Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds, and Donald Trump says ultimately Putin is
Speaker 1: going to take over all of Ukraine. Wow. We have
Speaker 1: a jam pack show today. The Washington Post, Plumbline Blogs.
Speaker 1: Greg Sargeant, we'll talk to us about why we're pealing
Speaker 1: Michigan's right to work law was a huge deal. Then
Speaker 1: Vices Cameron Joseph talks to us about the Claremont Institute
Speaker 1: snuggling up to Ron de Santis after being Trump's brain
Speaker 1: for many years. But first we have former congressmen and
Speaker 1: current best friend of mine, Mondair Jones. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: Fast Politics. Fan favorite Mandare Jones, Oh, fan favorite. Okay,
Speaker 1: I've been promoted. I apologize, but it's true. Trump was
Speaker 1: indicted yesterday or incited depending on your autocorrect or indicated.
Speaker 1: I think according to what you truth and truth social Yes.
Speaker 1: By the way, I went to a dinner last night
Speaker 1: with a bunch of political writery people and they were
Speaker 1: like One of them was like, now every indictment is
Speaker 1: going to come down. I was like, really, no, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's how it works. I have great faith
Speaker 1: in the prosecutor down in Fulton County, Georgia, and I've
Speaker 1: got more faith in the special prosecutor at at Main Justice,
Speaker 1: and I do Mary Garland, and so I think they'll
Speaker 1: indict when they're good and ready. Yeah, I do think
Speaker 1: that those indictments are amin it based on the public
Speaker 1: reporting here. These Republicans are right. There was so many
Speaker 1: machinations about this. Right, you had Linda Graham weeping on
Speaker 1: television like a televangelist, begging people to send donations to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, right, begging people. What are they thinking. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, lindsay I suppose once additional terms
Speaker 1: in the Senate. I don't know why he needed to
Speaker 1: cry when he did that. I mean thinking just kind
Speaker 1: of tow the party line, as damaging as that is
Speaker 1: to our democracy without the the water works. And it's
Speaker 1: just really sad how far he has fallen from the
Speaker 1: standpoint of integrity. I think John McCain is rolling in
Speaker 1: his brave because of what is his dear friend has
Speaker 1: been doing his past several years. But I will just
Speaker 1: say I think all of these people are very happy
Speaker 1: that Trump is finally getting indicted for things They do
Speaker 1: not want him to be the nominee, even though he
Speaker 1: is even more likely, it would appear, to become a
Speaker 1: nominee after having been indicted by several different prosecuting authorities.
Speaker 1: They don't want to piss off the base, and unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the base is not persuaded by efforts to hold Trump
Speaker 1: accountable for whether it is inciting violence at the Capitol
Speaker 1: on January sixth, or trying to overturn the election results
Speaker 1: in Georgia, or holding on to classify documents when he's
Speaker 1: been told he has to return them right, and lying
Speaker 1: about what classified documents you have. That's what I'm sort
Speaker 1: of struck by. Its like there were some Republicans, I
Speaker 1: mean some thought leaders of the Republican Party like Kat
Speaker 1: Turd and also Eric Ericson, who both said I put
Speaker 1: them basically on the same level, who said, like, you
Speaker 1: have now made Trump president again, and I actually don't
Speaker 1: think that's true. I think that what they were responding
Speaker 1: to is they now know Trump will win the nomination.
Speaker 1: I think that's right, that he's more likely today to
Speaker 1: win the nomination than he was before news of the
Speaker 1: indictment came down. But I'm also not a hundred convinced
Speaker 1: of that theory because as we get closer to the
Speaker 1: primaries on the Republican side, which will take place next year,
Speaker 1: I'd like to imagine that Republican voters, as disappointing as
Speaker 1: they may be on a certain level, are concerned with electability.
Speaker 1: And by then, I expect that Trump will have been
Speaker 1: indicted by the Department of Justice at the level by
Speaker 1: the DA in Folts County, and of course he has
Speaker 1: been indicted by the Manhattan disc Attorney. That's not something
Speaker 1: that is exciting for a for the average general election voter.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're if you're an independent, you know
Speaker 1: you're you're concerned about that, and you're more likely to
Speaker 1: vote for Joe Biden than you would be in the
Speaker 1: absence of those indictments. And I think that there are
Speaker 1: still some Republicans who are concerned about whether their nominee
Speaker 1: can win in the general election. That's this theory, right,
Speaker 1: That's the theory is that you are nominating someone because
Speaker 1: they can win in a general election and not because
Speaker 1: you you know, you're trusting a weird QAnon plan that
Speaker 1: doesn't really exist. Yes, I'd like to believe that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. You know. The thing that's so I
Speaker 1: want to say interesting, but it's really kind of what
Speaker 1: if there's a sort of negative word for interesting. The
Speaker 1: thing that's so worrying about where we are right now
Speaker 1: is that there this is a sense in which this
Speaker 1: Republican party is controlled by its base, and its base
Speaker 1: is not living on Earth one. That's right. There is
Speaker 1: in fact an effort to completely delude the base Republican
Speaker 1: voter into thinking that facts are not reality. I mean
Speaker 1: that takes the form of Tucker Carlson's show, and Crime
Speaker 1: Time and pretty much every show at Fox News, with
Speaker 1: maybe one or two exceptions. According to the discovery that
Speaker 1: we now have in the Dominion voting case, which is
Speaker 1: an extraordinary lawsuit that I think will end favorably for
Speaker 1: Dominion and hopefully be a boon to those of us
Speaker 1: who want to see truth prevailing democracy remain, democracy continue. Yes,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about that. So you know,
Speaker 1: we are in the run up to this Dominion case.
Speaker 1: If I were Ruper Murdoch, which I am very much not,
Speaker 1: thank god, I wouldn't want to settle this case. If
Speaker 1: I'm your attorney, and I'm urge you to settle this
Speaker 1: thing as soon as possible. In fact, I would have
Speaker 1: urged you to settle it a long time ago. Now. Oftentimes,
Speaker 1: and I know this from from having practice law for
Speaker 1: several years, clients don't do what you advised to do.
Speaker 1: And I think there's actually been some reporting to this effect.
