Speaker 1: Today I initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration on
Speaker 1: behalf of the people of the state of California, asserting
Speaker 1: that Trump does not have the unilateral authority to impose
Speaker 1: one of the largest tax increases in US history. Impacts
Speaker 1: of these tariffs are disproportionately being felt here in California,
Speaker 1: the number one manufacturing state in America, state that will
Speaker 1: be significantly impacted by this unilateral decision by the President
Speaker 1: of the United States. I'm looking forward to talking about
Speaker 1: that more with my next guest. We'll talk trade, we'll
Speaker 1: talk tariffs, We'll talk about what happened in the last election.
Speaker 1: Is this two thousand and four all over again? Are
Speaker 1: Democrats ready for a big comeback? And what does the
Speaker 1: future hold to My next guest, is he running for
Speaker 1: president of the United States. This is Gavin Newsom and
Speaker 1: this is Rob Emmanuel Ron. Thanks for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: And before we get started, there's so many issues that
Speaker 1: I want to get to in a relatively short period
Speaker 1: of time. We'll talk obviously about the state of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, the state of our union, tariff's issues, obviously
Speaker 1: related to your service and time in Asia. But top
Speaker 1: of mind this week is so much of the attention
Speaker 1: on Harvard University and their pushback, which generated a lot
Speaker 1: of interest, including from your old boss, President Obama, who
Speaker 1: tweeted out a very positive statement on behalf of Harvard,
Speaker 1: asserting that it's time to assert universities to assert themselves
Speaker 1: more aggressively as it relates to what Trump's trying to do.
Speaker 1: I'm just curious what your thoughts were on Harvard and moreover,
Speaker 1: what's happening with higher education and respect to the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm of a couple of minds on higher education,
Speaker 2: and one is I mean, I don't think anybody's pointed
Speaker 2: this out, but you know, Donald Trump started his kind
Speaker 2: of introduction into public life in one way or another
Speaker 2: with Roy who is Joe McCarthy's right hand man. And
Speaker 2: the attack on university is infamous back in the McCarthy era,
Speaker 2: squashing both the role of the university has played in
Speaker 2: our book life and also academic freedom. And that's one element.
Speaker 2: The second element is, you know, having been in Japan,
Speaker 2: but I knew this without going to Japan. The American
Speaker 2: university system, I mean California, you know this firsthand, and
Speaker 2: it's role that it plays from a research and development
Speaker 2: on cutting edge technologies, new entrepreneur not only entrepreneurs, but
Speaker 2: new entrepreneurship, new ideas with business models. I met somebody
Speaker 2: from Stanford the other day in the AI space who's
Speaker 2: now got a company that's an example of what is
Speaker 2: so unique, and people Japan, israel I can give you
Speaker 2: all over the world in Europe all admire what we
Speaker 2: have built year over year over year. And not only
Speaker 2: is the political freedom happening, but we're actually now billing
Speaker 2: the goose laid the golden egg for America's economic competitiveness.
Speaker 2: And then, third, if you think of the future on
Speaker 2: the international level as a battle not of a Cold
Speaker 2: war in the sense of ideological Soviet Universus the free world,
Speaker 2: but as a technological battle and competition between the United
Speaker 2: States and China, we are really, you know, latterly disarmed.
Speaker 2: And then fourth, and finally a governor, I take offense
Speaker 2: as an American and as a Jewish American, the idea
Speaker 2: that you're going to use anti Semitism or the what
Speaker 2: universities had as a culture. And I think there's a
Speaker 2: legitimate point to address that and reform that. But using
Speaker 2: anti semitism to uh literally destroy our academic institutions in
Speaker 2: university and the and they that's how they're getting the
Speaker 2: goods through customs. So quote unquote dealing with anti Semitism,
Speaker 2: and you know, you know, you and I are talking
Speaker 2: on passover the we could pass over the idea that
Speaker 2: the Jewish Commune would find any comfort with one person's
Speaker 2: opinion as opposed to the rule of law. I got
Speaker 2: two thousand years of history that tells you that doesn't
Speaker 2: turn out well. So I said, I can go at
Speaker 2: this like five different angles. And I'm hoping Harvard and
Speaker 2: not just Harvard, but other universities, other law firms, other institutions.
Speaker 2: And I would say that to the Supreme Court, you're
Speaker 2: going to find out whether that black robe is a
Speaker 2: Halloween costume or you actually earned it and understand it
Speaker 2: because he's challenging you. There's nothing sacred, So everybody's gonna
Speaker 2: have to decide, you know, and reach deep down. Harvard
Speaker 2: has other universities are going to have to do the
Speaker 2: same and decide that, you know what, there's something set
Speaker 2: of principles here that are more important than accommodation.
Speaker 1: And I appreciate the reference on the rule to law,
Speaker 1: particularly as it relates to Supreme Court. But I'm just curious,
Speaker 1: I mean interesting, you sort of an origin story with
Speaker 1: roe coin with Roy that I hadn't really considered. But
Speaker 1: what I mean is there something?
Speaker 2: I mean?
Speaker 1: You know, he talks often Trump, doesn't he about how
Speaker 1: highly educated people are. He's always impressed with people's looks.
Speaker 1: He's impressed with their education.
Speaker 2: Well, looks has nothing to do with how educated you are.
Speaker 1: No, no question about that. But what is I mean?
Speaker 1: So it's an interesting thing to me, just as an
Speaker 1: observer someone watches obviously Trump closely, this notion that higher
Speaker 1: education some establishment plot. Is this a political agenda? Is
Speaker 1: this a total twenty five agenda?
Speaker 2: They're getting their goods through customs here? Look, First of all,
Speaker 2: the whole idea of tenure for professors was built coming
Speaker 2: out of the McCarthy are so you could not be
Speaker 2: prosecuted for your political views. That's the orgy of it.
Speaker 2: That's where ten years as a concept is nurtured. If
Speaker 2: I'm reading history correctly, that's where it comes from. And
Speaker 2: professor were given a ability to be protected professionally and
Speaker 2: not being prosecuted for any political expression or views. And
Speaker 2: now were there things that university's got way off track
Speaker 2: on one hundred percent. Were there reforms that were needed
Speaker 2: to be done, Yeah, that and there's not a university
Speaker 2: president or a board revery. They wuldn't tell you that
Speaker 2: was true. Destroying the academic and only freedom, but also
Speaker 2: the research elements and trying to coerce their behavior. Now
Speaker 2: we're going to do the worst of McCarthyism. And I
Speaker 2: don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's actually direct.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's mentor in public life is Roy Cohne, who
Speaker 2: was also Joe McCarthy's mentor and sidekick. And so we're
Speaker 2: living in a period of time, and I don't think
Speaker 2: I don't think I'm being dramatic or hyperbolic, but that's
Speaker 2: the period of time. These institutions, not just Ivy League
Speaker 2: but public university as well, have a history of them
Speaker 2: having stood up, having their voices heard and pushed back.
Speaker 2: And I know you want to stay in this area,
Speaker 2: and I just so I just say this. I find
Speaker 2: it offensive that you're using quote unquote anti semitism that
Speaker 2: was perpetuated on the universities to really deal with your
Speaker 2: political agenda. So let me just say this, Like the
Speaker 2: student at Columbia. I disagree with his views on AMAS.
Speaker 2: I disagree with this what happened on obviously, what happened
Speaker 2: on October seventh. You want to deal with him in
Speaker 2: some way? Have him forced him to do community service
Speaker 2: as an intern at the Holocaust Museum for a year now?
Speaker 2: All he was expressing his views which I find at
Speaker 2: port and I think the American people will see it.
Speaker 2: Killing twelve hundred citizens because they were Jewish is not acceptable.
