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 Republicans want to raise the retirement
Speaker 1: age to seven day. We have a jam packed show. Today,
Speaker 1: Senator Tammy Baldwin talks with us about the next steps
Speaker 1: in expanding healthcare in America. Then Yahoo Knew senior correspondent
Speaker 1: Michael Weiss will fill us in on the implications of
Speaker 1: Biden's sending tanks to Ukraine. But first we have the
Speaker 1: Daily Beast congressional reporter Sam Brody. Welcome to Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: Sam Brodi, thank you, Thank you. Great to be back.
Speaker 1: What the fund is happening in Congress? This is the
Speaker 1: kind of thing they ask on NPR all the time,
Speaker 1: What the funk? But I want to talk about a
Speaker 1: photo that I saw yesterday, Representative Corey Mills from Florida,
Speaker 1: of course, passing out grenades to House members. It has
Speaker 1: a little elephant on it. What the fund is happening? Man,
Speaker 1: It's it's not a live grenade, so it's really it's
Speaker 1: really fine. No. I saw that and it was like,
Speaker 1: there's a metaphor here somewhere, and maybe when it comes
Speaker 1: to the debt limit later on, we'll look back on
Speaker 1: this grenade moment as as something you know, symbolically pointed.
Speaker 1: I think the grenade thing is actually such a perfect
Speaker 1: encapsulation of how the House Republican conference has changed. And
Speaker 1: I want to maybe take a beat to fill in
Speaker 1: folks about this guy, Corey Mills, who was just elected
Speaker 1: to a Republican House seat in central Florida. He's part
Speaker 1: of this new crop of members who kind of came
Speaker 1: on my radar last year as the elections and primaries
Speaker 1: were happening, like folks who were sort of going to
Speaker 1: join the expanded like Marjorie Taylor Green wing of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. So you mean complete lunatives, Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: like for example, So this guy, his sort of back
Speaker 1: story I think is super interesting in terms of like
Speaker 1: the kind of person now that's elected to Congress from
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. His claim to fame is that he
Speaker 1: runs a business that manufactures police munitions specifically yeah, well
Speaker 1: tear gas, tear gas, rubber bullets, things like that. And
Speaker 1: this is something that he ran on like in his primary,
Speaker 1: and he did an ad where he like you know,
Speaker 1: basically ran footage of like Black Lives Matter protesters and
Speaker 1: pressed getting tear gas, and he was like, you know,
Speaker 1: this was supposed to be a reason to vote for him.
Speaker 1: And he had this joke about if you and the
Speaker 1: media don't like it, like I'll make you cry in
Speaker 1: a different way. And it's like cuts to people being
Speaker 1: tear gas. So that's this guy's background. He was elected
Speaker 1: to Congress. He seems great because nothing funnier than using
Speaker 1: violence against people protesting. Yeah, then yeah, then tear gassing people.
Speaker 1: It's it's super funny. And I think in the past,
Speaker 1: or even maybe now, you had members who kind of
Speaker 1: lead the role of like the Republican culture warrior, but
Speaker 1: didn't come from that, and they had boring jobs before
Speaker 1: being elected to Congress, like being a lawyer, a state lawmaker,
Speaker 1: or a dentist. And now you have people like like
Speaker 1: Quarry Mills who are like, no, his job was to
Speaker 1: make to your gas um And now he's in Congress.
Speaker 1: He sounds like a great, great candidate. I'm sure he's
Speaker 1: not going to default on the dead and cause American
Speaker 1: credit to plummet and ruin our economy. So I want
Speaker 1: to ask you who else is in this MAGA crew? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's an expanded crew. And I think the McCarthy vote
Speaker 1: actually changed the way that I thought about this. So
Speaker 1: there there was a set of like Courty Most for example,
Speaker 1: comes in and he was a reliable supporter of Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 1: vote for kevincarthy on on every ballot. And then there
Speaker 1: were there were people in the more I think, like
Speaker 1: obvious Auntie McCarthy camp in this kind of new crop
Speaker 1: of of MAGA representatives. So Anna Paulina loon U also
Speaker 1: from Florida. That's going to be recurring being here is Florida.
Speaker 1: But because he Luna like a true MAGA influencer before
Speaker 1: she got to Congress, and she right turn us a
Speaker 1: type right precisely voted against McCarthy. This guy Andy Ogules,
Speaker 1: who is from Tennessee and also I mean he was
Speaker 1: like a county executive but also used like really I
Speaker 1: mean crazy rhetoric around January six and has put out
Speaker 1: there that the Dobbs decision meant that Congress needed to
Speaker 1: take action, you know, restricting gay marriage like stuff like that.
Speaker 1: He also was anti McCarthy. But there is kind of
Speaker 1: interesting stuff like this guy Eli Crane from Arizona freshman
Speaker 1: not really on anyone's radar at all. Like super Conservative
Speaker 1: actually flipped the district that was held by a Democrat
Speaker 1: and he came out of nowhere and voted against McCarthy
Speaker 1: every single ballot. Why that is something that people on
Speaker 1: the Hill have have tried to figure out. And the
Speaker 1: weird thing is McCarthy like spent believe to elect this guy.
Speaker 1: His pack spent almost a million dollars to help him win,
Speaker 1: and then he gets to Congress and you know, is
Speaker 1: making life very difficult for Kevin McCarthy. The best answer
Speaker 1: that anyone has really seemed to come up with was
Speaker 1: that he sort of promised his constituents that he would
Speaker 1: support new leadership in Washington and he actually stuck to
Speaker 1: that instead of a lot of people who say that
Speaker 1: and then get to Washington and go, Okay, well I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna I'm just gonna do whatever. And so the
Speaker 1: dude just decided to, yeah, make his first move, really
Speaker 1: pissing off the leader of his party. So interesting place.
Speaker 1: We'll see, We'll see what happens for him. What's interesting
Speaker 1: in my mind is that a lot of these people
Speaker 1: piste off McCarthy, didn't vote for him, and then we
Speaker 1: have a situation where McCarthy made of these committees are
Speaker 1: actually Freedom Caucus guys. He rewarded them for voting against
Speaker 1: him exactly he did, you know, there was there was
Speaker 1: a lot of kind of speculation about, like we're are
Speaker 1: people like Matt Gates or others asking for like specific
Speaker 1: committee assignments like I want the gabble on this subcommittee,
Speaker 1: which is like essentially amounting to blackmail, like I'm not
Speaker 1: going to vote for you until you give me like
Speaker 1: this shiny thing that I want as for myself as
Speaker 1: opposed to like broader rules changes. But it's really remarkable
Speaker 1: now that we see the committee assignments what McCarthy gave up.
Speaker 1: He clearly gave up a lot, and clearly he did
Speaker 1: in fact do that, but he also gave people like
Speaker 1: Negates never voted for him. Mcate's only ever voted present
Speaker 1: at the end. I mean, everybody got everything they wanted
Speaker 1: except the people who told the line and did what
Speaker 1: McCarthy asked. Yeah, status quot for them, and the people
Speaker 1: who held out. I mean, if you're trying to rein
Speaker 1: in this group, I don't know how anyone who saw
Speaker 1: what happened with McCarthy now goes we'll all be rewarded
Speaker 1: for telling the line. We'll see how the Congress plays out.
