 3: what would that look like? How could you even have
28:32
Speaker 3: the pretext of upholding Mississippi and claiming that that is
28:36
Speaker 3: consistent with Roe or Casey?
28:39
Speaker 1: So Sam Alito et al have said a lot of
28:42
Speaker 1: ridiculous things. So they could certainly issue an opinion under
28:46
Speaker 1: the pretense of we're upholding Roe while also invalidating the
28:49
Speaker 1: Mississippi statute. And here's what that would look like. They
28:52
Speaker 1: would say we're not formally overruling Roe versus Wade and
28:56
Speaker 1: saying that women have no liberty interest whatsoever in deciding
29:01
Speaker 1: to obtain an abortion. Right. But what they would do
29:04
Speaker 1: is erase what is called the viability line. And the
29:08
Speaker 1: viability line was the core of the protection in Roe
29:12
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
29:17
Speaker 1: And what those decisions said was before viability, before the
29:21
Speaker 1: point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb,
29:23
Speaker 1: the woman must have the ultimate decision about whether to
29:27
Speaker 1: end her pregnancy via an abortion. And if the Supreme
29:30
Speaker 1: Court erases the viability line... then it would be opening
29:33
Speaker 1: the floodgates for states to prohibit abortions earlier and earlier
29:38
Speaker 1: because they would be removing the clear line that they
29:41
Speaker 1: had established in previous cases beyond which states couldn't go.
29:46
Speaker 1: And so then all of a sudden the question would be, well,
29:49
Speaker 1: at what point before 15 weeks can states prohibit abortion?
29:53
Speaker 1: And states have tried to weeks from a person's last period,
29:58
Speaker 1: 12 weeks, eight weeks, six weeks in the case of Texas.
30:02
Speaker 1: And once the Supreme Court erases the viability line and
30:05
Speaker 1: says states can prohibit some number of abortions before viability,
30:10
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden we don't know at what
30:13
Speaker 1: point states can prohibit abortions. And so it would just
30:16
Speaker 1: be open season on abortion access.
30:20
Speaker 3: And so let's say Roe is either overturned or this
30:23
Speaker 3: case has upheld the viability line as a race. What
30:26
Speaker 3: is that? How does that go into effect? How are
30:28
Speaker 3: people affected around the country? Who is impacted immediately? Does
30:33
Speaker 3: it matter where you live? Help explain sort of, it's
30:35
Speaker 3: been 50 years we've been living under this reality. How
30:38
Speaker 3: does that change theoretically potentially the day after this ruling?
30:41
Speaker 1: So there are two ways in which this will immediately
30:44
Speaker 1: affect people. One is many states have on the books
30:47
Speaker 1: what are called trigger laws, laws that say, if and
30:51
Speaker 1: when Roe versus Wade is overruled, we criminalize abortion with
30:55
Speaker 1: limited exceptions. So if the Supreme Court issues an opinion
30:59
Speaker 1: that overrules Roe versus Wade, all of a sudden those
31:02
Speaker 1: laws would go into effect and abortion access would be
31:04
Speaker 1: dramatically curved. And second, even if they don't formally overrule Roe,
31:10
Speaker 1: but they say states can prohibit abortions at some points
31:12
Speaker 1: before viability, then all of the laws that had previously
31:17
Speaker 1: been invalidated because they prohibited abortions before viability, all of
31:22
Speaker 1: a sudden states would seek to try and reopen those
31:26
Speaker 1: cases and get courts to say, maybe you can enforce
31:30
Speaker 1: those laws after all. So this would be a problem
31:33
Speaker 1: in red states, but it would also be a problem
31:35
Speaker 1: in purple states. where you have heavily gerrymandered state legislatures.
31:42
Speaker 1: And so those legislatures aren't going to repeal the trigger
31:46
Speaker 1: laws that are on the books or the restrictive abortion
31:49
Speaker 1: laws that would all of a sudden possibly be allowed
31:52
Speaker 1: to come back. And so many, many people in many
31:56
Speaker 1: different states will be immediately affected. Obviously, the people who
32:00
Speaker 1: will be most in danger are poor women who lack
32:04
Speaker 1: the socioeconomic resources to, on a dime, just go to
32:07
Speaker 1: another state where abortion is legalized, and younger women who
32:12
Speaker 1: might not know they are pregnant, people who are using
32:17
Speaker 1: contraception for the first time and contraception fails. I mean,
32:20
Speaker 1: all of these groups who are historically disadvantaged and have
32:26
Speaker 1: fewer resources are going to be the ones who immediately
32:29
Speaker 1: feel the effects of this decision.
32:33
Speaker 3: And just to make sure I understood this correctly, if
32:36
Speaker 3: a state had passed a law that had been struck down,
32:38
Speaker 3: do they have to pass it again?