Speaker 2: Cutting a fetus out of a woman is not only
Speaker 2: on acceptable, it's a crime, Okay, And you want to
Speaker 2: identify with that. We can handle that as a country
Speaker 2: without having to destroy either Columbia University, Harvard University, or
Speaker 2: a public university.
Speaker 1: Well said, So, No, look, I appreciate that, of course.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm serving on the UC Regions board as a
Speaker 1: lieutenant governor governor. No more precious system from my perspective
Speaker 1: in terms of conveyor belt for talent for this country
Speaker 1: and the research and development component of that. And you're
Speaker 1: extending beyond that, I mean the NIH grants and all
Speaker 1: the other efforts to really wreck the systems, put.
Speaker 2: The research aside. Could you reform it? Yes? The universities
Speaker 2: were skimning some dollars. That's an easy way to reform,
Speaker 2: but don't throw out the goose that lays the gold
Speaker 2: in that. The second is as it relates to academic
Speaker 2: non academic freedoms, things that were done to Jewish students,
Speaker 2: Jewish culture, Jewish life on universities that would never be
Speaker 2: accepted to any other minority group, and that true had
Speaker 2: to be dealt with, and the university is being forthcoming
Speaker 2: about that would be helpful, But don't use anti semitism
Speaker 2: or the attack on the Jewish community at a university
Speaker 2: to as your way of getting your goods through customs
Speaker 2: to actually fulfill a political agenda that was articulated in
Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five early before.
Speaker 1: That's right, so let's you know, and just sort of
Speaker 1: segue from Harvard. I mean, there are a number of
Speaker 1: Harvard graduates that happened to be members of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and you reference the Court. And obviously another big story
Speaker 1: in the last few days has been referenced in the
Speaker 1: Oval Office visit with President Mukelly of El Salvador and
Speaker 1: the conversation that was very publicly held in the Oval
Speaker 1: Office related tissues around the Supreme Court's Nino decision and
Speaker 1: the defiance apparently the defiance of PAM BEYONDI, the Attorney
Speaker 1: General and obviously the president himself, including the President of
Speaker 1: El Salvador as it relates to that ruling. I mean,
Speaker 1: how concerned are you? People have talked about a constitutional crisis,
Speaker 1: They talk about red lines, They talk about the foundational
Speaker 1: principles of our founding fathers, three independent branches of government.
Speaker 1: When you defy or apparently defy as Supreme Court ruling,
Speaker 1: have we crossed that red line? Are we on the
Speaker 1: other side of this? Are we being hyperbolic?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think you'd be good. But look, I
Speaker 2: think we're going to find out whether the black robes
Speaker 2: that the members of the Court where are a Halloween
Speaker 2: constitule or they represent the dignity of the Court and
Speaker 2: its opinion as a coequal branch government. They were not
Speaker 2: ambiguous as related to the individual and that the United
Speaker 2: States acknowledged they wrongfully sent to the Alsa Ouvadoor prison.
Speaker 2: Now the Court is either going to show that not
Speaker 2: the Court's opinions are the final verdict. An opinion now
Speaker 2: need to be executed by the executive branch and if
Speaker 2: he defies them and they take no step in that. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, there's a lot of ways to deal with
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, individual citizens that are held in
Speaker 2: contempt of the court. There's a lot of different ways
Speaker 2: to deal with this. And look, I go back to
Speaker 2: when Chief Justice Roberts was being confirmed by the Senate.
Speaker 2: He said that judges are like umpires. That was his words,
Speaker 2: they call balls and struts. Well you called this one. Now,
Speaker 2: Either you're going to allow your opinion as an umpire,
Speaker 2: which I happened. I think is a horrible metaphor, but
Speaker 2: you used it, and you're going to let your opinion
Speaker 2: hold the day, or basically it's a fungible opinion. It
Speaker 2: doesn't matter what you said. Now, I'm not a lawyer.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you are a governor. But I
Speaker 2: studied the Constitution and I always understood there were three
Speaker 2: branches of co equal branches of government, not one above
Speaker 2: all others. We're going to find out something about the court,
Speaker 2: not just the president.
Speaker 1: Amen. The best of Roman Republic, Greek democracy, independent co
Speaker 1: equo branches the government, popular sovereignty, sort of fundamental principles
Speaker 1: we've been celebrating for two hundred and forty plus years. Look,
Speaker 1: we've also been sort of reflecting in the last few
Speaker 1: weeks the years and years that Donald Trump himself and
Speaker 1: back to I think the origin story, and I think
Speaker 1: it's really interesting and insightful how you began the conversation
Speaker 1: as relates to Roy Cohen in the history of McCarthyism
Speaker 1: and relationship to this moment, and so much I think
Speaker 1: about Trump goes back to sort of indelible ideological perspectives
Speaker 1: that he's had for years and years and years, and
Speaker 1: I don't think we give more enough credence to that,
Speaker 1: including on the issue that connects to you in a
Speaker 1: more modern term and your ambassadoral time in Japan, and
Speaker 1: that's the issue of tariff's where Trump, I think, in
Speaker 1: the eighties put out a full page add if I
Speaker 1: recall around how unfair trade policy was and how Japan
Speaker 1: at the time was cleaning our clock. And here we
Speaker 1: are fast forward with all these terror policies. So are
Speaker 1: you surprised that we're where we are? Obviously you have
Speaker 1: strong opinions about the recklessness of it, but from an
Speaker 1: historic perspective of that perspective of that prism, is it
Speaker 1: surprise you he's what he's advancing.
Speaker 2: What he's advanced. So let's deal with a couple of
Speaker 2: things that I think are all in there. One is
Speaker 2: it doesn't surprise me either he said he was going
Speaker 2: to do the tariffs. What surprised me is the erraticness,
Speaker 2: because it was the one constant thing he said in
Speaker 2: the campaign, one constant thing, as you said, in his
Speaker 2: public life, and it's been the most erratic, not thought
Speaker 2: through most I mean as opposed to kind of the
Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five stuff that he didn't mention. That's
Speaker 2: been unbelievably like there was a strategy. Here is what
Speaker 2: he did mention, and it's just every day is a
Speaker 2: new day. Look. It's the largest tax increase in American history.
Speaker 2: Cool Stoff. Two. It's a corrupt system because whoever goes
Speaker 2: to Marrow Lago gets a cut, gets a cut, as
Speaker 2: you're seeing on car.
Speaker 1: Pause on that. I think that's the most under reported
Speaker 1: part of this. The regressive tax side is one thing.
Speaker 1: What this means for crony capitalism is another.
Speaker 2: This is the worst of as I said when he
Speaker 2: first got elected but wasn't inaugurated. Here he's going to
Speaker 2: turn the Oval Office into eBay, and it's the highest bidder,
Speaker 2: and if it ain't nailed down, he's gonna sell it.
Speaker 2: And it's crony capitals. Here is my another p and
Speaker 2: it's affecting the dollar. It's affecting this your four one K.
Speaker 2: But here's the other piece. Twenty years ago, China was
Speaker 2: on the rise in America was seen as stagnating to climb. Right,
Speaker 2: g does a couple of things that is the worst
Speaker 2: economic damage anyone person to do, and he did it
Speaker 2: to China. He busts the housing bubble, he busts the
Speaker 2: municipal debt bubble, He cracks down on the private sector.
Speaker 2: Foreign investment fleas, foreign entrepreneurs flee, entrepreneurs and stop, and
Speaker 2: the economy goes into what people were referring to as
Speaker 2: a Japanese style deflation, and youth unemployment shoots way up.
Speaker 2: The United States is on the rocks, money is flowing in,
Speaker 2: unemployment is down, manufacturing is coming back. And China's strategy
Speaker 2: in that scenario is We're going to export our problems
Speaker 2: through manufacturing all across the globe. Chile lose its only
Speaker 2: steel plan, South Africa is about to lose their steel plan.
