WEBVTT - Separate the Show from the Substance.  Lanhee Chen Talks to A&G 

0:00:06.280 --> 0:00:08.440
<v Speaker 1>I helped we enjoy this segment every week as much

0:00:08.480 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>as we do. And I know I've got some friends

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:12.920
<v Speaker 1>and we get textures who really like Lan heat Chen,

0:00:13.039 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>and it's it's it's good a conversation. You're gonna hear

0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:19.360
<v Speaker 1>about politics anywhere, always with him. You know, I don't

0:00:19.400 --> 0:00:23.160
<v Speaker 1>mind hearing my side trumpeted a lot. It feels good,

0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:26.000
<v Speaker 1>but it's also great to get straight down the middle.

0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Here's what's happening, here's how to understand it. That's why

0:00:28.640 --> 0:00:31.000
<v Speaker 1>we enjoy Lan hea Chen so much. Lan He's David

0:00:31.000 --> 0:00:33.600
<v Speaker 1>and Diane Stephy, fellow in American Public Policy Studies at

0:00:33.640 --> 0:00:36.960
<v Speaker 1>the Uber Institution and the director of Domestic Policy Studies

0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 1>at the university. Neither of one of us could hope

0:00:39.080 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 1>to get into Stanford University, lan He, how are you, sir?

0:00:43.360 --> 0:00:47.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm doing well. Happy Friday. Maybe some sort of sympathy admission,

0:00:47.320 --> 0:00:50.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, listen, he's not very bright, but he tries hard.

0:00:50.640 --> 0:00:55.040
<v Speaker 1>Something like that. At the end of this at the

0:00:55.120 --> 0:00:58.200
<v Speaker 1>end of this conversation, Joe said, over his dead body.

0:00:58.240 --> 0:00:59.800
<v Speaker 1>But at the end of this conversation, I'm just gonna

0:00:59.800 --> 0:01:03.160
<v Speaker 1>ask for your quick take. Since Caitlyn Jenders announced she's

0:01:03.200 --> 0:01:05.360
<v Speaker 1>running for governor of California. But at the end of

0:01:05.360 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>the conversation we'll get to that. Hey, Lonnie, did you

0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>happen to see the opinion piece in the Wall Street

0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:16.000
<v Speaker 1>Journal today by Kimberly Straussel about um voter turnout and

0:01:16.040 --> 0:01:20.080
<v Speaker 1>all that. I haven't seen it yet. No, I barely

0:01:20.080 --> 0:01:24.320
<v Speaker 1>got through my coffee, you guys. So the Secretary of

0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:27.160
<v Speaker 1>State in New Hampshire, Gardner, who maybe you know, or

0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:29.720
<v Speaker 1>you don't if you're super into politics. He's a highly

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:32.720
<v Speaker 1>respected Democrat. He's the longest serving secretary of state in

0:01:32.760 --> 0:01:36.679
<v Speaker 1>the entire country. And he testified in front of Congress

0:01:36.760 --> 0:01:41.120
<v Speaker 1>yesterday as they were having a big talk about voting regulations.

0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:43.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, we all know, right, the whole Georgia thing,

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 1>and Georgia changed some of those and people went crazy

0:01:45.720 --> 0:01:48.240
<v Speaker 1>and boycott and moving Major League Baseball and then the

0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:52.960
<v Speaker 1>voter suppression, voter suppression and whatnot. And this highly respected,

0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 1>longtime Democrat was there testifying on the Republicans invited him

0:01:57.360 --> 0:02:01.160
<v Speaker 1>to say, these these everything's bad records. From what you're saying,

0:02:01.200 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 1>there's very little voter suppression going on. What the hell

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:06.040
<v Speaker 1>are you talking about? And New Hampshire has some of

0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:11.000
<v Speaker 1>the most restrictive voting regulations in the state, partially because

0:02:11.040 --> 0:02:14.440
<v Speaker 1>it's in their state constitution. You have to show up