Speaker 1: But I mean, you look at the Rules Committee, which
Speaker 1: is an insanely powerful committee on the Hill. They are
Speaker 1: the gatekeepers to what gets on the floor. You put
Speaker 1: Tom Massey on that, You put Tom Masthy on that,
Speaker 1: on that committee, I mean you have you have three
Speaker 1: Freedom Caucus members now at the table, three Freedom Caucus
Speaker 1: members and Tom Massey, who is I want to just
Speaker 1: explain this for the people who are like, you know,
Speaker 1: my dad, who was very politically knowledgeable but doesn't maybe
Speaker 1: know who Tom Massey is. He is a libertarian and
Speaker 1: he's been known as sort of Mr No. He votes
Speaker 1: no on basically every bill, right he even didn't he
Speaker 1: vote no on disaster relief for his own state in
Speaker 1: order to sort of prove a point. Oh yeah, he's
Speaker 1: voted on Yeah, he's voted no on every disaster lea thing.
Speaker 1: The House passed by a vote of four one this week,
Speaker 1: a resolution expressing solidarity with the protesters in Iran. So,
Speaker 1: I mean that guy's in the Rules Committee. I mean,
Speaker 1: how does that work? Explain to me? Because doesn't rules
Speaker 1: set everything up for the whole Congress basic. I mean,
Speaker 1: so obviously the committees can can endvance legislation, but it's
Speaker 1: up to rules to decide how and when and in
Speaker 1: what form they get to the floor. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: insanely influential, and it has long had a reputation as
Speaker 1: the collection of members who are closest to the leadership.
Speaker 1: It is the Leadership Committee. They're the literal gatekeepers for
Speaker 1: what gets onto the floor, and a lot of the
Speaker 1: times Rules can be sort of a venue for fights
Speaker 1: that may play out in the broader Congress about various bills.
Speaker 1: And it's this like freewheeling committee and they don't really
Speaker 1: have rules on time limit for speaking. They just kind
Speaker 1: of do their thing and and debate and do whatever.
Speaker 1: And so the idea behind for the Freedom Conx people
Speaker 1: getting more of their people on this committee was that
Speaker 1: they could essentially exercise something close to a veto power
Speaker 1: on bills before they even get to the floor. Now,
Speaker 1: the McCarthy people say, well, we put all these guys
Speaker 1: on the committee, which means, know, we'll keep the fighting
Speaker 1: limited to that committee. If it gets out of rules,
Speaker 1: it means it can pass in the in the broader
Speaker 1: in the broader Congress. But I think that's a really
Speaker 1: sunny way to view this when you put a guy
Speaker 1: on that committee who votes no literally on everything, and
Speaker 1: Matthew has said, oh, you know, I know that people
Speaker 1: are gonna have different views on bills than me, and
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna hold everything up. But it's uncharted territory.
Speaker 1: It really is. I don't know how this helps McCarthy.
Speaker 1: I mean, it almost feels like McCarthy is setting himself up.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask this question to you because I
Speaker 1: feel like this is important. One of the things you
Speaker 1: could love or you could hate Nancy Pelosi, but it
Speaker 1: feels like Nancy Pelosi is really like Kevin McCarthy has
Speaker 1: shown why Nancy Pelosi in a million different ways, like
Speaker 1: this is not the same at all. But there were
Speaker 1: Democrats who were I mean, Democratic Party is a big
Speaker 1: ten party with a lot of people with a lot
Speaker 1: of different ideas. But there were Democratic Congress people who
Speaker 1: had very different ideas than Nancy Pelosi in many many ways.
Speaker 1: But those people were not able to hold up a
Speaker 1: leadership vote. And you know, the people who crossed her
Speaker 1: were punished. That's right, and it's so hard to compare
Speaker 1: because McCarthy, at least for now, has proven himself to
Speaker 1: be a relatively weak leader, and we're comparing him to
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, who's probably just in terms of like raw power,
Speaker 1: the strongest and most effective congressional leader of modern times.
Speaker 1: I mean, she the top fundraiser. I mean, she controlled
Speaker 1: the campaign apparatus. It was understood that if you crossed her,
Speaker 1: it was not going to end up well for you,
Speaker 1: and that enabled Democrats to, at various points the first
Speaker 1: time she was Speaker and the second time to get
Speaker 1: a ton of stuff done because she could keep everyone together.
Speaker 1: But I also think it's important to note, like this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff piste Democrats off all the time. I mean,
Speaker 1: I cannot tell you the amount of grumbling that I
Speaker 1: heard from Democrats over the Pelosi Here's who Like, we're
Speaker 1: obviously admiring of her and her abilities and her ability
Speaker 1: to with votes and get stuff done, but like the
Speaker 1: legislative process was so isolated in her hands basically, and
Speaker 1: they felt that they even committee chairs were like, I'm
Speaker 1: basically irrelevant, you know. And occasionally this blew up over
Speaker 1: the past couple of years where chairs would you know,
Speaker 1: just totally vent to the media about how how little
Speaker 1: power they felt they had, and so you know, McCarthy
Speaker 1: is gonna try something different, and to be honest with you,
Speaker 1: like some of these changes that he's made. This is
Speaker 1: gonna get super nerdy, but I do think it's kind
Speaker 1: of interesting. For the first time ever in the last
Speaker 1: six years, I believe the House is doing open amendments.
Speaker 1: That means, like anybody can file an amendment and get
Speaker 1: to vote on it. This is not really super good
Speaker 1: for McCarthy because Democrats can file amendments on bills and
Speaker 1: give themselves influence on what happens on the floor. This
Speaker 1: is not something that Nancy closely allowed. She did not
Speaker 1: allow it for a reason. But McCarthy made this move
Speaker 1: because his members are clamoring for it. It could help Democrats,
Speaker 1: but he's like, all right, I'm gonna have to roll
Speaker 1: with this idea of making the House more decentralized. It
Speaker 1: may sound good right now, it may make everyone feel
Speaker 1: kind of happy, but it's gonna be a real test
Speaker 1: to see if they can do much of anything in
Speaker 1: any time with these changes. I mean, it's just sort
Speaker 1: of ridiculous. Now, talk to me about those California Senate race.
Speaker 1: The California Sentate race is gonna be It's gonna be crazy. Uh,
Speaker 1: I mean, who's in already? So Adam Schiff and Katie
Speaker 1: Porter are in officially. I imagine these folks will be
Speaker 1: very familiar to your listeners. Yes, potentially getting into. Likely
Speaker 1: getting in is Barbara Lee, who is a longtime congresswoman
Speaker 1: from Oakland and Berkeley up in the Bay Area, and
Speaker 1: she's told colleagues that she's getting in, and I understand
Speaker 1: it's kind of all all but a formality that she's
Speaker 1: going to get in. It's just a question of timing.
Speaker 1: I think those are going to be the heavy hitters
Speaker 1: from the field. Rocana had been mentioned as a candidate.
Speaker 1: The Cars, also from the Bay Area. Yeah, he's been
Speaker 1: on this podcast a bunch of times. I since it.
Speaker 1: He probably is not going to do it. He's kind
Speaker 1: of said publicly that he was going to wait on
Speaker 1: what Barbarly did, and if she runs, I think it's
Speaker 1: unlikely that he runs. Those are three really heavy hitters.