Speaker 2: Countries that are aligned with China, Brazil, Mexico file wto
Speaker 2: cases against China. We're the safe harbor. We're the adult,
Speaker 2: that is the United States. What happens we do these
Speaker 2: tariffs are erratic and then all of a sudden, China
Speaker 2: looks like a place of stability, and we look like
Speaker 2: the chaos agent. Rather than China being isolated in the world,
Speaker 2: aligning with the United States, the United States gets isolated
Speaker 2: and we have turned. We had China and they knew it.
Speaker 2: They said, this doesn't require interpretation. China said, you're isolating us.
Speaker 2: We took advantage of China's on goal they did to
Speaker 2: themselves economically through their mercantilism, what their wolf warrior was
Speaker 2: on the diplomatic front, and we used it strategically better
Speaker 2: than we actually assumed we could do. And we just
Speaker 2: committed the worst on goal and snapping the literally ripping
Speaker 2: the victory from the jaws at the feet. And now
Speaker 2: we're the isolated party. And what's worse. And let me
Speaker 2: say this is a father with two children, one full
Speaker 2: time and the other reserve enlisted in the armed forces.
Speaker 2: Nineteen seventy nine, Governor was the first time the United
Speaker 2: States deployed a sanctioned it was on Iran and used
Speaker 2: its economic power and the power of the dollar, so
Speaker 2: we didn't have to do something kinetic Milternally, we refined
Speaker 2: this and really become experts going through the War on Terror,
Speaker 2: and we had built up the capacity. And one of
Speaker 2: the things that China and Russia hated was the United
Speaker 2: States through the dollar, could economically punish you in a
Speaker 2: way that it didn't have to require the US military
Speaker 2: to do it, but we could use our economic power
Speaker 2: and our power of our dollar. We have destroyed, destroyed,
Speaker 2: not inhibited, one of the most important tools we have
Speaker 2: developed over fifty years to punish an adversary without putting
Speaker 2: men and women in the United States uniform at risk.
Speaker 2: This is, as my grandfather would say, a shanda. It's
Speaker 2: a crime committed against ourselves. It is ridiculous. Now, most
Speaker 2: importantly the American people, I give them a lot of credit.
Speaker 2: It took them. They didn't go to Harvard, they didn't
Speaker 2: go to Columbia.
Speaker 1: They didn't they didn't even get a four year degree.
Speaker 2: Most of all, we knew that a tariff was a
Speaker 2: taxed on day one, and they knew they were going
Speaker 2: to get hosed right, figured it out without going to
Speaker 2: business school, knew it up front, rejected it, and he
Speaker 2: is showing political the political peril of his own position.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we completely betrayed them, right, I mean by definition
Speaker 1: number one, day one bringing down prices, number one promise.
Speaker 2: Look the one look, we have our own problem with Democrats.
Speaker 2: Will get to that and the rest of this podcast.
Speaker 2: But the one thing you can say about Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: He'll portray you insteady in the back and he's doing
Speaker 2: it all and the American people are going to punish
Speaker 2: the Republicans for this, and you saw it in the election.
Speaker 1: So let me and I definitely would look forward to
Speaker 1: talking about the political implications. But let's just talk about
Speaker 1: the practical. I mean, because you've yeah, I mean you've
Speaker 1: you've experienced firsthand, up close, our efforts, particularly during the
Speaker 1: Biden administration. I really applaud those eforts, particularly with Japan
Speaker 1: and Korea, and in relationship to China. You were very vocal,
Speaker 1: very vocal, more than any ambassador, which took some courage,
Speaker 1: I thought. Against China, you've seen this sort of geopolitical shuffle.
Speaker 1: I mean, what are they saying? You know, Trump's now
Speaker 1: saying We're respected around the world. What are they saying
Speaker 1: in the halls with our allies? I mean, how consequential
Speaker 1: is this to trust? And how long is this wound?
Speaker 2: Going to festiv I would say to you Governor, first
Speaker 2: of all, in eighty days he's destroyed eighty years of
Speaker 2: credibility in the United States, a big hit on our credibility.
Speaker 2: You can look at into Pacific, you can look at
Speaker 2: the Middle East. You can do in Europe, if can
Speaker 2: look at Africa. No one reason is more outweighs another.
Speaker 2: The most important thing post Donald Trump is somehow restoring
Speaker 2: trust and credibility to the United States. Work. People are
Speaker 2: ridiculing the I say, I said, if you don't just
Speaker 2: then word. But also indeed I worked tirelessly and I
Speaker 2: give the President and the Nationality Apparatus credit. With my
Speaker 2: colleague in South Korea in the historic coming together at
Speaker 2: Camp David between the President, the President of South Korea,
Speaker 2: and the Prime Minister of Japan, we all three countries
Speaker 2: have a complicated history. We came together saw the future
Speaker 2: is more important than the past, and embraced it and
Speaker 2: shaped it. Two weeks ago, China brought together the foreign
Speaker 2: ministers of Korea and Japan. With them, they announced an
Speaker 2: economic partnership to the ground and develop Korea that was
Speaker 2: essential to the our export controls against the semiconductor industry
Speaker 2: in China. Samsung, the shining corporate semi conductor company in Korea,
Speaker 2: announced an agreement with the Chinese company. Now nobody's respecting
Speaker 2: the United States, nobody's trusting the United States. They're looking
Speaker 2: out for their own self interests. That meeting China, Korea
Speaker 2: and Japan never would have happened on the kind of
Speaker 2: level it happened with the outgrowth that happened, and we
Speaker 2: not committed and isolated ourselves with the tariff policy that
Speaker 2: hit ally and adversary with equal force. So it's an
Speaker 2: end goal. It's no other way to describe.
Speaker 1: It, would you extend? I mean, obviously there's a lot
Speaker 1: of talk now in South Korea about the prospect of
Speaker 1: a Korean peninsula where everyone is a nuclear power. Obviously
Speaker 1: there's now renewed conversations, which is remarkable to me. You
Speaker 1: would understand it better than anyone in Japan even I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think that's an outgrowth of this moment or
Speaker 1: is that a more complicated question that may pre date,
Speaker 1: the recklessness of Trump's tariff announcements.
Speaker 2: So one is everybody used to say, oh about non proliferation,
Speaker 2: it was expensive what we did. You're about to get
Speaker 2: sticker shock on proliferation. You're here. We spent the year
Speaker 2: and a half. I was having more on the sidelines
Speaker 2: than this one vincent Korea not to go nuclear, but
Speaker 2: divide with the United States and a whole process of
Speaker 2: that fast forward. What happens is I think Korea is
Speaker 2: going to look at the United States as an untrusted
Speaker 2: ally and they're going to make a decision. With North
Speaker 2: Korea's possession of nuclear capacity, China's capacity, they're going to
Speaker 2: go nuclear and they're not going to put their faith
Speaker 2: in the United States anymore. And if Korea does it, Japan,
Speaker 2: So just close your eyes. Pakistan, India, China, North Korea,
Speaker 2: South Korea, and Japan all in that region will be nuclear.
Speaker 2: What could go wrong? It's insane. I want to go
Speaker 2: double back on some of my skips, and I want
Speaker 2: to say something about the tariffs. Heet asked if I
Speaker 2: could governor. We're treating textiles, toys and technology as equals,
Speaker 2: and I don't know the idea that we're going to
Speaker 2: see technology or semiconductors, and I'm not saying they're more,
Speaker 2: but they are slightly more valuable than a T shirt
Speaker 2: from our economic capacity and strength. So if you're going
Speaker 2: to have a policy making sure that America's own economy
Speaker 2: is secure in slightly more self sufficient than where it was,
Speaker 2: you don't treat toys manufactured in China, textiles manufactured in
Speaker 2: Southeast Asia, and technology like semiconductors as if they're equal
Speaker 2: economic capacity. And lastly, what's also lost in the spate.
