Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discuss the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. And Poland becomes the first NATO country
Speaker 1: to send Ukraine fighter planes. We have a jam pack
Speaker 1: show today. Congressman Richie Torres stops by to talk bank
Speaker 1: regulation in how the US handles China. Then we'll talk
Speaker 1: to Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold about the constant
Speaker 1: threats to democracy she's seeing in the state of Colorado. First,
Speaker 1: we have the host of the Time of Monsters, the
Speaker 1: Nation's get Here. Welcome, get Here, frequent flyer with Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: So happy to have you back here. I am just
Speaker 1: delighted to have you back. You are one of my people.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about where we are.
Speaker 1: Here's a country and Republicans have started their GLP primary
Speaker 1: race presidential I'm Marry. I think we can all agree
Speaker 1: that the next GOP candidate will be Nicky Haley. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's already over. I think Trump and descentis should just
Speaker 1: give up because that's obviously what Republican primary voters want.
Speaker 1: A woman of South Asian descent who's totally tied to
Speaker 1: the GOP establishment. But actually I think the fun news.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw this morning, but there
Speaker 1: was some reporting about which I think will be the
Speaker 1: subject of Trump's next speech, which is run descentiss eating habits. Listen,
Speaker 1: I'm not Emily post myself, Okay, so I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: cast aspersions necessarily. Like apparently this guy he has what
Speaker 1: his aid's referred to as a problem with soft social skills,
Speaker 1: which is that he eats like a frigging animal and
Speaker 1: discuss people like, you know, people his supporters, and what
Speaker 1: the detail I got he was in a plane, which
Speaker 1: is like a close confined space where you can't escape,
Speaker 1: and he's eating pudding with his hands, like you know,
Speaker 1: Andrew Jackson pay actually had very poor table manners, but
Speaker 1: he was a populist. I don't know if an establishment
Speaker 1: Republican like the Santist who's supposed to be you know, Trump,
Speaker 1: without the bad aspects can succeed with all these stories
Speaker 1: about his table manners. And I just I'm looking forward
Speaker 1: to what Trump will do with it, you know, like
Speaker 1: I call him hungry ron folks, there's something going on.
Speaker 1: You know, he eats putting with his hands. We gotta
Speaker 1: find out what's going on here. I'm not saying anything.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about this because I
Speaker 1: do think actually I am of the belief that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump says tiny D. Here's tiny D with his high
Speaker 1: held cowboy boots and it's over right. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: so much for It's like Donald Trump has been gifted
Speaker 1: with the most vulnerable Republican candidate ever. And that's the
Speaker 1: thing I don't understand. It's like you put Jeb against
Speaker 1: a Santist, Jeb would win. Yeah, No, it's really something.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess they were out of alternatives. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the remember is twenty sixteen, they put all
Speaker 1: their top guys, you know, like Yo Marco Rubio once
Speaker 1: thought of as someone who could be president, Ted Cruise.
Speaker 1: They had like a lot of candidates out there because Christine,
Speaker 1: they had the whole array, and he decimated them. And
Speaker 1: so you know, the last man standing was this, you know,
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis d tiny D and he's not gonna
Speaker 1: Ronda Sanctimonius here. Yeah, they really are putting all their
Speaker 1: eggs in one basket. And one of the interesting is
Speaker 1: if you look at I see the polling already, like
Speaker 1: the Santis is slipping and it's just a little bit
Speaker 1: of like pricking on the part of Drum. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: mean during this donor retreat in Palm Beach, this is
Speaker 1: a piece from the Daily be Star meeting, and a
Speaker 1: Tendy stood up and called him to Satan exactly exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I just like, you know, it's not gonna take much,
Speaker 1: and people forget Trump really went after like his arrivals
Speaker 1: in a very vicious way that they could not respond
Speaker 1: to because they're normal human beings on some level, you know,
Speaker 1: the stuff that he's saying, like you know, like say
Speaker 1: that Ted Cruise's dad was involved with killing Kennedy. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you remember this right, but Ben Carson
Speaker 1: there was like he was the only Republican who was
Speaker 1: like ever briefly ahead or Trump in the polling, and
Speaker 1: then Trump and twenty sixteen, and then Trump just let
Speaker 1: loose with this, like taking stories from Ben Carson's autobiography,
Speaker 1: which were about his you know, very hard background, genuinely
Speaker 1: true that he Yoe came from our real poverty, but
Speaker 1: like yeah, just saying like oh this guy pulled a
Speaker 1: knife once. Guy, you know, like I don't know about
Speaker 1: him just like a really deflated like balloon that pricked.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about this more because I
Speaker 1: think what's happening here is a kind of conservative elite
Speaker 1: witch casting of which we have not seen since twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: which is this idea that somehow the elite can control
Speaker 1: the base despite the fact that they have continually given
Speaker 1: in to every whim of the base. That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: There's two aspects of this, one of which is that
Speaker 1: all these candidates, they always have this sort of crew
Speaker 1: of hanger ons who like you know, like I really
Speaker 1: invested in them, and that includes that just a staff,
Speaker 1: but the sort of media folks in the Republican media.
Speaker 1: And so if people I want listeners to remember back to,
Speaker 1: you know, those amazing days of twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: where like you know, Marco Robio and Ted crews had
Speaker 1: a lot of media followers who would put the best
Speaker 1: possible spin on things and who are like you know,
Speaker 1: full of confidence that their guys had like everything going
Speaker 1: for them. And that's all we're saying now with Ron Descentist,
Speaker 1: as far as I can tell, his base is within
Speaker 1: the sort of conservative incorporated and that's you know a
Speaker 1: fair number of people. There's a vast welfare state for
Speaker 1: like you know, people on the right, financed by various billionaires.
Speaker 1: But these guys are very invested in decentists. And the
Speaker 1: thing is that he has very little popular appeal outside
Speaker 1: of that. Whereas Trump, Okay, first of all, here already
Speaker 1: you had won the primary twenty sixteen, he had been president.
Speaker 1: He's a very popular president with Republicans, Like, like, the
Speaker 1: people who are Republican voters. I thought, like, this guy
Speaker 1: did everything good and and he was robbed. It just
Speaker 1: like blows my mind that they think. Add Also, Trump
Speaker 1: is willing to attack the sentis and DeSantis is not
Speaker 1: willing to answer back. And DeSantis's whole ideas, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be Trump but boring. I will be Trump without the charm,
Speaker 1: without the time. Yeah yeah, yeah, I'll be exactly without
Speaker 1: like saying funny things, without like you know, funny tweets
Speaker 1: that you can't get out of your mind and without
Speaker 1: and I will carry through the policies that we want.
