Latest / Pod Save America / Is Biden Quiet Quitting?

Transcript

Is Biden Quiet Quitting? · Pod Save America

0:00
Speaker 1: Thank you.
0:20
Speaker 2: Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.
0:22
Speaker 1: I'm Jon Lovett.
0:22
Speaker 3: I'm Tommy Vitor.
0:23
Speaker 2: On today's show, Joe Biden yields the spotlight to Donald
0:25
Speaker 2: Trump in the final weeks of his presidency. We'll dig
0:28
Speaker 2: into the strange dynamic and talk about what Biden has
0:31
Speaker 2: and hasn't been doing. We'll also talk about the great
0:33
Speaker 2: drone mystery that's taken the nation by storm and Trump's
0:37
Speaker 2: promise to make daylight saving time permanent, which might not
0:40
Speaker 2: be such a crazy idea, according to noted circadian rhythm expert,
0:44
Speaker 2: Jon Lovett.
0:44
Speaker 1: That's right.
0:46
Speaker 2: Then Congressman Ro Khanna stops by to talk about collaborating
0:48
Speaker 2: with Elon Musk and Trump and how Democrats in the
0:51
Speaker 2: upcoming Congress should strike the balance between resisting and getting
0:54
Speaker 2: things done. But first, Donald Trump unexpectedly took questions from
0:59
Speaker 2: reporters Monday morning at Mar-a-Lago. As he usually does at
1:02
Speaker 2: these things, he talked about all kinds of shit without
1:04
Speaker 2: making too much news. But one thing that got a
1:06
Speaker 2: lot of attention, including ours, was his response to a
1:09
Speaker 2: question about lawsuits against media figures. We found out over
1:13
Speaker 2: the weekend that ABC News will contribute $ 15 million to
1:16
Speaker 2: Trump's post-presidency foundation. and pay another million in legal fees
1:20
Speaker 2: to settle a defamation lawsuit the president-elect brought against them.
1:24
Speaker 2: The lawsuit came after George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said on air
1:27
Speaker 2: that Trump had, quote, been found liable for rape in
1:30
Speaker 2: the E. Jean Carroll case, as opposed to mere sexual
1:34
Speaker 2: abuse and defamation. A reporter at the Monday Presser asked
1:37
Speaker 2: Trump whether he's considering expanding his legal strategy to include
1:41
Speaker 2: other media outlets that he believes defamed him. Let's listen.
1:45
Speaker 4: I think you have to do it. because they're very dishonest.
1:48
Speaker 4: I'm going to be bringing one against the people in Iowa,
1:52
Speaker 4: their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster who
1:56
Speaker 4: got me right all the time. And then just before
1:59
Speaker 4: the election, she said I was going to lose by
2:01
Speaker 4: three or four points, and it became the biggest story
2:04
Speaker 4: all over the world. That was the Des Moines Register,
2:08
Speaker 4: and it was their parent. And in my opinion, it
2:12
Speaker 4: was fraud, and it was election interference. And we'll probably
2:16
Speaker 4: be filing a major lawsuit against him today or tomorrow.
2:19
Speaker 4: We're filing one on 60 Minutes. You know about that.
2:22
Speaker 4: We're involved in one which has been going on for
2:24
Speaker 4: a while and very successfully against Bob Woodward, where he
2:30
Speaker 4: didn't quote me properly from the tapes.
2:35
Speaker 2: I just want to note that there's nothing defamatory about
2:38
Speaker 2: 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, where Donald Trump was
2:42
Speaker 2: not part of his problem in the interview.
2:45
Speaker 1: John, there's nothing defamatory in any of the things that
2:48
Speaker 1: he describes.
2:49
Speaker 2: Let's start with ABC then. What was your reaction to
2:53
Speaker 2: the news that they settled? And why do you guys
2:55
Speaker 2: think they did?
2:56
Speaker 1: I was surprised by how mad and disappointed I was
3:01
Speaker 1: when I saw it. I couldn't believe it. I thought
3:03
Speaker 1: I must be missing something to see them settle. This
3:05
Speaker 1: is Disney we're talking about. Now, you might remember Disney
3:08
Speaker 1: famously tried to avoid facing consequences when someone died of
3:13
Speaker 1: an allergy at Disney World by claiming that in the
3:17
Speaker 1: Disney Plus terms of service, they'd been indemnified.
3:20
Speaker 2: I do not remember that.
3:22
Speaker 1: Disney has lawyers. They are famous. They are famously brutal lawyers.
3:28
Speaker 1: And so to see them capitulate in this way, and
3:31
Speaker 1: by the way, if I got any of that wrong, Disney,
3:34
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
3:34
Speaker 2: Do not revoke his fast pass.
3:38
Speaker 1: Yeah, and don't come after me. Don't come after me.
3:41
Speaker 1: But Disney knows how to fight a frivolous or false
3:46
Speaker 1: lawsuit if it wants to, and it is choosing not
3:49
Speaker 1: to in this case, and that is very disappointing.
3:51
Speaker 3: And especially in a defamation suit against a public figure,
3:53
Speaker 3: not just a public figure, maybe the Highest public figure
3:57
Speaker 3: when it comes to sort of like the political milieu. No,
3:59
Speaker 3: obviously the highest. The president of the United States, the
4:01
Speaker 3: incoming president. You were supposed to have a lot more
4:04
Speaker 3: wiggle room when you're talking about that person. You have
4:05
Speaker 3: to prove there was actual malice in what you said.
4:09
Speaker 3: And George made a mistake. He said that Trump had
4:13
Speaker 3: been found liable for rape when it was actually sexual abuse.
4:17
Speaker 3: Do you offer context?
4:18
Speaker 1: Well, that is that is like. Even that, I think,
4:22
Speaker 1: is being so generous towards Trump interpretation of what Stephanopoulos said. Because, yes,
4:29
Speaker 1: it is true technically that it was for sexual abuse
4:32
Speaker 1: and not rape. Even the judge in the case made
4:34
Speaker 1: a point of saying this is a narrow legal definition.
4:37
Speaker 1: And by the common use of the word rape, it
4:40
Speaker 1: could apply in this case. And so there's an argument
4:43
Speaker 1: to be made. that this isn't what what Stephanopoulos said
4:46
Speaker 1: wasn't even incorrect. His interpretation of the conclusion of the
4:50
Speaker 1: court is that it was liable for this, even if
4:52
Speaker 1: the technical legal wording might be different. So like it
4:54
Speaker 1: is all eminently defensible.
4:57
Speaker 4: Yeah.
4:57
Speaker 3: And also with a public figure, this should not be
5:00
Speaker 3: a hard case. It signals it's very chilling. It signals
5:04
Speaker 3: that there's some momentum behind all these cases. It signals
5:07
Speaker 3: that there is this, I don't know, the There's this evidence,
5:11
Speaker 3: like we're seeing all these pieces of evidence that CEOs
5:13
Speaker 3: and corporations are preemptively bowing down to Trump. It's Mark
5:16
Speaker 3: Zuckerberg cutting a million dollar check to the inauguration of
5:19
Speaker 3: Tim Cook having dinner with Donald Trump.
5:22
Speaker 2: Ted Sarandos is on his way there now, too, to
5:25
Speaker 2: Mar-a-Lago to meet with him.
5:26
Speaker 1: Yeah.
5:26
Speaker 3: And look, I think, you know. I think this is
5:29
Speaker 3: probably going to have a lot of news outlets worried.
5:31
Speaker 3: And this would be unthinkable outside of this context, that
5:35
Speaker 3: a news outlet would settle for $ 15 million, given the
5:38
Speaker 3: context we just talked about, how what Stephanopoulos said was
5:41
Speaker 3: completely defensible and how Trump is a public figure.
5:43
Speaker 2: It's very worse. So I dug into this just to
5:46
Speaker 2: see if I was missing something about the case. So
5:50
Speaker 2: what happened is Trump said that the damages were too
5:53
Speaker 2: much money And he shouldn't know that much because he
5:57
Speaker 2: didn't rape her. That was his contention when he filed
6:01
Speaker 2: a second suit. Judge Kaplan said, the finding that Ms.
6:05
Speaker 2: Carroll failed to prove that she was raped within the
6:07
Speaker 2: meaning of the New York penal law does not mean
6:09
Speaker 2: that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump raped her,
6:12
Speaker 2: as many people commonly understand the word rape. Indeed, as
6:16
Speaker 2: the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury
6:20
Speaker 2: found that Mr. Trump in fact did Exactly that. That
6:25
Speaker 2: then led to a Washington Post headline that said, Judge clarifies, yes,
6:32
Speaker 2: Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll. Then
6:35
Speaker 2: Stephanopoulos does the interview with Nancy Mace where he said, oh,
6:39
Speaker 2: he was found to have raped her. And Mace says no.
6:43
Speaker 2: And they go back and forth. And George says, oh,
6:46
Speaker 2: let's put up the Washington Post headline on the screen.
6:49
Speaker 2: So with all that in mind, The standard of actual
6:52
Speaker 2: malice is you need to, one, make a demonstrably false
6:56
Speaker 2: statement of fact. Two, know that the statement was false
6:59
Speaker 2: or either know that it's false or had reckless disregard
7:02
Speaker 2: for its falsity. And three, damage his reputation. I got
7:06
Speaker 2: to tell you, two and three.
7:09
Speaker 1: That's the thing is it's like, A, it can be
7:11
Speaker 1: interpreted as being accurate. B, he wasn't intending and purposely
7:15
Speaker 1: misleading anybody.
7:16
Speaker 2: Relying on the judge's words and the Washington Post.
7:19
Speaker 1: And C, it's not even clear that there were any
7:20
Speaker 1: damages to Donald Trump, right? Like all of this, the
7:22
Speaker 1: lawyers at Disney are well aware, right?
7:25
Speaker 3: The question is why? And was it because they did
7:27
Speaker 3: their own kind of internal digging and they found something
7:29
Speaker 3: in the discovery process in an email or in a
7:31
Speaker 3: document or somewhere that they thought, okay, we do not
7:34
Speaker 3: want this to go to a deposition and have George
7:36
Speaker 3: sit down and have this come out in a court filing?
7:38
Speaker 3: Is it because ABC or Disney is thinking, let's just
7:42
Speaker 3: patch this up? And fix our relationship with Trump now
7:45
Speaker 3: and not get iced out for the next few years.
7:47
Speaker 3: We don't know.
7:48
Speaker 5: Yeah.
7:48
Speaker 2: Like one possibility is if there was something in all
7:51
Speaker 2: the documents where someone at ABC News, one of Georgia's
7:54
Speaker 2: producers was like, hey, by the way, you're not supposed
7:56
Speaker 2: to say rape. You know, I don't know if that's
7:59
Speaker 2: true at all, but I'm just saying like that's one
8:00
Speaker 2: possibility where because Trump was set to be deposed. Stephanopoulos
8:04
Speaker 2: was set to be deposed. They settled before. Also, head
8:07
Speaker 2: of ABC News was at Mar-a-Lago also a week before
8:11
Speaker 2: meeting with Susie Wiles. They said. It didn't have anything
8:13
Speaker 2: to do with the settlement, but.
8:15
Speaker 1: It's also like, and all of that, like, it's also there.
8:18
Speaker 1: It's a charitable donation. They're going to write some of
8:20
Speaker 1: it off. It would have cost them millions of dollars
8:23
Speaker 1: to defend the suit, right? Like the Delta between the
8:25
Speaker 1: big 16, really, because you're gonna pay a million dollars
8:28
Speaker 1: for the legal fees, right? The Delta between the 16
8:30
Speaker 1: million they're going to spend versus the millions they'd spend
8:33
Speaker 1: if it went to court, plus the cost of their
8:34
Speaker 1: reputation of fighting this in public, the damage, right? Like
8:37
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're thinking about all of that, but there
8:39
Speaker 1: was a time. When news organizations understood that they had
8:42
Speaker 1: an obligation to the public and, by the way, to
8:45
Speaker 1: their own journalists, that they know that even if they
8:48
Speaker 1: make a good faith mistake, which can happen, that they
8:51
Speaker 1: will have lawyers behind them defending them because people make mistakes.
8:54
Speaker 1: People say the wrong thing. People are allowed to get
8:56
Speaker 1: things wrong without the threat of a lawsuit. We have
8:59
Speaker 1: really good. That's a great thing about the First Amendment
9:01
Speaker 1: and the way we do defamation in this country.
9:03
Speaker 2: You have to prove malice.
9:04
Speaker 5: Yeah.
9:05
Speaker 2: And look, I think you could make an argument that
9:06
Speaker 2: it was the best business decision for Disney because it's
9:10
Speaker 2: chump change to them. But what happens when you are
9:13
Speaker 2: a journalist or media outlet that doesn't have ABC's resources,
9:16
Speaker 2: doesn't have the backing of Disney, right? Also, you know,
9:19
Speaker 2: the New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump,
9:22
Speaker 2: Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel have threatened other journalists and pundits
9:25
Speaker 2: with defamation lawsuits, including the New Yorker for their Pete
9:28
Speaker 2: Hegseth story that ended up going to print anyway. And,
9:32
Speaker 2: you know, for Patel, it was Olivia Troy, former Trump
9:35
Speaker 2: administration official, was on TV, said something about him that
9:38
Speaker 2: he was lying or something like that. And then, you know,
9:40
Speaker 2: and now you got Trump out there saying, I'm going
9:41
Speaker 2: to just going to sue Ann Seltzer for giving me
9:45
Speaker 2: a bad poll, which I mean, I don't think that's
9:47
Speaker 2: going to fly.
9:48
Speaker 3: Want to go for the Pulitzer Organization?
9:50
Speaker 5: Oh, yeah.