Speaker 2: Almost forty five percent of all imports into the United
Speaker 2: States are things that go into our own manufacturing base.
Speaker 2: So we're going to affect manufacturing, but not the way
Speaker 2: that Donald Trump said. It will have an impact on manufacturing.
Speaker 2: It will actually lead to unemployment in the manufacturing. I
Speaker 2: don't know if you know this, and I'm sure you
Speaker 2: do because you have your own industrial base in California.
Speaker 2: There's five hundred thousand manufacturing jobs today with the help
Speaker 2: want it signed around it. Yep, we're short workers. You
Speaker 2: know this and I know this is going around. I
Speaker 2: used to have CEOs come through here. I talked to
Speaker 2: them in this today you do too. Biggest item besides
Speaker 2: this regulation or that, that's biggest item, a workforce that
Speaker 2: they can't find. Right, So if we started at home,
Speaker 2: we would be Actually, there's five hundred thousand manufacturing jobs today.
Speaker 2: We could have done something about with it before we
Speaker 2: hit the tear off kaas.
Speaker 1: Look, I appreciate it. Also speaking of kids, I've got
Speaker 1: four kids and they still love toys. I think eighty
Speaker 1: percent of the toys under the Christmas Tree come from China.
Speaker 1: They've doubled the cost of that. Obviously, if you're got
Speaker 1: your four to one K as you said earlier, and
Speaker 1: I think the focus on four to one K more
Speaker 1: than the markets. I think even Carvo brought that up
Speaker 1: in a recent op ed I thought was very wise
Speaker 1: and connects with people on more a much more personal way.
Speaker 1: But I want to highlight what you just said. California
Speaker 1: is the biggest manufacturing state in America. People forget that.
Speaker 1: Californiumber one and two way trade, number one and direct
Speaker 1: foreign investment, and number one manufacturing state in America. Forty
Speaker 1: percent of the goods movements in this country come through
Speaker 1: two ports of entry in California, about fifty percent of
Speaker 1: that from China itself. No state has more to lose,
Speaker 1: more to gain as it relates to ag as it
Speaker 1: relates to all of these industries and tech as you
Speaker 1: noted AI, etc. So that's, by the way, why we
Speaker 1: just filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, and we
Speaker 1: did it on I think very sound grounds and it's
Speaker 1: an interesting lawsuit for many different reasons. But we've got
Speaker 1: to push back much more aggressively on the consequences of this.
Speaker 2: Let me say this without trying to go into a
Speaker 2: witness protection plan, which.
Speaker 1: By the way is hyperbole but not necessarily in this
Speaker 1: day and age. So I appreciate the cabin Yeah, do
Speaker 1: you know a lawyer before? By the way, none at
Speaker 1: SCAT and ARBs, none at Paul Weiss, none of all
Speaker 1: these firms that have capitulated. You brought that up at
Speaker 1: the top.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing is the analysis that we have a
Speaker 2: problem where America did not invest in America or Americans
Speaker 2: and it led to our economic independence being adversely not
Speaker 2: only affected, but it also affected our civic life because
Speaker 2: people lost confidence in America by Americans. That is not
Speaker 2: a wrong analysis going about that. Terifs are the most
Speaker 2: beautiful word in the English language and hitting everything ally
Speaker 2: and adversary the same, not thinking to it through strategically,
Speaker 2: not understanding the difference between toys and technology. From an
Speaker 2: economic standpoint is actually the cure is worse than the illness,
Speaker 2: and it's going to be affect people's family budgets, can
Speaker 2: affect their employment, It's going to affect a whole host
Speaker 2: of things and their economic security, their retirement security, their
Speaker 2: education for their children. And so to me, your first
Speaker 2: question kind of was I get the analysis of what
Speaker 2: it ailes America or one of the things that ails America.
Speaker 2: It's not wrong, but like all things Trump, he makes
Speaker 2: the problem much more severe than address it. There you go, yep,
Speaker 2: in every aspect. Take the academic institutions. Were there things
Speaker 2: that they had done over the years that got them
Speaker 2: off kilter one hundred percent? But using anti semitism to
Speaker 2: execute a political strategy to silence universities and academics.
Speaker 1: No, that's exactly right. And so I know I'm with
Speaker 1: you on what you're saying is you're not an anti
Speaker 1: tariff absolutist. Do you believe in targeted terriffs?
Speaker 2: And along the lines of way, No, I didn't say that,
Speaker 2: actual I know I want to be. I want to
Speaker 2: speak what.
Speaker 1: Are you But you've been But you've been. You haven't
Speaker 1: been opposed to tariffs in the past. I mean you've
Speaker 1: you know the Biden administration triple them on Chinese steel
Speaker 1: and aluminum.
Speaker 2: Here's my thing is, if we've got a problem, what
Speaker 2: does it take to address and build an industry? Now, look,
Speaker 2: my analysis going back then as a massive China is
Speaker 2: the one that came up with self sufficiency as an
Speaker 2: economic model. That's why there's exporting their mercantilism and crushing
Speaker 2: all these countries around the world. They've decided how to
Speaker 2: isolate themselves from the world rather than interact with the world.
Speaker 2: And it's only on China's term. If you want to
Speaker 2: apply a tariff, my view is, okay, what are the
Speaker 2: things that we are going to do that tariff give
Speaker 2: us a window of time. What are our investments, what's
Speaker 2: our training? What are we going to do from a
Speaker 2: research standpoint in semiconductors, in steel, or pick your industry.
Speaker 2: I'm not for tariffs. They are a tool in a toolbox.
Speaker 2: But tell me what we're doing with all the tools
Speaker 2: in the toolbox. So you have an integrated cohesive comprehend
Speaker 2: of strategy. If we don't train the workers for the
Speaker 2: five hundred thousand jobs, I don't care what terrafs you do. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2: And if you're not going to fund some research, that's
Speaker 2: take a look. You know. I'll just say this, fracking
Speaker 2: as a technology came out of our universities. Look we're
Speaker 2: now we went from a four hundred billion dollar import
Speaker 2: to a forty five billion dollar export. That's a big swing.
Speaker 2: Tell me what we're going to now. People are thinking
Speaker 2: of using that hydraulic technology to do geothermal. Tell me
Speaker 2: what we're doing, what the worth, the end line, and
Speaker 2: what are all the pieces that fit into that. We're
Speaker 2: just going by gut instincts of one guy who failed
Speaker 2: seven businesses.
Speaker 1: So what you're saying I mean, And to be to
Speaker 1: be more clear than the basis of that reaction, targeted
Speaker 1: tariffs with an industrial policy, with a policy to back
Speaker 1: it up, with a rationale to use it as a
Speaker 1: tool for strategic national security issues or for legitimate questions
Speaker 1: around imbalance of trade or unfair present People like the
Speaker 1: Secretary of Commerce and the President who believe tariffs are
Speaker 1: the economic toolbox, they're not.
Speaker 2: They are a tool in the toolbox, But you tell
Speaker 2: me each sector, what is the strategy. What are we
Speaker 2: going to do for training? What are we going to
Speaker 2: do for infrastructure? What are we doing for research and development?
Speaker 2: How are we going to take certain US companies and
Speaker 2: build them up or invite foreign investors to build those up?
Speaker 2: And I'll give you example. Take the shipbuilding industry Japan
Speaker 2: and Korea unbelievably capable of coming in and investing in
Speaker 2: helping build that domestic industry in the United States. Are
Speaker 2: they banned? Are they part of that? Are they allies
Speaker 2: that we're going to invite in to help us jump
Speaker 2: start something that we've lost our muscle memory on. That's
Speaker 2: a strategy. I want to I just what it is
Speaker 2: we're going to do. What's the roadmap here? So everybody
Speaker 2: knows how to contribute and knows what the goal line
Speaker 2: is or what the end point is.