Speaker 1: But my god, this is really embarrassing. I mean, tuber
Speaker 1: Crompson is now admitting to a conversation he had with
Speaker 1: Donald Trumpton, which he apologized for the text messages that
Speaker 1: he seemed to which is about his public and admission
Speaker 1: that we're going to get I think, And of course
Speaker 1: he only went on far right media to describe that conversation,
Speaker 1: But if you continue to read the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: you're not going to hear anything Dominion gas right. I
Speaker 1: also feel like Dominion really has a kind of Thalmann
Speaker 1: Louise like drive off the cliff mentality with this case.
Speaker 1: So I'm kind of young, Yes, you're a little, thank
Speaker 1: you very much, a little young than Jesse and I
Speaker 1: thank you. What if someone is bragging about being in
Speaker 1: their thirtieth year. So the whole Felma and Louise baying
Speaker 1: is something em says, Oh Jesus Christ, no longer fan favorite,
Speaker 1: fan un favorite Manda Jones. My apologies, yah it, but yes,
Speaker 1: dam by Louise. It's a story of two actress, middle
Speaker 1: aged actresses. I guess they were young then, but anyway,
Speaker 1: they drove off a cliff. They were willing to take
Speaker 1: themselves down. Oh good, I'm glad I could give you
Speaker 1: this insight into popular culture. Delighted. It's very There's a
Speaker 1: lot of bragging about how young he is here, but anyway,
Speaker 1: we'll allow it. No. I look, I mean, I just
Speaker 1: if I go to Florida, I'll never hear about it,
Speaker 1: because I'm sure this stuff has been banned already by
Speaker 1: Ron de Santas. Right, exactly banned by Ron de Santras.
Speaker 1: We had on this podcast in the last episode we
Speaker 1: had JENSACKI and she was talking about this idea that
Speaker 1: this White House really can kind of sit back and
Speaker 1: let the Republicans destroy themselves on each other. Do you
Speaker 1: think that's a wise move for Democrats? To an extent,
Speaker 1: She's certainly write that the contrast is not one that's
Speaker 1: difficult for Democrats to draw. But I do think at
Speaker 1: the same time, and I don't think she would disagree
Speaker 1: that Democrats need to be making the affirmative case. We
Speaker 1: need to continue to remind people about the crisis of
Speaker 1: abortion care in this country, which only grows worse by
Speaker 1: the day. We need to continue to remind people of
Speaker 1: the implications for our democracy of having these people continue
Speaker 1: to not certify elections, and it's otherwise subverts elections and
Speaker 1: suppress the right to vote. More than anything, we need
Speaker 1: to talk about how they are trying to repeal provisions
Speaker 1: of the Inflation Reduction Act, for example, which would actually
Speaker 1: reduce our deficited and allow us to actually tax very
Speaker 1: wealthy people in this country so that we can continue
Speaker 1: to provide necessary government programs to people in me and
Speaker 1: yes to lower prices such as the price of prescription drugs.
Speaker 1: All of these things are economic initiatives that Democrats are
Speaker 1: in favor of and that Republicans have been an active
Speaker 1: opposition too. This is like the most Republican thing I've
Speaker 1: ever heard. I can't remember who it was, but one
Speaker 1: of these horrible Republican congressmen was like, we should take
Speaker 1: the money in the Inflation Reduction Act that's for solar
Speaker 1: panels and use it to arm teachers. That's absurd and
Speaker 1: I was like, but this is like the perfect Republican thing,
Speaker 1: and I would like to talk to you for a
Speaker 1: minute about the Thomas Massey conversation. Jamal Bowman, Yeah, yeah, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I mean that's that's actually what came to mind when
Speaker 1: you just said there. And then of course there's there's
Speaker 1: Tim Burchett out of Tennessee, who literally said to a reporter,
Speaker 1: not going to fix it, right after he was asked
Speaker 1: about the MAVs shooting in his home state, in his
Speaker 1: home state of Tennessee. So these are not serious people.
Speaker 1: When he said we're not going to fix it, put
Speaker 1: that on a T shirt and talk about it. Now,
Speaker 1: that's something you want to make the affirmative case. You
Speaker 1: want to remind people of what this guy said, because
Speaker 1: it was the most honest thing that we have heard
Speaker 1: from Republicans in Congress. I would submit in many years.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna fix it. So these are not people
Speaker 1: who go to Congress and who enter public life because
Speaker 1: they want to solve problems. These are people who at
Speaker 1: most want to maintain the status quo, if not actively
Speaker 1: make things worse, for example by arming the same teachers
Speaker 1: who they don't trust to select books for their children.
Speaker 1: I know, this is an amazing bit of sorcery. They
Speaker 1: don't trust teachers to pick books, but they do trust
Speaker 1: teachers to carry guns. I want to ask you about that.
Speaker 1: A screaming match, though, because what was interesting to me
Speaker 1: was people got really mad at Jamal. The people on
Speaker 1: the Reich got really mad at him, and they were like,
Speaker 1: this is not the way you conduct yourself. Okay, sure
Speaker 1: we're in Trump world. But the thing is what struck
Speaker 1: me was here is Thomas Massey, who basically wants to
Speaker 1: make the government as small as possible, and drowned in
Speaker 1: a bathtub saying that the answer is arming teachers because
Speaker 1: they know that's the that's sort of their favorite response,
Speaker 1: because they know that nobody wants that. Teachers don't want it,
Speaker 1: Democrats don't want it, Republicans probably don't even really want it.
Speaker 1: They just know that it's like a great throwaway line.
Speaker 1: That's right. And you know what's remarkable about that exchange
Speaker 1: between Representative Jamal Bowman and Representative Massey is that Massey
Speaker 1: didn't just walk out of the Capitol building as he
Speaker 1: saw and heard the Representative Bowman yell about what had
Speaker 1: happened in Tennessee and the cowardice of Republicans. He stopped,
Speaker 1: he engaged him in a conversation, and I think that's
Speaker 1: because he was triggered by the righteousness, the moral clarity
Speaker 1: of the things that Jamal Bowman was saying in that moment,
Speaker 1: which is that it was cowardice. It is cowardice for
Speaker 1: Republicans in Congress not to try to fix it, not
Speaker 1: to support an assault weapons laugh, because we have children
Speaker 1: being murdered in school on a regular basis, and Republicans
Speaker 1: are like me. I mean, so there's nothing funny about it.