Speaker 1: Barbaraly is not as widely known, but she's like an
Speaker 1: institution in Congress. She was the lone person to vote
Speaker 1: against the a U m F authorizing like the War
Speaker 1: on Terror after nine eleven. I mean, she's you know,
Speaker 1: she's as progressive as they come. So like these candidates
Speaker 1: aren't going to be that different. It's really vibes, you know,
Speaker 1: what they choose to focus on, what their brands are.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you one question explained to me,
Speaker 1: Diefy is still toying with running again. No, there's been
Speaker 1: reporting out there about people sometimes go up to Dify
Speaker 1: and ask her stuff in the halls, and she'll give
Speaker 1: the answer that she gives, and oftentimes her staff comes
Speaker 1: into play queen up or whatever and clarify whatever it
Speaker 1: is that she she just said. No, I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone is realistically entertaining the idea that that she runs again.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just not going to happen. I do
Speaker 1: think what is happening is that she feels that, you know,
Speaker 1: she has earned the right to go out on her
Speaker 1: own terms, and she's an institution, she's a legend in politics,
Speaker 1: and you know that she doesn't want to feel rushed
Speaker 1: in making the announcement. Yet people are not waiting for her,
Speaker 1: obviously to make that call. But I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: is seriously like, oh, you know, she she might run again,
Speaker 1: and she's you know, it was reported that she she
Speaker 1: said she might make the decision next year. But I
Speaker 1: think it's worth noting that the filing deadline for this
Speaker 1: race is this year. It's December, so we will know
Speaker 1: what other Senate races are you watching? Well, I think
Speaker 1: the California thing, just to make one point, is like,
Speaker 1: obviously this is gonna be a Democratic seat, but it's
Speaker 1: going to suck a lot of Democratic money, it's going
Speaker 1: to produce a progressive Democrat. And so there's a lot
Speaker 1: of other states where I mean, you know, the Democratic
Speaker 1: map in is terrible, it's absolutely terrible. Their defending seats
Speaker 1: in West Virginia, Montana, Ohio, and then also trying to
Speaker 1: win in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania. These are these are difficult
Speaker 1: states to win. So Democrats did win in Arizona and Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: that's correct, and I think they would be favored to
Speaker 1: win these states again. But these are hard These are
Speaker 1: hard states. They're just always difficult states, right, But you're
Speaker 1: gonna need a Donald Trump to help with candidate picking.
Speaker 1: That's the secret to democratic success. Right. Well, so here's
Speaker 1: I guess a couple of just a few brief points
Speaker 1: to make about I think something to watch as we
Speaker 1: kind of get into the who starts to run phase
Speaker 1: of the of the campaigns. The new chair of the
Speaker 1: Republican Senate campaign, arm Steve Gaines from Montana, is basically
Speaker 1: he's not explicitly said this, but their goal is to
Speaker 1: prevent a rerun of two where Washington Republicans saw these
Speaker 1: candidates emerge out of Republican primaries like wake masters, you know,
Speaker 1: who are not going to win. But they were like,
Speaker 1: the voters decide this is great, and of course this
Speaker 1: happen to be the people that Trump liked. Now they
Speaker 1: are not ruling out meddling in some of these primaries
Speaker 1: to produce candidates that are going to stand a chance
Speaker 1: of winning. Good luck to them. This is going to
Speaker 1: be The question is, like the Republican establishment and operative
Speaker 1: class is eager to apply the lessons from two? Are
Speaker 1: voters in the Republican Party going to apply the lessons
Speaker 1: from No? The RNC is having a bit of a
Speaker 1: leadership fight. Explained to our listeners what's happening there? Because
Speaker 1: it is fucked up. It is really crazy, and I
Speaker 1: think it's been remarked that for a post that is
Speaker 1: increasingly unimportant in politics, Yeah, and largely superficial, largely superficial.
Speaker 1: And I was going to say ceremonial, largely ceremonial. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it is. It's it's less and less and
Speaker 1: less important now. And Rono McDaniel is is probably going
Speaker 1: to and I don't want to say that she's you know,
Speaker 1: but she's she's tagged as the free Yet it's become
Speaker 1: this kind of weird airing of various grievances and kind
Speaker 1: of a proxy war. Again, not so, it's it is
Speaker 1: truly a ViBe's race, right, a proxy war of De
Speaker 1: Santis versus Trump. But one of the candidates is pro
Speaker 1: Trump and is being supported by De Santis, right exactly.
Speaker 1: That's what makes it so weird and honestly makes it
Speaker 1: a little instructive, is how the dynamics could go should
Speaker 1: Trump in De Santis be competing with each other, and
Speaker 1: there's all these like cross wires of loyalties, and I
Speaker 1: think De Santis backing Dylan is probably a reflection of
Speaker 1: him wanting to differentiate himself from Trump a little bit.
Speaker 1: But these people all come from the same sort of bucket, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, Dylan is saying that there needs to be
Speaker 1: a change in leadership, and this is a leadership that
Speaker 1: has not brought wins for for the Republican Party. Yet
Speaker 1: they continue to kind of center around Donald Trump, who
Speaker 1: is the reason that Republicans are one of the big
Speaker 1: reasons that Republicans did so poorly inwo I think the
Speaker 1: key thing is is that there isn't an actual discussion
Speaker 1: that seems to be happening about what this race is
Speaker 1: about and what the Republican Party needs to be doing better.
Speaker 1: They just think that they need to be winning more,
Speaker 1: which is of course sure, but there there doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to be a real discussion about how they're going to
Speaker 1: do that, and instead, you know, they're flinging up oh
Speaker 1: each other, and you know, Mike Lindell is involved for
Speaker 1: some reason that no one really knows. Always happy to
Speaker 1: saint Michael Lindell involved in something. It's a fillow fight.
Speaker 1: So Sam Brodie, thanks so much. I hope you'll come back, Yes, anytime, anytime.
Speaker 1: Tammy Baldwin is a junior senator from Wisconsin. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Fast Politics, Senator Tammy Baldwin. I'm delighted to join you. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm delighted to have you, and I was thinking the
Speaker 1: first thing I wanted to ask you was like, just
Speaker 1: do a victory lap for codifying same sex marriage. Please. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: You know, I had so many journalists coming up to
Speaker 1: me during the course of those negotiations saying, do you
Speaker 1: really think you could do this? I mean, this would
Speaker 1: be unheard of just less than a decade ago, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, I really feel like this is within our reach.
Speaker 1: But what I will say is since it passed, since
Speaker 1: the President signed it into law, the responses I've gotten
Speaker 1: from people impacted, almost to a one, people who well
Speaker 1: up with tears and talk about what this means to them,
Speaker 1: and you know, the running the whole gamut. From a
Speaker 1: young person who said, this is the first time I've
Speaker 1: ever felt seen by the federal government, and another who
Speaker 1: is a dear friend who had some really scary health
Speaker 1: news that he shared with me, and he said, you know,
Speaker 1: I hope I'm gonna I hope I'm going to overcome this,
Speaker 1: but just knowing that if I don't, my husband is
Speaker 1: going to be able to inherit stuff that, yeah, you
Speaker 1: really is how important this is? It was a big deal,
Speaker 1: so victory lap. Yeah. I mean, really it's funny because
Speaker 1: it's like, when it was going on, I thought, this
Speaker 1: is nice, but it's not. They're never gonna be able
Speaker 1: to do it, you know. I just thought because and
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you this question, which was Democrats
Speaker 1: were unable. And I don't even want to say democrats
Speaker 1: because I actually don't think ROW is a democratic as you.