32:41
Speaker 1: So it's actually unclear. There will be litigation about whether
32:45
Speaker 1: states would be allowed to enforce a law that had
32:49
Speaker 1: been effectively what's called enjoined or the states were prohibited
32:53
Speaker 1: from enforcing for a long period of time. And if
32:57
Speaker 1: that law hadn't been enforced, had been laying dormant for
33:00
Speaker 1: let's say, 50 years since Roe was decided, there will
33:04
Speaker 1: be some arguments that it would be unfair or potentially
33:07
Speaker 1: violate due process for states to all of a sudden
33:10
Speaker 1: bring it back and start prosecuting people. But formally, states
33:16
Speaker 1: could seek to enforce those laws without actually reenacting them.
33:22
Speaker 3: Both in the discussions around the changes in Supreme Court,
33:26
Speaker 3: the Texas law, the Mississippi law, there has been a
33:29
Speaker 3: push at the federal level to try to pass a
33:32
Speaker 3: federal law that would be, as I think is sometimes,
33:35
Speaker 3: I believe, incorrectly described as enshrining the principles of Roe.
33:39
Speaker 3: I reckon, just I want to stipulate for our listeners
33:41
Speaker 3: that there are a lot of problems that mostly involve
33:43
Speaker 3: Joe Manchin and the filibuster to get such a law passed.
33:46
Speaker 3: But just from a theoretical perspective, is that now out
33:50
Speaker 3: the window as a solution if Roe is overturned or eviscerated?
33:54
Speaker 3: How would that law interact with this, if at all?
33:58
Speaker 1: So formally, overruling Roe would not eliminate Congress's ability to
34:04
Speaker 1: enact some protections for abortion access. Realistically, however, if this
34:11
Speaker 1: court is actually willing to overrule Roe versus Wade, I
34:14
Speaker 1: think people need to be prepared for the possibility that
34:17
Speaker 1: they are also more than willing to invalidate any federal
34:20
Speaker 1: legislation that a Democratic Congress and Democratic president would sign
34:24
Speaker 1: to that would try to safeguard abortion access. So the
34:27
Speaker 1: arguments that the conservative justices were throwing around at argument
34:31
Speaker 1: yesterday were so outlandish and so outrageous. It kind of
34:38
Speaker 1: suggests that basic logic, basic precedent, basic respect for institutional
34:43
Speaker 1: legitimacy are not really constraining them and they feel emboldened
34:49
Speaker 1: to pursue the conservative anti-abortion agenda you know, law, reason, facts,
34:55
Speaker 1: women's health, dignity, notwithstanding. So formally, overruling Roe wouldn't limit
35:03
Speaker 1: Congress's ability to enact abortion protections, but realistically, this court
35:08
Speaker 1: will find other legal avenues to limit Congress's ability to
35:12
Speaker 1: safeguard abortion access, whether that's limiting Congress's power to enact
35:15
Speaker 1: legislation under the 14th Amendment or other constitutional provisions.
35:21
Speaker 3: Was there anything in particular that stood out to you
35:24
Speaker 3: from the arguments or the lines of questioning from the
35:26
Speaker 3: justices that you found particularly outrageous or alarming or interesting?
35:31
Speaker 1: So I think in some ways the most outrageous thing
35:35
Speaker 1: came from Justice Barrett, who suggested that the fact that
35:38
Speaker 1: women can drop off children at police stations or firehouses
35:45
Speaker 1: actually eliminated the need for Roe versus Wade because they
35:48
Speaker 1: could remove the obligations of parenting and undergoing the emotionally
35:55
Speaker 1: and physically grueling processes of childbirth and pregnancy were somehow
36:01
Speaker 1: not meaningful to her if they could just put the
36:03
Speaker 1: children up for adoption. She seemed to envision a world
36:07
Speaker 1: in which every kind of adoption ended like the ending
36:13
Speaker 1: of Juno, singing happy songs with Michael Cera, and that
36:17
Speaker 1: the pregnancy was just not significant. And that moment was,
36:23
Speaker 1: I think, very astonishing, especially given that women in Mississippi
36:28
Speaker 1: face something like over 70 times greater a medical or
36:31
Speaker 1: health risk from delivering a child than from having a
36:35
Speaker 1: pre-viability abortion. Those medical risks seem to be meaningless to her.
36:41
Speaker 1: And many women will lack health insurance coverage for the
36:45
Speaker 1: medical costs associated with pregnancy that too seem to be meaningless.