Speaker 1: It's horrendous. But it's so horrible that it's like almost
Speaker 1: in some way commuder. They equate banning assault weapons like
Speaker 1: AR fifteens, these weapons of war with taking away all
Speaker 1: firearms that exist in American society. It is so intellectually dishonest.
Speaker 1: We used to have an assault weapons band. It was
Speaker 1: wildly effective from nineteen ninety four to two thousand and
Speaker 1: four when it expired, and it is something that is
Speaker 1: the minimum I think that Congress Cannon should do, you know,
Speaker 1: along with universal background checks. But it's just pathetic, you know.
Speaker 1: Byron Donalds out of Florida saying that people are responding
Speaker 1: emotionally to this, Well, yeah, we should all be so
Speaker 1: outraged Byron Donalds is a new trumpy congress person who
Speaker 1: actually comes from doesn't he come from the weapons industrial complex?
Speaker 1: So Byron was I think in the financial services industry
Speaker 1: as as he often brags about before he was elected
Speaker 1: to Congress, and is you know, really positioning himself as
Speaker 1: the one of the heir apparent heirs apparent to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I just think when people say things like this, we
Speaker 1: ought to believe that, right. I mean, so what he
Speaker 1: is saying is that he thinks a conversation about common
Speaker 1: sense reforms to end gun violence in this country and
Speaker 1: to stop the uniquely American problem of gun violence is
Speaker 1: a mere emotional response. Right when Tim Burchess says we're
Speaker 1: not going to fix it, like, we have to take
Speaker 1: what they're saying in these moments of honesty very seriously
Speaker 1: and vote these guys out of power. And that's where
Speaker 1: I think it's not enough for us to just sit back.
Speaker 1: I think we have to be talking about this on
Speaker 1: the stump, and you certainly have to talk about medicare
Speaker 1: and so security because I think more than any policy
Speaker 1: issue that is going to make a difference at the
Speaker 1: polls in November twenty twenty four. And you see it
Speaker 1: in the visceral reaction that Republicans have to the legitimate
Speaker 1: charge that they do want to cut it. So security
Speaker 1: and medicare being made by Democrats, right, what do they do?
Speaker 1: The thing I really want to ask you about is
Speaker 1: George Soros. George Soros one of the sort of most
Speaker 1: I think demented talking points but really is so popular
Speaker 1: with this group on the right, is that this idea
Speaker 1: that somehow George Soros has caused these indictments to come
Speaker 1: down on Trump. I am without words, this is really
Speaker 1: sinister stuff because it is steeped in anti Semitism, which
Speaker 1: is at this point pervasive within the Republican Party, is
Speaker 1: certainly among the leadership. I mean, they use words like globalists,
Speaker 1: and they cite to George Soros in particular as really
Speaker 1: the guy who spawns all of the liberal trouble that,
Speaker 1: from their perspective, is being caused in this country. And
Speaker 1: here was George Soros in an interview with Semaphore saying, actually,
Speaker 1: I didn't donate to Alvin Craig. She knows, so you know,
Speaker 1: we know what this is about and you know it.
Speaker 1: It's the loudest people are of course, the same folks
Speaker 1: who are out here saying that they are Jewish basic leaders, right,
Speaker 1: and it's this is Marjorie Taylor Green and her Ill
Speaker 1: even as they try to accuse some members of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party of anti semitiss as a Jew. It's always
Speaker 1: been incredible to me that they believe Ilhan Omar is
Speaker 1: an anti semit They can't tell you why, they just know, right,
Speaker 1: Like my favorite thing to ask people, you know, I
Speaker 1: have a lot of fancy friends who hate Elhan and
Speaker 1: I'll say, well, why do you hate her? Oh, because
Speaker 1: she's an anti semit Well what's anti Semitic about her? Well?
Speaker 1: You know, And they can never write, they can't ever
Speaker 1: follow through on that because why would they. But then
Speaker 1: you have actual anti Semitism, like real anti Semitism, like
Speaker 1: George Soros is running the American justice system, and they're
Speaker 1: completely silent. If anything, they're shopping the idea. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: literally announced his campaign by dining with Nick Flintez and
Speaker 1: Kanye West, who I guess it recently has said that
Speaker 1: Jonah Hill has helped him change perspective. But like, seriously,
Speaker 1: How can you support someone like that while claiming that
Speaker 1: you care about combating anti semitism as it is just
Speaker 1: completely incredible stuff and quite worrying. What do you think
Speaker 1: comes next here? I mean, we're definitely going to see
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans debase themselves for Trump, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: what do you think to the extent that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is even more likely to win the Republican nomination as
Speaker 1: a result of these indictments which will continue to pile up.
Speaker 1: I think these swing district Republicans earn a lot of
Speaker 1: trumble because it is going to be exceedingly difficult to
Speaker 1: disassociate from that guy at the top of the ticket.
Speaker 1: And he is even more toxic and will be even
Speaker 1: more toxic in twenty twenty four than he was in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. And now they're already competing against the headwinds
Speaker 1: that the decision to strike down Roe v. Waite by
Speaker 1: the far right supermajority of the Supreme Court has wrought,
Speaker 1: as well as the salience now of their longtime project
Speaker 1: of cutting so security and medicare at a time when
Speaker 1: seniors need those programs more than ever because of inflation
Speaker 1: and everything else going on in our economy man Dare Jones.
Speaker 1: I hope you'll come back, even though you are incredibly young.
Speaker 1: I'm actually not so young. I'm just Greg Sergeant writes
Speaker 1: the plumb Line blog for The Washington Post. Welcome too
Speaker 1: Fast Politics, Greg Sargeant, Thanks for having me own another day.