Speaker 1: I actually think it's like same sex marriage, that it's
Speaker 1: like a just see people issue, but didn't even get
Speaker 1: close to being codified, that's right. I'm very involved in that. Also.
Speaker 1: I'm the co lead on the Women's Health Protection Act,
Speaker 1: which codifies ROW and takes the additional necessary stuff of
Speaker 1: telling states they can't undermine it so that it's you know,
Speaker 1: hollow and meaningless. What was happening even before the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court had overturned it, there were so many states that
Speaker 1: had really so restricted the access to abortion care and
Speaker 1: reproductive rights that that in essence, it didn't really exist
Speaker 1: for so many But in any event, I do think
Speaker 1: since there are now nearly or a little over a
Speaker 1: million same sex married couples, I don't know how many
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands or millions of interracial couples there are.
Speaker 1: But you know, this came up at a moment where
Speaker 1: I can't imagine that I have any colleagues who don't
Speaker 1: know a neighbor of fellow church goer, a person on
Speaker 1: their staff, somebody you know at their grocery store who's
Speaker 1: married to a same sex partner or in an interracial marriage.
Speaker 1: And so it has that capacity of changing hearts and minds.
Speaker 1: And while I would have liked to have seen a
Speaker 1: few more Republican hearts and minds changed in the final total,
Speaker 1: to have a dozen, you know got the job done.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you, do you think that there's
Speaker 1: a chance that there will be a moment to be
Speaker 1: able to codify ROW or do that ship sailed? Oh?
Speaker 1: I certainly do, But if you're talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: in the near term, I think that's very unlikely. I
Speaker 1: reflect oftentimes of how long the opposition to ROW worked
Speaker 1: to organize, to comment it from every angle, to try
Speaker 1: to reverse it, and it took nearly fifty years. But
Speaker 1: at this juncture they have succeeded. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: going to take fifty years to restore comprehensive reproductive rights
Speaker 1: in America. That said, it's certainly not going to happen overnight.
Speaker 1: And I think about it in sort of two different ways.
Speaker 1: One is my hail from the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin
Speaker 1: has the oldest criminal abortion statute in the country. It
Speaker 1: was passed one year after we became a state in
Speaker 1: eighteen forty nine. Yeah, no women in the legislature. In fact,
Speaker 1: women couldn't even vote. You know, we're talking about a
Speaker 1: state strategy as well as talking about a national strategy,
Speaker 1: and we have to implement it. We only have fifty
Speaker 1: one Democrats in the Senate, and we know currently that
Speaker 1: two of them are unwilling to reform the filibuster, so
Speaker 1: we don't get there this to your term, but you know,
Speaker 1: we pick up some seats. Who knows you hail from
Speaker 1: the state of Wisconsin, a state that we on this
Speaker 1: podcast have talked a lot about, especially because your governor
Speaker 1: got re elected by it's a very tight state Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: I'm not telling you anything that you don't you're not
Speaker 1: very aware of, but your your governor got re elected
Speaker 1: by four points. Your other senator is Ron and On.
Speaker 1: I mean, how how strange it is? People ask me
Speaker 1: a lot this same electorate arguably has um interesting outcomes.
Speaker 1: I mean, look also at the presidential race, Trump narrowly
Speaker 1: one Wisconsin and Biden narrowly one Wisconsin, and who knows
Speaker 1: what's going to happen in We are a closely divided state,
Speaker 1: and that means on the electoral front, you know, it's
Speaker 1: about turning out the vote. Do you have something you'd
Speaker 1: like to tell me? I am widely expected to run.
Speaker 1: I've got to get that announcement on the calendar soon
Speaker 1: because every then interview I do, it's like, well, this
Speaker 1: isn't how we plan to roll it out, all right,
Speaker 1: widely expected as a good line. I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: you about a legislation you're doing now in Wisconsin and
Speaker 1: this goes to Row. I mean, this goes to Row Hospitals.
Speaker 1: This goes to like really a thing that Americans are
Speaker 1: struggling with, which is our healthcare costs, and you are
Speaker 1: working on an expansion legislation. Can you tell us a
Speaker 1: little bit about that? Yes, So, probably the most critical
Speaker 1: and crucial time we've faced to remove any obstacle to
Speaker 1: getting healthcare coverage has been during a pandemic. We actually
Speaker 1: took some really bold actions to significantly assist people who
Speaker 1: we're purchasing their health insurance through the Obamacare, through the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act marketplace, So those were it's additional assistance,
Speaker 1: and so far we've managed to have that assistance last
Speaker 1: for the next two years. However, I believe that this
Speaker 1: should always be a goal. Obviously during UH deadly pandemic
Speaker 1: it's really super important, but it's super important every day
Speaker 1: for people to have access to affordable, high quality healthcare.
Speaker 1: And so one of the things I'm doing with colleagues
Speaker 1: is introducing legislation that will make the supplement to help
Speaker 1: people pay for their premiums permanent. That will really help.
Speaker 1: We've seen just a significant increase, you know, in the
Speaker 1: millions among people who have secured healthcare in recent years,
Speaker 1: and of course there's so much more we have to do.
Speaker 1: We're just preparing our hearing agenda for the Help Committee
Speaker 1: that I sit on, what does HELP stand for Health, Education,
Speaker 1: Labor and Pensions. I've been a member of that committee
Speaker 1: since I joined the Senate, and um a lot more
Speaker 1: that we can do to bring down costs. And by
Speaker 1: the way, let's also do another victory lab While we're
Speaker 1: talking about successes. Last year, in the Inflation Reduction Act
Speaker 1: for the first time, Medicare is going to be negotiating
Speaker 1: with the big pharmaceutical companies to bring down prescription drug costs.
Speaker 1: And if you're a senior on Medicare, there's a cap
Speaker 1: on insulin. If that on insulin, Uh, you will pay
Speaker 1: no more than thirty five dollars out of pocket for insulin. Vaccines.
Speaker 1: Many many vaccines will now be free without any sort
Speaker 1: of co pay for people who are on Medicare. So
Speaker 1: just uh, We've had some real breakthroughs in but more
Speaker 1: needs to be done. I mean, I feel like insulin
Speaker 1: is like one of the great scandals of our time
Speaker 1: is that we have people in this country dying because
Speaker 1: they can't afford to get their insulin. Originally, this administration
Speaker 1: really wanted and there was a big push for this
Speaker 1: idea of having thirty five insulin for everyone. I mean,
Speaker 1: does that seem anyway in the cards or now? I
Speaker 1: think it still could be. We came very close, but
Speaker 1: we didn't have enough support from Republicans insane in order
Speaker 1: to get it done. There was a vote in the
Speaker 1: Senate on whether to extend it beyond the Medicare program.