0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:16.079
<v Speaker 1>that day, one of the reasons you have they don't

0:02:16.080 --> 0:02:18.679
<v Speaker 1>have early voting. One other reasons is because their constitution

0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:22.440
<v Speaker 1>mandates that they release the results that night. You have

0:02:22.520 --> 0:02:24.160
<v Speaker 1>to show an I D though, because they want to

0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:27.320
<v Speaker 1>be very sure that and they regularly have among the

0:02:27.400 --> 0:02:30.240
<v Speaker 1>highest turnout, if not the highest turnout in the entire

0:02:30.320 --> 0:02:34.239
<v Speaker 1>country and the state of California, and that's one of

0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:37.720
<v Speaker 1>the reasons I bring it up. Nancy Pelosi was blasting

0:02:37.760 --> 0:02:40.919
<v Speaker 1>New Hampshire and other states who require I D s

0:02:40.919 --> 0:02:43.120
<v Speaker 1>and that sort of thing, and want to and and

0:02:43.120 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 1>and and are pushing for HR one, the federal government

0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:52.680
<v Speaker 1>takeover of federal elections, and she wants to impose the

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:56.880
<v Speaker 1>California model. And he pointed out Mr Gardner from New

0:02:56.880 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>Hampshire that California, in terms of turnout in the last

0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:08.560
<v Speaker 1>four presidential elections, ranked forty nine. So a lot of

0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:11.600
<v Speaker 1>the we're gonna make it easier to vote um rules

0:03:11.639 --> 0:03:13.639
<v Speaker 1>that are put out there, you get lower vertic voter

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 1>turnout in some of the more restrictive states have higher

0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:17.959
<v Speaker 1>I just thought that was fascinating. What are your thoughts

0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:19.280
<v Speaker 1>and all of that, and what do you what do

0:03:19.280 --> 0:03:23.840
<v Speaker 1>you think the sweet spot would be? What should we do? Yeah?

0:03:23.880 --> 0:03:26.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean this is a really tricky set of issues

0:03:26.320 --> 0:03:28.640
<v Speaker 1>because on the one hand, you know, I think there

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:32.720
<v Speaker 1>are certain common sense things about voting that you could

0:03:32.760 --> 0:03:36.840
<v Speaker 1>get a majority, a strong majority of Democrats and Republicans

0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:38.760
<v Speaker 1>and independence to nod their heads and say yeah, we

0:03:38.800 --> 0:03:41.960
<v Speaker 1>should do that. For example, you know, the idea of saying, look,

0:03:42.000 --> 0:03:46.080
<v Speaker 1>we want to have an election process that people feel secure, right,

0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:48.920
<v Speaker 1>they feel like if they vote, that vote is actually

0:03:48.920 --> 0:03:51.040
<v Speaker 1>the person who cast it as the person who claimed

0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:53.800
<v Speaker 1>to have cast it, that that vote was securely handled

0:03:53.800 --> 0:03:55.880
<v Speaker 1>and counted in the right way and accounted for in

0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:58.640
<v Speaker 1>the right way. You know, I think most people would say, yeah, okay,

0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:00.720
<v Speaker 1>that makes a lot of sense. And then you say, look,

0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:03.920
<v Speaker 1>can we create a mechanism where, in the context of

0:04:03.920 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 1>it being a secure vote people have an opportunity to

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 1>vote in different kinds of ways. Some people want to

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:11.520
<v Speaker 1>vote by mail, absolutely they should. Some people want to

0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:14.000
<v Speaker 1>vote in person early yes, And if you want to

0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:17.719
<v Speaker 1>vote on election day, yes, you know, so this idea

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:20.400
<v Speaker 1>that somehow we have to go and polarize this one

0:04:20.440 --> 0:04:22.760
<v Speaker 1>way or the other, you know, as Nanci Pelosi said, no, look,