36:50
Speaker 1: Women are not entitled to paid family leave either at
36:53
Speaker 1: the federal level nor in Mississippi specifically. So they could
36:57
Speaker 1: lose their jobs while they complete an unwanted pregnancy and
37:02
Speaker 1: undergo forced childbirth. And all of these costs seem to
37:05
Speaker 1: be completely de minimis to her. In fact, in her question,
37:09
Speaker 1: she equated those interests and women's interests in bodily autonomy
37:15
Speaker 1: with the bodily autonomy for not getting a vaccine, the
37:19
Speaker 1: idea that it's an equal infringement to have a life-saving
37:22
Speaker 1: shot jabbed into your arm, that it is to undergo
37:26
Speaker 1: nine months of unwanted pregnancy, it was astonishing. And she
37:30
Speaker 1: did that not once, but twice. So that was definitely one,
37:34
Speaker 1: I think, very alarming moment. And then there were other
37:36
Speaker 1: moments when some of the justices suggested that maybe they
37:40
Speaker 1: should and would regard fetuses as persons or people, in
37:45
Speaker 1: which case Congress would definitely lack the authority to protect
37:49
Speaker 1: abortion rights. But it wasn't clear five justices were on
37:55
Speaker 1: board with that notion.
37:57
Speaker 3: Leah, thank you so much for joining us and helping
37:59
Speaker 3: us understand this very disturbing hearing in the very scary
38:03
Speaker 3: future that may be before us.
38:05
Speaker 1: Of course.
38:15
Speaker 2: All right, before we go, we want to talk about
38:17
Speaker 2: some developments in the 2022 Senate map. Gerrymandering has made
38:21
Speaker 2: holding the House quite a challenge for Democrats, but if
38:23
Speaker 2: the political environment improves... We may not just hold our
38:27
Speaker 2: Senate majority. We may actually be able to grow it
38:30
Speaker 2: by flipping some Republican-held seats, the most likely of which
38:34
Speaker 2: is the one held by retiring Senator Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.
38:37
Speaker 2: This week, the race to replace him got a bit
38:40
Speaker 2: more crowded when celebrity physician and longtime New Jersey resident Dr.
38:44
Speaker 2: Oz announced that he's running in the Republican primary. Dr.
38:48
Speaker 2: Oz spent years pushing phony weight loss supplements on his
38:50
Speaker 2: television show before pivoting to COVID quackery as a Fox
38:54
Speaker 2: News contributor. where he pushed hydroxychloroquine and said things like this.
38:59
Speaker 5: First, we need our mojo back. Let's start with things
39:01
Speaker 5: that are really critical to the nation, where we think
39:03
Speaker 5: we might be able to open without getting into a
39:05
Speaker 5: lot of trouble. I tell you, schools are a very
39:07
Speaker 5: appetizing opportunity. I just saw a nice piece in The
39:11
Speaker 5: Lancet arguing that the opening of schools may only cost
39:14
Speaker 5: us 2% to 3%. in terms of total mortality. And,
39:17
Speaker 5: you know, that's any life is a life lost. But
39:19
Speaker 5: to get every child back into a school where they're
39:21
Speaker 5: safely being educated, being fed and making the most out
39:25
Speaker 5: of their lives with a theoretical risk on the backside,
39:27
Speaker 5: it might be a trade-off some folks would consider.
39:29
Speaker 2: You know the best way to get our mojo back?
39:32
Speaker 2: Kill some kids. That'll do it, Dr.
39:35
Speaker 1: Roth.
39:35
Speaker 2: I mean, that... I listened to that a couple times
39:38
Speaker 2: and I was like, what? Did he really? He apparently
39:40
Speaker 2: apologized for that later.
39:42
Speaker 3: Do you remember this Twitter outrage?
39:43
Speaker 2: I'm sure it was sincere. I remember this very well. Look,
39:46
Speaker 2: there's 25 Twitter outrages a day. I can't keep track
39:49
Speaker 2: of all of them. That was 2020. It was the
39:51
Speaker 2: heyday of Twitter. We were outraged about everything all the time.
39:54
Speaker 2: Not that it's improved. But yeah, that was bad. That
39:57
Speaker 2: was bad. And by the way, we have talked about
39:59
Speaker 2: COVID in schools here. This was not like, okay, Cases
40:05
Speaker 2: are down. We have vaccines. We have good ventilation. We
40:09
Speaker 2: have great testing. And now we'll be able to open
40:12
Speaker 2: schools safely for kids to make sure that they're in
40:15
Speaker 2: class and not just remote. It was not that debate.
40:17
Speaker 2: This was like height of the pandemic. Let's open up
40:20
Speaker 2: the schools and see what happens. Two to three percent mortality. What?
40:28
Speaker 2: So he announced his candidacy with a statement in the
40:30
Speaker 2: Washington Examiner, as one does, where he focused mostly on
40:33
Speaker 2: the pandemic, writing, quote, Elites with yards told those without
40:36
Speaker 2: yards to stay inside where the virus was more likely
40:38
Speaker 2: to spread. And the arrogant, closed-minded people in charge closed
40:42
Speaker 2: our parks, shuttered our schools, shut down our businesses, and
40:45
Speaker 2: took away our freedom. What do you think of Dr.