Speaker 1: And the thing is, at some level, like I don't
Speaker 1: think like you know, Republican voters, especially the sort of
Speaker 1: non college whites that Trump really bought on board. I
Speaker 1: don't think they're that interested in policy. Like, these are
Speaker 1: not people that like, you know, are reading the congressional
Speaker 1: record to see, like, you know, what laws get past.
Speaker 1: They're kind of here to be entertained, right, Like this
Speaker 1: is kind of you know, late Roman Empire decadence, where
Speaker 1: you know, like you want who can do the funniest things,
Speaker 1: you know. I think that this is a really good point.
Speaker 1: I want to just like go into this for a minute,
Speaker 1: which is the Republican intellectuals and again at the danger
Speaker 1: of committing an oxy more on here. I want to
Speaker 1: say the people who were the brain trust of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, which you and I can both agree, were
Speaker 1: not brain were they? Nor trust? Were they that crew
Speaker 1: made a deal with the devil in twenty fifteen. They
Speaker 1: decided that they were going to go with the guy
Speaker 1: they knew would win, which was Trump, right, or they
Speaker 1: maybe they didn't think he would win, but they decided
Speaker 1: they would go along with the base. Yeah. Well, I
Speaker 1: mean the thing is, look, the Republicans have had a
Speaker 1: real trouble really going back to the nineteen nineties. They've
Speaker 1: only won the popular vote once and all the presidential
Speaker 1: elections since nineteen ninety two, and Trump really offered them
Speaker 1: a way out that he could bring in new voters.
Speaker 1: That it's also true he alienated a lot of other voters,
Speaker 1: but the actual bargain that he offered that he could
Speaker 1: bring in these non college white people who never voted
Speaker 1: and never would people who never voted, who were like
Speaker 1: alienating from the political system, bring them into Republican fold,
Speaker 1: and that there were enough of these and they sort
Speaker 1: of like Midwestern states that you could you know, have
Speaker 1: an electoral college majority. And that was the true part
Speaker 1: of his thing. There's actually a very smart Republican operative,
Speaker 1: Sean Sendai, who did an article about that ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen years old, called the Missing White Voters. That is
Speaker 1: exactly what these white voters that were alienated that needed
Speaker 1: like some figure like Trump that could bring them on
Speaker 1: board and so so so to that extent that work.
Speaker 1: The problem is that what these voters want is not
Speaker 1: what the Republican elite want and to some degree, like
Speaker 1: actually some of these voters are i mean people, you know,
Speaker 1: especially Democrats, so there's like, well, they're deplorables, and it's
Speaker 1: too like they have a lot of really bad attitudes,
Speaker 1: especially on race and gender. But it's also the case
Speaker 1: that like, you know, they don't want Medicare cut, they
Speaker 1: don't want Social Security cut. So the Republican economic policies
Speaker 1: to that they're not popular, not popular at all, you know,
Speaker 1: except like maybe like tax cuts because you can kind
Speaker 1: of like say, well, they create jobs or whatever. But
Speaker 1: even then, I mean, like Trump's most unpopular moment as
Speaker 1: president was when he tried to get rid of Obamacare.
Speaker 1: That's when he pulled the lowest. That's when he's like
Speaker 1: really trying to carry out a Republican wish lust. And
Speaker 1: I think it's the case that one of the problems
Speaker 1: with Rotten de santisis he's trying to be like mini
Speaker 1: me of Trump. I'm Trump but boring. You know, that's
Speaker 1: obviously a problem, but also that he's still tied enough
Speaker 1: to these economic policies and so you know, like Trump
Speaker 1: can't actually find genuine evidence that this guy wanted to
Speaker 1: cut Social Security of Medicare. And I have to tell
Speaker 1: you there's like enough of the Republican voters who are like,
Speaker 1: you know that Trump brought on board, where like these
Speaker 1: senior citizens who are gonna like you know, not be
Speaker 1: very thrilled by this, I already like this is you know,
Speaker 1: like Democrats win among you know, people who are like
Speaker 1: forty five and younger, Republicans win among sixty five and over.
Speaker 1: And so if you're if you're that party, like, why
Speaker 1: the hell would you be talking about social security and
Speaker 1: Medicare cuts? NICKI Haley doing that too, you know, like
Speaker 1: we need to raise the retirement age, like good luck
Speaker 1: ever getting elected on that. You know, mac Ron is
Speaker 1: trying to do that. They could have another revolution, right
Speaker 1: and they're trying to raise it to what sixty seven?
Speaker 1: I mean I don't even think yeah, yeah, so anyways, anyway, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I it's also I mean I think, you know, like
Speaker 1: anything could happen, and maybe this De Santas thing is,
Speaker 1: you know, hungry Ron is a little bit more than
Speaker 1: I suspect. We're right right now. Trump has a lot
Speaker 1: of cards on his side, one of which is his
Speaker 1: popularity among Republican voters, his fame, his name recognition, but
Speaker 1: also the fact that all he has to do is
Speaker 1: bring up the fact that the Santas you know, like
Speaker 1: want social security and Medicare cuts, and uh, that's a
Speaker 1: big thing. And you know De Santas tries to compete
Speaker 1: with him by copying Trump on everything, and the thing
Speaker 1: is like, if you have the original, why would you
Speaker 1: go with a Copycatt decientist is saying, well, you know,
Speaker 1: why should we be helping Ukraine? Like, well, if that's
Speaker 1: the policy you want, then you already have a guy
Speaker 1: who's going to do that for you. No. I agree.
Speaker 1: If if pro pudent is your game, you got the guy. Man.
Speaker 1: I mean no, I think it's true, and I think
Speaker 1: we're seeing again, which is this is the sticky wicket
Speaker 1: that the Republican Party is stuck in. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm delighted because fuck them. But to be trumpy enough
Speaker 1: to win a primary means you are completely unelectable in
Speaker 1: a general That's right, That's right, Yeah, I know, I
Speaker 1: mean I think that, well, except that I think the
Speaker 1: camp it is the electoral college thing, which is if
Speaker 1: you can get enough, but I actually think that to
Speaker 1: g Assue you win the kind of electoral college directory
Speaker 1: trumpeted in twenty sixteen, you have to have you know,
Speaker 1: enough real populous bunt of fundies and also be able
Speaker 1: to reach those non voters. And comp could do that
Speaker 1: because you know, he's on television for like twenty years, right, Right,
Speaker 1: that's true. TV is the most more popular than any
Speaker 1: politician in America. You know, more people watch TV. De
Speaker 1: Santist doesn't have that, Like he those voters will not
Speaker 1: know who he is or care about him. Unfortunately. You know,
Speaker 1: like is a two party system, so like there's a
Speaker 1: few things that could go wrong, either in terms of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's health or in terms of you know, the
Speaker 1: the economy, and we haven't even talked about what's happening
Speaker 1: with the banking system unfortunately. Like I'm not so sanguine
Speaker 1: that I mean, I think the Santist is gonna have
Speaker 1: our time getting the primary, the Republican nomination, but actually think,
Speaker 1: like you know, any Republican has a decent shot unfortunately,
Speaker 1: right because of the elements that we can't even predict.
