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 the US Appeals Court rejects Biden's
Speaker 1: bid to revive his student debt plan. Randy wein Garden,
Speaker 1: the president of the American Federation of Teachers, stops by
Speaker 1: to tell us about the real motives behind the attacks
Speaker 1: on public schools. Then we'll talk to Congressman Richie Torres
Speaker 1: about a new era of younger Democratic Party leadership in
Speaker 1: the House. But first we have the Daily Beast congressional
Speaker 1: reporter Sam Brodie. Oh my god, welcome to Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Sam Brodie, it's great to be here. Thank you. We're
Speaker 1: so excited to have you. So let's talk about what
Speaker 1: is happening. Because this is a lame duck but filled
Speaker 1: with drama. Talk to us about some of the drama.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of drama happening. This is a big
Speaker 1: changing of the guard moments in Congress, and not just
Speaker 1: because Republicans are going to switch into the House majority,
Speaker 1: but yesterday Democrats elected a new leadership team basically for
Speaker 1: the first time in twenty years, which is hugely significant,
Speaker 1: and it was you know, kind of dramatic in a
Speaker 1: sense because it's so important, but there was like no
Speaker 1: drama to it whatsoever. Like Democrats absolutely lined up behind
Speaker 1: their their new team of Hakim Jeffries, who was replacing
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi's leader, and then Katherine Clark as the number
Speaker 1: two and Pete Aguilar's the number three. The drama is
Speaker 1: really happening on on the Republicans side right now, as
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy like furiously tries to cobble together two and
Speaker 1: eighteen votes to become Speaker of the House. Which is
Speaker 1: so funny that this is playing out this way because
Speaker 1: it was sort of assumed that the drama was going
Speaker 1: to be on the Democratic side after Pelosi left. There
Speaker 1: were so many questions is to what the post Pelosi
Speaker 1: era would look like. Who might step up? You know,
Speaker 1: Hakeem Jeffries was considered the air apparent, but like there
Speaker 1: were some other people in the mix. Whereas it was
Speaker 1: like assumed on the Republican side that, Okay, Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 1: if you get some already, he's going to be in charge.
Speaker 1: Not looking like a super sure bet right now, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people on the Republican side who are
Speaker 1: at least saying right now that they're not going to
Speaker 1: support him as speaker. So some Republicans in disarray, kund
Speaker 1: of right now. So we'll talk to me about this,
Speaker 1: because the sort of fascinating data point here with everything
Speaker 1: you read is that McCarthy doesn't have the votes, but
Speaker 1: there's no one else, and so McCarthy is going to
Speaker 1: get it. That seems like a flawed logic discuss. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, the thing about that kind of logic is
Speaker 1: that there's no one else until there is someone else.
Speaker 1: That's kind of the way these things tend to work out.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day. It's it's going to
Speaker 1: be about Kevin McCarthy and whether his conference wants him
Speaker 1: to be in that position. And if he doesn't get
Speaker 1: the votes, I mean, I think the people who oppose
Speaker 1: him are viewing this as a referendum on him. If
Speaker 1: he doesn't get the votes, something else is going going
Speaker 1: to happen. And you know, we've seen leaders in the
Speaker 1: past emerge this way where no one's really talking about
Speaker 1: them and it ends up happening. I mean, when John
Speaker 1: Bayner left, Kevin McCarthy was also the heir apparent. Then
Speaker 1: he sort of had some full back campaign because he
Speaker 1: didn't get support, and Paul Ryan, who's sort of a
Speaker 1: big figure, there isn't somebody like him with that kind
Speaker 1: of stature now that Paul Ryan had then, But no
Speaker 1: one was saying like, oh, Paul Ryan is definitely going
Speaker 1: to be the speaker. But McCarthy bowed out and Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan ended up being the speaker. So weird things can happen,
Speaker 1: and it's really about whether these Conservatives trust Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: to do this job. So let's talk about what you're
Speaker 1: seeing otherwise in the leadership. For example, it seems like
Speaker 1: there's sort of five people have already said or maybe
Speaker 1: more that they won't support McCarthy. How many votes does
Speaker 1: McCarthy need to get to be speaker. He needs to eighteen,
Speaker 1: and there are going to be two d and twenty
Speaker 1: two Republicans. He can lose four. And there are at
Speaker 1: least five people out there in the Republican side who
Speaker 1: are saying they won't support McCarthy or are currently not
Speaker 1: supporting McCarthy. But this is where things get really interesting,
Speaker 1: because I think there are probably three maybe who are
Speaker 1: just hard nos just not ever going to vote for
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy, that could be fine for him. Who are
Speaker 1: those people or are there backbenchers? None of us have
Speaker 1: ever heard of a friend of the show, friend of
Speaker 1: our show. Maybe at the two Beast, the gentleman from Florida,
Speaker 1: Matt Gates. He's going to be a no. No matter
Speaker 1: what a couple other guys, I mean Andy Biggs, who
Speaker 1: was the only one to actually run against McCarthy when
Speaker 1: Republicans had their closed door nominating vote, He's going to
Speaker 1: be a no. And then I think another backbencher or
Speaker 1: two may just kind of do it to make a statement.