Speaker 1: Another weaponization committee explained to me what you were saying
Speaker 1: before we started recording. Once again, Jim Jordan floated the
Speaker 1: lie that will just not die, right, which is the
Speaker 1: Democrats denied Republicans the chance to cross examine witnesses on
Speaker 1: the January sixth committee. They've telled this lie constantly, right,
Speaker 1: But what actually happened is the following Nancy Pelosi did
Speaker 1: nix two out of Kevin McCarthy's five choices, one of
Speaker 1: which was Jim Jordan. But the reason she did that
Speaker 1: was because everybody knew that Jim Jordan, and I believe
Speaker 1: it was Jim Banks, had been chosen expressly for the
Speaker 1: purpose of sabotaging the very possibility of having any kind
Speaker 1: of real January sixth accounting. A three year old could
Speaker 1: see that that was what was going on. So it
Speaker 1: was after that that Kevin McCarthy pulled his other three
Speaker 1: choices and he did this in a calculation which went
Speaker 1: something like this, well, okay, if there are no Republicans
Speaker 1: on the committee, and again, Adam Kinsinger and Liz Cheney
Speaker 1: are Republicans, but not in Republican land, right, But if
Speaker 1: there are no Republicans on the committee who are actual Republicans,
Speaker 1: then we'll be able to cast entire affair as a
Speaker 1: partisan witch hunt against President Trump. They always call him
Speaker 1: President Trump, right, right, right, because in their minds, he
Speaker 1: will always be president. He will always be president, He'll
Speaker 1: always be President Trump. That was a disastrous miscalculation on
Speaker 1: McCarthy's part. For one thing, it allowed Democrats to tell
Speaker 1: the actual story of what happened on January sixth without
Speaker 1: any saboteurs. And then it also didn't work. It didn't
Speaker 1: taint the investigation in the eyes of the American public,
Speaker 1: in the eyes of the middle of the country. Poles
Speaker 1: showed that people saw the charges is extremely serious and
Speaker 1: so it was just a disaster, and they just keep
Speaker 1: lying about it to this day, and it's it's just
Speaker 1: a joke. First, let's talk about what's happening in Michigan,
Speaker 1: where they've sort of countered an anti woke a GOP frenzy.
Speaker 1: Michigan is such an interesting state because it's very good,
Speaker 1: very popular, female governor, you have a female Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: female ag they're all Democrats, and they're really working now
Speaker 1: on the state legislature. Yeah, I mean, the big context
Speaker 1: here is that Michigan, of course, was one of the
Speaker 1: three Blue Wall states that Trump cracked in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: in the heart of the Midwest, right in the center
Speaker 1: of the Democratic base, in the center of the birthplace
Speaker 1: of labor. Michigan is often thought of as that, and
Speaker 1: that was a huge shot to Democrats right legitimately, so
Speaker 1: what Trump accomplished was pretty amazing. But in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: Biden was able to win Michigan and then in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two Democrats took control of the state legislature on
Speaker 1: the governorship, so that was a real routing of Republicans
Speaker 1: by Democrats. And so they're using this power now to
Speaker 1: try and do two things right. One is to restore
Speaker 1: a semblance of satin the on the culture war front
Speaker 1: by passing protections against discrimination for LGBCQ and rescinding an
Speaker 1: old abortion band. But at the same time they're also
Speaker 1: taking steps to strengthen labor in the state, which, as
Speaker 1: you guys all know, has been in serious decline for
Speaker 1: a long time. So they're in the process of repealing
Speaker 1: right to work, which is a tremendous thing for both
Speaker 1: labor and Democrat Can you explain what right to work
Speaker 1: is for the few people who are not completely right
Speaker 1: in on this, this is a vast oversimplification, but the
Speaker 1: gist is it allows workers to free ride on the
Speaker 1: benefits of negotiated union contracts without paying any dues. And
Speaker 1: it's been catastrophic for organized labor. Not just it, but
Speaker 1: it and other factors have been catastrophic for organized labor.
Speaker 1: And so when Republicans took control of a bunch of
Speaker 1: state legislatures in twenty ten, which as you know, is
Speaker 1: a huge routing for the Democrats, one of the big
Speaker 1: things they did was due these quote unquote right to
Speaker 1: work laws in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, which are really
Speaker 1: in the heart of the Democratic slash labor stronghold or
Speaker 1: work in the heart of and so that was a
Speaker 1: tremendous blow. And so to undo that is a pretty
Speaker 1: major victory and a very significant event for Democrats on labor.
Speaker 1: You'd feel like Michigan is kind of a template. I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that it is right. What we're seeing here is
Speaker 1: that Democrats are using their power fairly aggressively to fortify
Speaker 1: both labor and LGBTQ slash abortion rights at the same time.
Speaker 1: What I'm kind of hoping is that that can be
Speaker 1: a template for crafting a kind of pro what you
Speaker 1: might call a pro work or social liberalism that can
Speaker 1: really counter the claim of Republicans in red states that
Speaker 1: their reactionary agenda is somehow more in sync with working
Speaker 1: class values than social liberalism is. If democrats can deliver
Speaker 1: for working people economically while also defending their social values
Speaker 1: fairly aggressively and succeed and make a lot of working
Speaker 1: people feel represented, then that could be, you know, something
Speaker 1: of a paradigm shift, or at least the beginnings of war. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, that seems like a really important data point,
Speaker 1: if that makes sense. Yeah, I hope so. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think there's a long way to go before this
Speaker 1: kind of thing can really be shown to work, but
Speaker 1: it would certainly be a bit of a game changer
Speaker 1: if it did so. The opposite of what's happening in Michigan.
Speaker 1: I think is what's happening in Florida, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: so we often are told to look at the contrast
Speaker 1: between Rondes Sans the government of Florida and Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: the governor of California, right, and Newsom, for his own purposes,
Speaker 1: is very eager to play up that contrast. But as
Speaker 1: you just pointed out at the beginning of this discussion,
Speaker 1: Gretchen Whitmer is a very popular female governor right in
Speaker 1: the industrial heartland. She presided over a real turnaround of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party's fortunes in a swingy state. Do we
Speaker 1: think it's a swing state? I think I think it's
Speaker 1: a swingy state. For sure. It's swingy, right, like you know,
Speaker 1: it's not I think people have said this before, but
Speaker 1: it's not a swing state until it is a swing
Speaker 1: state exactly, And so you know, I think in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four it could be swingy again. The better comparison,
Speaker 1: I think, or the more interesting one, is the DeSantis
Speaker 1: versus Whitmer comparison. Each one of them has a pair
Speaker 1: amount of control, and each one is implementing their agenda
Speaker 1: pretty aggressively and using their power pretty aggressively. I think
Speaker 1: maybe in a way, De Santis is more aggressive on
Speaker 1: the culture war quote unquote culture warfront than Whitmer is.