9:50
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
9:50
Speaker 2: That's right. The Pulitzer Organization for giving the Post and
9:54
Speaker 2: the Times Pulitzers for the Russia reporting, Russia investigation.
9:58
Speaker 1: On everybody. And like, look, do all of these come
10:01
Speaker 1: to did they actually pursue any of them? Does Trump's
10:03
Speaker 1: lawyers talk him out of some of these and not others, whatever?
10:05
Speaker 1: But like the effect of that, like the chilling effect
10:08
Speaker 1: of this is real. Like they're raising the cost of
10:10
Speaker 1: investigating these people. They're raising the cost of doing journalism.
10:13
Speaker 1: And there are going to be places that just decide
10:15
Speaker 1: it's not worth it. They're going to be people that
10:17
Speaker 1: decide it's not worth it. Somebody Like Olivia Troy, there's
10:19
Speaker 1: a lot of people that could speak out about what
10:22
Speaker 1: they saw inside the Trump administration that have it. They're
10:24
Speaker 1: making it more costly. They're making it more dangerous.
10:26
Speaker 2: Even when I was taking notes on this and thinking
10:29
Speaker 2: of rereading what Judge Kaplan said, I was like, can
10:32
Speaker 2: I do this? The chilling effect is real because you
10:36
Speaker 2: start thinking, oh shit, I don't want to get... Even
10:38
Speaker 2: if you can win the defamation lawsuit, you don't want
10:40
Speaker 2: to spend however much money on lawyers to go to
10:43
Speaker 2: court and.
10:44
Speaker 1: I mean, look, take just a pure fact. Donald Trump
10:47
Speaker 1: killed JonBenet Ramsey. That is not something you're going to
10:50
Speaker 1: be free to say in the public sphere anymore because
10:53
Speaker 1: you say it and all of a sudden people are
10:55
Speaker 1: going to.
10:56
Speaker 3: Expensive bit.
10:56
Speaker 5: Right?
10:57
Speaker 2: Like people are going to like- I don't know him.
10:58
Speaker 5: Parody.
10:59
Speaker 2: He's just a guest on the show.
11:01
Speaker 3: Get his emails just only.
11:04
Speaker 2: Anyway, it is chilling. It is very chilling. I wouldn't
11:07
Speaker 2: worry so much if I was Ann Tulzer because I
11:09
Speaker 2: think that's fine. Shouldn't we be suing Ann Tulzer for
11:12
Speaker 2: giving us false hope?
11:13
Speaker 3: I would like to sue the New York Times needle.
11:15
Speaker 3: I would like to sue Steve Kornacki's khakis. I'd love
11:19
Speaker 3: one of the Nates.
11:19
Speaker 1: Who's the guy with the keys? The jangling keys?
11:24
Speaker 2: You better get the 14th key and get the fuck
11:26
Speaker 2: out of here.
11:27
Speaker 3: I want to sue the American people.
11:29
Speaker 1: Unlock the door to that plane.
11:31
Speaker 3: For the outcome.
11:32
Speaker 2: Oh, that's a good idea.
11:33
Speaker 1: For sure. I have some members of my tribe, the
11:37
Speaker 1: Gata tribe, I'd like to sue.
11:39
Speaker 2: It's coming for you, Andy. Anyway, it's bad. It's bad, guys.
11:46
Speaker 2: So the purpose of Trump's appearance at Mar-a-Lago Monday morning
11:49
Speaker 2: was to announce a $ 100 billion investment from SoftBank, the
11:53
Speaker 2: hugely influential Japanese bank in American AI projects. What an
11:57
Speaker 2: American story. It was more or less a standard presidential
12:01
Speaker 2: policy announcement. The main difference being Trump isn't president yet.
12:05
Speaker 2: A fact that's getting easier and easier to forget as
12:08
Speaker 2: Joe Biden seems to be disappearing from the public stage
12:10
Speaker 2: as his term comes to an end. Over the weekend,
12:12
Speaker 2: Trump took his new bro squad to watch the Army-Navy
12:15
Speaker 2: game at the Commander Stadium just outside D.C., an event
12:18
Speaker 2: that the president sometimes attends and Biden has attended himself
12:21
Speaker 2: in the past. No sign of him this year, though
12:24
Speaker 2: he did apparently appear at the DNC holiday party. The
12:26
Speaker 2: White House put out a memo on Sunday hinting that
12:28
Speaker 2: in the coming weeks, Biden will be announcing more pardons
12:30
Speaker 2: or commutations, doing more to protect federal land and trying
12:34
Speaker 2: to forgive more student debt, rein in AI and award
12:37
Speaker 2: more CHIPS Act and IRA money.
12:40
Speaker 1: It's funny to be like, Liz Cheney is like, no, no, no. Yeah.
12:42
Speaker 1: Protect the land. Got to keep those trees safe.
12:48
Speaker 2: No details on what we can expect or when. What
12:51
Speaker 2: do you guys think is going on here? Has Joe
12:53
Speaker 2: Biden stepped out of the spotlight or has the spotlight
12:55
Speaker 2: just moved away from Joe Biden? And what do you
12:58
Speaker 2: think it says that they had to put out that
12:59
Speaker 2: memo at all?
13:00
Speaker 3: Let's separate. So the, the soft bank thing is funny.
13:03
Speaker 3: The wall street journal pointed out that soft bank only
13:04
Speaker 3: has $ 30 billion on hand. So it's not clear how
13:07
Speaker 3: they're going to invest a hundred billion. I guess they're
13:10
Speaker 3: going to go to the Saudis hat hand again and
13:11
Speaker 3: try to raise another round. That's not going to be
13:13
Speaker 3: easy because, uh, the, the soft bank vision fund to included.
13:17
Speaker 3: We work in a bunch of other companies that basically
13:19
Speaker 3: went bust.
13:20
Speaker 1: Uh, yeah, the, the, I watched the SoftBank CEO speak,
13:25
Speaker 1: and it is this sort of funhouse mirror version of
13:29
Speaker 1: a presidential announcement because, yes, as you noted, he's not president.
13:32
Speaker 1: But in the past, when there's been a major announcement
13:35
Speaker 1: and it did involve a private sector figure speaking, they
13:39
Speaker 1: would speak about how great America is. and how important
13:42
Speaker 1: it is to be investing in the future of this
13:45
Speaker 1: great country. But instead, this guy gets up there and
13:47
Speaker 1: be like, God, this guy, Donald Trump, what a deal
13:49
Speaker 1: maker he is. It's all about Trump. It's all about him.
13:52
Speaker 2: And so it is like- Sounds like it was pretty
13:54
Speaker 2: smart of that guy.
13:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it's another example, just more blending. Yeah, it's
13:58
Speaker 1: more blending of like the private and the public and
14:00
Speaker 1: making it less about the country and more about Donald
14:02
Speaker 1: Trump personally. That said, like, you know, Joe Biden believes
14:05
Speaker 1: in tradition and institutions and we should only have one
14:08
Speaker 1: president at a time. And I think it's a surprising
14:09
Speaker 1: choice to allow it to be Donald Trump. But if
14:12
Speaker 1: that's what his plan is, I think it's about his
14:14
Speaker 1: long-term respect for our basic mores. I was shocked.
14:18
Speaker 3: Biden has never been in an Army-Navy game as president.
14:20
Speaker 3: That really surprised me because it's very fun.
14:23
Speaker 2: I went to one.
14:24
Speaker 3: It was a blast.
14:24
Speaker 2: We went to one, and Joe Biden was there.
14:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, Joe Biden was there. It also was just down
14:28
Speaker 3: the road in Maryland.
14:29
Speaker 2: As a vice president.
14:30
Speaker 1: Obama, yeah.
14:30
Speaker 3: He won his VP with Obama in 2011, but not
14:33
Speaker 3: as president. I mean, I think Trump generally... He's very
14:38
Speaker 3: good at using social events to like show off this
14:40
Speaker 3: kind of pageantry and trappings of the presidency. He does
14:43
Speaker 3: it better than I think any president in our lifetime,
14:45
Speaker 3: better than Obama, better than Biden. Sports are sometimes part
14:49
Speaker 3: of it. There was the ultimate fighting thing he did
14:51
Speaker 3: recently with like Elon and the goon squad of like
14:53
Speaker 3: Speaker Johnson and those guys. He went to college football games.
14:57
Speaker 3: But like Army, Navy, it's like football wrapped in the military.
15:00
Speaker 3: And it just it's like an obvious winner for him.
15:03
Speaker 3: Which is why it's so odd that Biden wouldn't go
15:05
Speaker 3: for his last one when it's just down the road.
15:08
Speaker 3: But I get like you said, they did in a
15:09
Speaker 3: smart way. They brought Pete Hegseth, which kind of showed
15:11
Speaker 3: the world that he's still behind that nomination. He brought
15:14
Speaker 3: together congressional leaders like they had Speaker Johnson and John
15:17
Speaker 3: Thune in the same box with Trump, I think. plotting
15:20
Speaker 3: out strategy like everyone's having a good time i mean
15:22
Speaker 3: well they.
15:23
Speaker 2: All know i feel like none of them want to
15:25
Speaker 2: be too far from trump like mike johnson goes because
15:28
Speaker 2: he's everywhere they're about to do the vote for speaker
15:30
Speaker 2: and yeah he feels like he's got it but he
15:32
Speaker 2: doesn't want he wants to make sure you know and
15:34
Speaker 2: elon he can't shake elon no matter where he goes
15:36
Speaker 2: now um i do think it was.
15:38
Speaker 1: I think it's probably probably not ultimately helpful when pete
15:40
Speaker 1: hexeth uh streaked towards the end of the game It
15:45
Speaker 1: got a little too loose, I think.
15:46
Speaker 2: It was cold out there. He's only got a couple
15:48
Speaker 2: more weeks to drink. Yeah, that's right.
15:50
Speaker 1: That's right.
15:51
Speaker 3: That's right.
15:52
Speaker 2: So, you know what? Get it while you can. I
15:54
Speaker 2: don't want it to seem like we are harping on
15:56
Speaker 2: the Army-Navy game attendance of Joe Biden or non-attendance of
15:59
Speaker 2: Joe Biden is like the issue here. Politico did a
16:01
Speaker 2: story about this last week. They said it crossed nearly
16:04
Speaker 2: two weeks abroad since the election when he went abroad
16:06
Speaker 2: to Angola and other places. Biden spoke just seven words
16:09
Speaker 2: to the media traveling with him the entire foreign trip.
16:13
Speaker 3: Go fuck yourself.
16:16
Speaker 2: He has yet to schedule a post-election press conference as
16:18
Speaker 2: both President Obama and President George W. Bush did when
16:22
Speaker 2: they were on their way out of office. He went
16:23
Speaker 2: to the Rose Garden to publicly praise a ceasefire between
16:26
Speaker 2: Israel and Hezbollah. And he spoke to the press about
16:29
Speaker 2: Assad fleeing Syria. But otherwise, that's it.
16:32
Speaker 3: Well, it's also really funny. Remember 2016 when people were
16:35
Speaker 3: all worked up about the Logan Act and unauthorized diplomacy
16:38
Speaker 3: by American citizens? And now you got Trump went to Paris.
16:43
Speaker 3: He went to Notre Dame. He met with Zelensky. He's
16:46
Speaker 3: taken calls from foreign leaders. Justin Trudeau flew down to
16:48
Speaker 3: Mar-a-Lago for dinner. His emissaries are over in Israel right now,
16:53
Speaker 3: meeting with Netanyahu, talking about Gaza.
16:55
Speaker 1: You have people like Elon Musk, these are unelected, just
17:00
Speaker 1: billionaire donors having meetings with foreign heads of state on
17:03
Speaker 1: Trump's behalf. I'm meeting with Iran.
17:04
Speaker 2: What are you talking about? Remember during the Obama transition,
17:07
Speaker 2: how many times Barack Obama said the words while he
17:09
Speaker 2: was announcing- cabinet appointees and staff, which was the only
17:13
Speaker 2: time he really went out. One president at a time,
17:15
Speaker 2: one president at a time. That was like the whole,
17:17
Speaker 2: that was the whole theme. And he's not the first
17:19
Speaker 2: to do that. That's what they usually do. There was
17:21
Speaker 2: a couple of White House officials that went on background
17:23
Speaker 2: to Politico for the story. And some Biden aides acknowledged
17:28
Speaker 2: the president's absent from the broader discussions about how to
17:30
Speaker 2: address Trump's coming presidency and the future of the party.
17:33
Speaker 2: They say that, they say it's rooted in two factors. One,
17:36
Speaker 2: Biden's own recognition that few are eager to hear from him.
17:40
Speaker 2: and his own lingering personal belief that he doesn't owe
17:42
Speaker 2: much more to a party that unceremoniously pushed him aside.
17:46
Speaker 2: And then another White House official, former White House official,
17:48
Speaker 2: said he's been so cavalier and selfish about how he
17:50
Speaker 2: approaches the final weeks of the job, which is a
17:53
Speaker 2: lot for a former White House official. I mean, I
17:56
Speaker 2: get the recognition that maybe people aren't willing to hear
17:59
Speaker 2: from him. It's understandable that he might think that, right?
18:02
Speaker 2: The party thing, I hope, is not true. Because, I
18:05
Speaker 2: don't know, what do you guys think he could be doing?
18:06
Speaker 1: Quiet quitting? Yeah. You know, I think that's what we're getting.
18:09
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. That seems to be what he is doing.
18:12
Speaker 1: Oh, instead.
18:12
Speaker 4: Yes.
18:13
Speaker 2: Got it. You know, but instead of just complaining that
18:15
Speaker 2: he's not out there, I'm wondering what we think.