Speaker 1: That's said, I actually think and this is the one
Speaker 1: thing that makes me a little bit sanguine. It's going
Speaker 1: to make everyone else upset. I actually think that Desantist
Speaker 1: is much more dangerous than Trump because people know Trump
Speaker 1: is really dangerous, Like, I mean, he may still win,
Speaker 1: but there is a knowledge that he is a dangerous autocrat.
Speaker 1: Whereas there are people on this planet who still think
Speaker 1: to Antis is not and they're wrong. Well exactly, but
Speaker 1: I want to actually narrow that down to exactly what
Speaker 1: the danger is, which is that because Trump was coming
Speaker 1: from this reality show world, the you know, like the
Speaker 1: centrist establishment never trusted him, whereas the Santists you can
Speaker 1: kind of see that they're people, especially like you know,
Speaker 1: the New York Times has done like I don't know,
Speaker 1: a hundred different articles like why de Santist gould be
Speaker 1: given some credit. I'm a liberal, but you know, I've
Speaker 1: kind have been rescued. He saw this with this Axio business,
Speaker 1: which is that, you know, like this reporter for Axio
Speaker 1: got a press release from the Santist and he just
Speaker 1: emailed back to them like you know this is in
Speaker 1: press releases, propaganda, sparky comment but well with about yeah
Speaker 1: add true yeah, And Axio fired the reporter. And I
Speaker 1: think that's what's gonna happen if there is a Descantist presidency,
Speaker 1: because he's not Trump, even though he has terrible table manners,
Speaker 1: they'll cover that up. They'll hire a CIA duplicate that
Speaker 1: will go to dinner parties and yeah, you use table manners,
Speaker 1: has read Emily Post. But I think that the centrist media,
Speaker 1: The Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Axio Political They're all
Speaker 1: gonna be like, this is what they want, you know,
Speaker 1: like a Republican that could carry out Trump's policies, but
Speaker 1: without being unsettling and scary the way the way Trump
Speaker 1: is or just vulgar. I mean for you and me, Like,
Speaker 1: the scary thing about Trump was he's an authoritarian, right
Speaker 1: and you know, he's a threat to American democracy as
Speaker 1: a six For a lot of these centrists, the scary
Speaker 1: thing about Trump was he had bad manners and he tweeted,
Speaker 1: you know, which was actually the best thing about Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, his vulgarity was right right, No, no, great
Speaker 1: arty was his best quality. Yeah. But anyway, but they're
Speaker 1: gonna buy into it. You can already see hollinggood now,
Speaker 1: Like you know, like if Hiss president of santast He's
Speaker 1: gonna get much more favorable coverage, like in all the media, well,
Speaker 1: the National Review Crew, I mean, I wrote a piece
Speaker 1: about how De Santis was more dangerous than Trump because
Speaker 1: he's much more effective and much smarter than Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: one of the good thing things about Trump, at least
Speaker 1: for our case, was that when he tried to do something,
Speaker 1: he usually fucked it up, whereas De Santis has been
Speaker 1: incredibly successful as turning Florida into a mini autocracy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I mean that is why
Speaker 1: you know that on the right, he's the American orbon like,
Speaker 1: he can use the powers of the state to like,
Speaker 1: you know, try to create a one party state. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: like I gotta say, there's some buy in on that
Speaker 1: from some of the centrist media as well, and I
Speaker 1: think that's where that's really where the danger lies from
Speaker 1: that it's going to be a little bit harder. I mean.
Speaker 1: On the positive side, I think that he pushed for
Speaker 1: more mobilization among liberals taxis like you know, and maybe
Speaker 1: to break with the centrist media and try to create
Speaker 1: more alternative media sources, because I think people are really
Speaker 1: going to see with the scientists much more than Trump
Speaker 1: the right sort of authoritarian Republican. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: people in the establishment that that's what they want. I mean,
Speaker 1: I agree that the Republican Party is completely without hope
Speaker 1: and that they've embraced authoritarianism and that they continue to
Speaker 1: engage in it. I don't think de Santists gets there,
Speaker 1: like I think Trump just takes him down at the
Speaker 1: knees because everything we're seeing evidence wise points to the
Speaker 1: fact that he is a bad at retail politics, and
Speaker 1: like we are a country where our politicians need to
Speaker 1: go on television and be charming, and I just you know,
Speaker 1: no evidence supports the idea that he could even do
Speaker 1: that for a minute. Yeah, no, that's absolutely right right
Speaker 1: now that the signs are very bad. And where success
Speaker 1: is is in terms of like sort of fundraising with
Speaker 1: the donor base. And I have to say, if that's
Speaker 1: what is your success as a politician, then you know,
Speaker 1: that's why we had President Jeff Bush. That's why we
Speaker 1: had President Ted Cruz. That's why we had President Phil Brown.
Speaker 1: I don't remember, you know, because that guy they could
Speaker 1: like open up a bank account and that telling me
Speaker 1: there'd be like one hundred and fifty million dollars. I
Speaker 1: would say one other thing about this, which is that
Speaker 1: you know, I was talking to someone who's a staff
Speaker 1: and that person was saying that actually they're seeing some
Speaker 1: GOP donors who do not like him because he can't schmooz.
Speaker 1: And like you know Trump, I mean again, and I
Speaker 1: am no fit. This is no one is defending Trump,
Speaker 1: no one is liking him, no one is even saying
Speaker 1: anything nice about him. But Trump could schmooz. Oh absolutely, yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean we kind of underrate that aspect. But I
Speaker 1: mean the thing is that Trump was an ideal GOP
Speaker 1: candidate in this era where they're kind of a shrinking
Speaker 1: party because he could both you know, he's rub enough
Speaker 1: money and he has Mara Lego and he knows how
Speaker 1: to talk to you know, the real estate guys and
Speaker 1: the card dealers to give them to pony up some money.
Speaker 1: But he's also you know, it was on TV, so
Speaker 1: like the non college whites can really relate to him.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I just think, yeah, I just had to.