Speaker 1: Whitmer in fairness is not she doesn't usually talk about
Speaker 1: it in the terms that we're talking about, right. I
Speaker 1: mean DeSantis is running for president, right. I mean that's
Speaker 1: what's happening there. This is not like Whitmer is just
Speaker 1: trying to govern a state. Right. I think that's true.
Speaker 1: And as a result, DeSantis is trying to play to
Speaker 1: a national ideologically charged audience in a bit of a
Speaker 1: different way, right, because there's no world in which De
Speaker 1: santist is. I mean, everything he's doing is all about
Speaker 1: getting in front of Trump's people, right, and also showing
Speaker 1: I think goop elites. As I wrote in this piece,
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that's going on here
Speaker 1: with the anti woke stuff is he's trying to signal
Speaker 1: to gop elites that he can actually capture the mega energy,
Speaker 1: but in a way that will be less destructive and
Speaker 1: less self destructive and counterproductive politically for the Republican park.
Speaker 1: So a lot of these display is right. So I
Speaker 1: think when he goes over to Texas and scoops up
Speaker 1: a bunch of migrants and flies them to Florida, then
Speaker 1: flies them to Martha's vineyard. It's kind of a wink
Speaker 1: wink at the at the gop elite donor class as well. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: for sure, he's basically saying, look, guys, the base has
Speaker 1: kind of really lost its mind in the Trump era,
Speaker 1: and somebody's got to be able to say to them,
Speaker 1: we're delivering on your preoccupations. Well, look I can do it.
Speaker 1: I can fly migrants all over the place, you know,
Speaker 1: and so the bottom line will be fine, right exactly,
Speaker 1: just explain a little bit about this book band name bill.
Speaker 1: I mean, the thing with all these Republican bills is
Speaker 1: they're very sloppy. So you know, like with the abortion bands.
Speaker 1: You know, they're not clear, so the doctors don't know
Speaker 1: who can get treatment in who can right. I think
Speaker 1: that the vagueness is a very is a real feature
Speaker 1: of a lot of these quote unquote anti woke bills. Right.
Speaker 1: One of the things that we keep seeing over and
Speaker 1: over is that the bills are drafted in such a
Speaker 1: way that it's really hard for teachers and educators and
Speaker 1: school officials to figure out exactly what's allowed and what
Speaker 1: isn't and the result is that rather than risk running
Speaker 1: a foul of the law, they actually kind of self censor.
Speaker 1: And some of the savvier observers of this stuff, and
Speaker 1: I agree with them on this, think that that's really
Speaker 1: a feature of these laws, that they're deliberately designed this
Speaker 1: way in order to create kind of an atmosphere of
Speaker 1: fear and self censor. So you mentioned that the Florida
Speaker 1: book band stuff, Well, you know, there's a there's a
Speaker 1: there's a bill that's going through the state legislature in
Speaker 1: Florida right now that's getting attention because it would expand
Speaker 1: quote unquote don't say gay, which is the limits on
Speaker 1: classroom discussion of sex and gender identity, right. But also
Speaker 1: in that bill is a thing that clarifies the way
Speaker 1: the book bands are enforced in the following way. What
Speaker 1: it actually does is it makes it possible for single
Speaker 1: parents to not just object to a book, but also
Speaker 1: once a book or classroom instruction material is objected to,
Speaker 1: it has to be removed promptly, right before any kind
Speaker 1: of oversight or evaluative process unfolds to vet the objections.
Speaker 1: So if that passes, right, what that's going to do
Speaker 1: is it's going to make it even more inviting for
Speaker 1: your kind of local moms, for liberty parent who's sniffing
Speaker 1: how books to bend everywhere she can, to just say, here,
Speaker 1: ban this one, ban that one, I object to this
Speaker 1: that I object to that one, and they'll be pulled
Speaker 1: without any kind of oversight process determining whether the objections
Speaker 1: are legitimate. It's interesting because it's like you have these
Speaker 1: Republicans who are so they're so mad at teachers, right,
Speaker 1: they feel the teachers who teach too much stuff about
Speaker 1: gay rights, that these teachers are grooming their kids, right.
Speaker 1: But then when you have someone like Thomas Massey's screaming
Speaker 1: at I'm sure you saw that incredible screaming match. I
Speaker 1: did was being yelled at by Thomas Massey, and you
Speaker 1: did absolutely think to yourself, or at least I did.
Speaker 1: I thought to myself like, this is you know, Massey
Speaker 1: was screaming, if you want to keep these children safe,
Speaker 1: you should arm the teachers, which is like one of
Speaker 1: republicans favorite talking points because they know that Democrats will
Speaker 1: ap never armed teachers because teachers won't go for it,
Speaker 1: and it's predict Jamal Bowman and Tom Massey. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: I'm just curious. I mean it is one of those
Speaker 1: another one of those times where they've made up, you know,
Speaker 1: a bad faith talking point. Yeah right, I mean everything
Speaker 1: is just about you know, not acting right. Everything is
Speaker 1: just about encouraging the belief that, well, if there's violence,
Speaker 1: the only answer to it can be more guns, right,
Speaker 1: and so in almost I think you're right that they
Speaker 1: know that teachers won't do it. In addition to that,
Speaker 1: they also want to further the idea that we could
Speaker 1: all be safer if Democrats just would drop their opposition
Speaker 1: to being a hyber on society, you know what I mean. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: it's just a completely strange bad faith what you would
Speaker 1: expect from this party with this Thomas Massey. I mean,
Speaker 1: you watch that video. It's now really you know, viral
Speaker 1: sort of smugness of Thomas Massey. I found that pretty infuriating.
Speaker 1: But that's kind of how Republicans feel about these gun crimes, right,
Speaker 1: which part of it, there's sort of smugness like if
Speaker 1: you want a solution, let's arm the teachers. Like, you know,
Speaker 1: they're not really interested in having a discourse with Democrats.