Speaker 1: You know, Nearly a third of Americans are pre diabetic
Speaker 1: or diabetic, and that's a lot of people who will
Speaker 1: fly on insulin at some point in their lives. Insulin
Speaker 1: has been around for over a hundred years. It's not
Speaker 1: like the recipe changes, and it's not like the ingredients
Speaker 1: have become more costly. It's like EpiPens exactly because they can't.
Speaker 1: No one can follow the dollars. You know, show me
Speaker 1: the money, show me where it goes. If you double
Speaker 1: the price of an upping pen or of insulin, whose
Speaker 1: pocket does that go into. We don't even know the
Speaker 1: answers to those questions. It's just so opaque. So, yes,
Speaker 1: we have more we can do, and I think, especially
Speaker 1: given with insulin in particular the numbers of families impacted
Speaker 1: by it, we need to leverage their voices to get
Speaker 1: my Republican colleagues working on this. So we do have
Speaker 1: a couple of Republicans. Susan Collins worked hard to try
Speaker 1: to get an insulin bill, working closely with a number
Speaker 1: of Democrats. But we need more of them. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like there's so many ways in much to
Speaker 1: help working people that Republicans are not interested in. But
Speaker 1: they still manage to get those votes. Yeah. Well, it's
Speaker 1: easier to block things in Congress than it is to
Speaker 1: pass them. And so especially in the United States Senate,
Speaker 1: it can't run for a Senate as I have and
Speaker 1: not be a hopeful person. You know, you got to
Speaker 1: believe that this process can work. You know, we just
Speaker 1: talked about a number of Mouthstone victories last year. I mean,
Speaker 1: one of the things with the Obama administration that was
Speaker 1: a complaint was that as much as they did a
Speaker 1: lot of incredible stuff and Obama is amazing, obviously that
Speaker 1: he had some trouble working with the Senate. And there's
Speaker 1: a sort of quiet way in which the Biden administration
Speaker 1: has actually passed a ton of legislation. Absolutely, And you know,
Speaker 1: obviously both President Obama and President Biden were former senators,
Speaker 1: but when he was Senator, Biden really was somebody who
Speaker 1: understood every facet of how it works and how to
Speaker 1: move things through and had hallmark legislation that he was
Speaker 1: responsible for. So I do think that rubs off in
Speaker 1: the administration. Do you have any faith that the Chips Act,
Speaker 1: which is like the I'm one of the few people
Speaker 1: who's interested in the Chips Act. So everyone has to
Speaker 1: bear with me here, um, but that the Chips Act
Speaker 1: could bring back manufacturing to the United States in a
Speaker 1: way that we haven't seen a government pushed towards that,
Speaker 1: and that that could affect your state. Oh absolutely, And
Speaker 1: I was really proud to work on putting together the
Speaker 1: Chips and Science Act. I think the really key areas
Speaker 1: in which it can bring jobs back to a state
Speaker 1: like Wisconsin has to do with the supply chain piece
Speaker 1: of it. We make things in Wisconsin. Still, we're one
Speaker 1: of the leads states in manufacturing. Have nearly twenty percent
Speaker 1: of our workforce is engaged in manufacturing. That's again that
Speaker 1: makes us one of the leads in the country. And
Speaker 1: yet we have been affected by the supply chain issues.
Speaker 1: Where we might produce say agricultural equipment, but the microship,
Speaker 1: the control panel is produced overseas, and so you see
Speaker 1: you'll actually go to a company in Wisconsin like Coon,
Speaker 1: where you'll see the farm impotence the outside the factory
Speaker 1: ready to go accept they don't have a control panel
Speaker 1: in them. And we see that across the board. So
Speaker 1: when we use the Commerce Department to start identifying, well,
Speaker 1: where are those gaps and it's not just microchips. There's
Speaker 1: other supply chain issues. And then you start looking with
Speaker 1: our deep knowledge of who makes what in Wisconsin and
Speaker 1: across the country, it's like, well, maybe you could make
Speaker 1: that component and grow your business, add to your list
Speaker 1: of products, and fill in some of those gaps that
Speaker 1: we have in our supply chain. You know, I know,
Speaker 1: and some of our larger manufacturers in Wisconsin, they have suppliers,
Speaker 1: hundreds of suppliers throughout the state, but you know, they
Speaker 1: could have just a handful that are from overseas and
Speaker 1: it can stop up the whole works. So that's one
Speaker 1: way in which I think the Chips and Science Act
Speaker 1: is really going to help us bring back jobs. The
Speaker 1: other thing is something that I've worked on for years
Speaker 1: and seeing more and more success, is just saying, if
Speaker 1: we're going to spend taxpayer dollars to to make something,
Speaker 1: to buy something, let's make sure that those dollars are
Speaker 1: men to the US on us products and workers. And
Speaker 1: it just seems like a no brainer to me. And
Speaker 1: so I think the more we do in that regard,
Speaker 1: the more we'll see good paying jobs come back. The
Speaker 1: infrastructure built we got strong by American language in that
Speaker 1: So we're not going to be using rebar that was
Speaker 1: sourced out of the country in our infrastructure project. We're
Speaker 1: gonna be making it here and employing more people. Tommy Baldwin.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate you joining us. This was great. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Thank you. I know you, our dear
Speaker 1: listeners are very busy and you don't have time to
Speaker 1: sort through the hundreds of pieces of pundentry each week.
Speaker 1: And this is why every week I put together a
Speaker 1: newsletter of my five favorite articles on politics. If you
Speaker 1: enjoy the podcast, you will love having this in your
Speaker 1: inbox every Friday. So sign up at Fast Politics pod
Speaker 1: dot com and click the tab to join our mailing list.
Speaker 1: That's Fast Politics pod dot m Michael Weiss is a
Speaker 1: senior correspondent at Yahoo News. Welcome too, Fast Politics, Michael Weiss,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me back, Molly. He explained to us,
Speaker 1: what the hell is happening in the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: They're getting tanks. I mean that's kind of the top line,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Um, Yeah, no, look it's uh Jesus. The
Speaker 1: last month has been quite insane, even by Ukraine war standards.
Speaker 1: Just trying to dig into the whole will they won't
Speaker 1: they the German fandango about supplying their own model Leopard
Speaker 1: two's or allowing other third party countries of which they're
Speaker 1: over a dozen in Europe to supply Leopard twos to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: If I had to sort of summarize the situation, it
Speaker 1: was we did a bit of a drug deal with
Speaker 1: the Germans. They kind of conditioned they're releasing of the
Speaker 1: Leopards on our sending Abram's tanks to Ukraine, which is
Speaker 1: something we didn't want to do for a variety of reasons,
Speaker 1: most of them logistical, nothing really anymore to do with
Speaker 1: Putin and his phantom redlines. That argument seems to be
Speaker 1: greatly diminished in this White House, much to my delight.
Speaker 1: But yeah, look, basically Schultz said, you first, perhaps he
Speaker 1: thought America wouldn't do it. And if that's the case,
Speaker 1: well Biden called his bluff, and now we're sending Abrams
Speaker 1: tanks and this number that that's getting bandied about thirty one.