0:04:22.920 --> 0:04:25.359
<v Speaker 1>we gotta have one way. We do it across the country,

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:28.520
<v Speaker 1>regardless of the fact that, you know, there's reasons why

0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:32.760
<v Speaker 1>different states have different election laws and rules. A state

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:36.279
<v Speaker 1>that's predominantly rural, for example, has to have a different

0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 1>set of rules potentially in a different set of requirements

0:04:39.480 --> 0:04:42.000
<v Speaker 1>then a state that's more urban, right, and so there

0:04:42.040 --> 0:04:46.600
<v Speaker 1>are reasons why, in their infinite wisdom, the founders said, look, fundamentally,

0:04:47.000 --> 0:04:49.719
<v Speaker 1>when you look at something like an election, we want

0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:53.040
<v Speaker 1>that election to be primarily driven by the conditions of

0:04:53.080 --> 0:04:58.160
<v Speaker 1>what's happening locally in states, in localities, etcetera. So this

0:04:58.240 --> 0:05:01.960
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have to be a polarized issue. Unfortunately, it's become

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:05.039
<v Speaker 1>a really polarized issue, and I think that's frustrating to

0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:06.560
<v Speaker 1>those of us who look at this and say, can

0:05:06.600 --> 0:05:08.479
<v Speaker 1>we have a little common sense here? You know, for example,

0:05:08.520 --> 0:05:10.360
<v Speaker 1>I'll just give one more example and I'll shut up.

0:05:10.520 --> 0:05:13.320
<v Speaker 1>In the Georgia law, there was a lot of um

0:05:13.880 --> 0:05:18.000
<v Speaker 1>noise made by particularly I mean, Biden amplified this. Unfortunately,

0:05:18.040 --> 0:05:21.000
<v Speaker 1>he said, oh, if you're waiting in line, you can't

0:05:21.000 --> 0:05:24.279
<v Speaker 1>get water. They want people to to to go without water,

0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 1>waiting in line to vote when it's ninety degrees. Well,

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:29.600
<v Speaker 1>first of all, how often is it ninety degrees in November?

0:05:29.640 --> 0:05:32.960
<v Speaker 1>But putting that aside for a moment, Georgia law actually

0:05:33.200 --> 0:05:36.120
<v Speaker 1>put putting aside from what the Georgia law actually said

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:40.360
<v Speaker 1>is if you are not a poll worker, you cannot

0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:43.640
<v Speaker 1>give people who are waiting in line water. And that's

0:05:43.640 --> 0:05:45.440
<v Speaker 1>a very reasonable thing if you think about it. Why

0:05:45.480 --> 0:05:48.000
<v Speaker 1>do we why do we prohibit electioneering? Right? Why do

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:50.719
<v Speaker 1>we prohibit people from going up while you're waiting in line,

0:05:51.040 --> 0:05:54.280
<v Speaker 1>harassing you about voting for one person or another. Those

0:05:54.360 --> 0:05:57.760
<v Speaker 1>kinds of laws prohibiting electioneering are very common. We have

0:05:57.800 --> 0:06:00.320
<v Speaker 1>them in California, they have them in New York. What

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:03.120
<v Speaker 1>the Georgia law actually said is if you are not

0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:06.000
<v Speaker 1>a poll worker, you cannot set up a water stand.

0:06:06.080 --> 0:06:08.719
<v Speaker 1>But in fact, if you are a poll worker, you

0:06:08.760 --> 0:06:11.160
<v Speaker 1>can put out a water dispenser and people can get

0:06:11.160 --> 0:06:15.080
<v Speaker 1>water on their own. So how did that become? You know,

0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:18.200
<v Speaker 1>all of a sudden, we're going to dehydrate people while

0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:20.880
<v Speaker 1>they're voting. And that's Just an example of how polarized

0:06:20.920 --> 0:06:22.760
<v Speaker 1>we've become is we can't even have a reasonable dialogue

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:24.640
<v Speaker 1>with the law actually says, I know that's what he

0:06:24.720 --> 0:06:26.760
<v Speaker 1>kept me from voting many times. As as a fad

0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:31.320
<v Speaker 1>to get too thirsty. It happens bones. It's like when

0:06:31.320 --> 0:06:33.560
<v Speaker 1>you climb mount has a reverst and the bones of

0:06:33.640 --> 0:06:36.200
<v Speaker 1>the dead climbers and it I like that at the polls.