Speaker 1: He sounds like, from what you're saying, he's weak on
Speaker 1: both sides, which is like a really amazing thing. We'll
Speaker 1: see how. I don't want to get too much into
Speaker 1: prediction game, but I think these are real vulnerability, these
Speaker 1: Indi Santos and right now, the people that love him
Speaker 1: most are these guys who at National Review and elsewhere,
Speaker 1: who I gotta tell you, like they get paid six
Speaker 1: figure salaries for like a minuscule readership. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he saw this thing with Rod Dreyer. Yes, that
Speaker 1: was a Vanity Fair story. Yeah, yeah, Vanity Fair story. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And so this guy been writing for like a long time,
Speaker 1: blogging on a record conservative. It turns out this entire
Speaker 1: support was one rich guy in California of real estate
Speaker 1: failed son who had a lot of money like Rod's writing,
Speaker 1: and was paying for his whole salary, which a six
Speaker 1: figure for writing this gibberish. And then the Dreer like,
Speaker 1: unfortunately like went too far with describing an uncircumcised penis
Speaker 1: that he saw when he was a child as like
Speaker 1: this kind of root weener or something like this, and
Speaker 1: then the donor said, oh, that's a little too weird.
Speaker 1: That's it. I'm sorry. Yes, roddrere a good point, completely
Speaker 1: completely insane. Thank you so much for joining us. Always
Speaker 1: is a delight. Oh it's good to be on the show.
Speaker 1: Congressman Richie Torres represents New York's fifteenth congressional district. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Fast Politics, Congressman Richie Torres. Always a pleasure to
Speaker 1: be here. Delighted to have you. First. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about what you just said to me
Speaker 1: before we were recording, which was that what you were
Speaker 1: told was that being in the minority would be more
Speaker 1: laid back, and it has not been that case. Can
Speaker 1: you explain. Yeah, I was told that, you know, since
Speaker 1: I'm in the minority, I will have more free time
Speaker 1: in my hands, and in fact, quite the opposite. It's
Speaker 1: been much more demanding, partly because of the committees on
Speaker 1: which I sit. I mean, financial services is demanding. But
Speaker 1: I was appointed to the new Select Committee on Strategic
Speaker 1: Competition between the United States and the CCP, and the
Speaker 1: combination of those two committees has been quite consuming. You know,
Speaker 1: it's Sunday. It happened to be my birthday. I just
Speaker 1: turned thirty five, bragging I've been an elected official for
Speaker 1: ten years shadow and I could not even I could
Speaker 1: not even celebrate my birthday because I was bombarded with
Speaker 1: phone calls about the banking crisis. See, I only emailed you,
Speaker 1: so there we go. Well, I do not consider an
Speaker 1: email from your work, thank you, So talk to me
Speaker 1: about what happened with you guys and Silicon Valley Bank
Speaker 1: this weekend. As you know, unlike in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: when the bank's invested in distressed assets, right like you
Speaker 1: know junk like subprime mortgages. Silicon Valley Bank heavily invested
Speaker 1: in long term assets, long term treasuries and prime mortgage
Speaker 1: backed securities, which are normally safe assets. Yes, those normally
Speaker 1: safe assets became unsafe for a bank in a high
Speaker 1: interest rate environment, and so when the FED began raising
Speaker 1: interest rates, it had two effects. First, it drove down
Speaker 1: the value of those long term bonds because investors could
Speaker 1: get short term bonds with the same or better yields.
Speaker 1: And second, it drove down the amount of startup funding,
Speaker 1: which led startups to withdraw their deposits from Silicon Valley Bank,
Speaker 1: which was the go to lender for the startup industry,
Speaker 1: and in order to honor those redemption requests, Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: Bank had no choice but to sell their long term
Speaker 1: assets their valuable assets in the short term, which meant
Speaker 1: selling them metal loss. People should keep in mind that
Speaker 1: banking is as much about psychology as it is about finance.
Speaker 1: It's a confidence game. And when Silicon Valley Bank announced
Speaker 1: that it had sold more than twenty billion dollars in
Speaker 1: securities at a loss of one point eight billion dollars,
Speaker 1: that announcement, which was poorly timed against the backdrop of
Speaker 1: Silvergate collapse had a customers into withdrawing their deposits. And
Speaker 1: in a world of social media, financial panic can spread
Speaker 1: more rapidly and more widely than ever before. And keep
Speaker 1: in mind that the customer base of Silicon Valley Bank,
Speaker 1: We're not retail customers. These were VC firm startups that
Speaker 1: are hyper engaged online to have more social media savvy
Speaker 1: than the average person. So this is the first bank
Speaker 1: run in American history that was driven by social media.
Speaker 1: And I want to provide a contrast that illustrates the speed.
Speaker 1: So in two thousand and eight, Washington Mutual, which was
Speaker 1: the largest bank failure, saw a loss of sixteen point
Speaker 1: seven billion dollars over the course of ten days. That
Speaker 1: was the largest bank failure. Silicon Valley Banks saw the
Speaker 1: loss of forty two billion dollars in the span of
Speaker 1: a single day. So the sheer speed of the bank
Speaker 1: of the bank run is unprecedented in American history. And
Speaker 1: much of that is social media work. A lot of
Speaker 1: and rand types venture capitalists, people who sue for being
Speaker 1: mentioned on a podcast, so their names will not be used,
Speaker 1: but you know who I'm talking about. Peter two there
Speaker 1: was a lot of involvement from that crew in ginning
Speaker 1: up this panic. The VC community arguably planted the seeds
Speaker 1: of its own decline. Like, the VC community made a
Speaker 1: decision which is baffling beyond belief right to sabotage their
Speaker 1: leading lender. Like without Silicon Valley Bank, the tech startup
Speaker 1: industry is going to have far less access to capital. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a dramatic disruption of their status quo. So this
Speaker 1: was a case study in self sabotage. Yeah, that was
Speaker 1: my thinking too. When I started to get calls on
Speaker 1: Saturday from freaked out vcs, I mean, I just want
Speaker 1: to like talk through this for two more seconds because
Speaker 1: I know I want to talk to about China after this.
Speaker 1: But the bank needed to recapitalize. The truth is as
Speaker 1: much as losing money on mortgage back It's not mortgage
Speaker 1: backed securities. It was it wasn't it. It was tea bills, right,
Speaker 1: both treasuries and prime mortgage back securities. So safe, right,
Speaker 1: so safe? Losing a billion dollars, I just want to
Speaker 1: like contextualize this. A billion dollars on tea bills and
Speaker 1: these securities is not necessarily like they could have come
Speaker 1: back from that. There was no reason why that number
Speaker 1: needed to destroy the bank. No. Look, the underlying finances
Speaker 1: of the bank were sound, right, But keep in mind
Speaker 1: that which rise bank runs is not economics or finance.