Speaker 1: I'm hearing from sources on the inside that actually, by
Speaker 1: the time Abrams get to Ukraine, you can expect that
Speaker 1: figure to grow, perhaps even exponentially, So it's not going
Speaker 1: to be just thirty one tanks from US. It's going
Speaker 1: to be more than that. And there's you know, recovery vehicles,
Speaker 1: which are like tow trucks for these tanks. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are massive, massive pieces of armor, and they require
Speaker 1: a lot of upkeep and maintenance, which is the reason
Speaker 1: guys like Mark Hurtling are were very skeptical and in
Speaker 1: fact resistant to the idea of sending them. Leopard two's
Speaker 1: more in abundance in Europe, easier to repair and maintain.
Speaker 1: I mean to give you one example the Spanish today,
Speaker 1: and this is a so Shilists led Spanish government, which
Speaker 1: is kind of remarkable. They've announced they're going to send
Speaker 1: I think upwards of fifty Leopard twos to Ukraine. And
Speaker 1: the problem with the Spanish tanks is that they've been
Speaker 1: sitting in warehouses and they've kind of fallen apart, so
Speaker 1: they need to be refurbished. But the Spanish seems to
Speaker 1: think they can do that in a matter of weeks
Speaker 1: or months. To the bottom line, I mean, by the
Speaker 1: end of March, Ukraine will have its first fleet of
Speaker 1: Western tanks, which is necessary for combined arms maneuver, which
Speaker 1: is necessary for any major counter offensive, particularly one that
Speaker 1: they're going to try and undertake in the south, which
Speaker 1: is largely steps, and you're gonna need heavy armor if
Speaker 1: you want to push the Russians back from areas like that.
Speaker 1: So the next item on the agenda from Ukraine is
Speaker 1: going to be fighter jets of sixteens. They're they're gunning
Speaker 1: for an no pun intended. So here's my question. One
Speaker 1: of my kids is very into military, and so he
Speaker 1: has been explaining to me the problems with this scenario. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and this is good because this is really one of
Speaker 1: the places I'm the weakest. But he explained to me
Speaker 1: that part that some of the problem here is that
Speaker 1: now Ukraine has like a lot of different kinds of
Speaker 1: tanks and that you then have to train people to
Speaker 1: do these are not like driving escalade, they're like driving
Speaker 1: a real machine, and that you have to train people
Speaker 1: to drive these different tanks, and also that the mechanism
Speaker 1: for taking care of these weapons is complicated. So can
Speaker 1: you talk to us about that problem? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: to put it in kind of the simplest terms possible.
Speaker 1: You know, the Ukrainians are very well trained and very
Speaker 1: kind of comfortable with Soviet era Russian made tanks and
Speaker 1: what they've been getting in abundance thus far is exactly that.
Speaker 1: You know, T seventy two's Morocco has sent a bunch
Speaker 1: of these tanks, believe it or not. Other countries, former
Speaker 1: Warsaw Pact nations poland Slovakia have sent the polls have
Speaker 1: been I think first among equals and ending heavy armor
Speaker 1: from that period. But you know, there really is no
Speaker 1: comparison between these old Soviet relics and modern NATO standard tanks.
Speaker 1: So your son is right, Um, we're sending Challenger twos
Speaker 1: which is the British model, Leopard two's which is the
Speaker 1: German model, and Abrams. I think it's it's the more
Speaker 1: advanced model of the Abrams. I have to double check.
Speaker 1: My my brain is very fatigued after the last two weeks.
Speaker 1: So yeah, driving one is not like driving the other.
Speaker 1: Right there, they're they're fundamentally different platforms and you know
Speaker 1: all of the stuff that goes into keeping them operational.
Speaker 1: One of the excuses the Biden administration was coming up
Speaker 1: with um for why they didn't want to send the
Speaker 1: Abrams is that they kept saying, oh, it runs on
Speaker 1: jet fuel, even jet fuel the same fuel as everything. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, the ABRAMS actually is a multi fuel turbine engine,
Speaker 1: so it can run on not just jet fuel but diesel.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't get very good mileage to the gallant, right,
Speaker 1: so it's it's a gas guzzler essentially. That that's the
Speaker 1: real argument to inst And you know, you could say, well,
Speaker 1: the Americans wield these devices pretty well in in conventional war.
Speaker 1: Why can't the Ukrainis I mean, yeah, but the Americans
Speaker 1: it took about ten years to become completely comfortable with
Speaker 1: this new model of armor. So I mean, look, the
Speaker 1: good news is this, if the last eleven months has
Speaker 1: taught us anything in terms of security, assistance and military
Speaker 1: absorption rates, the Ukrainians are fast learners because this is
Speaker 1: an existential struggle for their very survival and the survival
Speaker 1: of their nation state. They don't look at this as
Speaker 1: something leisurely or they don't look at this is something
Speaker 1: that they can take their sweet time with. So if
Speaker 1: you if you've read some of the reporting that's been
Speaker 1: done on, for instance, how they trained up on high
Speaker 1: mars or self propelled, how it serves from Western NATO countries.
Speaker 1: If it's meant to take say eight weeks, they get
Speaker 1: it done in five. They don't take lunch breaks, they
Speaker 1: don't sleep, they just want to learn because they're so
Speaker 1: eager to take the fight to the Russians. So that's
Speaker 1: not to say that we still don't face heavy challenges.
Speaker 1: And there's going to be a time delay between the
Speaker 1: announcement of these things and seeing the you know, blasting
Speaker 1: away in Herson or Donnettes. But I think people will
Speaker 1: be pleasantly surprised by how quickly the Ukrainians adapt because again,
Speaker 1: this is this is just precedent for them. But yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's a big deal, and and the other the other
Speaker 1: side of this. Look, I mean, I don't claim any
Speaker 1: particular expertise in the vagaries of German politics, but but
Speaker 1: one thing I do know is that all of Schultz
Speaker 1: was not a guy who a foresaw this war coming
Speaker 1: be wanted to be a leader in European arms dealing
Speaker 1: or arms donating to Ukraine. His famous speech in the
Speaker 1: Bundestag on February, three days after Putin's invasion, was known
Speaker 1: as the Zeiten Vendor speech, where he said, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: entering a new phase of European history. Russia has shown
Speaker 1: itself to be this aggressive REVENTI just imperialist power that's
Speaker 1: going to park literally park tanks on European soil. We
Speaker 1: must increase our defense spending. Germany must get a house
Speaker 1: in order. And this is a very kind of robust,
Speaker 1: almost militaristic speech, very unusual for an heir to these
Speaker 1: Social Democratic Party in Germany. But he was making this
Speaker 1: speech with the assumption that Ukraine was going to fall
Speaker 1: and that Russian hegemony would would inch that much closer
Speaker 1: to Germany's own borders. Right, he was taken by surprise
Speaker 1: by the ferocity of Ukrainian resistance, and I think perhaps
Speaker 1: also taken by surprise, given America's priors in the last
Speaker 1: twenty years when it comes to warfare, both indirect and direct,
Speaker 1: that President Biden would be as bullish and as invested
Speaker 1: in Ukraine's victory as he was. So the real kind
Speaker 1: of unsung story of Germany in this war, I mean, well,
Speaker 1: there are several, but to my mind is if you
Speaker 1: look at just the calculus of what Germany has sent
Speaker 1: in terms of material, heavy equipment, and I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: air defense systems, self propelled howitzer's, light arms, you name it,
Speaker 1: compared to what they were going to send as of
Speaker 1: the beginning of the war, five thousand helmets. Remember that
Speaker 1: it arguably eclipses even what the United Kingdom has sent Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It is so staggering the numbers. The problem is the
Speaker 1: Germans don't want to take credit for it, and all
Speaker 1: of st and so disastrous in his public diplomacy that
Speaker 1: hardly anybody even within Germany knows this. So the Tank
Speaker 1: issue was, this was this big sticking point. And you
Speaker 1: know what's ironic is given Schultz's ideological background, I mean
Speaker 1: as a as a teenager in the eighties growing up
Speaker 1: in in West Germany, I mean, he was he was
Speaker 1: very anti American. He was he was almost a fellow
Speaker 1: traveler in the Soviet Union, took several trips to East Germany.