Speaker 1: This is an opportun unity to pivot a little bit,
Speaker 1: but pivot with a little bit of self reflection. And
Speaker 1: one of the things I really appreciated.
Speaker 2: It that's going to be hard for an e manual.
Speaker 1: That's well, I don't know, you've been pretty I was
Speaker 1: about to compliment you as an emmanual.
Speaker 2: Self reflection on the podcast too. Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, well, you know we could we could
Speaker 1: get in a deeper conversation. Yeah, all two of your
Speaker 1: two other brothers. Yeah, we could talk about as well.
Speaker 1: You already think you brought up the family in the
Speaker 1: context of what was the word you used, wasn't misschi gosh?
Speaker 1: What was it?
Speaker 2: Shonda? It's a it's a. It's an embarrassment. It's a shonda.
Speaker 1: I like it. I'm going to steal that.
Speaker 2: It's it's half sin, half comparison.
Speaker 1: It's good. It's the moment. But let me talk about
Speaker 1: a different moment. I mean you and you were part
Speaker 1: of it, and frankly, I think all of us where
Speaker 1: a lot of us were parroting it to be Canada,
Speaker 1: you know, as I sort of a Clinton Democrat back
Speaker 1: in the day nafta the WTO. You know, people talk
Speaker 1: a lot about the WTO sort of as a point
Speaker 1: of emphasis that sort of led to this point, not
Speaker 1: just an op ed in the nineteen eighties or add
Speaker 1: by Trump as it relates to his positions on trade.
Speaker 1: You know, what do you make of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and our culpability for this moment and the hollowing out
Speaker 1: of our industrial base and the need to jump start.
Speaker 1: I mean what, Just take their arguments, the ban and arguments.
Speaker 1: Take the arguments of Trump and the accolytes around him
Speaker 1: that it's time to reindustrialize, it's time to bring those
Speaker 1: supply chains home, it's time to really start focusing. Yes,
Speaker 1: dare I say it on America first?
Speaker 2: Rom Look, I don't so I agree with that on
Speaker 2: both America and Americans first, as a person who first
Speaker 2: city to ever create free community college and make sure
Speaker 2: high school isn't the endpoint of a public commitment to education.
Speaker 2: And so, Governor, here's what I would say, And I'll
Speaker 2: talk to both both NAFTIN and WT and WTO meaning
Speaker 2: China into WTO, and they're slightly different, but of single spirit.
Speaker 2: The mistake, it's a mistake, and we own a polity
Speaker 2: American people, is we allowed Lacrosse, Wisconsin, Peoria, Illinois, Youngstown, Ohio, Saginaw, Michigan,
Speaker 2: or Battle Creek, Michigan, or Terre Hoo, Indiana, to navigate
Speaker 2: the world market on their own against China and much
Speaker 2: bigger forces. We didn't. We didn't. If you go back
Speaker 2: to NAFTA, President Clinton had proposed a billions and billions
Speaker 2: of dollars of investment that was turned down by Congress,
Speaker 2: ended up with like a job training program, like about you,
Speaker 2: and basically said here, you're on your own. And the
Speaker 2: truth is you and I and our kids we're going
Speaker 2: to get the rewards of the system that we built.
Speaker 2: That's not true for everybody. The American dream is not
Speaker 2: has been unaffordable and inaccessible every year after every year,
Speaker 2: and it's down now to about temper sent the children
Speaker 2: of American families have access. All American people want is
Speaker 2: a simple thing, a shot in the American dream, and
Speaker 2: they got the shaft. And he left communities unprotected against China.
Speaker 2: Peoria is not set up, and the people who live
Speaker 2: in Burea to fight China on their own. And that's
Speaker 2: just an observation. That's just a fact. And while trade
Speaker 2: had benefits, the benefits were not equally shared and the
Speaker 2: risk was not equally shared. And that's a fact. And
Speaker 2: for too long it was ignored as a scream and
Speaker 2: a yell. And you can explain something of Donald Trump
Speaker 2: in that now on wto I same analysis, except for
Speaker 2: I would say one coveyat when China was brought in.
Speaker 2: It was part of in the same way that Russia
Speaker 2: was brought into NATO and Russia was brought into the
Speaker 2: G seven. It was a theory of the case. And
Speaker 2: it's a kind of a sixty forty issue. It's better
Speaker 2: to have him in the tent pissing out than outside
Speaker 2: the ten person And to use an LBJ term not
Speaker 2: it's not you know this as governor. I know as
Speaker 2: a mayor's chief staff. Nothing's one hundred zero. That's what
Speaker 2: you have AI for. These are judgment calls. It was
Speaker 2: better to think that you can make China had invested
Speaker 2: in the system we had. By twenty twelve, when she
Speaker 2: becomes president of China, it's very clear they go from
Speaker 2: strategic competitor to strategic adversaries much different. And it was
Speaker 2: actually also very clear, and I say this as Congressmant
Speaker 2: represented many companies as chief of staff, dealing with CEOs China.
Speaker 2: Intellectual property theft and economic espionage is core to the
Speaker 2: business model in a way that patents and rule of
Speaker 2: law are core to ours. And in twenty twelve we
Speaker 2: held out strategic competitor, ignoring things that we knew were happening,
Speaker 2: and they went to strategic adversary and core to their idea.
Speaker 2: You have Google based in California. Only one country was
Speaker 2: stealing AI secrets from them. It's called China. They do
Speaker 2: it all over our universities, they do it all over
Speaker 2: our companies. It's core to them, and we ignored it.
Speaker 2: Now twenty twelve, we should have blown the whistle, called
Speaker 2: the game and said this is a different game. And
Speaker 2: the only thing I would say is that we woke
Speaker 2: up on Wolf Warrior the economic coersion ten years earlier
Speaker 2: than trying to expected us, and we started making use
Speaker 2: of that kind So was it a mistake in nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety nine? I got to be honest, if it was
Speaker 2: a sixty forty sixty five thirty five call, do you
Speaker 2: let them stay out or you bring them in? And
Speaker 2: when they started changing and not playing by the rules
Speaker 2: they agreed to, they should have gotten called out earlier
Speaker 2: and not just called out. The whistle should have been
Speaker 2: blown and they should have been forfeited the game and
Speaker 2: being dealt with differently. They're not a developing economy. They
Speaker 2: were cheating and stealing their way to economic secrets. And
Speaker 2: not only cheating and stealing, we permitted American companies to
Speaker 2: give away research and development to get access to a market. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, taxpayers pay for that research and development. We
Speaker 2: own that as much as anyone company owns that R
Speaker 2: and D. When we give you a tax credit, we're
Speaker 2: an equity investor. We gave away our family jewels because
Speaker 2: a bunch of company CEOs, all of us did. D
Speaker 2: are most side of Pennsylvania, avenue governors everywhere, because what
Speaker 2: they wanted access to the market. And the biggest mistake,
Speaker 2: we commercialized our forms and national security policy. We commercialized it.
Speaker 2: The business community had way too big a vote, a
Speaker 2: big mistake, and now we have to make up for
Speaker 2: that lost time. We were in the process of doing that.
Speaker 2: And I think what we're doing treating allies is if
Speaker 2: their adversaries adversaries, is the one day they become allies.
Speaker 2: And as a total mistake, because we don't know friend
Speaker 2: from foe.
Speaker 1: Here here and you say we start and this is
Speaker 1: segue then to the Biden years, And you know, I've
Speaker 1: been very vocal. I thought it was a master class
Speaker 1: of policy making. I thought it was extraordinary legislative accomplishments.