0:06:36.360 --> 0:06:38.360
<v Speaker 1>So a lot of this is being driven on both

0:06:38.400 --> 0:06:43.600
<v Speaker 1>sides by I think an unproven theory. Uh, Democrats want

0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:47.320
<v Speaker 1>higher turnout, Republicans would would like to have a lower turnout,

0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:49.120
<v Speaker 1>with the belief that the higher to turn out, the

0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 1>more Democrats vote that that is there any fact behind that? No,

0:06:54.880 --> 0:06:57.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, look, I think we have seen high turnout

0:06:57.160 --> 0:07:00.000
<v Speaker 1>elections that have benefited Republicans. We've seen high turnout elect

0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:03.440
<v Speaker 1>since that have benefited Democrats and vice versa. So I

0:07:03.520 --> 0:07:06.880
<v Speaker 1>don't think it's correct to say that high turnout always

0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:11.480
<v Speaker 1>hurts Republicans. Uh, that's not borne out empirically. Uh. If

0:07:11.480 --> 0:07:14.720
<v Speaker 1>you've got a good, strong Republican candidate that's able to

0:07:14.760 --> 0:07:17.600
<v Speaker 1>speak not just to Republican voters, but to voters across

0:07:17.640 --> 0:07:21.320
<v Speaker 1>the the ideological spectrum, you will see high turnout supporting

0:07:21.360 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Republican candidate. So I don't think it's the king. Well,

0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:26.480
<v Speaker 1>then this is a heck of a topic that's so

0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:30.360
<v Speaker 1>benefic So, so the the theory driving the whole thing

0:07:30.440 --> 0:07:33.280
<v Speaker 1>that higher turnout leads to more Democrats not true. The

0:07:33.320 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 1>fact that you'll get better turn out by loosening up

0:07:36.880 --> 0:07:40.720
<v Speaker 1>the the the ways to vote is not true according

0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 1>to all Gardners stats yesterday. So the whole thing is

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:46.040
<v Speaker 1>a stupid conversation. It would see, right, Lana he Chant

0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:50.480
<v Speaker 1>is with the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Lane, is there

0:07:50.520 --> 0:07:54.760
<v Speaker 1>any chance that the district of Columbia will become a state?

0:07:54.840 --> 0:08:00.240
<v Speaker 1>To why or why not? Um? The only way it

0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:03.360
<v Speaker 1>becomes a state is if Democrats decide in the Senate

0:08:03.360 --> 0:08:06.080
<v Speaker 1>they're going to get rid of the filibuster and and

0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:09.160
<v Speaker 1>and they're going to completely change the way that essentially

0:08:09.240 --> 0:08:12.160
<v Speaker 1>the Senate operates, and and they're gonna jam it through

0:08:12.200 --> 0:08:15.560
<v Speaker 1>on a party line vote. Now, even then the question is,

0:08:15.640 --> 0:08:18.400
<v Speaker 1>could a would a moderate like Senator Joe Mansion of

0:08:18.400 --> 0:08:21.320
<v Speaker 1>West Virginia, would he go for something like that? Would

0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:23.680
<v Speaker 1>he be supportive of something like that? Or does this

0:08:23.760 --> 0:08:26.480
<v Speaker 1>end up becoming some part of package package. You know,

0:08:26.520 --> 0:08:29.280
<v Speaker 1>some have suggested, for example, well, yeah, d C would