Speaker 1: According to the Stasi files on him and his retinue,
Speaker 1: was advocating that the Soviets park nuclear weapons aimed at
Speaker 1: the United States in Europe. I mean it was. He
Speaker 1: was very much pro Moscow. And I think for him
Speaker 1: to say, well, I'm not doing anything till the Americans
Speaker 1: do it first, I read this kind of amusingly, as
Speaker 1: you know, a guy whose entire political career was premised
Speaker 1: on less of of America in Europe is now deciding
Speaker 1: in order to kind of save his own skin with
Speaker 1: respect to Germany's electorate and to to not be seen
Speaker 1: to be antagonizing putin As as a you know, the
Speaker 1: uber hall of European politics is basically crawling under back
Speaker 1: under the American security umbrella and asking for more American leadership,
Speaker 1: if not American hegemony. Um So, I find that very
Speaker 1: funny and very ironic, but I'll take it. And from
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian perspective, the importance about Abrams, even beyond the
Speaker 1: military capability, which is formidable and these are good tanks,
Speaker 1: probably the best in the world, it's that this bespeaks
Speaker 1: a very long term investment in Ukraine, not just in
Speaker 1: terms of a defensive capability kicking the Russians out and
Speaker 1: and you know, creating a sovereign, independent Ukraine, which by
Speaker 1: the way, includes occupied Crimea, includes the occupied territories of
Speaker 1: the Don boss As fifteen. But it's an investment in
Speaker 1: Ukraine's post war future. This is a country that, I mean,
Speaker 1: unless things go horribly wrong for it in the coming year,
Speaker 1: really is going to be an integral part of Europe.
Speaker 1: Will will eventually join the European Union. And now you're
Speaker 1: hearing people such as Henry Kissinger even come out and say, well,
Speaker 1: it certainly makes sense for them to join NATO after
Speaker 1: this is all done. So, I mean, this is an
Speaker 1: extraordinary one from where we found ourselves as of January.
Speaker 1: And that's why they think we'll get fighter jets next.
Speaker 1: I mean, F sixteens have been on they've been on
Speaker 1: the table in terms of negotiating with the Americans for
Speaker 1: quite a while. And to be honest with you, I
Speaker 1: would class them at at slightly higher level than rumor
Speaker 1: that Ukrainian pilots or have already begun to be trained
Speaker 1: on these airframes. And again, this is a very long
Speaker 1: term investment because F sixteens are not going to be
Speaker 1: in play in the next six months. They would be
Speaker 1: probably arriving if they got them within the next We're
Speaker 1: talking years, I think, So, you know, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: we we're building Ukraine and modernized army and doing it
Speaker 1: for free. I mean, because they're in extremity, they're not
Speaker 1: paying for this stuff. And that's okay. I mean, because
Speaker 1: at the end of this, they're going to be one
Speaker 1: of the most militarily seasoned and equipped and formidable arm
Speaker 1: ME is in Europe, and that's just a good American
Speaker 1: investment in terms of international transatlantic security. Right, Okay, So
Speaker 1: I love you. I just want to know does this
Speaker 1: go on forever? I mean when does this ever? And
Speaker 1: I would be a fool if I sat here and said, right, so,
Speaker 1: as of April of two thousand and twenty three, the
Speaker 1: war will be over? Right, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: nobody knows in war. So all I can say is
Speaker 1: the metrics that you would want to use to sort
Speaker 1: of make any kind of tentative forecast suggests that Ukraine
Speaker 1: has a very good chance and Ukraine has a very
Speaker 1: good chance now of also pushing into Crimea, which had
Speaker 1: been not in consideration as of even a few months ago.
Speaker 1: You read the New York Time story that the US
Speaker 1: is now decided to take the gloves off and to
Speaker 1: allow Ukraine, which is I read as giving them the
Speaker 1: intelligence and also giving them a military capability to to
Speaker 1: punish the Russians in Crimea. You know, the real question
Speaker 1: is how long does Putin have and how long does
Speaker 1: he does he want to play this out? And from
Speaker 1: what I understand and where my reporting has taken me.
Speaker 1: He's shrugging his shoulders if he knows how badly his
Speaker 1: his his army is is performing in the battlefield, or
Speaker 1: he's being misled as to what it's doing. He just
Speaker 1: doesn't care. He's he's not driven by considerations of you know,
Speaker 1: Russian fatalities, at least not yet. A good friend of mine,
Speaker 1: who just wrote a book on on this war and
Speaker 1: even the sort of lead up to it, has gone
Speaker 1: to Moscow several times since a year ago and tells me,
Speaker 1: you know, the mood in Moscow is one of utter
Speaker 1: indifference and obliviousness. Nobody really realizes or cares that there's
Speaker 1: a war going on. So until he feels that this
Speaker 1: thing is threatening his hold on power, and even then
Speaker 1: we don't know what he's what he might calculate he's
Speaker 1: just going to pour more manpower into it. Now that
Speaker 1: the real question is does he have all the concomitants
Speaker 1: for war, the hardware, the ammunition, the military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: Can it sustain this in the long term. Well, you're
Speaker 1: beginning to hear from American officials. I mean, Wendy Sherman
Speaker 1: came out what was it last week and said, we
Speaker 1: don't see Putin being able to do another mass mobilization.
Speaker 1: I just interviewed with an Estonian colleague of mine, a
Speaker 1: very good Estonian military analyst, who have been relying on
Speaker 1: since the start of this thing, and who's got it,
Speaker 1: frankly more or less right on every occasion, who says
Speaker 1: he does not foresee enough pressure on Putin to do
Speaker 1: to undertake another mass mobilization. And he also said, which
Speaker 1: is interesting, that in everybody in the in the US
Speaker 1: is now trying to anticipate the next big Russian counter offensive.
Speaker 1: What they don't take into account is that the Russians
Speaker 1: and the Kremlin probably sees what is taking place now
Speaker 1: as a massive counter offensive. So all the energy, all
Speaker 1: of the raw meat, frankly thrown into places like bach
Speaker 1: Mut and prior to that solidar, that's for them a
Speaker 1: big push. So it's it's it's interesting. We have we
Speaker 1: have different assessments depending on whom you query, but you know,
Speaker 1: I can tell you this, the Ukrainians have no flagging
Speaker 1: resolve or morale. They think they can win, and by
Speaker 1: when they think they can push Russia even beyond February
Speaker 1: twenty four borders um, they think that they can absolute
Speaker 1: retake CRIMEA. They think they can push them out of
Speaker 1: the l D and R. And I mean, look, I
Speaker 1: can also tell you that people who are paid to
Speaker 1: go to places and collect information otherwise known as intelligence,
Speaker 1: including from our country, are very very optimistic in a
Speaker 1: way that they had not been up until almost quite recently.