Speaker 1: They're pretty damn pleasing themselves for all the victories they've
Speaker 1: had on quote unquote gun rights right, and everybody talks
Speaker 1: about those pictures of some of these Republican congressmen with
Speaker 1: their families, all of them holding ars or whatever, and
Speaker 1: they do look awfully smug. No one's going to take
Speaker 1: that ar from my four year old. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: being a little glid. They're not literal, but that's sort
Speaker 1: of what the vibe actually is. I mean, it's just awful.
Speaker 1: It's such an insulting way to talk to the country
Speaker 1: when it experiences these types of traumas. It's just a
Speaker 1: way of saying, you know, well, okay, this is pretty bad,
Speaker 1: but it could always be worse, and we'll high rights.
Speaker 1: And they're also saying, well, you know this is this
Speaker 1: is pretty bad, but you know we're kind of winning here, right,
Speaker 1: We're getting our way, and you, you know, you hysterical
Speaker 1: liberals are losing so tough. Greg Sargent, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. Cameron Joseph is a senior political reporter. Guys, welcome,
Speaker 1: too fast Politics. Cameron Joseph, we are talking about Trump's
Speaker 1: favorite extreme think tank. But then we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about something else. But first, this is super interesting because
Speaker 1: the Claremont Institute. I hesitate to use the phrase the
Speaker 1: brains behind Trump is um because it feels like an oxymoron,
Speaker 1: but it is kind of true, absolutely, And you know,
Speaker 1: these are not dumb guys, especially, I mean, there's multiple
Speaker 1: people at the Claremont Institute, and I think you kind
Speaker 1: of have to at some level evaluate them one by
Speaker 1: want in terms of both fealty to the actual constitution
Speaker 1: and intelligence. But they're smart folks who think a lot
Speaker 1: about years. Some of them at least think a lot
Speaker 1: about Founding and the American Founding and have read a
Speaker 1: lot of the traditional documents. Really kind of gave Trumpism
Speaker 1: a intellectual and ideological form in some ways, took the
Speaker 1: id of Trump and charted it into something coherent, or
Speaker 1: at least put it into a co current system of
Speaker 1: right wing conservatism, and you know, the Founding and Jacksonian
Speaker 1: principles and all of these things, and did a lot
Speaker 1: of work to try and make Trump palatable and acceptable
Speaker 1: on the right early on before he was president, and
Speaker 1: you know, kind of swear his populist urges with traditional
Speaker 1: conservative viewpoint and before a lot of other conservatives were
Speaker 1: willing to bear hug him. Really embraced them, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they're like books. There's an old school
Speaker 1: of the Claremont Institute that's very conservative but kind of
Speaker 1: more not as fascist, I mean, like thumbsuckery, traditional traditionalist.
Speaker 1: They come out of the Strausseeans School and the Straussians. Yes,
Speaker 1: continue on going. Yeah, I'm sure everybody here is very
Speaker 1: familiar with Leil Strauss and Harry Joffler, the guy who
Speaker 1: my college kid goes to a great book school where
Speaker 1: they're obsessed with straus Anyway, continue sorry, Yeah, the teal
Speaker 1: the r here is they were a pretty normy conservative,
Speaker 1: very conservative but pretty not out there think tank for
Speaker 1: many decades. And you know, the guy who founded it
Speaker 1: was very goldwater speech writer, and you know a lot
Speaker 1: of the fastors who wrote there were, you know, kind
Speaker 1: of across the spectrum of conservatism. Would write for the
Speaker 1: Claremont Review of Books, including a couple of my old profts.
Speaker 1: There's a Claremont Institute and then a bunch of those
Speaker 1: guys teach at Claremont McKennitt College, which is a separate,
Speaker 1: unaffiliated institution, which is where I happened to have gotten
Speaker 1: to school. And you know, if you're writing there, you're conservative,
Speaker 1: but there were a lot of different perspectives of conservatism.
Speaker 1: And then what happened was around twenty fourteen, Harry Jaffa,
Speaker 1: I think it was twenty fourteen, Harry Jaffa died, and
Speaker 1: there's this kind of new class of much further right,
Speaker 1: much less happy warrior mentality guys who came in and frankly,
Speaker 1: they're almost all guys, and started pushing this and in
Speaker 1: a pretty wild new direction. And it just happened to
Speaker 1: coincide with the time that President Trump was becoming President Trump.
Speaker 1: And one of the senior fellows there, you might actually
Speaker 1: recognize the guy's name, Michael Anton, wrote this essay that
Speaker 1: everyone talks about is kind of the tipping point of
Speaker 1: the claimants too, because it turned off some of the
Speaker 1: old folks so much that some of the older contributors
Speaker 1: stopped pubeting. People kind of were like a little seized
Speaker 1: out by it. Frankly, man, it made a ton of
Speaker 1: news and attracted a new cohort of much further rights
Speaker 1: kindness to some scary types. And the essay was called
Speaker 1: you might remember, called the Flight ninety three election, where
Speaker 1: he literally compared the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to the choice facing the folks during nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: and the opening mind would charge the cockpit or you die.
Speaker 1: The idea like, maybe Trump isn't great in every way,
Speaker 1: but we're going to lose our country to the crazy
Speaker 1: liberal progressive leftists who wanted to destroy the country and
Speaker 1: this horde of immigrants they want to bring in was
Speaker 1: intently trust to this argument, right, an absolutely insane, insane
Speaker 1: thing to say in every way shape in form. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So he wrote this essay. It went viral, which was
Speaker 1: unusual for the Clarmonts too, because exactly a very well
Speaker 1: known group outside of conservative Republican circles and Russia. Limball
Speaker 1: read it the entire essay on air. It had been
Speaker 1: an anonymous but Anton quickly claimed ownership of it, and
Speaker 1: then Trump put him on the National Security Council as
Speaker 1: soon as he was in office, and so Anton didn't
Speaker 1: last a super long time there, but he kind of
Speaker 1: became this much bigger influencer on the right and claremont Insito,
Speaker 1: you know, that became a bit of a little feeding
Speaker 1: ground for the Trump administration and a couple of the folks,
Speaker 1: including Michael Pack, who used to be the president of
Speaker 1: the Claremont Institute was very close with Steve Bannon, wound
Speaker 1: up running the division that controls Radio Free Europe and
Speaker 1: all of those things and basically tried to turn them
Speaker 1: into propaganda arms. And then they have these fellowships, these
Speaker 1: week long like learn about classical texts and learn about
Speaker 1: how Lincoln thought of the founding and how that fits
Speaker 1: in with modern conservatism and all that. These training programs,
Speaker 1: these week followed programs, and it's kind of a you know,
Speaker 1: a right of passage for conservatives on over the last
Speaker 1: few decades, and they started picking much further out there
Speaker 1: guys for this, like Jack Sobiak, like the guy behind
Speaker 1: you and so. But a lot of those guys wound
Speaker 1: up working in the Trump administration. So how did this
Speaker 1: group decide that they no longer want Trump and want
Speaker 1: to Sandis instead. So it's interesting because they are kind
Speaker 1: of we're like, Okay, Trump is usful, we think that
Speaker 1: he's helpful, we think he has the right instinct. We're
Speaker 1: going to try and help him get this ideology in
Speaker 1: format this out so that this is more programmatic and effective.