0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:31.560
<v Speaker 1>become a state, but at the same time, you've got

0:08:31.600 --> 0:08:33.920
<v Speaker 1>some Republicans that want Puerto Rico to become a state,

0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:36.520
<v Speaker 1>so you figure out a way to package DC statehood

0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:39.160
<v Speaker 1>with Puerto Rico statehood. I don't know how this is

0:08:39.160 --> 0:08:41.000
<v Speaker 1>all going to turn out, but in terms of it

0:08:41.120 --> 0:08:44.880
<v Speaker 1>just being a straight up DC statehood bill passing the Senate,

0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.560
<v Speaker 1>I still think it's less likely than more likely. Again,

0:08:48.640 --> 0:08:51.199
<v Speaker 1>unless the Democrats really want to burn you burn it

0:08:51.240 --> 0:08:52.679
<v Speaker 1>all down and say we're gonna get rid of the

0:08:52.679 --> 0:08:56.920
<v Speaker 1>filibuster entirely. George Will thinks that the twenty three Amendments

0:08:57.000 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 1>UH forbids it, and that there's no chance they're going

0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:03.679
<v Speaker 1>to overturn the twenty three Amendment or repeal it, and

0:09:03.720 --> 0:09:06.960
<v Speaker 1>so they're trying to pass and as he describes it,

0:09:07.040 --> 0:09:10.959
<v Speaker 1>almost inscrutable process to legislatively transferred to the new state

0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:15.840
<v Speaker 1>the electoral votes constitutionally given to the district, etcetera, etcetera.

0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:20.960
<v Speaker 1>It's not even doable constitutionally. Yeah, I mean, and I

0:09:21.000 --> 0:09:25.040
<v Speaker 1>think certainly you would see the legislation um litigated on

0:09:25.040 --> 0:09:27.319
<v Speaker 1>on those grounds, you would see people saying, look, essentially,

0:09:27.360 --> 0:09:30.720
<v Speaker 1>this is not a uh, this is not a constitutional thing.

0:09:30.760 --> 0:09:33.440
<v Speaker 1>To do it again it it sort of goes against

0:09:33.520 --> 0:09:36.240
<v Speaker 1>what the intent of of that part of the Constitution was.

0:09:36.760 --> 0:09:39.360
<v Speaker 1>And you know, the politics are very fraught, right, I mean,

0:09:39.360 --> 0:09:44.319
<v Speaker 1>obviously we all know the district of Columbia is extremely

0:09:44.640 --> 0:09:48.600
<v Speaker 1>tilted politically, and that automatically brings it from the vein

0:09:48.640 --> 0:09:52.480
<v Speaker 1>of a conversation about what is best for you know,

0:09:52.640 --> 0:09:55.960
<v Speaker 1>the United States into what is best for my party

0:09:56.040 --> 0:09:58.880
<v Speaker 1>or for the other party, and that, unfortunately, if never

0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:03.040
<v Speaker 1>a fun conversation. Can the Biden White House continue to

0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:06.559
<v Speaker 1>claim that we've got a real problem with racist white

0:10:06.559 --> 0:10:10.200
<v Speaker 1>cops shooting people of color despite the facts. Can they

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:12.520
<v Speaker 1>continue to do that and win politically or is it

0:10:12.520 --> 0:10:16.880
<v Speaker 1>going to hurt them? Well? Look, I mean I think

0:10:16.880 --> 0:10:19.920
<v Speaker 1>there's a few things here. First of all, the that

0:10:20.840 --> 0:10:23.640
<v Speaker 1>what the Biden team wanted to do essentially was to

0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:27.120
<v Speaker 1>take this entire situation and and and in some ways

0:10:27.160 --> 0:10:30.400
<v Speaker 1>employ it to talk about the need for certain kinds

0:10:30.440 --> 0:10:33.720
<v Speaker 1>of police reforms. By the way, there's actually a bipartisan