40:48
Speaker 2: Oz as a primary candidate and a potential general election
40:52
Speaker 2: candidate in Pennsylvania?
40:54
Speaker 3: I would note that the– you could summarize his entry
40:59
Speaker 3: in this race as celebrity New Jersey resident announces for
41:02
Speaker 3: Pennsylvania Senate in Washington, D.C.
41:04
Speaker 1: Paper.
41:04
Speaker 2: So it's like– Yeah, there is that.
41:09
Speaker 3: I think– I really have no idea how this will
41:12
Speaker 3: play out in the Republican primary. That field is still
41:16
Speaker 3: shaping up a little bit now that Sean Parnell, Trump's
41:18
Speaker 3: chosen candidate, is out of it. It's very hard to
41:22
Speaker 3: predict what Republican voters will do, but I think as
41:25
Speaker 3: a general election matter, Democrats should absolutely not dismiss this candidacy.
41:30
Speaker 3: He is incredibly famous, and famous in a Trump-like way,
41:36
Speaker 3: where he is famous for- In.
41:38
Speaker 2: The good way, the politically beneficial way for him and
41:40
Speaker 2: for Trump.
41:41
Speaker 3: Yeah, the way Trump before this, which is he is
41:42
Speaker 3: associated in the minds of millions and millions of Americans
41:45
Speaker 3: who've been watching him for years with- expertise, medical expertise
41:52
Speaker 3: while running for Senate in a pandemic. That is going
41:54
Speaker 3: to be a very powerful thing. And lots– sometimes we
41:58
Speaker 3: look at these things and we're like celebrity candidates tend
42:00
Speaker 3: to flame out, right? And you look at Wes Clark,
42:03
Speaker 3: General Wes Clark who ran for president. You– an array
42:08
Speaker 3: of people like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina and others
42:11
Speaker 3: who were– but being– there's a special kind of famous
42:15
Speaker 3: person who was very good at running for president. And
42:18
Speaker 3: those are famous people who are famous largely for being famous.
42:21
Speaker 3: That is what Donald Trump was. People who are good
42:24
Speaker 3: at being famous. Because being a person whose business and
42:28
Speaker 3: livelihood is based on maintaining their fame is someone who
42:31
Speaker 3: is very skilled at maintaining the public attention. And that's
42:35
Speaker 3: really what politics is in this day and age. I'm
42:36
Speaker 3: not saying he's going to win. There are some very
42:38
Speaker 3: good candidates on the Democratic side. Being from New Jersey
42:41
Speaker 3: is definitely not an asset when running for Pennsylvania, for
42:44
Speaker 3: Senate Pennsylvania. But I think we shouldn't dismiss it because
42:46
Speaker 3: he comes into this with a real brand and name
42:52
Speaker 3: ID that could give it, particularly in what is likely
42:57
Speaker 3: to be a good Republican year, a very, very legitimate
42:59
Speaker 3: shot at this.
43:01
Speaker 2: I think we have learned by now that there is
43:03
Speaker 2: a rather large constituency for con men TV hosts who
43:08
Speaker 2: rage against the establishment. which is what he does. I mean,
43:12
Speaker 2: like you said, people are going to remember him from
43:14
Speaker 2: he became famous first on the Oprah Winfrey show. People
43:18
Speaker 2: trust Oprah quite a bit. He's on a lot of
43:20
Speaker 2: mainstream like morning shows before, aside from his own television show.
43:26
Speaker 2: So there is probably a level of trust that a
43:29
Speaker 2: lot of Americans have in him. I mean, it does
43:30
Speaker 2: give me a lot of Donald Trump on The Apprentice vibes.
43:34
Speaker 6: Yeah.
43:34
Speaker 2: Where much of the country were big fans of The
43:37
Speaker 2: Apprentice and that's how they knew Donald Trump and Donald
43:39
Speaker 2: Trump did not seem extreme to them. He seemed like
43:42
Speaker 2: maybe an asshole, but he didn't seem extreme to them
43:45
Speaker 2: while he was the host of The Apprentice.
43:47
Speaker 6: Right.
43:47
Speaker 2: And I think people probably see, a good chunk of
43:51
Speaker 2: people probably see Dr. Oz that way. And I will
43:52
Speaker 2: also say that he has a message about the pandemic
43:56
Speaker 2: that may unfortunately resonate with a lot of people who
44:00
Speaker 2: are tired of the pandemic. And I wish people weren't.
44:05
Speaker 2: And but like, you know, talking about closures and what's
44:08
Speaker 2: done to people as we head into year two of
44:10
Speaker 2: the pandemic with potentially another variant that's going to cause
44:14
Speaker 2: us trouble. And you have him running around there talking
44:17
Speaker 2: about pretending to be an expert, talking about why this
44:21
Speaker 2: or that, you know, non-pharmaceutical intervention is wrong or this
44:25
Speaker 2: or that vaccine is wrong or whatever else it may
44:27
Speaker 2: be like, you know, I totally agree that Democrats should
44:30
Speaker 2: take it seriously. I do wonder like how a Democrat
44:34
Speaker 2: would approach Dr. Oz and his message, um, uh, in,
44:38
Speaker 2: in this race. Do you have any thoughts on that?