Speaker 1: So that's where things are at. I think there's like
Speaker 1: a larger group that are out right now not supporting him.
Speaker 1: But this this may end up being kind of the
Speaker 1: tough bargain, maybe the poison pill that Kevin McCarthy swallows,
Speaker 1: because there are these hardliners in the Freedom Caucus who
Speaker 1: you know, I think we'll vote for McCarthy, but they
Speaker 1: want to extract some real stuff out of him. Basically,
Speaker 1: they want to extract rules changes that will give them
Speaker 1: a lot more power and give McCarthy a lot less
Speaker 1: power if he's speaker. This rule I just want to
Speaker 1: stop you is something where they can call him up
Speaker 1: for election as speaker anytime they want, right basically, and
Speaker 1: then there's just a number of other things that, if
Speaker 1: they're adopted, would make Kevin McCarthy's life miserable. It gives
Speaker 1: rank and file members a lot more power to shape
Speaker 1: the legislative process and force legislative action on things that,
Speaker 1: say Kevin McCarthy might really not want them to do.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like this Fossian barbed where in order
Speaker 1: to become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy is going to have to
Speaker 1: make a deal that is going to make his job
Speaker 1: as Speaker that much more difficult. And I think that's
Speaker 1: something that maybe gets lost a little bit in this conversation.
Speaker 1: Obviously it's important to watch whether Kevin McCarthy actually gets
Speaker 1: the votes. But in order to get the votes, he's
Speaker 1: going to start on you know, day one is speaker,
Speaker 1: He's just going to start rolling the boulder up the
Speaker 1: hill that day. I mean, that's really it. It's this
Speaker 1: hard for him just to get to the starting block,
Speaker 1: and these rule changes could make it really hard for
Speaker 1: him to function as speaker. Thoughts, prayers. I just want
Speaker 1: to get back to this idea for a second, because
Speaker 1: I don't have a lot of love for for Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 1: Could you see a Steve Scullies being the sort of
Speaker 1: more consensus candidate or is there really no one who
Speaker 1: is has emerged as a possible challenger. No one has
Speaker 1: really emerged as a possible challenger, And I think the
Speaker 1: school is actually just on paper, is more of a
Speaker 1: consensus candidate, probably just in terms of the fundamentals. The
Speaker 1: thing is is that McCarthy and Scullies have this rivalry
Speaker 1: going back a long time, and they have their respective loyalists,
Speaker 1: and people are just very My sense has been that
Speaker 1: that Republicans are wary of backing Skollies as as the alternative,
Speaker 1: just because that kind of dynamic has been so set
Speaker 1: for a long time and they have their respective amps.
Speaker 1: And I think the sense is that it would have
Speaker 1: to be somebody who's not in the current leadership if
Speaker 1: it does fall apart or or something like that, it
Speaker 1: would have to be someone who has not been in
Speaker 1: the mix and been courting votes and built up their
Speaker 1: own base of support, because then it becomes personal for
Speaker 1: people who would maybe not support McCarthy if if they
Speaker 1: bring in schools, because then It just kind of kicks
Speaker 1: up all this this sort of dust that's been percolating
Speaker 1: on the Republican side, drama wise for the last few years.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about what is going to happen in
Speaker 1: the lame duck. I also do want to talk about
Speaker 1: this cock the D Triple C Caucus chair, because that
Speaker 1: is it now open. We saw that was Sean Patrick
Speaker 1: Maloney's seat. Sean Patrick Maloney lost his seat in this
Speaker 1: redistrict doing perhaps surprisingly, Now they're looking for the two
Speaker 1: people have volunteered for the job. Talked to us about that.
Speaker 1: That seems like a crazy story. Yeah, I think Democrats
Speaker 1: right now are in a moment of reevaluating what the
Speaker 1: D Triple C chair should look like. It was pretty
Speaker 1: shocking that Sean Patrick Maloney lost, and I think stepping
Speaker 1: back and looking at the rest of what happened in
Speaker 1: New York, it's really, you know, not that shocking at all.
Speaker 1: But party committee chairs are just not supposed to lose.
Speaker 1: There were some things that happened during the campaign where
Speaker 1: the D trips spent to protect Shown Patrick Maloney, and
Speaker 1: that's an internally sensitive move because your job number one
Speaker 1: is supposed to be protecting the rest of the members.