Speaker 1: And you know, they thought very hard. At the end
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, John Eastman is the other guy
Speaker 1: you might actually know from the Parana. It was the
Speaker 1: architect of the legal argument and legal strategy to try
Speaker 1: and help Trump's coup efforts, and he was one of
Speaker 1: the guys who spoke on January sixth on stage alongside
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani. He was in the war room with Trump
Speaker 1: guys trying to overturn get Congress to block the certification
Speaker 1: of Biden's win. On January sixth, during the riot, he
Speaker 1: had a very angry exchange with Pence's guy, who basically said,
Speaker 1: this is your fault, and he responded, no, this is
Speaker 1: your fault for not going along with our plot. Basically paraphrasing,
Speaker 1: but that's what he was saying, and has continued to
Speaker 1: push this stuff. So they're super in the bag for Trump,
Speaker 1: and so it's really interesting to see over the last
Speaker 1: couple of months especially, but it's been building for over
Speaker 1: a year now. A lot of these clear monsters, and
Speaker 1: that's what they like to call them, Clear monsters, have
Speaker 1: embraced the Santists and the most visible obvious example of
Speaker 1: this was, for the first time in the group's forty
Speaker 1: three year history, opened a borough basically like a little
Speaker 1: office in Tallahassee and the Santis ruled out the red carpet.
Speaker 1: He and his wife, Casey, who is also his closest
Speaker 1: confidant and political advisor, met with them and was at
Speaker 1: this meeting with Anton and with Ryan Williams, the head
Speaker 1: of the organization, and Arthur Millick, who heads their DC office,
Speaker 1: and Sky Jenner, who's the new head of the Tallahassee office,
Speaker 1: and old time. Sure will get intimately into some of
Speaker 1: the interesting things he's had to say a little bit.
Speaker 1: But they had a big meeting with them in February,
Speaker 1: and DeSantis has since had Yanner on a panel going
Speaker 1: after a diversity, equity and inclusion basically using him as
Speaker 1: like an academic vouching for why you need to get
Speaker 1: rid of the EI in public schools. They also have
Speaker 1: had I don't know if you've heard about that this
Speaker 1: little liberal arts school that they've done a hostile takeover down.
Speaker 1: Yeah new College. Yeah, so the new College. They came
Speaker 1: in and they basically got rid of most of the
Speaker 1: board at this tiny school that is a pretty good school.
Speaker 1: It's got some issues, but the academics are pretty solid
Speaker 1: there and very liberal student population. So explain the thinking here.
Speaker 1: Do we think the thinking is they just decided Trump
Speaker 1: couldn't win, so they moved on. Yeah, there's different folks there,
Speaker 1: and some of them that's a rationale on reasoning is
Speaker 1: like Trump lost and that's bad. Some folks there still
Speaker 1: think Trump won and had it stolen from him. But
Speaker 1: I think that the common thread here is that they
Speaker 1: like a fury from Trump, but they like that DeSantis
Speaker 1: takes that and puts it in ideological frame. And you know,
Speaker 1: DeSantis has been quoting one of the old thermout scholars
Speaker 1: for years, Angelo Codevilla, who died shortly after the last
Speaker 1: election after basically arguing that Ashley Babbitt you shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been killed him as murder during January six. But there's
Speaker 1: an ideological kinship here. And you know, you can't really
Speaker 1: say that Trump is an ideological anything. He doesn't happen
Speaker 1: that type of ability to actually think through things comprehensively
Speaker 1: in the thing. Wait, they see an eager kinship here.
Speaker 1: I mean that this is a bit of a bromance
Speaker 1: between DeSantis and the Claremont Institute because frankly, they see
Speaker 1: things pretty similarly and the threat of wokeism that de
Speaker 1: Santist is always talking about and how he likes to
Speaker 1: talk about how Florida's where Woke Goes to Die is
Speaker 1: very much in the clare Line Institute's wheelhouse. And you know,
Speaker 1: they both think that Black Lives Matter is this totalitarian
Speaker 1: threat that is going to destroy the country. And they
Speaker 1: think that the sixteen nineteen project with the New York
Speaker 1: Times is a fundamental threat to American patriotism and full
Speaker 1: boot lies and misrepresentations, and they really see it as
Speaker 1: an existential threat. And Tom Klingenstein is the big money
Speaker 1: man behind the claremontits too. It's also the heads of
Speaker 1: Order Directors likes to call it the Cold Civil War.
Speaker 1: So give me a little bit of a sense here
Speaker 1: of what is happening with DeSantis now. So he has
Speaker 1: this Claremont Institute backing, which I guess will equal more money.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't right, I mean, what is the
Speaker 1: relevancy of this? I mean, Trump's space is Trump's space.