Speaker 1: Three hundred and sixty nine billion dollars in the IRA
Speaker 1: fifty two to three. In the chips and science hack
Speaker 1: one point two trillion, I think five hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: billion more that new in the infrastructure, I mean the
Speaker 1: punchline aside of Trump, I mean literally three hundred weeks
Speaker 1: of infrastructure bloviation, and the Biden administration delivered seemed to
Speaker 1: me an industrial policy that was worker centered to begin
Speaker 1: to substantively address these trend lines and address these headlines
Speaker 1: of today. Do you agree with that? And I'm not
Speaker 1: looking you as as a former ambassador of the administration,
Speaker 1: it's difficult to know. I'm not looking to get it
Speaker 1: create any wedges, but it seemed to me a pretty
Speaker 1: robust response to the concerns around the working class, to
Speaker 1: the concerns around what's happening in the heartland. By the way,
Speaker 1: the heartland includes California, which again the largest manufacturing state.
Speaker 1: That is more hunting jobs, more fishing jobs, and more
Speaker 1: forestry jobs, not just ag jobs than any other state.
Speaker 2: So I would say to you, look, it started dealing
Speaker 2: with the fact that both of the industrial policy and
Speaker 2: key sectors of the economy that were going to produce
Speaker 2: both jobs and economic independence. We started to make investments
Speaker 2: in America making up for we just the other question,
Speaker 2: which is things that we didn't invest in, and we
Speaker 2: allowed the the freedom of the market to take place,
Speaker 2: and it affected both our competitiveness and most importantly, the
Speaker 2: American people and their confidence in America because we lost
Speaker 2: face with them. I do think there's you know, it
Speaker 2: was robust, but what was one of the principal things
Speaker 2: that undermined the president was inflation. And that was an
Speaker 2: outgrowth of the robustness of the first Act, which is
Speaker 2: and how big it was and you were.
Speaker 1: Which I neglected to reference. I referenced three of.
Speaker 2: The helpline point was the infrastructure.
Speaker 1: And not exclusively that, I mean it was partially. I mean,
Speaker 1: to be fair, you had international.
Speaker 2: Out of COVID, there's a lot coming out.
Speaker 1: Of COVID, supply chains, the WORL in Ukraine issues, and
Speaker 1: obviously international inflation that impacted the globe. But yes, partially
Speaker 1: impacted America more than.
Speaker 2: The first bill. Everybody was, oh, it's big and bold,
Speaker 2: and look I can say this, and a lot of
Speaker 2: it was we were going to show president you know
Speaker 2: about the competitiveness. We were going to show President Obama
Speaker 2: the right way to do this.
Speaker 1: You think, meaning that Obama's bill wasn't big enough, your bill,
Speaker 1: and we needed to show we could go bolder and bigger.
Speaker 2: I always now you're going to deal with talk about
Speaker 2: self awareness. Nobody ever offered an amendment to make it bigger.
Speaker 2: Everybody that's rewriting history, you know, some of us were there.
Speaker 2: Nobody for a trillion dollars. It wasn't going to pass. Okay,
Speaker 2: so nobody offered it. Everybody that's walking around all it
Speaker 2: was too small, too timid. Okay, where was your amendment?
Speaker 2: Call you for a trillion dollars? Okay, nobody did. Number two.
Speaker 2: It was big. It was bold because we were having
Speaker 2: a problem. Part of it was all there was a
Speaker 2: political piece to this, and we should just be honest.
Speaker 2: It was to show that, oh, we were different than
Speaker 2: the timidness, which I don't think was timid. President Obama
Speaker 2: dealt with on the heels of having this dealt with
Speaker 2: TARP of what President Bush passed and signed, implementing that,
Speaker 2: but also the Recovery Act, that was what the political
Speaker 2: system could bear. Now, the inflation that kicks off under
Speaker 2: President Biden is one of the pieces, not the only,
Speaker 2: but is a result that big and bold came with
Speaker 2: a price, not just economic, it came with a political price,
Speaker 2: because inflation kicked off and it was known at the
Speaker 2: time it would warned. But there was something considerations done
Speaker 2: where politics was to be honest, more valuable. And I
Speaker 2: think sometimes also if I could in the rewrite less
Speaker 2: is more, it became a giant appropriation bill rather than
Speaker 2: a strategically thought through and you can that criticism also
Speaker 2: applies to certain things we did under President Obama's first bill,
Speaker 2: also the recovery bill, which is became too big of
Speaker 2: an funding bill rather than a strategic approach to either
Speaker 2: the recession and or post COVID A present bien so.
Speaker 1: Rom is your point then that it then clouded over
Speaker 1: some of the accomplishments on those other bills. There's sort
Speaker 1: of three legged stool that I was arguing, we're not
Speaker 1: insignificant the chips and Science ACKed and the Infrastructure bill,
Speaker 1: and in making those investments intentionally in the IRA that
Speaker 1: have benefited disproportionately rural and read parts of this country.
Speaker 2: There's no look, look, you got three or four. In
Speaker 2: my view, there's telling people that the economy is great
Speaker 2: when they're feeling stressed as if you're like tone deaf.
Speaker 2: That's wrong.
Speaker 1: Two, that's on the politics.
Speaker 2: Okay. Ye Second, people ready breaking news, people like order
Speaker 2: versus disorder. You're talking to the guy in clinton White
Speaker 2: House who put together Operation Gatekeeper on San Diego and
Speaker 2: the border looked totally out of control. I think American
Speaker 2: people are actually more receptive on immigration, but they don't
Speaker 2: like the law being broken and being so flavingly disregarded.
Speaker 2: And we allowed it to happen. And then Third our party,
Speaker 2: and I've spoken about this, got into a cultural cul
Speaker 2: de sact. You know, Look, we weren't good on the
Speaker 2: kitchen table issues. We weren't really good in the family room.
Speaker 2: The only room we really did well in the house
Speaker 2: was a bathroom. And I don't know if you know this, Governor,
Speaker 2: but the bathroom is the smallest room in the house,
Speaker 2: and that's the only place we were good. Okay. And
Speaker 2: my view is we not only looked like we were
Speaker 2: on the cultural purphery, we looked like that's what was
Speaker 2: front and center for us. And I'm sorry, I've written
Speaker 2: about this, I've talked about it. Stop the bathroom in
Speaker 2: the locker room. It's not more important than the classroom
Speaker 2: and the kitchen table. A lot of things get discussed
Speaker 2: at that kitchen table. What's going on in the neighborhood,
Speaker 2: who are the kids hanging with? How does technology affect
Speaker 2: our children's isolation. They're in the basement. I can't get
Speaker 2: them off off the telephone. There's a whole host of
Speaker 2: issues that happened that happened in your kitchen table. They
Speaker 2: happened at my kidchen table, and they go from the
Speaker 2: kitchen table to the family room to night when you
Speaker 2: have five minutes to talk to your loved one and
Speaker 2: your partner about what we're going to do. So we
Speaker 2: actually got totally sidetracked into a discussion. Now, as a party,
Speaker 2: we're an accepting party, but we started becoming advocates. And
Speaker 2: I'm sorry when two thirds of our kids can't read
Speaker 2: at grade level the worst than thirty years, two curiods
Speaker 2: that our kids can't do math at the worst level
Speaker 2: in thirty years, that's the priority. You make it for
Speaker 2: your own children, and we didn't make it for the
Speaker 2: American children. And this really like, Yes, I was in Japan,
Speaker 2: I couldn't have been a happier, but I was like
Speaker 2: I was watching America from did I say, what do
Speaker 2: you guys? And we lost our mind. This is a
Speaker 2: p The Democratic Party is about the American dream, owning
Speaker 2: a home, save you for your retirement, save you for
Speaker 2: your kids' education, and making sure that grandma wasn't one
Speaker 2: mills away from the chapter eleven and moving into the
Speaker 2: house you wanted her blocks away. Okay, And the American
Speaker 2: dream is not accessible, it's not affordable. That's the That
Speaker 2: is what should motivate us as Democrats to speak to
Speaker 2: now the opportunity for us, if I can go on
Speaker 2: in a tirade here, By the.