18:17
Speaker 1: Right. I'm trying to like separate my like frustration with
18:21
Speaker 1: basically Joe Biden in his final year and culminating that
18:24
Speaker 1: debate and hanging on that, like how much we paid
18:27
Speaker 1: for having somebody who just wasn't an articulate and comprehensible messenger,
18:31
Speaker 1: not just on behalf of his own presidency, but on
18:33
Speaker 1: behalf of like progressivism, democracy. Right. And like, I am
18:36
Speaker 1: very angry about that. And I'm a little bit mad
18:38
Speaker 1: at myself for not being more honest about how I
18:40
Speaker 1: felt or not seeing it as plainly, because I think
18:43
Speaker 1: we're obviously paying dearly for it. I guess what I'm
18:46
Speaker 1: more concerned about is less like, am I seeing Joe
18:48
Speaker 1: Biden enough? Maybe he's right that people don't want to
18:50
Speaker 1: hear from him. It's more like, do I feel confident
18:53
Speaker 1: right now that Joe Biden behind the scenes is thinking
18:55
Speaker 1: of every single way he can try to future-proof the
18:58
Speaker 1: White House, that he's thinking through all the different levers
19:01
Speaker 1: of powers, the kind of creative ways in which he
19:04
Speaker 1: can do everything to protect everyone from like from undocumented
19:07
Speaker 1: DACA recipients to trans people to the benefits of the
19:12
Speaker 1: inflation reduction. I think there are very smart people thinking
19:14
Speaker 1: about that, and I hope they succeed. And it sounds
19:16
Speaker 1: like from that memo the White House put out that
19:18
Speaker 1: they are thinking about the best ways to do that.
19:19
Speaker 1: But do I think Joe Biden himself is like, at
19:22
Speaker 1: command being thinking about this? Like right now, like I don't,
19:25
Speaker 1: I just honestly don't.
19:26
Speaker 2: Maybe he is. I, I, you can't tell.
19:28
Speaker 1: We can't tell.
19:29
Speaker 5: Yeah.
19:29
Speaker 1: Yeah.
19:29
Speaker 3: I think on the staff level, like they're just shoving
19:32
Speaker 3: money out the door from the chips act and the
19:33
Speaker 3: IRA and trying to get as much of that spent
19:35
Speaker 3: as they can. So Trump can't peel it back. They're
19:37
Speaker 3: also doing that with Ukraine and they just, they just
19:39
Speaker 3: pushed out a huge loan to the Ukrainians. That's basically
19:42
Speaker 3: paid for by seized Russian assets, like the interest on
19:44
Speaker 3: those assets. So that's significant. They're pushing through a lot
19:47
Speaker 3: of judges. I think he's about to beat Trump's record
19:50
Speaker 3: from the first term, the most judges confirmed. So those
19:52
Speaker 3: are things he is doing, things he could be doing. Like,
19:55
Speaker 3: I'd love to see him say, cut off all military
19:58
Speaker 3: support for the war in Gaza. Like, why not? Trump
20:01
Speaker 3: might turn it back on, but like, let's stop the
20:04
Speaker 3: carnage for a couple of months and say, fuck you
20:06
Speaker 3: to Bibi Nanyahu. Similarly in Syria, there's a huge opportunity
20:09
Speaker 3: right now to shape whatever comes next. We could decide
20:13
Speaker 3: to take off some sanctions, things that are politically risky
20:17
Speaker 3: because the people in charge now have roots in terrorist organizations.
20:21
Speaker 3: But Joe Biden doesn't have to worry about politics going forward.
20:25
Speaker 3: Maybe they could move to close Gitmo. I don't know
20:28
Speaker 3: if this is feasible given the laws that were passed
20:31
Speaker 3: by Congress, but there's 30 people left at Gitmo. It
20:33
Speaker 3: costs half a billion a year. keep it open. 16
20:36
Speaker 3: of them have been cleared for transfer because they have
20:38
Speaker 3: not been charged and they pose no risk. Get those
20:41
Speaker 3: guys out of there. You need to figure out a
20:42
Speaker 3: country to send them to. You get that process going,
20:44
Speaker 3: but like there's some things you could do that would
20:46
Speaker 3: be really pretty historic.
20:48
Speaker 2: I said this on Friday, but I also hope that he,
20:51
Speaker 2: there's 30 or 40 inmates, federal inmates on death row.
20:55
Speaker 2: He could reduce their sentences. He could save them from
20:58
Speaker 2: the death penalty and just reduce it to life in
21:00
Speaker 2: prison without parole for those federal inmates. And just more broadly,
21:04
Speaker 2: like he could be giving a series of speeches or
21:07
Speaker 2: press conferences where he talks about the importance of defending
21:10
Speaker 2: democratic institutions, which was very, I know that's not a
21:14
Speaker 2: political winner, but it was important to him for his presidency.
21:16
Speaker 2: It seems to be the, seems, you know, and also
21:18
Speaker 2: he more specifically, he could talk about like you were saying,
21:21
Speaker 2: love it actions that he's taking to do that. Now,
21:24
Speaker 2: maybe he still may do that, right? Like, and if
21:26
Speaker 2: he does wonderful, we'll be the first to praise him,
21:28
Speaker 2: but it's just, it's, it's odd that, you know, he, he,
21:32
Speaker 2: talked about Donald Trump being an existential threat to democracy
21:35
Speaker 2: for so long. And I wasn't necessarily critical when he
21:39
Speaker 2: met with Donald Trump and smiled for the cameras because
21:41
Speaker 2: he's clearly, he wants to prove and show that he
21:46
Speaker 2: believes in democracy and the peaceful transfer of power. I
21:49
Speaker 2: totally agree with that. But he could still sort of
21:50
Speaker 2: speak to the angst a lot of people in the
21:53
Speaker 2: country are feeling. It seems to be a good role
21:56
Speaker 2: for a president.
21:57
Speaker 1: There's a debate about what the president can do on
22:00
Speaker 1: behalf of, say, DACA recipients. And there are some legal
22:04
Speaker 1: scholars that assert the president can use the pardon power,
22:07
Speaker 1: even though immigration violations are civil, to pardon DACA recipients
22:13
Speaker 1: or undocumented immigrants more broadly. There are some people that
22:16
Speaker 1: say that that would create problems. There's a debate about whether,
22:19
Speaker 1: because it's never been used in that way, but whatever.
22:21
Speaker 1: There's lots of ways in which presidential, like someone, then
22:25
Speaker 1: you use it, you assert it, right? And like, is
22:27
Speaker 1: there a debate right now about whether President Biden can
22:30
Speaker 1: pardon DACA recipients. Is he asking about that? And others
22:34
Speaker 1: are saying no. Are people coming to him with that?
22:36
Speaker 1: And he's not sure.
22:37
Speaker 5: Right.
22:37
Speaker 1: Like, is that debate unfolding? I have no idea.
22:39
Speaker 2: That seems like that would be a good question for
22:41
Speaker 2: someone to ask in a press conference.
22:42
Speaker 5: Right.
22:42
Speaker 1: Right. But this is, I think, like right now, like
22:44
Speaker 1: I don't know what we're meant to think is happening.
22:47
Speaker 5: Right.
22:47
Speaker 1: And we get a memo that basically lays out the
22:49
Speaker 1: fact that Joe Biden is going to try to use
22:51
Speaker 1: his time most effectively to over the next couple of weeks.
22:54
Speaker 1: But the memo exists in part because Joe Biden either
22:58
Speaker 1: is unwilling or unable to go to the microphone and
23:00
Speaker 1: explain himself.
23:02
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, there's just so much space on foreign policy,
23:04
Speaker 3: like so much foreign policy is bound up with stupid politics,
23:08
Speaker 3: especially in Florida. Like Obama tried to take a bunch
23:11
Speaker 3: of steps to normalize relations with Cuba. Trump wound them
23:13
Speaker 3: all back. Biden kind of went halfway to the Obama position.
23:18
Speaker 3: Why not just get rid of the stupid sanctions on
23:21
Speaker 3: Cuba or normalize relations in some way or allow travel
23:24
Speaker 3: or remittances at the maximum level possible. There's all these
23:27
Speaker 3: things you could do that really would be historic and important.
23:30
Speaker 3: And when you're unencumbered by politics, why not run through
23:33
Speaker 3: the tape?
23:45
Speaker 2: Speaking of the pardon power, Dan and I, praised Biden
23:48
Speaker 2: on Friday's show for the single largest act of clemency
23:50
Speaker 2: in modern history. But over the last few days, we've
23:53
Speaker 2: all learned more about the big batch of commutations that
23:55
Speaker 2: the White House announced last week. Some of them aren't
23:57
Speaker 2: looking so great, including a former judge in Pennsylvania who
24:01
Speaker 2: was serving a 17 and a half year sentence for
24:03
Speaker 2: getting kickbacks from private prisons in exchange for giving more
24:08
Speaker 2: than 2,500 juveniles the harshest possible sentence, even though most
24:12
Speaker 2: of them didn't deserve it. So the private for-profit prison
24:17
Speaker 2: gives the judge money and the judge says, I'll fill
24:19
Speaker 2: up your prison with juveniles, whether they deserve it or not.
24:22
Speaker 1: It's a cartoon evil scheme. It's a cartoon evil scheme.
24:26
Speaker 2: It came to be known as the kids for cash scandal.
24:28
Speaker 2: And some Democrats have blasted Biden for the decision, including
24:31
Speaker 2: Governor Josh Shapiro. This was in Pennsylvania, of course, who
24:34
Speaker 2: noted that some children took their lives because of this.
24:38
Speaker 2: What on earth do you think the White House was thinking?
24:41
Speaker 3: Well, I think They pardoned all the people who were
24:44
Speaker 3: released from prison and placed on home confinement during the
24:47
Speaker 3: pandemic under the CARES Act.
24:48
Speaker 5: Right.
24:48
Speaker 2: Which was Trump.
24:49
Speaker 1: Which was, this was.
24:51
Speaker 3: The remaining like 1500 or so. So they just did
24:53
Speaker 3: a blanket pardon. I guess they didn't individually vet all
24:56
Speaker 3: the people on that list.
24:57
Speaker 1: Or commutation. Commutation. Commutation.
24:59
Speaker 3: Yeah.
24:59
Speaker 1: Sorry.
25:01
Speaker 3: And so, I don't know, I guess like to take
25:04
Speaker 3: the other side of this argument, I think Stories like this,
25:07
Speaker 3: examples like this are why pardons and clemency are really,
25:10
Speaker 3: really hard to do politically, because by definition, you are
25:13
Speaker 3: releasing someone who did something illegal and or untoward. And
25:18
Speaker 3: the argument is that they have changed. Now, I'm not
25:20
Speaker 3: like defending these people on the merits. The kids for
25:23
Speaker 3: cash people sound awful. As is this woman who stole like, what,
25:27
Speaker 3: fifty four million dollars from the city of Dixon, the comptroller.
25:32
Speaker 3: But I think both of them were due to be
25:34
Speaker 3: released between two to four years from now and were
25:37
Speaker 3: on home confinement anyway. So maybe they figured rather than
25:40
Speaker 3: pluck out exceptions and start that process, you just kind
25:43
Speaker 3: of do the blanket 1500 and get it over with.
25:46
Speaker 2: I think that's probably what happened. Yeah, the CARES program
25:47
Speaker 2: under Trump sent 12,000 prisoners to home confinement, right? And
25:51
Speaker 2: the vast, vast majority of them were convicted of white
25:53
Speaker 2: collar and other nonviolent crimes. So for the last several years,
25:56
Speaker 2: you've got all these white collar, nonviolent criminals serving out
25:59
Speaker 2: home confinement. And so you're right. They must have just
26:02
Speaker 2: did a blanket. But like, I don't know. Obviously, that's
26:07
Speaker 2: the council's office, the lawyers. You'd think a few political
26:09
Speaker 2: people would have eyes on that just to comb through
26:13
Speaker 2: the names.
26:14
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, it is.
26:16
Speaker 2: I will say there was I saw this on Twitter.
26:19
Speaker 2: There was like a bunch of people who are prison
26:21
Speaker 2: abolitionists who were complaining about Biden releasing the kids for
26:26
Speaker 2: cash guy and some other people. And I was like,
26:29
Speaker 2: that's interesting because if you're a prison abolitionist, I mean,
26:32
Speaker 2: it does speak to the challenge that you're bringing up, Tommy,
26:35
Speaker 2: which is like part of the reason you do a
26:37
Speaker 2: pardon is because you're like, yeah, someone did something bad
26:39
Speaker 2: and we don't believe everyone should be in jail for it.
26:41
Speaker 2: But like, it's a tough one.
26:44
Speaker 1: It was interesting watching a bunch of people on the
26:46
Speaker 1: left being really critical of this because this was a
26:49
Speaker 1: monstrous crime that I think basically kind of, it was
26:55
Speaker 1: a kind of like for-profit, version of the cruelty and
26:59
Speaker 1: unfairness that the judicial system often meets out, right? So
27:03
Speaker 1: this is somebody receiving clemency for participating in the larger
27:08
Speaker 1: evil these people are spending their lives fighting against. So
27:12
Speaker 1: that's what made it, I think, a little bit confusing,
27:16
Speaker 1: but it also does expose that even people that advocate
27:19
Speaker 1: for whatever, prison abolition, there's a part of us that
27:23
Speaker 1: demands justice. And that wants someone like this thrown away
27:26
Speaker 1: for fucking ever. But I think part of the deeper
27:29
Speaker 1: thing is like.
27:29
Speaker 2: Also, prison abolition is crazy. I'm just going to say that.
27:31
Speaker 2: It's crazy. So, you murder someone, you're going to keep
27:35
Speaker 2: them away from people.