44:39
Speaker 3: I mean, it's going to depend a little bit on
44:41
Speaker 3: who the nominee is and how they do it. Um,
44:44
Speaker 3: I think corporate bagger is a, has always been a
44:48
Speaker 3: relatively successful strategy. Um, it's oftentimes it's not work as
44:52
Speaker 3: well on famous people. Um, Robert Kennedy, New York, Hillary
44:55
Speaker 3: Clinton in New York. Um, maybe it's New York specific.
44:58
Speaker 2: I don't know.
44:59
Speaker 3: Um, But I think you're going to want to make
45:03
Speaker 3: him seem not serious, not in it for the right reasons.
45:11
Speaker 3: Almost in some ways, your best candidate is going to
45:12
Speaker 3: be someone– he's not running against Bob Casey, but Bob
45:14
Speaker 3: Casey would sort of be the perfect person to run
45:16
Speaker 3: against Dr. Oz because it is someone who is serious
45:21
Speaker 3: and can run counter to that sort of celebrity. It's
45:24
Speaker 3: going to be interesting to see. I imagine– the immediate
45:30
Speaker 3: instinct of a lot of Democratic operatives is going to
45:32
Speaker 3: be to try to say he's just like Trump. And
45:35
Speaker 3: I think that's going to be a lot harder to
45:36
Speaker 3: do than people think.
45:39
Speaker 2: I think that's correct. I think you have to, look, he,
45:43
Speaker 2: one of the times we've seen him in the public
45:46
Speaker 2: eye before COVID was in 2014 in front of a
45:49
Speaker 2: Senate committee when he got a lot of criticism, you know,
45:53
Speaker 2: as he should have, for pushing quackery, for pushing all
45:58
Speaker 2: kinds of supplements that were supposed to, you know, make
46:00
Speaker 2: you lose weight that didn't really make you lose weight.
46:03
Speaker 2: And I think working to, at least at the beginning,
46:06
Speaker 2: expose him as someone who's put his own financial gain
46:08
Speaker 2: before the public's health is important. Exposing him as a fraud,
46:11
Speaker 2: exposing him as a con man is probably going to be,
46:15
Speaker 2: especially a con man from out of state, you know,
46:18
Speaker 2: a con man from out of state who, like, that's
46:20
Speaker 2: going to be probably, I think, easier to do and
46:24
Speaker 2: maybe more effective than just calling him a Trumpy extremist.
46:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think calling people Trumpy extremists is not going
46:29
Speaker 3: to be a particularly successful message.
46:31
Speaker 2: Unless they are, unless it's like Lauren Bovert, unless it's
46:34
Speaker 2: Marjorie Taylor Greene, right? Like it might work for some people,
46:36
Speaker 2: but you just have to know who the person is
46:38
Speaker 2: and you can't over-exaggerate the traits of the person that
46:42
Speaker 2: you're running again. I think that's been the problem.
46:45
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's something that I dug into in the message
46:48
Speaker 3: box a few weeks ago that I think is a
46:51
Speaker 3: longer conversation we can have is, it is really interesting
46:54
Speaker 3: to compare how Gavin Newsom use Trump against Larry Elder
46:59
Speaker 3: and how Terry McAuliffe used Trump against Glenn Youngkin. Now,
47:04
Speaker 3: Elder and Youngkin are very different, but- But that's the point.
47:07
Speaker 1: Right.
47:07
Speaker 3: I mean, it is the point, but then also, and
47:10
Speaker 3: obviously it's going to work better on someone like Larry
47:12
Speaker 3: Elder than Glenn Youngkin, but there was more nuance to
47:15
Speaker 3: the message, which was they used Trump as an example
47:18
Speaker 3: to show that Larry Elder was extreme, not to just
47:21
Speaker 3: say he is Trump, right? It's the difference between Using
47:25
Speaker 3: Trump-ism as an effort, making them part of this extreme
47:29
Speaker 3: thing you're uncomfortable with and just saying you are the person, right?
47:32
Speaker 3: Just Glenn Trumkin, right?
47:34
Speaker 2: Nuance and subtlety, while lost arts in our political debate today,
47:38
Speaker 2: are still important for political campaigns.
47:41
Speaker 3: Don't treat voters like they're idiots.
47:42
Speaker 2: And Terry McAuliffe has never been accused of.
47:46
Speaker 3: Subtlety?
47:47
Speaker 2: Subtlety. Nor has many of the Clinton campaigns, to be frank.
47:51
Speaker 3: Okay, then.