Speaker 1: Way, you sound very much like I have lately. So
Speaker 1: keep going wrong, keep going.
Speaker 2: Well, the Democratic Party. Look between now in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 2: this is gonna be a referendum on Donald Trump, and
Speaker 2: there's gonna be a lot of energy. It's not gonna
Speaker 2: be about us. It's gonna be about him.
Speaker 1: But you're not arguing for that. You're arguing for something
Speaker 1: bolder and bigger, beyond me.
Speaker 2: Here's what I'm arguing because with the day twenty twenty
Speaker 2: six is over.
Speaker 1: Yeah, got to turn that page.
Speaker 2: But and if you want the American people to give
Speaker 2: you the keys to the car, you got to know
Speaker 2: how to drive. Yep, you got to know that you
Speaker 2: have more. You have a Google map to the American
Speaker 2: dream that you know how to share that car, not
Speaker 2: get it off onto the shoulder of the road, and
Speaker 2: you know how to take it. So not just new
Speaker 2: some children and the emmanual children can one day own
Speaker 2: a home. You have kids graduating college with thirty five
Speaker 2: thousand dollars in debt and they're living in the basement
Speaker 2: till the thirty five. This is not how you and
Speaker 2: I grew up. Then you got grandma living upstairs and
Speaker 2: where the kids used to live because she can't afford
Speaker 2: to live on Social Security and Medicare, and she's skipping
Speaker 2: medication and you're skipping doctor visits. This is insane. And
Speaker 2: if we're gonna get the keys to the car between
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six and twenty twenty eight, we got to
Speaker 2: tell people you're not going to get the shaft anymore.
Speaker 2: And I may not solve this problem, and I may
Speaker 2: have my tongue hanging out of my mouth at the
Speaker 2: end like a dog racer, but I am going to
Speaker 2: work every day to make sure that more and more
Speaker 2: American children and more American families have access to that dream,
Speaker 2: and it has been and the reason our politics are
Speaker 2: where they are and the reason we have Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is that trust between the American people, the American dream,
Speaker 2: and those of us who are stewards of it has
Speaker 2: been broken, and we need to repair it. And that's
Speaker 2: our number one goal.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate everything you said, and I also appreciated
Speaker 1: your courage of saying which I was right there with
Speaker 1: you calling our party brand, which was not very well received,
Speaker 1: at least with my inbox. When I called our party
Speaker 1: brand a toxic, I mean when you're twenty seven percent
Speaker 1: and that you know we have a high water market
Speaker 1: twenty nine percent on a CNN poll, only to see
Speaker 1: twenty seven percent a few days later at NBC poll.
Speaker 1: Where people don't trust us, they don't think we're we
Speaker 1: have their backs on issues that are core to them,
Speaker 1: which are these kitchen table issues.
Speaker 2: It is both the kitchen table issue and the family issues.
Speaker 1: And you mean family brought broadly defined in what in
Speaker 1: what contexts done when we.
Speaker 2: Say, let me say a couple of things. Now, I'm
Speaker 2: a product my experiences. President Clinton is infamous in the
Speaker 2: ninety two election for the economy stupid, But there were
Speaker 2: a set of issues coming on the heels of both
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and then Dacaucus where he talked
Speaker 2: about ending welfare as we know it, a shorthand in
Speaker 2: your state. Coming out of the Rodney King Sister Soldier moment,
Speaker 2: that he was centered on a set of values that
Speaker 2: all of us collectively had a consensus around, so that
Speaker 2: the economic message about the middle class first could be heard.
Speaker 2: And for President Obama it became deal with Father Wright,
Speaker 2: his pastor who's made some very ugly comments. For President Kennedy,
Speaker 2: it was going to Texas to give a speech and
Speaker 2: say I'll be a president who's Catholic, but not a
Speaker 2: Catholic president. There were threshold issues that were important on
Speaker 2: the cultural front that allowed the rest of what we
Speaker 2: had to say a permission slip to get hurt. That's
Speaker 2: a political analysis. And I would say to you the
Speaker 2: kitchen cable and the family room are of one piece,
Speaker 2: and we got stuck as a party in the bathroom,
Speaker 2: which I say jokingly but as serious it is the
Speaker 2: smallest room in the house, and we're not going to
Speaker 2: be heard on a set of issues. And you say
Speaker 2: twenty seven percent. We earned that twenty seven percent the
Speaker 2: old fashioned way. We turned our back on the American
Speaker 2: people and they had they had hope in us, they
Speaker 2: put their confidence in us, and we walked away from
Speaker 2: that contract with them.
Speaker 1: Ron, what you just said, I think is really powerful
Speaker 1: and important, and because in order for people to hear
Speaker 1: the other message, they had to hear that what you
Speaker 1: I mean, they had to hear that we were connected
Speaker 1: on some of those other issues, meaning it's not just
Speaker 1: an economic message. I mean, that was I think Biden's frustration.
Speaker 1: He was talking about Bill back better. He was talking
Speaker 1: about an ECONO message. He was talking about his worker
Speaker 1: centered industrial policy. But it wasn't necessarily breaking through because
Speaker 1: we couldn't break out, as you point, of the bathroom debates,
Speaker 1: the pronoun debates, and all these other debates.
Speaker 2: I've said this before, so I'll say it here in
Speaker 2: his Last State of the Union, if my theory of
Speaker 2: the case is right. In the Last State of the Union,
Speaker 2: when he was not reading off script, he said, when
Speaker 2: he went off script, he said illegal immigrants people. All
Speaker 2: of Washington's immigration groups started yelling at the white number
Speaker 2: and they went to undocumented. Now, to me, that was
Speaker 2: the slowest pitch over the center plate.
Speaker 1: He just said, look, no one's illegal. I remember it.
Speaker 1: I remember it well, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: And he switched to the voices on K Street of Washington.
Speaker 2: And to me, that was the easiest way of showing,
Speaker 2: as I showed Kennedy, Clinton and Obama head different footprints
Speaker 2: on this area of what I call a cultural landscape,
Speaker 2: where he could have said, look, uh h, I said
Speaker 2: what I said. I'm sticking by what I said. If
Speaker 2: you don't like it, you can use whatever term you want.
Speaker 2: And this is I find ironic from a bunch of
Speaker 2: people yelling at you when you say, don't say defund
Speaker 2: the police. They say it doesn't mean what it says. Well,
Speaker 2: don't use English language. Set okay. If it doesn't mean,
Speaker 2: I use English ariage convey what I mean, not what
Speaker 2: I don't mean. So to me, we put ourselves in
Speaker 2: a position where we're not seen or heard by the
Speaker 2: American people because we disappointed them.
Speaker 1: So you're and I look, I appreciate the specific example
Speaker 1: as it relates to Biden in that particular moment, as
Speaker 1: relates to legal immigration versus undocumented, but broadly, how do
Speaker 1: you sort of reflect there's a lot of dialectic within
Speaker 1: the party or not within the party, within punditry. More
Speaker 1: broadly than that, it's the weaponization of grievance the other
Speaker 1: side so much more effective, making CRT D I E S,
Speaker 1: G I R S, you know, DOJ anything with three
Speaker 1: letters the issue of the day, and that they're able
Speaker 1: to surround sound Sinclair Media, not just Fox Newsmax, not
Speaker 1: just One American News, not just the Bogga sphere and
Speaker 1: the manisphere, but their ability to shape shift and constantly
Speaker 1: we're on the defensive in that respect, and they color
Speaker 1: things in and even if we're trying to run away
Speaker 1: from those issues, we don't even want to adult indulge
Speaker 1: in those issues. We have an almost impossible time in
Speaker 1: that media landscape of breaking out and getting back on
Speaker 1: our message. How do you reflect on that? Is that
Speaker 1: a component part or is it still we're not victims
Speaker 1: and we need to take more accountability.