Speaker 1: I'd say, so take take that as you will. You know, again,
Speaker 1: the US and assessment was Kiva's toast in seventy two hours.
Speaker 1: Now it's Sevastopol might be toast for the Russians before
Speaker 1: the end of this thing. I'm going to push back
Speaker 1: here for two seconds. And when does this end? We
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean again, you know, a Putin can
Speaker 1: can continue to fight a war or a special military operation,
Speaker 1: which he is only belatedly characterized I think once as
Speaker 1: a quote unquote war almost indefinitely. But again, you can.
Speaker 1: You can be in a state of war by just
Speaker 1: you know, calling up eighteen year olds, giving them, you know,
Speaker 1: ill fitting out day uniforms, giving them rusty carbine rifles
Speaker 1: with no ammunition, sending them to the battlefield and say
Speaker 1: go go take this town or city. That's a state
Speaker 1: of war, but it's not one that's sustainable or one
Speaker 1: that you can win. So the real question is when
Speaker 1: does Putin feel he has been defeated and when does
Speaker 1: he feel he can either withdraw and claim some kind
Speaker 1: of victory, which you know, if you if you listen
Speaker 1: to Timothy Snyder, who's a very good historian of modern
Speaker 1: Europe and also understands, I think the Russian mindset on
Speaker 1: a lot of these issues. He wrote an essay several
Speaker 1: months ago about, you know, Putin's virtual reality dictatorship. The
Speaker 1: mass population in Russia believes what they see on television, right,
Speaker 1: they're not reading opposition independent newspapers, which now don't exist
Speaker 1: in the country, have to go to places like Latvia
Speaker 1: and Lithuania and Poland. They believe what the TV tells them.
Speaker 1: And if Putin instructs his talking heads, his his you know,
Speaker 1: operatic propagandists on state television to basically say, okay, it's over.
Speaker 1: We've we've degraded the Ukrainian military capability to a point
Speaker 1: where it's now neutralized, it poses no threat to US.
Speaker 1: We humiliated NATO. I mean, they just make stuff up
Speaker 1: all the time, right, it's it's this isn't this would
Speaker 1: not be a new script for them, the people would
Speaker 1: probably shrug their soldiers and carry on. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: already doing that, even with three hundred thousand plus mobiics
Speaker 1: being sent to the front. And by the way, the
Speaker 1: mobilization that that was undertaken a few months ago. And
Speaker 1: this kind of tells you the kind of regime that
Speaker 1: that Putin is running. That wasn't really targeting ethnic Russians, right,
Speaker 1: that was targeting the ethnic minority populations in Russia, the
Speaker 1: people in the regions boats, the Chechens of the Dagistanis
Speaker 1: and so on. So he's sending non Russians to go
Speaker 1: fight a war for Holy Mother Russian. So this is
Speaker 1: a very colonialist enterprise, and usually militaristic and aggressive and
Speaker 1: chauvinistic colonial enterprises collapse under their own weight. And in
Speaker 1: this case, I mean, we don't have an empire here
Speaker 1: that we're dealing with. We have a country who's I
Speaker 1: think GDP even before the war, was smaller than that
Speaker 1: of the state of California, and whose military, which is
Speaker 1: meant to be this bright, shiny new phenomenon that had
Speaker 1: been built up over the last several years, I mean,
Speaker 1: is a busted flush missiles that don't hit their mark
Speaker 1: missiles that are now being intercepted at a rate of
Speaker 1: what as of yesterday, you know, this bombardment of cruise
Speaker 1: missiles and Kiev and other regions. I think they shot
Speaker 1: down forty seven out of fifty five of them. That's
Speaker 1: that's good. And they're getting better all the time, the Ukrainians,
Speaker 1: thanks to the platforms that we're providing them. So when
Speaker 1: you say when does it end, I don't have an
Speaker 1: answer for you, but I can tell you that the
Speaker 1: current trajectory should suggests it's not going to end the
Speaker 1: way Russia wants. And the other interesting data point here is,
Speaker 1: you know, and I heard this ad nauseum at the
Speaker 1: start of this thing, several cliches, Oh, a danger A
Speaker 1: cornered putin is a dangerous putin. He's like a rat.
Speaker 1: You know, he's gonna he's gonna show his teeth and
Speaker 1: all that. Well, now you're hearing from US officials again.
Speaker 1: This was quote in the New York Times. Toria Nowland
Speaker 1: said this several weeks ago, and it kind of flew
Speaker 1: under the radar. They don't think that the nuclear threat
Speaker 1: is nearly as acute as it was several months ago.
Speaker 1: And according to Newland. Houghton was persuaded that if if
Speaker 1: he were to resort to w M D in any fashion,
Speaker 1: tactical or whatever, it would be the end for him
Speaker 1: because he would lose China and he would lose India,
Speaker 1: the two countries that he has to rely on. It
Speaker 1: with China strategically, but also economically with India. That's good news,
Speaker 1: which is why every time I see World War three
Speaker 1: trending on Twitter, every time world War tree is has
Speaker 1: has trended, I mean, we're up to World War like
Speaker 1: eighty nine by now, right. Sending tanks to Ukraine is
Speaker 1: not going to start another World War. And to be
Speaker 1: honest with you, I mean I'm not going to offer
Speaker 1: my own opinion on this. I'll just tell you I'm
Speaker 1: hearing from people who have access to information that I
Speaker 1: do not. They think that sending F sixteens to Ukraine
Speaker 1: won't even cause a major hiccup in terms of kinetic
Speaker 1: response from the Russian side. There's a reason, for instance,
Speaker 1: they're putting pants here air defenses him on top of
Speaker 1: the Ministry of Defense in Moscow and other tall buildings
Speaker 1: they're preparing. Thank you so much for joining us. Michael
Speaker 1: Weiss Molly John Fast Jesse Cannon. I hear Mr Trump's
Speaker 1: doing some campaign and what do you see in there?
Speaker 1: A weekend of Donald J. Trump praying over fast food restaurants.
Speaker 1: That was his hair looked sojestic. We've yes, that's sorry,
Speaker 1: looked majestic by that, I'd be not at all majestic.
Speaker 1: As our moment of we're going to say, take Donald
Speaker 1: Trump today, but I actually want to be serious for
Speaker 1: a minute. He does stupid stuff. He appeals to people
Speaker 1: who are not intellectuals. Maybe, but um, he needs to
Speaker 1: be taken deadly seriously. And because you know, even though
Speaker 1: it seems like Trump is poison when it comes to
Speaker 1: Swing States, He's still a real danger. And if he
Speaker 1: gets I guess it would be considered to be reelected,
Speaker 1: he will end American democracy as we know it. Also
Speaker 1: will have to deal with more Don Jr. Which I
Speaker 1: personally cannot take. So I don't know if the cartels
Speaker 1: can take keeping up that supply either. You said it,
Speaker 1: I didn't. But our moment of frugery is Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Don't take him literally, take him seriously because he's terrifying.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds
Speaker 1: and politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.