27:36
Speaker 1: For sure.
27:37
Speaker 5: And then.
27:37
Speaker 2: No, no.
27:38
Speaker 1: And I just want to second that. We're in similar t-shirts,
27:41
Speaker 1: similar view on murder.
27:44
Speaker 2: I'll take the slings and arrows.
27:45
Speaker 5: It's fine.
27:46
Speaker 1: But the pardon power is strange and silly.
27:51
Speaker 3: And.
27:51
Speaker 2: Yes.
27:52
Speaker 1: But so I think what's so galling about these examples
27:55
Speaker 1: is just like who gets who gets mercy in our system.
27:59
Speaker 1: And there are so many people that deserve mercy.
28:01
Speaker 5: Yes.
28:02
Speaker 1: And they deserve it before these corrupt public officials. And
28:05
Speaker 1: the other part, too, is it's like Donald Trump. He
28:09
Speaker 1: cut taxes for the rich. He vilified immigrants. He shifted
28:13
Speaker 1: the court to the right and he basically decriminalized corruption.
28:16
Speaker 1: And we are going to pay for that. Like corruption is.
28:18
Speaker 1: is a cancer. And these are corrupt officials. And it
28:21
Speaker 1: would be nice if one of the ways in which
28:23
Speaker 1: Joe Biden kind of defended the values he cares about
28:26
Speaker 1: is to strongly defend laws that protect against corruption, which
28:30
Speaker 1: is what these people were punished for.
28:32
Speaker 5: Yeah.
28:32
Speaker 2: And if you listen to some of the families of
28:34
Speaker 2: those kids, especially the kids who took their own lives,
28:37
Speaker 2: it's fucking heartbreaking. So Kamala Harris was at the DNC
28:40
Speaker 2: holiday party, too, where Biden told her.
28:43
Speaker 1: Quote, Mood was festive, I'm sure.
28:48
Speaker 2: Biden told her, quote, you're not going anywhere, kid, because
28:51
Speaker 2: we're not going to let you go.
28:52
Speaker 5: Okay.
28:54
Speaker 2: We haven't really touched on this on the pod.
28:55
Speaker 3: Speaking of home confinement.
28:56
Speaker 2: What are we talking about here? What do you guys
29:01
Speaker 2: think Harris's next move should be? There's a couple stories.
29:03
Speaker 2: There's one in the Washington Post. There's one on CNN
29:06
Speaker 2: about how she's thinking. She's trying to decide right now between,
29:10
Speaker 2: according to her advisors that talked on background, whether she
29:15
Speaker 2: will run for governor of California in 2026. Or not
29:19
Speaker 2: run for governor in 2026 and run for president in 2028.
29:24
Speaker 2: And it is unclear right now which way she is leaning.
29:27
Speaker 2: And I guess there could be a third option, which
29:28
Speaker 2: she doesn't either.
29:29
Speaker 1: I'm interested in that third option. Well, no, I'm just
29:34
Speaker 1: curious what it is. Can't I just be curious about
29:36
Speaker 1: what it is? I've said my part. Tommy?
29:41
Speaker 3: I mean, if I were her and I really wanted
29:44
Speaker 3: to stay in public service, I would run for governor.
29:48
Speaker 3: I think you are almost guaranteed to win that primary.
29:51
Speaker 3: It's a huge job. You know, what's California like the
29:55
Speaker 3: fifth biggest economy in the world if it were a
29:57
Speaker 3: country on its own?
29:58
Speaker 2: I mean, it's an enormous... an enormous task. And then
30:01
Speaker 2: we're trying to run for president again, like nothing is guaranteed.
30:04
Speaker 2: This may sound quaint, maybe a little naive. I think
30:09
Speaker 2: you should sit down and think to yourself, and I
30:11
Speaker 2: would give this advice to her or any politician, really,
30:14
Speaker 2: what do I really want to do? What issues do
30:16
Speaker 2: I care about? Where can I make the biggest difference? And,
30:20
Speaker 2: you know, she, at one point, I think they said
30:22
Speaker 2: this in the Washington Post story, she was trying to
30:24
Speaker 2: decide when she was Attorney General of California, whether she
30:27
Speaker 2: wanted to run for Senate or run for governor. And
30:29
Speaker 2: she made a list of pros and cons, and she
30:31
Speaker 2: decided that her skills were better suited for the U.S. Senate, right? Like,
30:36
Speaker 2: she should look at the California gubernatorial race, and if
30:38
Speaker 2: she feels like she can really make a difference, and
30:40
Speaker 2: she loves the idea of being governor of our state,
30:43
Speaker 2: and wants to tackle these issues, she should do it.
30:45
Speaker 2: If she really truly believes that she should be president again,
30:47
Speaker 2: and she has a strong theory of the case on
30:50
Speaker 2: why she should, and how she can contribute, then she
30:52
Speaker 2: should do that. But like, you know, I, and I don't,
30:55
Speaker 2: I'm not saying she's doing this, but sometimes advisors do
30:58
Speaker 2: this and, you know, fundraisers do this and everyone else.
31:01
Speaker 2: It's like, I don't think doing like, should I be
31:03
Speaker 2: in this slot or that slot or what's better or
31:05
Speaker 2: what can I win? Like, that's obviously a consideration, but
31:07
Speaker 2: I think from the candidate themselves, you got to really
31:09
Speaker 2: think about what you want to do.
31:10
Speaker 3: Yeah. I thought that was like the dumb media prism
31:12
Speaker 3: through which it was being, I assume she's doing exactly
31:14
Speaker 3: what you're saying.
31:15
Speaker 2: Which is figure out.
31:16
Speaker 3: But I think if you were to ask her, what
31:18
Speaker 3: is she most passionate about? It has been domestic issues,
31:22
Speaker 3: it has been law enforcement, it has been criminal justice,
31:24
Speaker 3: things that she can do as governor.
31:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, and she's run statewide in California and been the,
31:29
Speaker 2: you know, top law enforcement officer.
31:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do think, look, I think she has paid
31:33
Speaker 1: politically for having come up as a prosecutor, then run
31:37
Speaker 1: for president at a time when that was seen as
31:39
Speaker 1: a liability, and shifting to the left on a bunch
31:41
Speaker 1: of issues, and then walking away from those positions. And
31:45
Speaker 1: if you were to ask me right now, what are
31:47
Speaker 1: Kamala's views, actual personal views on a host of those issues.
31:51
Speaker 1: I sincerely would say like, I think she's a consensus builder.
31:55
Speaker 1: I think she, but like, I don't actually know. And
31:58
Speaker 1: if she is going to want to seek, whether it's
32:00
Speaker 1: California governorship or national office, I think like it's about
32:04
Speaker 1: taking the time to figure out an ideological perspective that
32:09
Speaker 1: like informs everything that she does going forward. Because I
32:13
Speaker 1: do think some of the ways in which she's had
32:14
Speaker 1: these whether it was tough interviews in the 2024 race
32:18
Speaker 1: or the quotes that were taken out of what she
32:20
Speaker 1: said in the 2020 race, the lack of that, I think,
32:24
Speaker 1: worldview and ideology is going to make it very, very
32:28
Speaker 1: hard for her to get past the previous two runs.
32:32
Speaker 1: That's my concern.
32:34
Speaker 2: Can I share with you guys a quote from a
32:36
Speaker 2: Harris campaign advisor in the Washington Post story?
32:38
Speaker 4: Please.
32:39
Speaker 2: It's almost Shakespearean that Joe Biden didn't just kill his
32:41
Speaker 2: own campaign, he killed hers too. So no love lost there.
32:45
Speaker 1: What about that?
32:46
Speaker 2: It's Shakespearean.
32:46
Speaker 1: It's not particularly Shakespearean, honestly. It's not at all. Actually,
32:49
Speaker 1: it's more Shakespearean. Actually, if you want to say it's Shakespearean,
32:52
Speaker 1: you have to find the ways in which her own
32:54
Speaker 1: deeper flaws were ultimately her undoing, which would be, I think,
32:58
Speaker 1: more dramatic.
32:58
Speaker 2: It's more of a two for one.
33:00
Speaker 5: Right. Yeah.
33:01
Speaker 2: Anyway.
33:02
Speaker 1: I guess it's a Romeo and Juliet. They're both fucking dead.
33:05
Speaker 5: Oh, no.
33:05
Speaker 2: Maybe that's it.
33:07
Speaker 1: Just star-crossed lovers, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
33:09
Speaker 2: Anyway, if you're the Harris campaign advisor, please tell us
33:11
Speaker 2: what you meant. We'll keep you anonymous.
33:14
Speaker 1: It's almost Shakespearean.
33:15
Speaker 3: Almost.
33:16
Speaker 1: Okay.
33:16
Speaker 2: Two other big things people are talking about that are
33:18
Speaker 2: more politics adjacent. Drones and daylight saving time.
33:22
Speaker 3: Hell yeah.
33:23
Speaker 2: Let's take drones first. As you probably know, since the
33:25
Speaker 2: middle of last month, lots of people in New Jersey
33:28
Speaker 2: and some other states now have reported seeing mysterious drones-like
33:31
Speaker 2: things flying in the night sky. No one has been
33:33
Speaker 2: able to provide any definitive answers. The Pentagon says they're
33:36
Speaker 2: not U.S. military or enemy drones. White House says they're
33:40
Speaker 2: mostly manned aircraft. finding that incoming New Jersey Senator Andy
33:44
Speaker 2: Kim confirmed after going out drone spotting himself. Good for
33:48
Speaker 2: Andy Kim. Love Andy Kim.
33:49
Speaker 3: He's the best.
33:50
Speaker 2: But like a lot of other people, he's also expressed
33:52
Speaker 2: frustration that the federal government hasn't done more to alleviate
33:54
Speaker 2: people's concerns. Kim wrote on Twitter on Saturday, quote, I
33:58
Speaker 2: think the situation in some ways reflects this moment in
34:01
Speaker 2: our country. People have a lot of anxiety right now
34:03
Speaker 2: about the economy, health, security, etc. And too often we
34:06
Speaker 2: find that those charged with working on these issues are
34:09
Speaker 2: don't engage the public with the respect and depth needed.
34:12
Speaker 2: Case in point, Donald Trump, for his part, said in
34:14
Speaker 2: the Monday morning press conference, the government knows what's happening
34:16
Speaker 2: and that something strange is going on. For some reason,
34:19
Speaker 2: they don't want to tell people and they should, before
34:21
Speaker 2: adding that maybe he didn't want to spend the weekend
34:22
Speaker 2: in Bedminster after all. And then when he was asked also,
34:25
Speaker 2: have you received an intelligence briefing on this? He said, well,
34:28
Speaker 2: I shouldn't comment on that.
34:30
Speaker 1: Love the restraint. Yeah, finally showing some discipline. Yeah, man,
34:33
Speaker 1: it is tough. Having a country when you're like, oh,
34:38
Speaker 1: what are the drones? Well, some of them are manned
34:40
Speaker 1: and maybe some of them are hobbyists. And actually, we
34:43
Speaker 1: don't know what some of them. And then the next
34:45
Speaker 1: president of the United States grabs the microphone and says,
34:46
Speaker 1: it might be the Jews.
34:47
Speaker 3: He also, truth, let the public know and now otherwise
34:54
Speaker 3: shoot them down. So these are.
34:57
Speaker 5: Unmanned.
34:57
Speaker 3: So, I mean, I think like this phenomenon is, I
35:00
Speaker 3: think the reality is there's a lot of stuff in
35:02
Speaker 3: our airspace at all times. And if you start looking up,
35:04
Speaker 3: you're going to start seeing things and people don't know
35:07
Speaker 3: what they're looking at from the ground because none of
35:09
Speaker 3: us are experts, but then.
35:10
Speaker 2: But you've had the highest security clearance of them, all
35:12
Speaker 2: three of us. What do you know?
35:13
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was aliens. And so people get worried. They
35:16
Speaker 3: start talking about it. Then everyone else starts looking and
35:18
Speaker 3: then stuff starts going around social media and the craziest
35:21
Speaker 3: shit gets shared the most. Like I saw a video
35:24
Speaker 3: alleging that it was drones that searching for a lost
35:28
Speaker 3: Ukrainian nuclear weapon.
35:29
Speaker 1: I saw that too.
35:29
Speaker 3: And I saw that because Joe Rogan retweeted it.
35:31
Speaker 1: And I believe it. And I believe it. I saw
35:33
Speaker 1: it and I believe it.
35:33
Speaker 2: This is why more of us need to go on Rogan.
35:36
Speaker 1: Shoot them down. Liberal Joe Rogan, whatever.
35:38
Speaker 3: And then that was compounded by wildly irresponsible members of Congress,
35:43
Speaker 3: like New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith said, the elusive maneuvering
35:47
Speaker 3: of these drones suggests a major military power sophistication that
35:50
Speaker 3: begs the question whether they've been deployed to test our
35:52
Speaker 3: defense capabilities or worse. by violent dictatorships, perhaps maybe Russia, China, Iran,
35:57
Speaker 3: or North Korea. Richard Blumenthal called for the drones to
36:01
Speaker 3: be shot down. Again, we want to use live missiles
36:05
Speaker 3: over U.S. territory to blow up things in the sky.
36:08
Speaker 3: They're harming no one. not remembering that those, that metal
36:11
Speaker 3: will then fall on the ground.
36:12
Speaker 5: Wow.
36:13
Speaker 2: Also, I know, I think maybe kill people.
36:14
Speaker 1: That's some fucking beta fag shit. Shoot them down. Shoot
36:18
Speaker 1: them down.
36:18
Speaker 2: It's like they're on Chinese.
36:20
Speaker 1: Shoot them down.