Speaker 1: It's psychology. It's it's the irrationality of financial panting. And
Speaker 1: there's no bank in America. I mean, the honest truth
Speaker 1: is there's no bank in America. Right, they can withstand
Speaker 1: that that has enough on hand to couple all your deposits.
Speaker 1: That's the nature of fractionally reserve banking. I want to
Speaker 1: go deeper on this because now that this news cycle
Speaker 1: is sort of now that we're a couple of days
Speaker 1: into this cycle, the Republican narrative is this was woke banking. Okay,
Speaker 1: we know that's bullshit, right, We saw the twenty four
Speaker 1: white guys in the management obviously, and by the way,
Speaker 1: you know whatever, it wasn't fucking woke banking. That's bullshit.
Speaker 1: But I want to go back for a minute and
Speaker 1: talk about when this bank run happened. These regional banks
Speaker 1: were not regulated the same way that the larger banks are.
Speaker 1: Can you talk about that? Yes, So the banking system
Speaker 1: was radically remade and the aftermath of the two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight crisis, we passed dot frank, which subjected the
Speaker 1: largest banks, the biggest banks to the most rigorous forms
Speaker 1: of regulation, a stress test, much larger capital reserves. There's
Speaker 1: a concept known as enhanced frudential supervision and enhanced Prudential Standards,
Speaker 1: which is the highest form of regulation, and banks with
Speaker 1: assets fifty billion or more were subject to the highest regulation.
Speaker 1: In twenty eighteen, with lobbing from regional banks like Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley Bank and Signature Bank, President Trump signed into law
Speaker 1: a bill that would that raise the threshold for enhanced
Speaker 1: supervision from fifty billion dollars to two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: billion dollars. And at the end of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley Bank had two hundred and nine billion dollars
Speaker 1: in total assets, which was right below the threshold for
Speaker 1: enhanced supervision. And that's significant because without enhanced supervision, it
Speaker 1: radically reduces the amount of stress testing your undergoing and
Speaker 1: radically reduces the granularity and the frequency of the stress testing. Now,
Speaker 1: having said that, even if the law had never been changed,
Speaker 1: one cannot know for sure whether the crisis could have
Speaker 1: been prevented because there appears to have been an incestuous
Speaker 1: relationship between the FED and Silicon Valley Bank. The CEO
Speaker 1: of Silicon Valley Bank sat on the board of the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve of San Francisco, which is his regulator, right,
Speaker 1: So that to me is suggestive of an incestuish relationship
Speaker 1: that undermines regulations. Why did that happen, by the way,
Speaker 1: I mean, how is that allowed to happen? I mean,
Speaker 1: one of the lessons learned is that we have to
Speaker 1: prohibit CEOs of sitting on the boards of their regulators,
Speaker 1: Like common sense dictates that that is a conflict of interest. Right,
Speaker 1: when we talked about this anxiety that a lot of
Speaker 1: these vcs were having, you said, if this bank is
Speaker 1: able to get a guarantee, we need to regulate the
Speaker 1: out of them. So yeah, I mean, I want to
Speaker 1: make that point because it's a trade off. Right, If
Speaker 1: we're expanding the realm of too big to fail include
Speaker 1: regional banks, then that has to come with strings attached.
Speaker 1: That has to come with more rigorous regulation. You know,
Speaker 1: regulation is important not only on its own merits, because
Speaker 1: regulation inspires confidence, like we have confidence in the biggest
Speaker 1: banks like JP Morgan, because those are the banks that
Speaker 1: are subject to the most regulation, right, And I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny because it's like we had the
Speaker 1: last couple of months, we've seen both regulatory failures in
Speaker 1: the trains and we've seen regulatory failures in the banks.
Speaker 1: And remember we had this president for four years who
Speaker 1: is like, every day I take away a regulation. You know,
Speaker 1: for every one regulation, I take away fifty five. I
Speaker 1: mean that. And like, you know, when you say stuff
Speaker 1: like that, people don't understand it until they're you know,
Speaker 1: trying to get to the get money out of the bank. Look,
Speaker 1: for me, our highest priority has to be to protect
Speaker 1: the safety and soundness of our banking system, which is
Speaker 1: the beating heart of our economy. Everything else is secondary.
Speaker 1: And you know, one of my criticisms of the FED
Speaker 1: is that it has a dual mandate. Right when setting
Speaker 1: interest rates, it considers employment and inflation. A case could
Speaker 1: be made that the FED should expand its mandate to
Speaker 1: include financial stability. We have to consider the impact that
Speaker 1: interest rates have on the stability of the banking system,
Speaker 1: which is the beating heart of the economy. Yeah, so interesting,
Speaker 1: So talk to me about what's happening with this special
Speaker 1: committee you're on, explain what it is and what it
Speaker 1: does for all of us who are not completely brought in.
Speaker 1: So the House has set up a new Committee on
Speaker 1: Strategic Competition between the United States and the CCP, the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party, which is essentially the committee on everything.
Speaker 1: It will touch on the jurisdiction of every standing committee.
Speaker 1: We're going to tackle military, diplomatic, geopolitical, economic, technological issues.
Speaker 1: But our goal is to ensure that America remains competitive,
Speaker 1: that we remain the leader of the free worlds. You know,
Speaker 1: I think we should be careful not to engage in
Speaker 1: Bellico's rhetoric that will provoke even greater tensions between the
Speaker 1: United States and China. But we have to recognize that
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party is a genuine challenge to the
Speaker 1: United States. As you know, China, or the CCP rather
Speaker 1: is committing genocide against weaker Muslims, detaining more than a
Speaker 1: million Muslims and concentration camps in what it calls re
Speaker 1: education centers. We know that the CCP is showing the
Speaker 1: same kind of aggression toward Taiwan the Russia has shown
Speaker 1: toward Ukraine in the lead up to the invasion. We
Speaker 1: know that the CCP has stolen six hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: in intellectual property from the United States. We know that
Speaker 1: the CCP subjects its own people to a mass surveillance
Speaker 1: states the likes of which not even George Orwell could
Speaker 1: have imagined. And we know that the use of China
Speaker 1: as a global factory has utterly decimated manufacturing in the
Speaker 1: United States. So those are challenges that are too glaring
Speaker 1: to ignore. And I think the mission of the committee
Speaker 1: is to create a comprehensive legislative agenda that touches on
Speaker 1: all those topics that will position the United States to
Speaker 1: be more productive at home and more competitive abroad. It's
Speaker 1: such a hard thing with China because they are like
Speaker 1: much of the world, I mean, and they're clearly one
Speaker 1: fifth of the world, right, so clearly they're too big
Speaker 1: to war with, right, Like I mean speak of too
Speaker 1: big to fail. I mean, how do you deal with
Speaker 1: the country that is? I mean, if you think about
Speaker 1: like the war with Russia, whatever, the war non war
Speaker 1: with Russia that we've been fighting for the last year,
Speaker 1: Like in the end, eventually Russia will just get bored
Speaker 1: with this. But I mean, or they'll or they will
Speaker 1: get exhausted and they'll run out of money. But I mean,
Speaker 1: you go to war with China, that's the end of
Speaker 1: it for all of us. So I mean, what how
Speaker 1: do you tread with a country that won't necessarily negotiate well.