47:54
Speaker 2: Just saying. That's sort of what they do. It's a
47:57
Speaker 2: tough rapid response world over there, and they just sort
47:59
Speaker 2: of hit everything with the hammer. It's just something to
48:02
Speaker 2: be mindful of. Something to be mindful of. Trump hasn't
48:05
Speaker 2: made an endorsement in Pennsylvania since the last candidate he
48:07
Speaker 2: backed dropped out over allegations of child abuse. That was
48:11
Speaker 2: Sean Parnell that you mentioned. But he has endorsed a
48:13
Speaker 2: slew of Trumpy Senate candidates with so far mixed results.
48:18
Speaker 2: Herschel Walker is currently leading in Georgia by a wide
48:21
Speaker 2: margin and he's leading in fundraising. But in Alabama, Congressman
48:25
Speaker 2: Mo Brooks is being outraised by Katie Britt. In Alaska,
48:30
Speaker 2: Kelly Chewbacca is nearly 20 points behind Lisa Murkowski. Ted
48:35
Speaker 2: Budd is polling behind Pat McGrory in North Carolina. And
48:38
Speaker 2: Blake Masters is polling behind Mark Brnovich in Arizona. Those
48:41
Speaker 2: are all Trump-backed candidates. What's your take on this? Too early,
48:46
Speaker 2: or is it possible that the Republican Party is not
48:49
Speaker 2: as enamored with Trump as we think?
48:52
Speaker 3: A little bit of both, probably. I think the takeaway
48:55
Speaker 3: you can have from this and from some of the
48:56
Speaker 3: other special elections we've had, where either Trump's candidate has
48:59
Speaker 3: performed less well than you thought or not won the primary,
49:03
Speaker 3: is that as it stands, and sort of contrary to
49:05
Speaker 3: the public wisdom, is Trump is neither kingmaker nor kingbreaker.
49:10
Speaker 3: His endorsement is not enough to give someone, no matter
49:14
Speaker 3: how bad a candidate they are, to give– to sort
49:17
Speaker 3: of push them in office as it was when he
49:19
Speaker 3: was president. Like it's what he– he destroyed candidacies by
49:22
Speaker 3: endorsing people's opponents. He put Brian Kemp and Ron DeSantis
49:27
Speaker 3: in office by endorsing them. But I think he has
49:30
Speaker 3: less influence now. And that's impartially related to he's out
49:33
Speaker 3: of office, but also he's out of the– even– Maybe
49:37
Speaker 3: for the– like if you're a Fox viewer, you only
49:39
Speaker 3: see a little bit about Trump. You have to be
49:41
Speaker 3: like deep in OAN and Newsmax to get a lot
49:44
Speaker 3: of Trump in your life. So for the broader Republican
49:47
Speaker 3: Party electorate, Trump is not really– he is also in
49:50
Speaker 3: the background. Even if they want him to come back
49:52
Speaker 3: to the foreground, he is not dominating their lives and
49:54
Speaker 3: perhaps their decision-making process here.
49:57
Speaker 2: I was going to say the same thing. He's just–
49:58
Speaker 2: it's too early and Trump's been too– I don't want
50:01
Speaker 2: to say he's been too quiet because he can't shut up.
50:04
Speaker 2: but people haven't heard from him as much because of
50:07
Speaker 2: the lack of Twitter account there and the fact that
50:10
Speaker 2: he's just not out there enough. So a lot of
50:11
Speaker 2: Republican primary voters probably don't know which candidate Trump has
50:14
Speaker 2: backed if you get a call from a pollster right now.
50:17
Speaker 2: Some of these races are, of course, a proxy battle
50:20
Speaker 2: between Trump's preferred candidates and McConnell's preferred candidates. Who are
50:24
Speaker 2: we supposed to root for there?
50:25
Speaker 3: I think there is a natural sense from a lot
50:31
Speaker 3: of people that We would much prefer the MAGA Fox
50:36
Speaker 3: News candidate to win the primary because they will be
50:38
Speaker 3: therefore easier to beat. I don't think that is always
50:43
Speaker 3: the case. In some cases, it very well may be.
50:44
Speaker 3: It depends on the candidate.
50:46
Speaker 2: It depends on the place.
50:47
Speaker 3: Because one of the things we have to recognize is–
50:50
Speaker 3: sort of look at this and you're like, well, Glenn
50:52
Speaker 3: Youngkin won and he was not a quote-unquote Trumpy candidate.
50:55
Speaker 3: What Glenn Youngkin was, in addition, I think, being a
50:57
Speaker 3: relatively skilled candidate and a very adept liar in a
51:00
Speaker 3: lot of ways, is he was an outsider. And in
51:03
Speaker 3: many cases, and he was an outsider running against the
51:06
Speaker 3: ultimate insider in Terry McAuliffe. And so in some cases,
51:11
Speaker 3: the Trump-backed MAGA candidate is going to be so out
51:15
Speaker 3: of the mainstream that it's going to be harder for
51:18
Speaker 3: them to win. In some cases, the person you're going
51:20
Speaker 3: to run against is the person who is more closely
51:22
Speaker 3: associated with Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment. Because Mitch McConnell,
51:26
Speaker 3: less popular than Trump.