36:22
Speaker 2: Another, uh, it might've been the same Republican house member
36:25
Speaker 2: from New Jersey that you just mentioned, but he does
36:28
Speaker 2: a press conference with local police officers. And he's like,
36:31
Speaker 2: I want to give local police the authority to shoot
36:34
Speaker 2: down the drones. Now we're just telling police to just
36:37
Speaker 2: shoot things in the sky.
36:39
Speaker 1: That's right. What is this country? What's going on here?
36:41
Speaker 1: You know what? If the government won't, if the federal
36:43
Speaker 1: government won't shoot some of these things down, we're going
36:45
Speaker 1: to have no choice but to give your meanest friend
36:47
Speaker 1: from high school the authority. That's what's going to happen.
36:52
Speaker 1: That's where this ends up. Look, by the way, and
36:55
Speaker 1: that's the second worst option, because what's really going to
36:57
Speaker 1: happen is randos are going to start going outside and
37:00
Speaker 1: shooting at drones. Of course they are. And you know what?
37:02
Speaker 1: Some of these drones are planes, and those planes have
37:04
Speaker 1: people in them. So we've got to just shoot one down.
37:07
Speaker 1: Can't we just shoot one down?
37:08
Speaker 2: Let's make sure it's a drone. That's what the Republican
37:10
Speaker 2: congressman said. Yeah, he's like, we don't have to get them. No,
37:12
Speaker 2: a mayor said that. Some mayor in New Jersey. He's like,
37:15
Speaker 2: we don't have to shoot them all down. Just one
37:16
Speaker 2: to see what's going on.
37:17
Speaker 1: Yeah.
37:17
Speaker 2: So John Kirby.
37:18
Speaker 1: Seems smart to me.
37:19
Speaker 2: John Kirby at the briefing on Monday.
37:21
Speaker 5: Yeah.
37:23
Speaker 2: What's Kirby's title?
37:24
Speaker 1: It's like Deep State Head. Let's see what the Deep
37:27
Speaker 1: State has to say.
37:28
Speaker 3: He's like a national security spokesperson.
37:30
Speaker 2: Right, there you go. Something like that. He said, we
37:32
Speaker 2: assess that the sightings to date include a combination of
37:35
Speaker 2: lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as
37:39
Speaker 2: well as manned, fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter, helicopters, and even stars
37:44
Speaker 2: that were mistakenly reported as drones. Seems like we have
37:47
Speaker 2: a great answer. Here's the thing.
37:48
Speaker 1: Here's the good news. Here's the good news. All right. Obviously,
37:52
Speaker 1: I think the worst case scenario would be shooting down
37:54
Speaker 1: a passenger aircraft. Yes.
37:55
Speaker 3: Thank you.
37:56
Speaker 5: Wow.
37:56
Speaker 1: Just going out on a limb. After that.
37:58
Speaker 2: That's what you guys pay the big bucks for.
37:59
Speaker 1: After that. Hezbollah over there. After that. After that. If
38:03
Speaker 1: you shoot down a hobbyist drone, I don't care. Bring
38:05
Speaker 1: them down. Those people should be sadder, frankly. Commercial drones,
38:11
Speaker 1: government drones, shoot one down. Take a look.
38:13
Speaker 2: And when you look in the air, you'll be able
38:14
Speaker 2: to tell which is which, right?
38:17
Speaker 1: I think you should be really sure.
38:18
Speaker 2: That's right.
38:20
Speaker 1: Just let's be really sure.
38:22
Speaker 2: Someone tell Elon Musk about this guy. We got to
38:24
Speaker 2: get him in government.
38:25
Speaker 1: No, if I'm going to press the Elon button, it's
38:27
Speaker 1: going to be around daylight saving time.
38:28
Speaker 2: We're getting there.
38:30
Speaker 3: Andy's tweets were great. He's the newly elected New Jersey senator.
38:33
Speaker 3: He's out there like doing, you know, constituent services and
38:36
Speaker 3: communicating well and clearly in this thread. I think it's
38:39
Speaker 3: fair to say that to date, the U.S. government's communication
38:42
Speaker 3: wasn't great. They weren't necessarily answering the mail on people's anxieties.
38:46
Speaker 3: But in their defense, it's nearly impossible to comment when
38:51
Speaker 3: some member of Congress calls the White House and is like, hey, Biden,
38:54
Speaker 3: what's floating over Mendon, New Jersey right now?
38:58
Speaker 2: Yeah, they did say that there were thousands of tips,
39:00
Speaker 2: and out of all those tips, only a very small
39:03
Speaker 2: percentage turned out to be anything in the sky.
39:06
Speaker 5: Right, right.
39:06
Speaker 1: Some of it is like, yeah, right.
39:08
Speaker 3: Even Larry Hogan was filming stars and just was completely
39:12
Speaker 3: wrong about what he was seeing.
39:14
Speaker 2: Oh, those were just stars from Larry Hogan?
39:16
Speaker 1: I think so. Yeah, I believe the Larry Hogan ones
39:19
Speaker 1: turned out to be celestial.
39:22
Speaker 5: Bodies, which is tough.
39:24
Speaker 1: It's tough.
39:25
Speaker 2: People people are losing their minds.
39:27
Speaker 1: Uh, yeah, it's, it, look, I love a good mania.
39:30
Speaker 1: It's a, it's a pleasure. It's a pleasure. People are
39:32
Speaker 1: losing it out there. I also do like Andy Kim
39:34
Speaker 1: being like, I think it's economic anxiety. It's like, okay,
39:37
Speaker 1: like I'm with you. I'm with you to a point.
39:40
Speaker 2: Speaking of, uh, mania that has you losing your mind,
39:42
Speaker 2: daylight saving time. By the way, I, when Reed wrote this,
39:48
Speaker 2: And then he asked me, and then he's like, did
39:50
Speaker 2: you know it was called Daylight Saving Time and not
39:52
Speaker 2: Savings Time? And I'm like, I learned that just in
39:55
Speaker 2: this moment when you sent me the script.
39:57
Speaker 1: That's wrong. Yes, I know. It should be Daylight Savings Time,
39:59
Speaker 1: but it is technically Daylight Saving Time.
40:01
Speaker 3: It's like saying Attorney's General.
40:03
Speaker 1: I know.
40:03
Speaker 2: I hate that. Anyway, Trump posted on Truth Social on
40:06
Speaker 2: Friday that he would try to end it, which seems
40:08
Speaker 2: like he probably means make it permanent. You can get
40:11
Speaker 2: into that. It's a move that has support in a
40:14
Speaker 2: lot of quarters. including top flunkies like Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy,
40:18
Speaker 2: Marco Rubio, and most importantly, our own John Lovett. Take
40:21
Speaker 2: it away.
40:22
Speaker 5: Yeah.
40:22
Speaker 1: So he does probably, almost certainly means making daylight saving
40:25
Speaker 1: time permanent. He actually tweeted that in, I think, 2019.
40:28
Speaker 1: So currently there is a bill in Congress called the
40:32
Speaker 1: Sunshine Protection Act. It is sponsored by Rubio and Padilla
40:36
Speaker 1: in California, also Ed Markey in Massachusetts, Patty Murray, and
40:40
Speaker 1: a bunch of other senators. 20 states have already passed
40:43
Speaker 1: by ballot measure or legislation, state rules that would switch
40:48
Speaker 1: to permanent daylight saving time if Congress allows it. Now,
40:53
Speaker 1: I have actually, like, I used to think, yes, of course,
40:55
Speaker 1: we should switch to permanent daylight saving time. That used
40:57
Speaker 1: to be my position. I really dug into it for
40:59
Speaker 1: a while. I did a lot of interviews, did a
41:00
Speaker 1: lot of reading about it. And I have a more
41:03
Speaker 1: nuanced view on it, which is basically, it's not a
41:06
Speaker 1: surprise that it's being led by a Massachusetts senator, a
41:08
Speaker 1: Florida senator, and California senators. Florida and California were further south.
41:12
Speaker 1: All that means is our winters aren't as dark and
41:15
Speaker 1: our summers aren't as bright, right? The closer you get
41:17
Speaker 1: to the equator, the less the time shifts, you know,
41:22
Speaker 1: not with time zones, but just with just longer days
41:24
Speaker 1: and shorter days. In Massachusetts, in the dead of winter,
41:28
Speaker 1: right now in Maine or Massachusetts, the sun is setting
41:32
Speaker 1: around four o'clock.
41:33
Speaker 5: It gets late.
41:34
Speaker 1: It gets even into the threes, right? But in a
41:36
Speaker 1: state like Michigan, which is in the same sign zone,
41:38
Speaker 1: it's fully an hour later, right? Because they're further west
41:41
Speaker 1: in the time zone. So, It makes sense that a
41:44
Speaker 1: bunch of East, like Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, California, all these
41:49
Speaker 1: states would want to do it. The problem is- I.
41:50
Speaker 2: Was in Vancouver the other weekend and it was like
41:52
Speaker 2: four o'clock dark.
41:53
Speaker 1: Yes. So- What? Like even in California, Los Angeles, the
41:59
Speaker 1: sunset in Los Angeles will be almost an hour later
42:02
Speaker 1: than it will be in Seattle or Portland. So some
42:04
Speaker 1: of this is where you're located. What needs to happen-
42:07
Speaker 1: is Congress needs to amend the Uniform Time Act of
42:11
Speaker 1: 1966 to allow for a third option. And then every
42:14
Speaker 1: state can choose between permanent daylight saving time, permanent standard time,
42:18
Speaker 1: or continuing to make the switch. This is the compromise.
42:21
Speaker 1: This is the solution. Because we did do permanent daylight
42:24
Speaker 1: saving time in the 70s during the oil crisis. And
42:28
Speaker 1: in a lot of places, people fucking hated it because
42:30
Speaker 1: there are places where if you go to permanent daylight
42:32
Speaker 1: saving time, sunrise won't be until either close to nine
42:36
Speaker 1: or even after 9 a.m. Oh, wow. Right. People don't like, people,
42:40
Speaker 1: if you poll them, say they don't like daylight saving time.
42:43
Speaker 1: Really what they mean is they don't like springing forward.
42:45
Speaker 1: They hate losing the hour. They hate the time switch.
42:47
Speaker 1: And the time switch does suck. But really what people
42:50
Speaker 1: like are longer days in the summer and shorter days
42:52
Speaker 1: in the winter. And unfortunately, you can't legislate for that.
42:56
Speaker 1: But if I had to choose between the switch and
42:59
Speaker 1: permanent daylight saving time, I would choose that. But that's
43:01
Speaker 1: because we live in California. which is a place that
43:04
Speaker 1: would benefit from being in permanent daylight saving time. But
43:06
Speaker 1: there are states like Michigan. Michigan, for example, should actually
43:09
Speaker 1: switch to permanent standard time because in Michigan in the summer,
43:13
Speaker 1: the sunset is so late.
43:14
Speaker 2: Can a possible solution be that some like.
43:18
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes. Because in practice, right, I think a
43:21
Speaker 1: few states would continue to switch. If you pass the
43:24
Speaker 1: Rubio-Markey-Murray bill, then everybody's going to be on permanent daylight
43:28
Speaker 1: saving time. But if you pass a law that just
43:30
Speaker 1: allowed states to choose between just add the third option,
43:33
Speaker 1: letting them choose permanent daylight saving time, about 20 states,
43:36
Speaker 1: their laws would go into effect. And then some states
43:39
Speaker 1: would either choose to keep switching or stay on permanent
43:41
Speaker 1: standard time. Michigan is like if you look at the
43:44
Speaker 1: time zone map, Michigan is so far to the west.
43:47
Speaker 1: I know I now I know I feel this was
43:49
Speaker 1: the moment I went too long. This was the moment.
43:51
Speaker 3: Will you let me know when this wraps?
43:52
Speaker 1: Yeah. Michigan is so far west of Massachusetts, it doesn't
43:57
Speaker 1: really make sense that they're in the same time zone.
43:59
Speaker 1: Michigan should be in permanent standard time. Wisconsin can be
44:03
Speaker 1: on permanent daylight saving time. In practice, what that means
44:05
Speaker 1: is they're both in the central time zone. Michigan would
44:07
Speaker 1: just shift one time zone over.
44:10
Speaker 2: One can only hope that when Mr. Trump and his
44:12
Speaker 2: lawyers are reviewing the part of this episode where you
44:16
Speaker 2: accused him of killing JonBenet Ramsey, they continue listening. to
44:21
Speaker 2: this part so they can understand the best solution to
44:24
Speaker 2: daylight saving time.
44:25
Speaker 3: Could we get the drones involved with little mirrors?
44:28
Speaker 1: For sure.
44:29
Speaker 5: For sure.
44:29
Speaker 2: To make more sun.
44:30
Speaker 1: Well, you know, there's going to be companies that are
44:32
Speaker 1: going to start allowing you in the night to rent
44:35
Speaker 1: light via mirrors.
44:37
Speaker 2: What?
44:37
Speaker 1: There are companies that have like, they want to put
44:39
Speaker 1: satellites up that have big reflectors and then you could
44:43
Speaker 1: go on your phone, literally on your phone and say,
44:45
Speaker 1: I would like it to be light out on my
44:47
Speaker 1: yard at this time. and they'll turn the mirrors and
44:51
Speaker 1: you'll have daylight on your yard.
44:53
Speaker 2: And dystopia is that, uh, dystopia.
44:57
Speaker 1: Okay. What about, what about AI permanent sunlight, uh, corrupt
45:03
Speaker 1: fucking dumb ass is present. What, what about this screams
45:05
Speaker 1: dystopia to you?
45:07
Speaker 3: What's the thing called, uh, that you build around the
45:10
Speaker 3: sun for permanent unlimited energy.