Speaker 1: The mission of the New Committee should be to prevent war,
Speaker 1: not provoking, right, because the worst case scenario is a
Speaker 1: World War three, a war between the United States and China,
Speaker 1: which would be a complete catastrophe for the globe. I mean,
Speaker 1: that could be the apocalypse. So our goal should be
Speaker 1: to prevent war. And the relationship with China has to
Speaker 1: be both cooperative and competitive. It has to be cooperative
Speaker 1: on global challenges by climate change, but it also has
Speaker 1: to be competitive. We have to ensure that the United States,
Speaker 1: that the democracy of the world maintain a competitive edge
Speaker 1: when it comes to critical technologies like semiconductors, artificial intelligence
Speaker 1: wants some computing. You want democratic countries to be the
Speaker 1: leaders in those fields. I want to ask you here
Speaker 1: you are in this brave new Congress. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: this new Committee was started in a GOP Congress. So
Speaker 1: there are some not insane things coming out of this Congress.
Speaker 1: Despite the fact that you know, it's led by a
Speaker 1: guy who basically got his job because Tackle Carlson said
Speaker 1: he could have it. There's a tale of two Congresses.
Speaker 1: You know, the Republican Party has policymakers and formers. Right
Speaker 1: if you sit on the Financial Services Committee under Patrick
Speaker 1: mckenry or the Select Committee on the CCP under Mike Gallagher,
Speaker 1: you know, I have differences of opinion with them, but
Speaker 1: those are serious people, and those are serious committees, and
Speaker 1: so I have a different experience of Congress. But if
Speaker 1: you're sitting on Oversight or Judiciary or the Weaponization Committee,
Speaker 1: you think they're not doing serious staff over a weaponization
Speaker 1: you're in the realm of the absurd. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just funny. It's like, I don't see how the Weaponization
Speaker 1: Committee could even hire a staff. If I were interviewing
Speaker 1: someone and someone said, oh, I was the staff director
Speaker 1: for the Weaponization Committee, like I would just laugh. It's
Speaker 1: like it's just the title is silly. Well, I think
Speaker 1: they must go to like Briebard, you know, people in
Speaker 1: that crew. I steer clear of those committees because I
Speaker 1: would rather legislate than be subjected to the utter stupidity
Speaker 1: people like Marjorie Chella Green and Law and Bobbart. I
Speaker 1: want to get into this for a second, this idea
Speaker 1: of the a tale of two Congresses. How do you
Speaker 1: have serious Republicans and how do they negotiate, you know,
Speaker 1: the Kevin McCarthy crew. Well, even though there are serious Republicans,
Speaker 1: make no mistake, the far right is in charge of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. Like there's nothing serious or there's nothing
Speaker 1: responsible about playing a game of brinksmanship around the deadlomit. So,
Speaker 1: even though there are serious Republicans, make no mistake that
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy and the Republican Party brit large is hostage
Speaker 1: to the far right, which is willing to breach the
Speaker 1: debt limit of the United States to score political points
Speaker 1: against Joe Budden. And that's so I want to be
Speaker 1: clear that we cannot overlook or whitewash the fanaticism of
Speaker 1: the far right, which is enabled by the cowardice of
Speaker 1: the center, which to the extent that he'd even exists
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party. Yeah, I mean, it's incredible, incredible stuff.
Speaker 1: What else are you seeing, you know, you're in Congress.
Speaker 1: I mean, is it all just as run up to
Speaker 1: the dead ceiling or is there other drama going on,
Speaker 1: although there's no short a drama. I mean, though you know,
Speaker 1: I never thought in my first term, on my third day,
Speaker 1: I lived through the insurrection, and then in my second term,
Speaker 1: I lived through the longest speaker vote in American history,
Speaker 1: one of the longest speaker votes in American history, the
Speaker 1: longest speaker vote in one hundred and sixty four years.
Speaker 1: So there's just an endless dream of drama in Congress.
Speaker 1: And it's because of the Republicans. The Republicans create drama
Speaker 1: where none is necessary. Obviously, the banking crisis is going
Speaker 1: to continue away heavily on us, and we have to
Speaker 1: focus on We cannot say, for granted that the crisis
Speaker 1: is behind us, even though yesterday the markets had a
Speaker 1: good day, though today they're not. And again the stock
Speaker 1: market is not the economy. I want to ask you
Speaker 1: one last question. You are from New York. Democrats got
Speaker 1: creamed and lost the House because of Jay Jacobs. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a real opportunity there between Santos and all of
Speaker 1: these other Republicans in these swingey districts. Do you think
Speaker 1: that New York State can learn its lesson and get
Speaker 1: a shit together. I just turned thirty five, and my
Speaker 1: birthday wish is a Democratic majority in twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: and Hakeem Jeffreys as the next speaker, and the road
Speaker 1: to the Democratic majority runs through New York State. Am
Speaker 1: I confident that we're going to reform the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: in New York State now? But I am confident that
Speaker 1: we can win back those seats because in a presidential year,
Speaker 1: you're going to have dramatically higher democratic turnout and what
Speaker 1: are essentially democratic districts, these are democratic leaning districts, and
Speaker 1: so I'm cautiously optimistic, but we cannot take it for granted.
Speaker 1: And as you know, House Majority pack is going to
Speaker 1: invest forty five million dollars in six races in New York.