51:27
Speaker 2: Not popular.
51:28
Speaker 3: Republican Party, less popular than Trump. And people who have
51:32
Speaker 3: been associated with mainstream Republican policies for cutting, been voting
51:38
Speaker 3: to cut taxes for the rich and pay for it
51:40
Speaker 3: by cutting Medicare and Social Security, those people may be,
51:42
Speaker 3: in some cases, easier to beat. Just because there's this
51:45
Speaker 3: thing as we see these like, Super MAGA-friendly, like Ted
51:49
Speaker 3: Budd has one that we did on Campaign Experts React
51:51
Speaker 3: a while back, like intro videos when they announce their candidacy.
51:56
Speaker 3: We're like, these people are nuts because they're packing guns
51:58
Speaker 3: and they're driving pickup trucks and they're smashing a TV
52:01
Speaker 3: with CNN on it or whatever, right? All this insane–
52:04
Speaker 3: we're like, these people are nuts. Run against them. But
52:07
Speaker 3: that may– we should– it may be that that is
52:09
Speaker 3: a better– message than we think, or that it is
52:13
Speaker 3: that person may be a little bit harder to beat
52:14
Speaker 3: than the other person in that state who's a more
52:16
Speaker 3: traditional Republican politician.
52:19
Speaker 2: I think I agree with that. And I'll just add
52:20
Speaker 2: to go back to what we said about Lauren Boebert
52:23
Speaker 2: and Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's not really about who you're
52:25
Speaker 2: rooting for. It's about making the most, again, highlighting the
52:28
Speaker 2: most extreme people in their party and making them the
52:31
Speaker 2: face of the Republican Party. And that it's important that
52:35
Speaker 2: voters know who the Republican Party is in 2021. And
52:40
Speaker 2: it's not just Trump that they may dislike, but a
52:43
Speaker 2: lot of other people who have equally abhorrent positions as Trump.
52:47
Speaker 3: All politics is national.
52:49
Speaker 2: That's right. Last question. One of the key Senate races
52:52
Speaker 2: we have to win is in Georgia, where Reverend Raphael
52:55
Speaker 2: Warnock will run for reelection. This week, Stacey Abrams jumped
52:59
Speaker 2: into the race for governor. Here's a clip from her
53:01
Speaker 2: announcement video.
53:02
Speaker 4: Leadership that knows how to do the job. Leadership that
53:06
Speaker 4: doesn't take credit without also taking responsibility. Leadership that understands
53:11
Speaker 4: the true pain folks are feeling. And has real plans.
53:16
Speaker 4: That's the job of governor. To fight for one Georgia.
53:20
Speaker 3: Our Georgia.
53:22
Speaker 4: And now, it's time to get the job done.
53:26
Speaker 2: Man, it's nice to get some good political news, huh?
53:30
Speaker 2: Do you think it helps Warnock to be on the
53:32
Speaker 2: ticket with Abrams? And in general... What do you think
53:35
Speaker 2: about her chances and her announcement video?
53:37
Speaker 3: It absolutely helps to be on the ballot with Stacey Abrams.
53:40
Speaker 3: Like that's sort of a question that answers itself, but
53:42
Speaker 3: it's going to– you're taking both, I mean, Warnock and
53:46
Speaker 3: Abrams who ran incredible races, one in 2018 and one
53:49
Speaker 3: in 2020, and did an amazing job in not just
53:52
Speaker 3: turning out Democratic voters but actually having more broad-based appeal
53:55
Speaker 3: than people would suspect and doing it across the state
53:58
Speaker 3: of Georgia, right? Reducing some of the margins or increasing
54:02
Speaker 3: Democratic turnout in rural parts of the state. Um, so
54:06
Speaker 3: absolutely having them both on the ballot is going to
54:07
Speaker 3: help both of them. I think that is, that is great.
54:10
Speaker 3: I thought that that intro video was incredibly interesting and
54:14
Speaker 3: it made me think about something that our old friend
54:16
Speaker 3: David Axelrod used to say back in 2008. Remember when
54:20
Speaker 3: things would be, we'd be flying high and you know,
54:24
Speaker 3: low to the ground.
54:24
Speaker 1: Yeah.
54:25
Speaker 3: I mean, that's what Axelrod would always say. Sometimes, you know,
54:28
Speaker 3: we do these, these, you know, big rallies and huge
54:31
Speaker 3: iconic videos and ads and Ax would say, we have
54:33
Speaker 3: to get low to the ground because People vote for
54:35
Speaker 3: the person, not the persona. And when Stacey Abrams ran
54:39
Speaker 3: in 2018, she was the former legislative leader who ran
54:42
Speaker 3: this grassroots, no frills campaign. And since then has become
54:50
Speaker 3: an icon in Democratic. So she was a resistant celebrity.