45:13
Speaker 1: Oh, do you mean like to become a type, a
45:14
Speaker 1: type two civilization?
45:16
Speaker 4: Yeah.
45:16
Speaker 1: I don't know what it's called.
45:17
Speaker 2: Elon will tell us. Um, All right, that's enough for that,
45:21
Speaker 2: I guess. Do you want to put a button on this?
45:24
Speaker 2: Is there a call to action?
45:27
Speaker 1: There is a call to action. The call to action
45:29
Speaker 1: would be to say we do not need to argue
45:31
Speaker 1: about whether the whole country should be on permanent standard time. Oh,
45:34
Speaker 1: by the way, the scientists and the nerds, they're all
45:36
Speaker 1: for permanent standard time. I've interviewed them. They're fucking wrong.
45:39
Speaker 1: They're just wrong about it because they are confusing the
45:41
Speaker 1: benefits of not switching to the benefits of standard time.
45:46
Speaker 1: We should switch to permanent daylight saving time in a
45:48
Speaker 1: lot of places, and there's a reason 20 states haven't.
45:50
Speaker 1: But no, this is the compromise. The whole country doesn't
45:53
Speaker 1: have to switch and the whole country doesn't have to
45:55
Speaker 1: have one policy. It won't be complicated because you go
45:58
Speaker 1: through a period of transition over a year or two,
46:00
Speaker 1: which people can choose which time zone they want. And
46:02
Speaker 1: then basically you just end up with a new time
46:04
Speaker 1: zone map and we never have to deal with this again.
46:06
Speaker 1: Most places would choose either permanent standard time or permanent
46:09
Speaker 1: daylight saving time. A few might keep it, continue to switch,
46:11
Speaker 1: but we know that that's fine because Arizona doesn't switch.
46:14
Speaker 5: Right.
46:15
Speaker 1: And we, society moves on.
46:17
Speaker 4: Yeah.
46:17
Speaker 2: Society's fine.
46:18
Speaker 1: And so does Arizona.
46:19
Speaker 5: Yeah.
46:20
Speaker 2: Okay, when we come back from the break, you'll hear
46:21
Speaker 2: my conversation with Congressman Ro Khanna about his promises to
46:24
Speaker 2: work with Elon Musk on the Doge agenda, what worries
46:26
Speaker 2: him most about his second Trump term, and more. But
46:29
Speaker 2: one quick thing before we do that, if you've been
46:30
Speaker 2: wondering what the hell is going on in Syria and
46:32
Speaker 2: how the U.S. government is approaching it, or want to
46:34
Speaker 2: understand many of the other major international stories happening around
46:37
Speaker 2: the world, check out Pod Save the World. I gotcha.
46:40
Speaker 2: Hosted by this guy over here, Tommy Vitor. And fancy
46:44
Speaker 2: title here, former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.
46:47
Speaker 3: You got to buff him up, shine him up for
46:49
Speaker 3: the promo.
46:49
Speaker 1: Look at that.
46:50
Speaker 2: Pod Save the World drops every Wednesday. Find it wherever
46:52
Speaker 2: you get your podcasts or on YouTube. When we come back,
46:55
Speaker 2: Ro Khanna. Ro Khanna, welcome back to Pod Save America.
47:10
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me.
47:12
Speaker 2: So, You've been out there a lot since the election,
47:14
Speaker 2: and I want to start by asking about your approach
47:17
Speaker 2: to politics, which seems to be more economically populist than
47:23
Speaker 2: most Democratic politicians, but also more willing to talk and
47:27
Speaker 2: work with people Democrats disagree with, whether it's Republicans, Fox News,
47:33
Speaker 2: Elon Musk. I feel like that overall approach is popular
47:37
Speaker 2: with most voters, but a harder sell with left-leaning politicians, pundits, activists,
47:44
Speaker 2: and otherwise very engaged liberals and leftists who help drive
47:47
Speaker 2: the debate. The people who favor reaching out to the
47:50
Speaker 2: other side usually aren't that into economic populism, and the
47:54
Speaker 2: progressive populists aren't that into reaching out to the other side.
47:57
Speaker 2: How do you break through all that, and how do
48:00
Speaker 2: you arrive at this approach?
48:02
Speaker 5: I don't know if I'll be successful in breaking through.
48:04
Speaker 5: I often get criticized when I do reach across, but
48:07
Speaker 5: I'll tell you where the approach comes from, the two
48:10
Speaker 5: my guiding principles. One is substantive. So I think you
48:16
Speaker 5: need a whole of society approach to actually tackle economic
48:21
Speaker 5: inequality or the deindustrialization of places. You need, of course,
48:28
Speaker 5: people who are going to be activists and talk about
48:31
Speaker 5: the role of government. You need, in my view, community leaders.
48:34
Speaker 5: You need labor. You need business leaders. You need venture capitalists.
48:38
Speaker 5: You need technology leaders. And that's the only way you're
48:42
Speaker 5: going to be able to build the new industry, the
48:44
Speaker 5: only way you're going to be able to have economic revitalization.
48:48
Speaker 5: And so that approach is not novel. It comes from
48:51
Speaker 5: a view that that's what FDR did in the New Deal.
48:55
Speaker 5: It's what Hamilton did. And so partly what some see
49:00
Speaker 5: as a contradiction, how is it that I'm advocating for
49:03
Speaker 5: a higher minimum wage and Medicare for all and yet
49:06
Speaker 5: want business leaders and technologists, I see as a coalition
49:10
Speaker 5: that is going to actually help achieve the goals of
49:14
Speaker 5: economic revitalization. The second thing in Prince William and I
49:19
Speaker 5: is humility. I don't think that I have all the
49:23
Speaker 5: right answers. I think, again, this idea of democratic experimentalism,
49:28
Speaker 5: that you try things, but you know that there are
49:31
Speaker 5: people who may push back. Sometimes I tweet things out.
49:34
Speaker 5: People say, oh, you tweeted it out and you were wrong.
49:36
Speaker 5: I was like, OK, I'm Thinking out loud, I probably
49:38
Speaker 5: shouldn't think out loud as much online, but not every
49:42
Speaker 5: idea I have is the truth. And I have a
49:44
Speaker 5: humility to say, you know, when you test your ideas out,
49:47
Speaker 5: maybe they'll get better.
49:48
Speaker 2: I've heard you say that when it comes to Elon Musk,
49:51
Speaker 2: Democrats have to get back to celebrating entrepreneurship and innovation
49:55
Speaker 2: because the average American thinks it's pretty cool that someone
49:58
Speaker 2: like Elon can send rockets into space. I take that point.
50:02
Speaker 2: I think Elon is clearly smart and successful in certain areas.
50:07
Speaker 2: And I have plenty of liberal friends who can't understand
50:10
Speaker 2: why I don't really like them. But I just wonder
50:13
Speaker 2: if we can be a party that praises entrepreneurship and
50:16
Speaker 2: innovation and also recognize that Elon just hasn't had some
50:20
Speaker 2: bad tweets. He said that the theory that Jewish communities
50:24
Speaker 2: push hatred against whites is the actual truth. He just
50:28
Speaker 2: recently said Democrats are the party of criminals, accused us
50:30
Speaker 2: of importing voters, accused us of wanting to take people's kids.
50:34
Speaker 2: It just feels like all of that goes beyond policy
50:37
Speaker 2: and political disagreements. I know you've known him for a
50:40
Speaker 2: long time. What do you think happened to him? Is
50:43
Speaker 2: going on with him? Where do you come down on
50:46
Speaker 2: all of this?
50:47
Speaker 5: Well, some of those statements are totally indefensible and atrocious.
50:51
Speaker 5: And he knows I think that. I think I've been
50:55
Speaker 5: quoted as saying sometimes his tweets were like a seventh
50:58
Speaker 5: grader and someone said that's being charitable to seventh graders.
51:01
Speaker 5: So I have no Problem with people who are criticizing
51:06
Speaker 5: Elon Musk legitimately, criticizing either the things he said, criticize
51:11
Speaker 5: the idea that he spent $ 200 billion on an election,
51:15
Speaker 5: and they see that as a symbol of how broken
51:19
Speaker 5: the process is. I mean, I've said we shouldn't have
51:21
Speaker 5: super PACs, and he's kind of been the symbol of that.
51:24
Speaker 5: Criticized him saying that he should have financial disclosure and transparency.
51:28
Speaker 5: I think that's legitimate. But the biggest criticism, which I've
51:32
Speaker 5: had arguments with Musk about, is my view is that
51:35
Speaker 5: the two biggest successes he had was made possible by
51:39
Speaker 5: the Obama administration. Not just because I worked there, but literally,
51:43
Speaker 5: President Obama, the Treasury gave him a loan that saved Tesla.
51:48
Speaker 5: I mean, that was a Treasury loan. And Ash Carter,
51:51
Speaker 5: working for President Obama, allowed him to bid on Lockheed
51:56
Speaker 5: and and Boeing's ULA project. It was the Obama administration
52:02
Speaker 5: that disrupted all of that and that allowed it to happen.
52:05
Speaker 5: And he never gives them credit. And I've argued with
52:09
Speaker 5: him that you really were the beneficiary of a lot
52:13
Speaker 5: of government investment. And why it matters is not for
52:16
Speaker 5: Elon to say it just for Elon, but it has
52:20
Speaker 5: this view that, oh, you can just be an entrepreneur
52:23
Speaker 5: and that's what's fueling America. No, what's fueled America is
52:26
Speaker 5: is the combination of very strong, smart, effective government combined
52:32
Speaker 5: with entrepreneurship and unions and labor. And I think he
52:35
Speaker 5: misses that story of that part. So there are a
52:39
Speaker 5: lot of places I disagree. My only point was that
52:42
Speaker 5: I think sometimes our party doesn't realize that there is
52:49
Speaker 5: a role also for entrepreneurs and technologists to play a
52:54
Speaker 5: part in economic revitalization. Now, I don't think that's Doge.
52:59
Speaker 5: It wouldn't be in my top five. If I was,
53:01
Speaker 5: if Kamala Harris had won, I would have said, have
53:03
Speaker 5: Elon Musk figure out how Intel can build factories here.
53:06
Speaker 5: But there is a role for business leaders.
53:11
Speaker 2: On Doge, I like your idea of trying to work
53:14
Speaker 2: with Musk and the Republicans on that commission. Have you
53:19
Speaker 2: and other Democrats thought about proposing your own list of
53:22
Speaker 2: budget cuts and government reforms that Elon and Trump and
53:26
Speaker 2: the Republicans would then have to respond to?
53:29
Speaker 5: We have. I wrote an op-ed and we're going to
53:32
Speaker 5: convene a number of Democrats probably in January to talk
53:35
Speaker 5: about what some of those cuts could look like. Let's
53:38
Speaker 5: start with the big buckets in government. The big bucket
53:41
Speaker 5: is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, which I don't think there
53:45
Speaker 5: should be a dime cut. And Trump says there shouldn't
53:48
Speaker 5: be a dime cut. OK, so then you look at
53:51
Speaker 5: the domestic spending that's not mandatory. 56% of that is
53:56
Speaker 5: discretionary defense spending. It's defense that really, if you want
54:00
Speaker 5: to look at making a dent in the federal budget,
54:04
Speaker 5: it should be examined. And there are plenty of places
54:07
Speaker 5: there that we can have reasonable cuts. The F-35 with
54:11
Speaker 5: Lockheed that's gone $ 200 billion over. The sole source contracts
54:16
Speaker 5: that lead to cost overruns by Boeing or others playing $ 150, 000
54:20
Speaker 5: for soap dispensers. the lack of competitive bidding. And you
54:26
Speaker 5: just have to watch 60 Minutes in one of these
54:28
Speaker 5: documentaries or segments to realize what we can cut. And
54:33
Speaker 5: my hope is that we can start there. Now, people
54:35
Speaker 5: who say, well, you're legitimizing Doge. I mean, Doge is
54:39
Speaker 5: going to exist, whether Democrats participate or not. You know,
54:43
Speaker 5: what legitimized Doge was Donald Trump winning the election. And
54:46
Speaker 5: I rather that we focus the attention on on places
54:50
Speaker 5: like defense rather than have Elon go try to cut
54:54
Speaker 5: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And if he tries to
54:58
Speaker 5: do that, I'll be the first person to blast him
55:01
Speaker 5: for that. And that's one other thing, I guess, with
55:05
Speaker 5: Musk or others. I mean, sometimes just because you're working
55:08
Speaker 5: with someone doesn't mean that you can't criticize them. Just
55:11
Speaker 5: because you're going on their podcast doesn't mean you can't say,
55:14
Speaker 5: that's a really dumb idea. I think we can do both.
55:17
Speaker 5: We don't have to kiss up to someone to engage them.
55:22
Speaker 2: Do you think from your conversations that those guys are
55:25
Speaker 2: willing to play ball on Doge, like that they're going
55:27
Speaker 2: to take your ideas and compromise? Or do you think
55:30
Speaker 2: it's just kind of, you know, I know that they're
55:33
Speaker 2: sort of welcoming your ideas. They've welcomed your ideas, other people, Bernie.
55:38
Speaker 2: But I wonder when push comes to shove, if it's
55:41
Speaker 2: more for show or they're really interested in working together.
55:46
Speaker 5: I think they will welcome our ideas genuinely on the
55:49
Speaker 5: Department of Defense. And there's an opportunity to get competitive bidding.