0:10:33.760 --> 0:10:36.640
<v Speaker 1>consensus if you look last summer, Senator Tim Scott of

0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:41.040
<v Speaker 1>South Carolina actually put forward legislation that would have helped

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:44.480
<v Speaker 1>to reform some of these police practices, would have studied

0:10:44.800 --> 0:10:46.880
<v Speaker 1>and tried to figure out what are best practices, what

0:10:46.960 --> 0:10:51.000
<v Speaker 1>are things that we can distribute as information, not as requirements,

0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:54.320
<v Speaker 1>but as guidance, so that police departments around the country

0:10:54.360 --> 0:10:57.760
<v Speaker 1>could do a better job essentially of enforcing the laws

0:10:57.800 --> 0:10:59.240
<v Speaker 1>and making sure that they were doing it in a

0:10:59.280 --> 0:11:01.880
<v Speaker 1>way that was fair to everybody. So there's actually a

0:11:01.920 --> 0:11:05.880
<v Speaker 1>bipartisan consensus around the need to do some of these reforms.

0:11:06.120 --> 0:11:08.720
<v Speaker 1>The problem, again, guys, just like we talked about with

0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:11.640
<v Speaker 1>the previous subject, is when you try to employ it

0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:15.120
<v Speaker 1>for political gain. That's when it runs into problems. That's

0:11:15.120 --> 0:11:17.320
<v Speaker 1>when the two sides can't get together. If we would

0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:19.240
<v Speaker 1>only get together and say, okay, what does the Tim

0:11:19.320 --> 0:11:21.720
<v Speaker 1>Scott Bill say as a starting point, what do the

0:11:21.760 --> 0:11:24.640
<v Speaker 1>Democrats want? Can we get together and find common ground

0:11:25.040 --> 0:11:28.000
<v Speaker 1>and agree that there are certain things that you know,

0:11:28.040 --> 0:11:30.319
<v Speaker 1>certain practices, certain things that are happening we don't want

0:11:30.360 --> 0:11:32.480
<v Speaker 1>to be happening, but there are other things that are

0:11:32.520 --> 0:11:35.440
<v Speaker 1>strictly for political show. Can we separate the political show

0:11:35.440 --> 0:11:38.200
<v Speaker 1>from the actual substance. If we could manage to do that,

0:11:38.400 --> 0:11:40.160
<v Speaker 1>we could actually come up with legislation in some of

0:11:40.200 --> 0:11:42.280
<v Speaker 1>these areas. So that's the frustrating part about this is

0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:45.080
<v Speaker 1>that it's not like like Republicans are saying no, no no, no, no, no, no,

0:11:45.080 --> 0:11:47.560
<v Speaker 1>no reform at all in this space, and Democrats are

0:11:47.640 --> 0:11:49.199
<v Speaker 1>arguing no, no no, no, we're the only ones. I've got

0:11:49.200 --> 0:11:51.440
<v Speaker 1>the answer to this. In fact, if you look at it,

0:11:51.480 --> 0:11:53.920
<v Speaker 1>there are actually some ways we can get together. They

0:11:53.920 --> 0:11:56.200
<v Speaker 1>can be some common ground. And that's where I wish

0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:58.200
<v Speaker 1>we would start instead of trying to use this to

0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:01.640
<v Speaker 1>to one's own political advantage, boring who's the good guy,

0:12:01.640 --> 0:12:04.440
<v Speaker 1>who's the bad guy? See the world if Tim, if

0:12:04.480 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 1>Tim Scott runs for president and maybe against Kamala Harris,

0:12:07.559 --> 0:12:10.120
<v Speaker 1>who's the one who stopped him from being able to

0:12:10.120 --> 0:12:13.360
<v Speaker 1>get this going? That that topic could be huge. She

0:12:13.400 --> 0:12:16.800
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't even meet speaking of people running for office. And

0:12:16.840 --> 0:12:19.160
<v Speaker 1>if this is if this is a non starter, I mean,

0:12:19.200 --> 0:12:21.480
<v Speaker 1>if there's no chance, then we don't need to discuss

0:12:21.480 --> 0:12:25.520
<v Speaker 1>it for more than you here we are, right, Caitlyn

0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:28.960
<v Speaker 1>Jenner officially announcing today she's running for governor of California.