Speaker 1: So that's an astonishing investment. That's how serious we are
Speaker 1: about winning back the majority, and we see New York
Speaker 1: as the road to the majority. Richie Torres, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. I hope you'll come back anytime. Jenna Griswold
Speaker 1: is Colorado's Secretary of State. Welcome to Fast Power Politics,
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Griswold, So let's talk about what is
Speaker 1: happening in Secretary of State world in Colorado. Again, I
Speaker 1: want to preface this because we think of Colorado as
Speaker 1: a blue state because it has a blue governor, it
Speaker 1: has two blue senators now. But you're very much really
Speaker 1: on the front lines in a lot of ways. That's right,
Speaker 1: Colorado does have blue democratic leadership right now. But what
Speaker 1: that said, I was the first Democrat to win Secretary
Speaker 1: of State in over sixty years when we won in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. I do think that Colorados unaffiliated Republicans and
Speaker 1: Democrats just do not like the extremism. So I think
Speaker 1: both are true. We've been at the front line on
Speaker 1: a lot of the attacks on democracy which are ongoing,
Speaker 1: but also have an electorate in a citizenry that just
Speaker 1: does not like the extremism. So talk to me about
Speaker 1: some of these ongoing attacks, because you are on the
Speaker 1: front lines of voting and so your see a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff that we may not be seeing yet. So
Speaker 1: tell us what you're seeing. Well. Most recently this past weekend,
Speaker 1: a prominent election denier won the race for chair of
Speaker 1: the Colorado Republican Party, and it's the latest example of
Speaker 1: how democracy remains under attack. Election deniers have been targeting
Speaker 1: state GOP chair positions and winning key races. So so far,
Speaker 1: I believe this is the fourth state party to go
Speaker 1: to an election denier. Right, Michigan did recently too, Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. The person who won was actually competing
Speaker 1: against Tina Peters, who was the woman who breached her
Speaker 1: own security trying to prove the big lie, a local
Speaker 1: county clerk facing seven counts of felony indictment, and she
Speaker 1: actually endorsed Dave Williams, who ended up winning. Jesus, Tina
Speaker 1: Peters was an election denier who ended up facing real
Speaker 1: legal consequences. That's right. So it was the first insider
Speaker 1: threat and in the nation that we know of where
Speaker 1: my team discovered the passwords to her county's election system
Speaker 1: posted online by the person who allegedly is the leader
Speaker 1: of QAnon. So we ended up investigating she did compromise
Speaker 1: her system. She's facing a criminal trial right now, and
Speaker 1: then was just convicted last week or the week before
Speaker 1: on a separate trial, so as Artie was charged criminally.
Speaker 1: These small county clerk jobs are sort of unsexy, but
Speaker 1: they're real things and they have real consequences. They absolutely
Speaker 1: have real consequences, and to be very clear, the vast
Speaker 1: majority of county clerks Republicans, Democrats and affiliated to do
Speaker 1: a really good job. They are elected to uphold the
Speaker 1: right to vote, to actually administer the elections, and they
Speaker 1: do a fantastic job here in Colorado. I was just
Speaker 1: meeting with some of the clerks yesterday and mentioned that
Speaker 1: the clerk from Fremont County, who's a Republican in my eyes,
Speaker 1: got the best compliment because the county Democratic Party told
Speaker 1: me how much faith they had in his leadership. And
Speaker 1: that's how these county clerks should work. The local county
Speaker 1: parties should have total faith in the county clerks, and
Speaker 1: the best majority of them work around the clock. They
Speaker 1: are the unsung heroes of American democracy. But of course
Speaker 1: we've seen a couple of problematic ones pop up. I
Speaker 1: just want to go back to these state party chairs
Speaker 1: because can you explain to us why that matters? So
Speaker 1: why electing an election denier for a GOP chair that
Speaker 1: what the sort of consequences of that are. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think there's a couple of consequences, and it depends state
Speaker 1: to state. First, and foremost, they're they're the leader of
Speaker 1: the state Republican party and with the election of Dave Williams.
Speaker 1: Here in Colorado, it's clearer that the state Republican Party
Speaker 1: has embraced election denialists. That should be worrisome in itself.
Speaker 1: You know, in Michigan, Christina Kuramo won her election of
Speaker 1: the state Republican Party. She ran for a secretary of
Speaker 1: state last cycle and has still refused to concede her failure.
Speaker 1: She believes, by the way that like yoga is a
Speaker 1: tie of Satan or something like that. It's really far
Speaker 1: out there. The first thing is just the bully pulpit
Speaker 1: of leadership. But then we work, the secretaries of state
Speaker 1: work with the leadership of both political parties on election
Speaker 1: issues through the election cycle. Depending on the state, the
Speaker 1: county parties are compiling a list of election judges and
Speaker 1: election watchers. Election deniers have also been elected to state
Speaker 1: party chair in Ohio and Kansas. So it just underlines
Speaker 1: that all the voters did their great service to democracy
Speaker 1: in the midterms. Election denialism has not been defeated. Folks
Speaker 1: far right are doubling down, So we just have to
Speaker 1: continue to remain extremely vigilant and take action to protect democracy.
Speaker 1: It's so dispiriting that this continues on and that like
Speaker 1: the vos, just have to keep rejecting this kind of
Speaker 1: crazy it is. But I'll tell you I am hopeful.
Speaker 1: In the midterms, we had election deniers running for Secretary
Speaker 1: of State, so the chief election officer in every battleground
Speaker 1: state where we had a race. So we had election
Speaker 1: deniers run in Nevada, in Michigan and Minnesota, in New
Speaker 1: Mexico and Arizona. And why I'm so optimistic is that
Speaker 1: when American voters know what's at stake, they are rejecting
Speaker 1: these extremist candidates and ensuring that they are electing folks
Speaker 1: who will be good stewards of elections, of ensuring that
Speaker 1: every eligible person, regardless of their political affiliation or the
Speaker 1: color of their skin, can have their voice hurt. With
Speaker 1: that said, I do think we are not out of
Speaker 1: the woods. But I also think that we will beat
Speaker 1: this extremism. We're just not there yet. At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, this is about power, and if Americans
Speaker 1: continue to reject these extremist candidates, I do think this
Speaker 1: will fade out of mainstream political thought. Yeah. No, I
Speaker 1: mean I think if they keep losing with it, eventually
Speaker 1: they'll decide that they have to run on something else.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's incredible that they keep losing on it.
Speaker 1: You're seeing these state party chairs, You're seeing these county clerks.
Speaker 1: What else are you seeing at the state level in Colorado?
Speaker 1: So across the nation, we are seeing the continual effort
Speaker 1: to strip Americans of the right to vote. If you remember,
Speaker 1: the last couple of years, we sought an unprecedented passage
Speaker 1: of voter suppression laws. It is now harder for many
Speaker 1: Americans across the country to vote than before. That trimp continues.
Speaker 1: This year alone, in at least thirty two states, over
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty voter suppression or election interference bills
Speaker 1: were prefiled or introduced. And we are seeing across the
Speaker 1: nation extremist Republicans continuing to try to undermine elections and
Speaker 1: and pursuing a radical agenda. Our right to love who
Speaker 1: we love, mary who we love, Provide kids with the
Speaker 1: best possible education, the right for women and people to
Speaker 1: have control over our own bodies. It all starts at
Speaker 1: the ballot box. That's why protecting democracy is so important.