55:54
Speaker 5: There's an opportunity to disrupt the five primes. There's an
55:58
Speaker 5: opportunity to go after wasteful spending. What I'm not confident
56:02
Speaker 5: about is, are they going to listen to me why
56:03
Speaker 5: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is actually saving Americans money
56:08
Speaker 5: on credit card fees and mortgage fees? Or are they
56:10
Speaker 5: just going to say, oh, that's something that Elizabeth Warren
56:13
Speaker 5: put up, and so we want to cut it. I mean, obviously,
56:15
Speaker 5: I'm going to push back, but I don't think I
56:17
Speaker 5: have more ability to convince Elon Musk that that's a
56:21
Speaker 5: bad idea than any other member of Congress or person
56:25
Speaker 5: in the public. The one thing, John, if I could
56:27
Speaker 5: say that I think that they're wrong about. I had
56:31
Speaker 5: breakfast with Pat Gelsinger, who just was asked to leave
56:36
Speaker 5: as Intel CEO. And without revealing anything confidential, I said
56:40
Speaker 5: to him, Pat, If you were to rank what obstacle
56:45
Speaker 5: in terms of re-industrialization in America, economic growth, overburdensome regulation had,
56:51
Speaker 5: where would you put it? He said, of course, we
56:53
Speaker 5: need to streamline it, but it wouldn't be in my
56:55
Speaker 5: top three or four. I would talk about the need
56:57
Speaker 5: for capital formation. I would talk about the need for
57:00
Speaker 5: having procurement, buying of the things we make. I would
57:04
Speaker 5: talk about having a talented workforce. I would talk about immigration.
57:08
Speaker 5: And what they have done with Doge is to somehow
57:10
Speaker 5: say that if we could just streamline permitting in America,
57:14
Speaker 5: streamline regulation, that suddenly we were going to have job
57:17
Speaker 5: growth across America. And that's just not true.
57:20
Speaker 2: I don't know if you saw that Senator Mike Lee
57:24
Speaker 2: and Elon just today both called for repealing the Congressional
57:29
Speaker 2: Impoundment Act so that Trump could unilaterally decide not to
57:33
Speaker 2: spend money that Congress appropriates by law. Does that worry you?
57:36
Speaker 2: Do you think that they could have the votes for that?
57:39
Speaker 5: It does worry me because under the Congressional Impoundment Act,
57:42
Speaker 5: if you do not fill a position that Congress has authorized,
57:48
Speaker 5: then you have to give Congress notice. And after 45 days,
57:51
Speaker 5: you have to basically fill that position. So repealing that
57:55
Speaker 5: would allow the executive branch to not spend money that
58:00
Speaker 5: Congress is appropriating. So let's just say, why does this
58:03
Speaker 5: matter to people? Let's say they decide not to fund
58:07
Speaker 5: Department of Education folks who are giving Title I grants.
58:11
Speaker 5: So if you live in a school district where you
58:13
Speaker 5: have low-income, middle-income, working-class kids, you're not going to get
58:16
Speaker 5: money for the schools. Or you may not get money
58:18
Speaker 5: for your IEP program if your kid has special needs
58:23
Speaker 5: or a disability. Or you may not be able to
58:25
Speaker 5: get loans like I did to go to college. So yes,
58:30
Speaker 5: it worries me. And that shouldn't be the president's power.
58:33
Speaker 5: It should be Congress's power.
58:36
Speaker 2: Obviously, the margins are pretty close in the House. Do
58:39
Speaker 2: you think there are enough of your Republican colleagues that
58:42
Speaker 2: wouldn't want to give up their own power to appropriate money?
58:45
Speaker 5: I say the Republicans have made the entire Federalist Papers
58:49
Speaker 5: theory not work, because the whole Federalist Papers were like, yeah,
58:53
Speaker 5: the Congress is going to look out for their own power.
58:55
Speaker 5: They would never give up power to the president. Why
58:57
Speaker 5: would they do that? And they weren't counting on the
58:59
Speaker 5: modern Republican Party in alliance to Trump. No, I can't
59:04
Speaker 5: say anything for I wish I could tell you that
59:06
Speaker 5: you're going to have enough members of Congress who wouldn't
59:09
Speaker 5: do that. But this is where I do think the
59:12
Speaker 5: agency of people watching your show matters. When people mobilize,
59:16
Speaker 5: when they speak out, and when they say why this
59:18
Speaker 5: matters to their lives, then members of Congress and senators
59:24
Speaker 5: do pay attention. And we blocked a lot of overreached
59:28
Speaker 5: by Trump in the first administration when he was trying
59:30
Speaker 5: to separate kids from their families, when he was trying
59:32
Speaker 5: to have a blanket Muslim ban, when he was trying
59:34
Speaker 5: to overturn the Affordable Care Act. And so if people
59:38
Speaker 5: start to say, look, we don't want our kids to
59:41
Speaker 5: lose education or whatever the issue is, and it's not
59:44
Speaker 5: just impoundment as an abstract, then that's our best chance
59:48
Speaker 5: of stopping it.
59:50
Speaker 2: What worries you most about a second Trump term?
59:53
Speaker 5: That they would put Jamie Raskin in jail or were
59:56
Speaker 5: absent that, that they would have investigations of people like Raskin,
1:00:05
Speaker 5: that they will intimidate dissent in this country, that they
1:00:11
Speaker 5: would make people fearful of criticizing the president. Can American
1:00:17
Speaker 5: democracy survive that? Absolutely. Can Democrats win in 2026 and 2028? Yes.
1:00:22
Speaker 5: But will we have significantly degraded American democracy if that happens?
1:00:28
Speaker 4: Yes.
1:00:28
Speaker 5: And the cost is enormous.
1:00:33
Speaker 2: Do you have faith that the judicial system, as conservative-leaning
1:00:37
Speaker 2: as the Supreme Court is, will act as a bulwark
1:00:41
Speaker 2: against that?
1:00:42
Speaker 5: I like to have faith that it would prevent the
1:00:44
Speaker 5: worst cases of miscarriage of justice, but you can do,
1:00:51
Speaker 5: as you know, John, a lot of harm to people
1:00:53
Speaker 5: in the process short of someone actually going to jail.
1:00:56
Speaker 5: You start an investigation. You make someone's life hard. You
1:01:00
Speaker 5: have them hire lawyers. You have them dragged in front
1:01:05
Speaker 5: of committees. And then it's not just destroying a person's
1:01:09
Speaker 5: life or reputation, the chilling effect that that has to
1:01:12
Speaker 5: other people to pull punches. And you start to do
1:01:16
Speaker 5: that to the media. Uh, and you start to, you know,
1:01:19
Speaker 5: now they're thinking of suing and seltzer for a mistake
1:01:22
Speaker 5: in a poll. I mean, come on, you know, it's so,
1:01:26
Speaker 5: but you do that. And now are people going to say, well,
1:01:28
Speaker 5: maybe we shouldn't show Trump's approval ratings to be negative. Uh,
1:01:32
Speaker 5: if you start to sue journalists, uh, like they did
1:01:35
Speaker 5: with ABC, well, maybe, you know, now we've got to
1:01:39
Speaker 5: be cautious in the words we use. And that to me, uh,
1:01:43
Speaker 5: is the irony for her party that believes in free speech.
1:01:47
Speaker 5: to be doing that is what's most chilling. And then
1:01:51
Speaker 5: on a human level in my district, when I think
1:01:54
Speaker 5: of the undocumented, I think of someone in my district,
1:01:58
Speaker 5: without mentioning her name, who's been there 21 years. She's
1:02:02
Speaker 5: got a daughter who is going to medical school in
1:02:05
Speaker 5: Southern California. She's a dental hygienist in Northern California. And
1:02:10
Speaker 5: she drives every morning, once a month down to see
1:02:14
Speaker 5: her daughter and then drives back up at night because
1:02:17
Speaker 5: she can't afford a hotel. And the reason she can't
1:02:21
Speaker 5: afford this is because she's been underpaid because we haven't
1:02:24
Speaker 5: been able to have a legalized status. But to me,
1:02:27
Speaker 5: her life is the American dream. And now you're going
1:02:30
Speaker 5: to come and start to raid folks and deport folks
1:02:34
Speaker 5: like her. That's not the America my parents came to.
1:02:37
Speaker 5: That's not the America that I grew up in. And
1:02:40
Speaker 5: I don't think that's America. Is there a concern? On
1:02:43
Speaker 5: the borders, absolutely. Do we have to keep them secure? Yes.
1:02:46
Speaker 5: Do we want criminals not to be in this country?
1:02:49
Speaker 1: Yes.
1:02:49
Speaker 5: But people need to understand the sweeping way they're talking
1:02:54
Speaker 5: about going after the most vulnerable. And I don't care
1:02:58
Speaker 5: what the polls say. I believe that this country is
1:03:01
Speaker 5: better than that.
1:03:02
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about what health care looks
1:03:04
Speaker 2: like in the next four years. Last time Trump was
1:03:07
Speaker 2: in office, he tried to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.
1:03:10
Speaker 2: probably doesn't have the votes to do that this time around,
1:03:12
Speaker 2: but he could certainly cut Medicaid in a budget and
1:03:17
Speaker 2: the ACA subsidies that you all expanded in the Inflation
1:03:21
Speaker 2: Reduction Act. He was just asked about the murder of
1:03:24
Speaker 2: UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson, which he rightly condemned, but he
1:03:28
Speaker 2: didn't say anything else about the need for healthcare reform
1:03:30
Speaker 2: or the anger people have towards the insurance industry. You've
1:03:33
Speaker 2: had some great ideas on how to prevent insurance companies
1:03:36
Speaker 2: from denying so many claims. You talk a lot about
1:03:39
Speaker 2: the need for Medicare for all. It seems like not
1:03:42
Speaker 2: only are we years away from any kind of reform,
1:03:45
Speaker 2: but we may be in a situation where millions of
1:03:48
Speaker 2: people are losing their health insurance and paying higher premiums
1:03:51
Speaker 2: over the next four years. What, if anything, do you
1:03:54
Speaker 2: think Democrats can do about that?
1:03:56
Speaker 5: Well, John, I actually saw a clip of yours on
1:03:58
Speaker 5: this that I thought was spot on. I mean, one
1:04:02
Speaker 5: can have the thought that murder is bad. that there
1:04:06
Speaker 5: doesn't have to be a but after that, that you
1:04:10
Speaker 5: can say that there's no justification for taking the life
1:04:14
Speaker 5: of a father of two people. And you can also
1:04:18
Speaker 5: say that for 20 years, people in this country have
1:04:22
Speaker 5: been talking about a healthcare system that's broken and that
1:04:25
Speaker 5: we need to make progress on giving people real healthcare.
1:04:31
Speaker 5: And so to me, a lot of the commentary is
1:04:34
Speaker 5: sort of, is trying to pit one against the other.
1:04:38
Speaker 5: And I don't understand why. Why can't you have both
1:04:40
Speaker 5: of those thoughts? Now, you expressed it more succinctly than
1:04:42
Speaker 5: I did. But that is, I feel like that can
1:04:45
Speaker 5: be a consensus of Democrats across the spectrum in Congress
1:04:49
Speaker 5: and the Senate and our governors. And my view is
1:04:52
Speaker 5: that ultimately, the reason I support Medicare for all is
1:04:56
Speaker 5: because you're going to lower the administrative costs in the system.
1:05:01
Speaker 5: You have 2% administrative costs instead of 18%. Today, you
1:05:05
Speaker 5: have 1.4 million people who deny claims or accept claims
1:05:10
Speaker 5: and only 1 million doctors. So a lot of those
1:05:13
Speaker 5: folks could be now working in other ways in health
1:05:17
Speaker 5: care to actually deliver health care services instead of denying
1:05:21
Speaker 5: or not denying claims. And you can negotiate the prices
1:05:24
Speaker 5: down if you had Medicare, as President Biden started to
1:05:27
Speaker 5: do with insulin. But you could do it on hospital fees.
1:05:30
Speaker 5: You could do it with drugs. So that's the North Star. Now,
1:05:33
Speaker 5: how do you get there? I think you get there
1:05:36
Speaker 5: first by saying, in my view, that private insurance would
1:05:39
Speaker 5: cover what Medicare would cover if the doctor is prescribing it.
1:05:42
Speaker 5: Maybe we could get a consensus on that. Maybe we
1:05:45
Speaker 5: can get some consensus on capping out-of-pocket costs. Maybe we
1:05:50
Speaker 5: get some consensus on the rate of premium hikes. But
1:05:53
Speaker 5: I think you can have a North Star and then
1:05:55
Speaker 5: work incrementally for progress towards it.
1:05:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wish I could say that I expressed it
1:06:01
Speaker 2: more succinctly or at least more compellingly, but A lot
1:06:04
Speaker 2: of people are mad at me for how I've talked
1:06:05
Speaker 2: about it. And, you know, I'm talking to some of
1:06:09
Speaker 2: our listeners about it. And I very much understand the
1:06:14
Speaker 2: rage and the anger towards the insurance industry. I totally
1:06:17
Speaker 2: get that. What I've been trying to figure out is,
1:06:20
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of people said to me, here's
1:06:22
Speaker 2: the thing. We, you know, we vote for Democrats. We organize.
1:06:26
Speaker 2: We go out there every election. We volunteer. And then
1:06:31
Speaker 2: we put Democrats into office and it just never seems
1:06:34
Speaker 2: like we make any progress on healthcare reform. And, you know,
1:06:37
Speaker 2: they'll say, I know that you worked on the ACA
1:06:40
Speaker 2: and that improved things somewhat, but it's still hell. The
1:06:45
Speaker 2: insurance system is still hell and I'm losing hope that
1:06:48
Speaker 2: we can make any kind of progress on healthcare reform.