Speaker 1: They don't care if the elites go with the Santis.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that makes any difference to them. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that there's different wrinkles here, and I think
Speaker 1: to Santis's best argument, and you know, Obviously he's got
Speaker 1: some flaws as a candidate. He's not exactly great on
Speaker 1: the stump or in talking to actual human beings, whether
Speaker 1: they reporter. Isn't that sort of what candidates are supposed
Speaker 1: to be good at? But yes, continue, yes, I mean
Speaker 1: the biggest selling points for the Santis is a he
Speaker 1: just wanted a landside. It be how he wanted a landslide,
Speaker 1: and what we used to be a swing state while
Speaker 1: pushing the state super hard to the right. Clairmont insite folks,
Speaker 1: what they're so enamored with and what they want to
Speaker 1: help them go further in is this right wing project
Speaker 1: like to talk about how the states are laboratories for
Speaker 1: democracy that old quote, and this is kind of de
Speaker 1: Santis is attempting a laboratory of illiberal democracy and right
Speaker 1: and they're involve all been helping it, you know, in
Speaker 1: small ways with Charles Kustlers, professor at CMC and also
Speaker 1: you know, a head of Clarmount Review of Books, one
Speaker 1: of the publications is now on the board at New
Speaker 1: College along with two other Claremont affiliated guys. Three of
Speaker 1: the six appointees had some Claremont ties and they're you know,
Speaker 1: doing this hostile takeover new college that Castler also recorded
Speaker 1: some lectures for this new Civics program that the Santists
Speaker 1: is designing for the state of Florida. Basically like this
Speaker 1: is how you should look at America and it's going
Speaker 1: to be in K twelve public education. And then you
Speaker 1: know they're they're taking bigger swings in terms of changing
Speaker 1: the law around basically getting rid of the EI programs
Speaker 1: at college. It right diversity inclusion. Talk to me a
Speaker 1: little bit about this other story you did about de
Speaker 1: Santists getting some of Ted Cruise's people. Yeah, look Ted
Speaker 1: Cruise and run The Santa's have a couple of things.
Speaker 1: They both are unpleasant and not appealing their eyes, whose
Speaker 1: personalities may limit them as candidates, but they have huge
Speaker 1: appeal with I knew obtific conservatives who don't love Trump.
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz was limited by Ted Cruz in the last campaign,
Speaker 1: and part of the reason that he was not the
Speaker 1: GOP nominee was what you just said. He's not exactly
Speaker 1: the most likable guy, but his team was really good.
Speaker 1: And the reason that Ted Cruz mattered as much as
Speaker 1: he did and managed to win a bunch of these
Speaker 1: Caucus states when Trump was dominating in other elections was
Speaker 1: because his organization was really good and the head of
Speaker 1: oat organization was Jeff Row, and Frow, his campaign manager,
Speaker 1: just went to run the superpack supporting De Santis and
Speaker 1: brought in a bunch of former Cruise guys, including David
Speaker 1: Polanski who has really deep iowatized, really good data and
Speaker 1: digital guy, including Chris Wilson, pulling the Atlantics guy from
Speaker 1: the Cruise campaign. These were frankly the best folks in
Speaker 1: the primary and kept Ted Cruze competitive and tie where frankly,
Speaker 1: he didn't necessarily deserve to be that competitive because he
Speaker 1: wasn't that great at candidate at times, and built some
Speaker 1: of the networks that they needed to win voters and
Speaker 1: organized Trump in some of these states where you could
Speaker 1: do that in caucuses rather than primaries where it was,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of more culti personality driven. And so
Speaker 1: them going to De Santa's win, I think that they're
Speaker 1: going to be blocked off a little bit because they're
Speaker 1: on the superpackground in the campaign side. But it's interesting
Speaker 1: and it's not just that you know that the first
Speaker 1: congressman to endorse Ron De Santis and he's not even
Speaker 1: in the race yet is Chip Roy who I talked
Speaker 1: to about this, and Chip is Ted Cruz's former chief
Speaker 1: of staff, and you know, if you want to go
Speaker 1: way back, Chip was really instrumental in when Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: and House Republicans shut down the government to try and
Speaker 1: get rid of a Philbamacare. Chip was the guy basically
Speaker 1: running the show during that. So they're very close, and
Speaker 1: so Chip's endorsement is interesting. There. Ken Cucinelli, who's the
Speaker 1: former Attorney General of Virginia, big mucky muck in the
Speaker 1: anti immigration and conservative religious space, lost a race for
Speaker 1: governor of Virginia, was a huge time Cruise endorser last
Speaker 1: time around. He is heading this organization along with Rowe
Speaker 1: and Mike Lee, who hasn't actually endorsed yet, but you know,
Speaker 1: was helped Kushnelli lead the floor fight against Trump during
Speaker 1: the Republican National Convention in sixteen. They obviously lost. It
Speaker 1: was very embarrassing first day for Trump at his own convention.
Speaker 1: Was at recent to Santis fundraising of that down Florida,
Speaker 1: And so you start seeing this kind of ideological kinship
Speaker 1: with the folk on the right who resisted Trump in sixteen,
Speaker 1: most of whom fell in line and did a lot
Speaker 1: of things to back the dear Leader during his presidency.
Speaker 1: Are pulling away into Santis as the guy now fascinating.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Cam. I hope you'll come back. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I hope that was useful in that too. Rambley Milly
Speaker 1: jugged Fast, Jesse Cannon, No Texas, I'm no Labels. They're
Speaker 1: up to some serious fuckery right now. Tell us all
Speaker 1: about it. So No Labels is a group started by
Speaker 1: Nancy Josephson and Mark Penn, maybe because Mark Penn is
Speaker 1: very mad at the Clintons for them not doing what
Speaker 1: he wanted. I don't know. He has some kind of
Speaker 1: fight with the Clintons, and they are working on getting
Speaker 1: on the ballot in all of these states that Biden
Speaker 1: won so they can deliver the election to Trump. They
Speaker 1: are saying that it's because the American people desperately want
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion, but that's not really true. They really know
Speaker 1: that if there's another reasonable candidate, it will divide the
Speaker 1: vote and Donald Trump will win the election. So if
Speaker 1: you're a Republican and you give to No Labels, maybe
Speaker 1: that makes sense. But if you're a Democrat and you're
Speaker 1: involved in no labels. It's time to take a long,
Speaker 1: hard look at yourselves because these people are really really
Speaker 1: they deserve that moment of fuckery and everything else. That's
Speaker 1: it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and Friday to your the best minds in politics makes
Speaker 1: sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.