0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:30.680
<v Speaker 1>If you think she's got no shot and is not

0:12:30.720 --> 0:12:34.480
<v Speaker 1>a player, then we won't discuss it. What are your thoughts. Look,

0:12:35.040 --> 0:12:38.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that it's a non starter completely. And

0:12:38.920 --> 0:12:42.360
<v Speaker 1>here's why. We all know how difficult it is to

0:12:42.400 --> 0:12:45.480
<v Speaker 1>break through in California. It is, it is a big state,

0:12:45.920 --> 0:12:49.400
<v Speaker 1>It has a lot of you know, massively expensive media markets.

0:12:49.440 --> 0:12:52.880
<v Speaker 1>People are either tension is divided. And if we think

0:12:52.920 --> 0:12:55.679
<v Speaker 1>back to the last week call, the only person who

0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:57.680
<v Speaker 1>could have broken through was the one who ended up

0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:00.360
<v Speaker 1>running and winning, and that was Arnold Schwarzenegger. And not

0:13:00.440 --> 0:13:03.160
<v Speaker 1>to put Caitlyn Jenner Arnold Schwarzenegger in the same category.

0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:06.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean, obviously there there there are differences in their candidacy,

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:08.520
<v Speaker 1>but the only there are a number of differences between

0:13:08.559 --> 0:13:12.720
<v Speaker 1>Arnold Schwartzenegger and Caitlyn Jenner. True, it is very hard

0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:16.079
<v Speaker 1>to break through. And if your theory of the cases

0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:19.880
<v Speaker 1>you need something completely you know different, and some would

0:13:19.920 --> 0:13:24.120
<v Speaker 1>argue outrageous, then that's what Caitlyn Jenner represents. So I

0:13:24.679 --> 0:13:28.040
<v Speaker 1>know enough to know that you never say never in politics,

0:13:28.559 --> 0:13:32.320
<v Speaker 1>and so look, I think I think this will this

0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:36.240
<v Speaker 1>will make the recall much more interesting even than it

0:13:36.240 --> 0:13:39.040
<v Speaker 1>would have been before. Let's put it that way. We're

0:13:39.040 --> 0:13:44.160
<v Speaker 1>not friends anymore because you had Jack on now. David

0:13:44.559 --> 0:13:47.720
<v Speaker 1>Stephy fellow, an American public policy Studies at the Hoover Institution,

0:13:47.760 --> 0:13:50.839
<v Speaker 1>Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University lan he

0:13:50.920 --> 0:13:52.800
<v Speaker 1>thanks a million for lending us a bit of your time.

0:13:52.880 --> 0:13:56.040
<v Speaker 1>Always appreciated. Have a great weekend. Thank you. I actually

0:13:56.200 --> 0:13:58.320
<v Speaker 1>don't think if I had to bet money, I don't

0:13:58.320 --> 0:14:00.400
<v Speaker 1>think Gavin Usan is going to get recalled. So it's

0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:04.040
<v Speaker 1>not gonna make any difference. No, there is no level

0:14:04.120 --> 0:14:07.760
<v Speaker 1>of incompetence high enough to get a Democrat recalled in

0:14:07.840 --> 0:14:11.600
<v Speaker 1>California anymore. The state is beyond saving. It is beyond hope.

0:14:11.760 --> 0:14:16.320
<v Speaker 1>Abandoned ship, abandoned hope. All ye who enter here, art

0:14:16.400 --> 0:14:17.360
<v Speaker 1>strong and Jetty