1:06:50
Speaker 2: And that's why, you know, I don't think people who,
1:06:53
Speaker 2: you know, are celebrating the murder or at least excusing
1:06:57
Speaker 2: it shouldn't be the focus. The focus should be like,
1:07:00
Speaker 2: you know, what are we going to do to change
1:07:01
Speaker 2: the system? And it's, to me, it's like a really
1:07:05
Speaker 2: hard thing to explain to folks that, no, you got
1:07:08
Speaker 2: to keep organizing and you got to keep voting and
1:07:11
Speaker 2: you got to keep working towards a better solution here because,
1:07:15
Speaker 2: you know, it's been many, many years and it seems
1:07:18
Speaker 2: like the best we could do was stop Donald Trump
1:07:21
Speaker 2: from repealing the ACA. You know, Joe Biden and the
1:07:24
Speaker 2: Democratic Congress, you guys beefed up the insurance subsidies, which
1:07:26
Speaker 2: is great, but clearly... there's a lot of pain and
1:07:30
Speaker 2: anger out there. And I don't really, I'm sort of
1:07:33
Speaker 2: at a loss at this point what to tell people
1:07:35
Speaker 2: about the best path forward.
1:07:37
Speaker 5: Well, yes, there's pain and anger, but I think you
1:07:39
Speaker 5: can say that pain and anger has to be channeled constructively.
1:07:44
Speaker 5: You know, my politics come from my grandfather. He spent
1:07:47
Speaker 5: four years in jail as part of Gandhi's independence movement.
1:07:51
Speaker 5: He had this view called satyagraha, and it was basically
1:07:54
Speaker 5: that you organize in peaceful protest movements action that matters,
1:08:00
Speaker 5: but one that thinks the best of humanity. And that's
1:08:04
Speaker 5: how you make progress. And that influenced, in part, the
1:08:06
Speaker 5: Civil Rights Movement. And I think of the Civil Rights,
1:08:09
Speaker 5: the first Civil Rights Act that was introduced by Senator
1:08:12
Speaker 5: Humphrey and Paul Douglas, a great senator from Illinois, in 1950.
1:08:17
Speaker 5: And you know when it passes in 1964, it took
1:08:19
Speaker 5: years of organizing. That fight, in my view, was a
1:08:26
Speaker 5: much harder fight than even getting health care for everyone.
1:08:30
Speaker 5: And that was a fight against vicious racism and segregation.
1:08:36
Speaker 5: And yet John Lewis wasn't out there celebrating killings. In fact,
1:08:41
Speaker 5: when there would be someone who would be killed in
1:08:46
Speaker 5: the civil rights movement, the civil rights leaders were the
1:08:49
Speaker 5: first to say that is antithetical to who we are,
1:08:54
Speaker 5: because not We just don't want to win. We want
1:08:57
Speaker 5: something better. We want a better civilization. And so my view,
1:09:02
Speaker 5: and maybe some will say it's naive, is it's fine
1:09:05
Speaker 5: for the left to be asymmetrically better. We're trying to
1:09:08
Speaker 5: build a better civilization. We're trying to build a better society.
1:09:11
Speaker 5: We don't have to get in the mud. When they curse,
1:09:14
Speaker 5: we don't have to curse back. When they are negative,
1:09:17
Speaker 5: we can say, no, we believe in a better vision
1:09:20
Speaker 5: for humanity and we organize and we make progress. And ultimately,
1:09:24
Speaker 5: I think we're going to get there. Yeah.
1:09:26
Speaker 2: One thing I always think about is, you know, we
1:09:29
Speaker 2: often say that Democrats, we don't want to be Republican
1:09:32
Speaker 2: light on policy because that doesn't give people a real choice.
1:09:35
Speaker 2: Why wouldn't they just go with Republicans instead of Republican light?
1:09:38
Speaker 2: And then when we talk about our approach to politics,
1:09:41
Speaker 2: I kind of think it's the same thing because If
1:09:44
Speaker 2: we're going to act just like Republicans, then it's not
1:09:46
Speaker 2: really giving people much of a choice. Because why wouldn't
1:09:49
Speaker 2: they just go with Republicans? Because they're going to be
1:09:50
Speaker 2: tougher and they're going to slash and burn and they're
1:09:53
Speaker 2: going to play dirtier and they're not going to follow
1:09:55
Speaker 2: the rules or follow the laws. So I might as
1:09:56
Speaker 2: well just vote for Republicans instead of if Democrats are
1:09:59
Speaker 2: going to do the same thing. So part of me
1:10:01
Speaker 2: thinks that, like you said, we're trying to build. Our
1:10:03
Speaker 2: job is harder in a way because we are trying
1:10:06
Speaker 2: to restore people's faith. or at least buttress people's faith
1:10:10
Speaker 2: in the power of collective action and a government where
1:10:14
Speaker 2: we take care of each other and look out for
1:10:16
Speaker 2: each other. And I just think it's a harder thing
1:10:19
Speaker 2: to do now, partly because of the problems that you've
1:10:22
Speaker 2: talked about, which is, you know, we have economic inequality
1:10:25
Speaker 2: and people are feeling isolated and they're feeling left behind. And,
1:10:30
Speaker 2: you know, it does feel like these two things are connected, right?
1:10:32
Speaker 2: Which is the economic inequality and then sort of the
1:10:35
Speaker 2: cynicism people are feeling towards government and the possibility that
1:10:39
Speaker 2: we can actually build something better. Is that something you
1:10:42
Speaker 2: worry about as well?
1:10:43
Speaker 5: I think you're absolutely right. I mean, look, the people
1:10:45
Speaker 5: feel that the political class allowed jobs to be offshore.
1:10:50
Speaker 5: They allowed wealth to pile up in districts like mine,
1:10:54
Speaker 5: that $ 12 trillion in Silicon Valley. Their wages have stagnated.
1:10:59
Speaker 5: Their kids aren't being able to buy a car or
1:11:01
Speaker 5: a house. Then they see politicians. They say, You know,
1:11:03
Speaker 5: look at this kind of guy and other ones. They're
1:11:05
Speaker 5: spending so much of their time fundraising. They're part of
1:11:08
Speaker 5: a system where if you're a lobbyist or someone, you're
1:11:13
Speaker 5: going to have more access. You've got these billionaires like
1:11:17
Speaker 5: Elon Musk. And we've got billionaires on our side, too,
1:11:20
Speaker 5: that are flooding people's screens. And we really don't matter.
1:11:24
Speaker 5: The system is broken. The economy is broken. We need
1:11:28
Speaker 5: real change. And then I would say there are two
1:11:31
Speaker 5: different ways you can go. You can either go the
1:11:33
Speaker 5: Donald Trump way, which is just to express all of
1:11:37
Speaker 5: that grievance and provide what I believe are sloganeering that
1:11:42
Speaker 5: not only appeal to the worst of us, blame immigrants,
1:11:45
Speaker 5: blame the trans community, and aren't going to actually reform
1:11:51
Speaker 5: the political system or actually help create jobs in Galesburg
1:11:55
Speaker 5: or help someone get healthcare or help someone get a raise.
1:11:58
Speaker 5: And by the way, they can also appeal to the worst,
1:12:01
Speaker 5: You know, when has it become fashionable for politicians to curse?
1:12:04
Speaker 5: Like now it's like, oh, to prove our authenticity, you
1:12:07
Speaker 5: got to curse. You know why politicians didn't curse? It's
1:12:10
Speaker 5: not like, you know, previous presidents didn't curse. It's that
1:12:14
Speaker 5: they said that in public they wanted to represent the best,
1:12:18
Speaker 5: that they wanted to appeal to the highest aspirations. So
1:12:21
Speaker 5: they weren't going to go and talk in public like
1:12:23
Speaker 5: they would talk at a sports bar. And there was
1:12:25
Speaker 5: something to that. And I believe that that still should
1:12:29
Speaker 5: be the Democratic agenda. vision to appeal to something better
1:12:32
Speaker 5: in America and only by doing that. This is, I think,
1:12:36
Speaker 5: the democratic magic that we can bring together labor and
1:12:40
Speaker 5: community organizers and business and technologists and actually provide real solutions.
1:12:45
Speaker 5: And I guess that's who I am as a person.
1:12:48
Speaker 5: So for me, that is authentic. But I think that's
1:12:51
Speaker 5: also true of a lot of us in the Democratic Party.
1:12:54
Speaker 5: And we shouldn't force ourselves to be doing things that
1:12:57
Speaker 5: are mimicking in style the Republicans.
1:13:01
Speaker 2: The path back to power for Democrats doesn't just involve
1:13:04
Speaker 2: winning some combination of the seven swing states that Kamala
1:13:08
Speaker 2: Harris lost. It also involves winning 51 Senate seats. We
1:13:12
Speaker 2: currently have 47. If you look at 2026, a majority
1:13:15
Speaker 2: will require flipping Maine, which is doable, but then you
1:13:18
Speaker 2: need North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Alaska to get to 51.
1:13:22
Speaker 1: Wow.
1:13:22
Speaker 2: 2028, just as bad. You need Wisconsin, North Carolina, Alaska,
1:13:25
Speaker 2: the only real pickup opportunities. I wonder, like, what kind
1:13:29
Speaker 2: of Democratic candidate do you think could win in states
1:13:32
Speaker 2: like those, knowing that Sherrod Brown, one of the most successful, respected,
1:13:38
Speaker 2: progressive economic populists the Senate has ever had, just lost
1:13:42
Speaker 2: his seat?
1:13:44
Speaker 5: Sherrod was, other than losing the presidency, I was, I mean,
1:13:47
Speaker 5: saddest with Sherrod losing.
1:13:50
Speaker 2: Me too, me too.
1:13:51
Speaker 5: And what the crypto PACs, I mean, we had arguments
1:13:54
Speaker 5: with them, because I've been... relatively supportive of Bitcoin and crypto.
1:13:59
Speaker 5: But what they did in that state was awful, $ 40
1:14:02
Speaker 5: million of spending. And I do think that that made
1:14:07
Speaker 5: the difference. You know, we had great candidates with Alyssa
1:14:11
Speaker 5: Slotkin and Tammy Bowen and Ruben Gallego. I don't think
1:14:16
Speaker 5: there's one magic formula, but I think what they would
1:14:19
Speaker 5: tell you is they really went into the communities. They
1:14:23
Speaker 5: They listened. They showed up. They built trust. They built
1:14:28
Speaker 5: a connection in those communities. And we need to do
1:14:32
Speaker 5: that in a 50-state strategy for the DNC. But I
1:14:36
Speaker 5: think that our best bet is economic. It's to say
1:14:40
Speaker 5: in Ohio, OK, look, your jobs have kept going offshore.
1:14:44
Speaker 5: There's no manufacturing in many of these places. Wages haven't
1:14:49
Speaker 5: gone up. You don't have health care. We have what
1:14:54
Speaker 5: I would say is a new economic deal, a real
1:14:55
Speaker 5: economic revitalization vision that is actually going to give economic
1:15:00
Speaker 5: opportunity to your kids. And this is you've tried the rest.
1:15:02
Speaker 5: Here's our real solution. And that that to me is
1:15:06
Speaker 5: our our best bet going forward with candidates who are
1:15:10
Speaker 5: going to be grounded in their communities.
1:15:12
Speaker 2: You mentioned 50 state strategy for for DNC. Do you
1:15:16
Speaker 2: have a favorite candidate for DNC chair yet?
1:15:19
Speaker 1: I don't.
1:15:20
Speaker 5: I like Ken Martin. I like Ben Wickler. There may
1:15:23
Speaker 5: be others that emerge. I doubt I'm going to endorse
1:15:27
Speaker 5: in the process. I think they should play out. But
1:15:29
Speaker 5: what I'd like to see is their plans on how
1:15:32
Speaker 5: we're going to increase registration. I mean, the Republicans were
1:15:35
Speaker 5: out registering us in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, in some
1:15:38
Speaker 5: of these other states, how they're going to make sure
1:15:42
Speaker 5: that they're discouraging super PAC money, at least in Democratic primaries,
1:15:46
Speaker 5: not in in a general election, but in the Democratic primaries,
1:15:50
Speaker 5: and how we're going to get rid of corporate money
1:15:53
Speaker 5: coming into the DNC, because I don't think we need it.
1:15:55
Speaker 5: I think we can build without it.
1:15:57
Speaker 2: Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you, as always, for joining Pod
1:16:00
Speaker 2: Save America and come back soon.
1:16:02
Speaker 5: Appreciate it. Thank you.
1:16:09
Speaker 2: That's our show for today. Dan and I will be
1:16:11
Speaker 2: back with a new show on Wednesday.
1:16:12
Speaker 5: Bye, everyone.
1:16:14
Speaker 2: If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad-free
1:16:16
Speaker 2: or get access to our subscriber Discord and exclusive podcasts,
1:16:20
Speaker 2: consider joining our Friends of the Pod community at crooked.com
1:16:23
Speaker 2: slash friends or subscribe on Apple Podcasts directly from the
1:16:26
Speaker 2: Pod Save America feed. Also, be sure to follow Pod
1:16:28
Speaker 2: Save America on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for full episodes,
1:16:33
Speaker 2: bonus content, and more. And before you hit that next button,
1:16:36
Speaker 2: you can help boost this episode by leaving us a
1:16:38
Speaker 2: review and by sharing it with friends and family. Pod
1:16:41
Speaker 2: Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our producers are
1:16:44
Speaker 2: David Toledo and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari.
1:16:48
Speaker 2: Reid Cherlin is our executive editor and Adrian Hill is
1:16:51
Speaker 2: our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by
1:16:54
Speaker 2: Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio
1:16:57
Speaker 2: support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by
1:17:01
Speaker 2: Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming.
1:17:05
Speaker 2: Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is
1:17:08
Speaker 2: our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn,
1:17:12
Speaker 2: Haley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hepcote, Mia Kelman,
1:17:16
Speaker 2: Molly Lobel, Kiril Pelleviv, and David Toles.