Speaker 2: Look, they do have a very powerful ecosystem, but you know,
Speaker 2: even with the ecosystem, they lost Wisconsin. They lost they
Speaker 2: lost over every special lection. So I mean one of
Speaker 2: the things that you and I both know this, don't
Speaker 2: over don't overinflate your opponent's power, and don't underestimate it either.
Speaker 2: That have a powerful ecosystem? Yes do we sometimes? Are
Speaker 2: we our worst marketers? Latin x one hundred thousand? You know,
Speaker 2: defund the police? I can give you chapter in versu
Speaker 2: of terminology. We you know, I'm not. I actually appreciate
Speaker 2: the spirit. Okay, So don't get me. I appreciate the
Speaker 2: spirit of those that are going around on protest calling oligarchs.
Speaker 2: You're all over California. How many people in your you've
Speaker 2: been to lieutenant governor, governor? How many times did somebody
Speaker 2: come up to use that oligarch rather than or big, big,
Speaker 2: big fat special interests? Okay? Why don't we use terms that.
Speaker 1: People diners understand?
Speaker 2: Okay, well I didn't know we were applying for our
Speaker 2: ten year position. Okay, give me a break. So are
Speaker 2: we our worst? Are we our worst victims? Yes? Do
Speaker 2: they have a more sophisticated ecosystem? Yes? Do people like
Speaker 2: his tariffs? No? Did we win in Wisconsin? Yes? Did
Speaker 2: they lose a Scambia county where Pensacola is and it's
Speaker 2: fourteen percent veterans, double the national average. The first time
Speaker 2: since five decades a Democrat won that in a national election.
Speaker 2: Trump wanted by nineteen, we wanted by three. Yeah, So
Speaker 2: I don't overestimate the power of it. I think I
Speaker 2: like to have that ecosystem, and I like to be
Speaker 2: more strategic and more sophisticated about how we talk about
Speaker 2: what's cord us. I wouldn't want to be a better
Speaker 2: talker about the locker room in the bathroom. I'd rather
Speaker 2: be a better talker and have a good ecosystem about
Speaker 2: this is what we're going to do to improve readings course,
Speaker 2: Here's how we're going to make sure that kids can
Speaker 2: do math at math level. Here's how we're going to
Speaker 2: do with the chronic apps and teism rate. So I'd
Speaker 2: like to have that ecosystem if I was focused on
Speaker 2: the right things, if I was saying, you know, there's
Speaker 2: not to tout it, but you know, we created universal
Speaker 2: pre king in Chicago. Never had it, universal kindergarten never
Speaker 2: had it. Free community college for Bee students never had it.
Speaker 2: So I like to have the ecosystem that tells that
Speaker 2: story and why it's important that two thirds of the
Speaker 2: twenty thousand kids that went to college for community college
Speaker 2: for free for the first in the family ever went
Speaker 2: that passport, that education. That's your visa and your passport
Speaker 2: to the future. I think there's other ways you So
Speaker 2: I want the ecosystem and I want the way to
Speaker 2: talk about what we're doing in a strategically focused way.
Speaker 2: Not that makes me feel better about me, but makes
Speaker 2: them feel better that I'm actually in their sleeves, rolled
Speaker 2: up like a beaten dog. Worker for.
Speaker 1: Rob are you. We'll segue a little bit off that
Speaker 1: you you had deep experience with all things tactical in
Speaker 1: political particularly not and you've had a remarkable career in
Speaker 1: so many remarkable roles, working for three presidents too, in
Speaker 1: sort of more lead and established stablished status. What but
Speaker 1: the Congressional Committee what you were running that what nineteen
Speaker 1: two thousand and six? Right, Yeah, And I bring up
Speaker 1: two thousand and six in this context because after two
Speaker 1: thousand and four, I remember everybody we got slacked. They
Speaker 1: won the popular vote, the electoral vote. Democratic Party was toast.
Speaker 1: Everyone was running saying we got to go to Applebee's
Speaker 1: read you know what's wrong with Kansas. This is before
Speaker 1: hillbilly elegy, the whole thing. And you know, we're too elite,
Speaker 1: we're two out of touch and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: two years later, you successfully went back the House, overwhelming
Speaker 1: someone by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. And in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, you guys went with the biggest
Speaker 1: landslide since nineteen sixty four or fifty three percent of
Speaker 1: the vote, And all of a sudden, you're on transition
Speaker 1: team and chief of staff of some guy named Obama.
Speaker 1: Is this two thousand and four all over again? If
Speaker 1: we do it right? Or are we in a deeper,
Speaker 1: darker wilderness at this moment from your perspective?
Speaker 2: So on an anecdote. So the day after we win
Speaker 2: O six, you'll appreciate this. This is the day of
Speaker 2: President Trump. A President Bush rather given that press conference,
Speaker 2: said we took a thumping.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I'm in my uh teat Democratic Congressional campaign community. I
Speaker 2: love this story. Uh. And it's President Bush. And he
Speaker 2: called to say, I want to congratulate you on a
Speaker 2: great rate. You know, the racer ran etcetera, etcetera. And
Speaker 2: I said, uh, I said, uh, mister President, I said
Speaker 2: I want to thank you, and he goes, what do
Speaker 2: you hear? I said, you did We did everything we
Speaker 2: needed to do, and you did everything we wanted you
Speaker 2: to do. That was he wouldn't fire Rumhall. It was
Speaker 2: also that, you know, he goes, you know what, You're
Speaker 2: as big a prick as they see. We started to
Speaker 2: laughing our asses off. I said, here to serve, mister President,
Speaker 2: and we were actually we're very respectful because I you know,
Speaker 2: two years later, as you said, I'm chief of staff, etcetera.
Speaker 2: I think this gets back to what I said to you.
Speaker 2: Between now and two twenty twenty six, it's all about
Speaker 2: Trump and it's a referendum him and the Republicans. But
Speaker 2: we better do the intellectual work right now on that
Speaker 2: window of time between twenty twenty six and twenty twenty
Speaker 2: eight is going to come fast and furious, and we're
Speaker 2: not going to be living off the fumes of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: We got to be livinged. We're not going to just
Speaker 2: fight Donald Trump. We're going to fight for America. And
Speaker 2: I'm spending my time intellectually. What is that fight for America?
Speaker 1: I love it so rob. So there's a simple question.
Speaker 1: It's the last question. And I don't want any bullshit
Speaker 1: from politician.
Speaker 2: I don't like this.
Speaker 1: Oh are you or are you not running for president
Speaker 1: of the United States? Rom I want to know right now,
Speaker 1: noneother bs the American people decide what is the answer.
Speaker 2: Here's here's the answer, which is if I think I
Speaker 2: know the answer to that question, which is the question
Speaker 2: I said, which is what is the fight for America?
Speaker 2: And I haven't I have something to contribute to that,
Speaker 2: I'll throw I'll deal with that. But if I don't
Speaker 2: think I have something that over yourself, governor, my governor,
Speaker 2: here are other governors that I think they're doing what
Speaker 2: I would do and enunciating that because being Trump ain't
Speaker 2: gonna get you squat in twenty twenty seven. If I
Speaker 2: have something to say and I've never been shy about
Speaker 2: saying it, and I don't think anybody else is saying it,
Speaker 2: and I thought through my head how to do it,
Speaker 2: I'll deal with that. I got a thought for something
Speaker 2: first that I think the American people need to hear.
Speaker 1: Well, we heard a lot today and I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Like the record of show Comnor you were the first
Speaker 2: to swear on this show, not me.
Speaker 1: I don't Bullshit's not even a swear word. Jesus.
Speaker 2: I mean, come on, I love you said, see you
Speaker 2: brother back