54:53
Speaker 3: She is supported by Oprah and she was rightly credited
54:58
Speaker 3: along with a lot of other really important organizers. to
55:02
Speaker 3: help win Georgia and make Joe Biden president and do
55:04
Speaker 3: all of these things. I mean, she has written a
55:06
Speaker 3: number one bestselling crime novel in the period. And so
55:09
Speaker 3: how do you get back to your roots? How do
55:10
Speaker 3: you swerve against that celebrity, which anyone who has talked
55:14
Speaker 3: to Stacey Abrams knows she's not super comfortable with? That's
55:17
Speaker 3: not who she is. And like this video went very
55:21
Speaker 3: far out of the way to be Stacey Abrams, the person,
55:23
Speaker 3: Stacey Abrams, the organizer, Stacey Abrams, the state legislator, and
55:26
Speaker 3: not Stacey Abrams, the liberal icon or democratic.
55:29
Speaker 5: Icon, I guess.
55:31
Speaker 2: I thought it was a masterclass in what Democratic messaging
55:35
Speaker 2: should be, that video. I think, you know, in one scene,
55:39
Speaker 2: she's saying a prayer. In another, she's talking about rural Georgia.
55:44
Speaker 2: She's talking about one Georgia and unifying people. And these
55:48
Speaker 2: are messages that you would not necessarily associate with liberals
55:53
Speaker 2: on Twitter or resistance heroes. But it's not just that
55:58
Speaker 2: she has sort of I don't think she's reframed a
56:01
Speaker 2: message just for this race. When you talk to Stace Abrams,
56:04
Speaker 2: this is her style of politics and has been forever.
56:07
Speaker 2: And it's one of the reasons that I've always really
56:11
Speaker 2: admired progressive politicians who've come up in red states because
56:16
Speaker 2: they understand that to win in those states or even
56:19
Speaker 2: to come close to winning in those states, you do
56:22
Speaker 2: have to spend most of your time talking about how
56:24
Speaker 2: you're going to materially improve people's lives. That's what they
56:28
Speaker 2: care about. They don't actually care about all the fucking
56:30
Speaker 2: things that we fight about on Twitter or talk about
56:33
Speaker 2: in the national discourse all the time. They care about
56:37
Speaker 2: how are you going to improve my life? And she
56:41
Speaker 2: has always been squarely focused on that. And not just
56:44
Speaker 2: in her voter registration efforts that she's been leading for
56:46
Speaker 2: the last several years, but the other thing she's done is,
56:48
Speaker 2: you know, she's been out in Georgia trying to get
56:51
Speaker 2: people vaccinated and trying to fight against vaccine hesitancy by
56:54
Speaker 2: going like door to door and making sure that people
56:57
Speaker 2: who are hesitant to take the vaccine are getting vaccinated,
57:00
Speaker 2: not yelling about it, not screaming about it, just like
57:02
Speaker 2: trying to improve that situation, improve people's lives. And I
57:05
Speaker 2: think if she can sort of detach herself from the
57:09
Speaker 2: national debate as much as possible and really focus on
57:13
Speaker 2: Georgia and Georgians and how she's going to improve their lives,
57:16
Speaker 2: she'll she'll do quite well in what is going to be,
57:19
Speaker 2: as we know, an incredibly difficult environment. Do I wish
57:23
Speaker 2: she was running in 2018 again? Yeah, of course. Like there,
57:27
Speaker 2: she's facing a lot of headwinds in 2022, just like
57:30
Speaker 2: most Democrats are. So I think it's going to be
57:32
Speaker 2: harder than when she ran in 2018, even though she's
57:35
Speaker 2: more experienced, but, um, I'm glad that she's doing it.
57:38
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
57:40
Speaker 6: All right.
57:41
Speaker 2: Well, that is all the time we have for today.
57:43
Speaker 2: Thank you to professor Leah Lipman for joining us. And, uh,
57:46
Speaker 2: Everyone have a great weekend and we'll talk to you
57:48
Speaker 2: next week.
57:49
Speaker 3: Bye everyone.
57:54
Speaker 2: Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive
57:57
Speaker 2: producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner Bernstein.
58:01
Speaker 2: Our producer is Haley Muse and Olivia Martinez is our
58:04
Speaker 2: associate producer. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle
58:08
Speaker 2: Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Somanator, Sandy Gerard,
58:11
Speaker 2: Hallie Kiefer, Madison Holman, and Justine Howe for production support.
58:15
Speaker 2: And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim,
58:18
Speaker 2: and Amelia Montooth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com
58:23
Speaker 2: slash crooked media.