Speaker 1: Lots of work ahead, but I am confident we're going
Speaker 1: to get through this dark period. Of American history. In Colorado,
Speaker 1: what does your state House look like? Are there still
Speaker 1: allotted you? You are the state that has Lauren Boebert.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to tell you so. I mean there's a
Speaker 1: real right wing contingent there. Yeah. So the Ate House
Speaker 1: and State Senate are controlled by Democratic leadership, so there's
Speaker 1: majority Democrats. But with that said, I will tell you,
Speaker 1: if you could even believe it, my saddest day of
Speaker 1: being an elected official was actually January of this year.
Speaker 1: I was testifying in the Legislature and there were various
Speaker 1: legislators in the committee that I was testifying in who
Speaker 1: were straight election deniers. And seeing elected officials right in
Speaker 1: front of you spew out these conspiracies. In a state
Speaker 1: like Colorado, it's sad, not only because they're misleading or
Speaker 1: trying to mislead their constituents and lying from a position
Speaker 1: of power, but words have power. And I know that's
Speaker 1: corny to say no, but it's true. These lies. They've
Speaker 1: been cited violence. It's the reason that there was a
Speaker 1: kidnapping attempt of the Michigan governor. It's the reason that
Speaker 1: Paul Pelosi was attacked. It's the reason in December that
Speaker 1: six elected officials. Houses in New Mexico were shot up,
Speaker 1: So you know, we have to maintain our path on
Speaker 1: pushing back on the disinformation with truth, on refuting the lies,
Speaker 1: and that work isn't over either. Yeah, I think that's
Speaker 1: so interesting. What about abortion access, I mean, I can't
Speaker 1: believe I have to have this conversation with you, but
Speaker 1: you are one of the few states in your area
Speaker 1: that is I mean, there are a couple of states
Speaker 1: in the West, but you are an abortion safe haven
Speaker 1: for people who need treatment. Yes, the last time I
Speaker 1: was on your podcast, I think was right after the
Speaker 1: Job's decision, so that the gutting of Row, and it
Speaker 1: was such a visceral shock, even though we, you know,
Speaker 1: many of us suspected that it was coming. But to
Speaker 1: have the Supreme Court literally decide that it would no
Speaker 1: longer protect the full citizenship of women in this country.
Speaker 1: But more than that, really dictate many women to death.
Speaker 1: It is so outrageously shocking that I'm with you. I
Speaker 1: can't even believe we have to have this conversation. But
Speaker 1: luckily there are states like Colorado who are continuing to
Speaker 1: protect women and provide services. Our state legislature did a
Speaker 1: fabulous job last year of codifying the right to abortion
Speaker 1: care the right to birth control in state law. I
Speaker 1: think there will be more movement on protecting that work
Speaker 1: in the state. But people are traveling from all over
Speaker 1: the country and the wait time for abortion care has skyrocketed.
Speaker 1: And if you can imagine, women are driving sometimes across
Speaker 1: various states who want to have babies. They want to
Speaker 1: have babies, and their pregnancy doesn't go right, and because
Speaker 1: of it, they can their life is in danger and
Speaker 1: they cannot get just the healthcare that they need in
Speaker 1: their states. It's just horrible. Yeah, no, I mean I
Speaker 1: remember being a new Maximan seeing these women sleeping in
Speaker 1: their cars so that they can have abortions. And you know,
Speaker 1: we're also seeing all of these women who have miscarriages
Speaker 1: who can't then get treatment. Yeah, so there was I
Speaker 1: heard from one of the providers a couple of months ago.
Speaker 1: Is when they told me this. There was a woman
Speaker 1: in Texas with her I think six year old son
Speaker 1: and husband who had a natural miscarriage that was risking
Speaker 1: her life. Her medical providers refused to help her. They
Speaker 1: jumped in a car drove from Texas to Colorado. We're
Speaker 1: sitting at the provider's office at six am in the morning,
Speaker 1: and at any time she could have died on that drive. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And can you imagine, like, if states supposedly care about
Speaker 1: family values or the sanctity of life, that they are
Speaker 1: telling this woman you may have to die in front
Speaker 1: of your little son because we don't want to provide
Speaker 1: you with healthcare. So I'm just so proud of the
Speaker 1: state of Colorado and really honored to be a woman
Speaker 1: and statewide elected office right now to fight for values.
Speaker 1: And one of the things I did last year was
Speaker 1: joined the governor of Colorado and saying we will not
Speaker 1: extradite any person for the criminalization of abortion in another state. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just unbelievable. I just can't wrap my head around it.
Speaker 1: I mean I can, but I just, you know, the
Speaker 1: hypocrisy is just incredible. I also wanted to ask you
Speaker 1: what's next for you? You know, I think the next
Speaker 1: two years are going to be difficult for secretaries of state.
Speaker 1: We will beat the election denialism, I'm confident of that,
Speaker 1: but it's not being so the presidential election. We have
Speaker 1: a president who incited an insurrection, possibly tough of ticket,
Speaker 1: if not election deniers very strong candidates on the Republican field.
Speaker 1: So the next two years, I am going to continue
Speaker 1: to strengthen our laws and address any situation leading up
Speaker 1: to that general election for the president. So that is
Speaker 1: our full focus, and I think we'll have great elections,
Speaker 1: but they'll continue to be trying. So just going to
Speaker 1: continue to do everything that we can, and I'm confident
Speaker 1: the American people will again save democracy just like they
Speaker 1: did in twenty twenty two, and I'll be fighting for
Speaker 1: our rights right alongside with them. Oh, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate having you and you making the time.
Speaker 1: Of course, thank you for all your leadership and for
Speaker 1: your fabulous fashion sense, which I always appreciate. Molly jun Fast,
Speaker 1: Jesse Cannon. Marian Williamson run for president again, but I
Speaker 1: feel like there's been some reporting about that she's not
Speaker 1: the best person to have in office. I would like
Speaker 1: to point out first that my relationship with Marian Williamson
Speaker 1: is long varied and includes her complaining right, and includes
Speaker 1: her dming my mother complaining about me. And so I
Speaker 1: say this. We learned today from Politico, a political story
Speaker 1: with twelve sources that very spiritual Mary Ann Williamson is
Speaker 1: in fact a very bad boss. Again, being a bad
Speaker 1: boss is complicated, and certainly there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people who do not, who are quite tough on women,
Speaker 1: especially women in power. But I think that when your
Speaker 1: whole stick is built on the idea that you're so
Speaker 1: spiritual and even handed and filled with love that the
Speaker 1: fact that you throw your phone at people work for you,
Speaker 1: it's probably not a great sign. And she gets our
Speaker 1: moment of fuckery. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the
Speaker 1: best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos.
Speaker 1: If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
Speaker 1: a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks
Speaker 1: for listening.