Speaker 1: So all this stuff has has Democrats thinking about, Okay,
Speaker 1: should the d triple C chair even be a member
Speaker 1: at all? I mean, there's no inherent rule that it
Speaker 1: that it has to be, it's just a convention that
Speaker 1: it is. So at this moment right now, Democrats are
Speaker 1: sort of thinking about ways in which they could make
Speaker 1: this job a little less fraught, maybe free this person
Speaker 1: up from I don't know, having to worry about are
Speaker 1: they going to get reelected on top of trying to
Speaker 1: you know, stay in the majority or take back the majority.
Speaker 1: What I'm told from folks just checking in throughout the
Speaker 1: week on this stuff is that it's unlikely that Dens
Speaker 1: are going to do this kind of like wholesale reimagining
Speaker 1: of the position. So it's probably still going to be
Speaker 1: a member of Congress who does it. But people aren't
Speaker 1: super satisfied with the current Shares or the current Shared
Speaker 1: candidates who are out there. They both have a lot
Speaker 1: of scandals as two people who put themselves out backbenchers
Speaker 1: with lots of scandals. Right. Almira has had to run
Speaker 1: competitive elections in the past, but not in a Laski cycles.
Speaker 1: Tony cartin Is has never had to run a competitive
Speaker 1: election against a Republican. Usually people want teatrip chairs to
Speaker 1: have at least some knowledge at some point of how
Speaker 1: to win a campaign against the Republican. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot of satisfaction out there. And what I think is
Speaker 1: kind of crazy about this is like, like Democrats could
Speaker 1: take back the House. They really could, especially if if
Speaker 1: Republicans are doing what they're planning on doing with the
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden stuff, and you just look at the map.
Speaker 1: I mean, there there's a good like if Democrats take
Speaker 1: half of the seats that went for Biden and are
Speaker 1: currently represented by Republicans, they'll they'll win the House. So
Speaker 1: someone can step up and be the hero, you know,
Speaker 1: But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of
Speaker 1: folks who are, you know, waving their hands in the
Speaker 1: ear and being like, oh, yeah, I'll do it. It's
Speaker 1: a bit of a weird dynamic. There is this lame duck.
Speaker 1: Now it seems like defensive marriage is going to pass, right,
Speaker 1: It's passed the Senate, but not the House yet. That's right,
Speaker 1: It passed the Senate, which was really the hurdle, and
Speaker 1: the real question in the House is how many votes
Speaker 1: will it get how many Republicans will will vote for it?
Speaker 1: I think that's like an interesting question for Congress nerds
Speaker 1: and maybe a sense of where this House Republican Conference
Speaker 1: might get up. But it's a foregone conclusion that it's
Speaker 1: going to pass, and I think they're going to put
Speaker 1: it on the floor next week. And then there's this
Speaker 1: The quote was nobody wants to give Kevin McCarthy a
Speaker 1: grenade with the pin pulled already about this debt ceiling issue.
Speaker 1: Talk to us about the debt ceiling issue. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: it's crazy that this is where things are at now.
Speaker 1: A few years ago this wasn't the case. But you
Speaker 1: have the leader, the presumptive leader of the House Republican
Speaker 1: Conference basically saying we're willing to play politics with the
Speaker 1: debt limit. I mean, nobody said that twenty years ago,
Speaker 1: and like five years ago, it was just kind of
Speaker 1: the cranks who said it, and you know, they had
Speaker 1: enough power to make things happen. So the name of
Speaker 1: the game here in the Lame Duck across the board
Speaker 1: is like how much can Democrats get done to set
Speaker 1: themselves up for success and give the Republican majority in
Speaker 1: the House just fewer opportunities to I guess how can
Speaker 1: I say that's elegantly like function up. I really don't know,
Speaker 1: like function app is perfect. And one of the things
Speaker 1: that Kevin McCarthy is is really gonna, I think probably
Speaker 1: try to do is because it's still going to be
Speaker 1: divided government, so the set of being democratic it limits
Speaker 1: his options. But from the investigations to how they handle
Speaker 1: government funding. They want to create problems for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: ahead of re election. But potentially the debt limit could
Speaker 1: be one of those things. I think it's sometime early
Speaker 1: next year, so I mean that lands right, that's the
Speaker 1: need of that rolls right into the Republican Foxhall that
Speaker 1: they could toss over to the White House if if
Speaker 1: they choose. You know, but I think everything gets harder
Speaker 1: right now because Republicans know that the clock is taking
Speaker 1: on democratic control and if they're able to drive certain
Speaker 1: things out, that the clock will run out and January
Speaker 1: three Republicans will be in charge. There's already been an
Speaker 1: incredible spate of letters written by Kevin McCarthy about all
Speaker 1: of the things he planned to do when he gets
Speaker 1: the job. He doesn't have yet. Can you talk to
Speaker 1: us a little bit about that, because I every day
Speaker 1: I see another letter from him. McCarthy is, if he
Speaker 1: gets to this position, aside from the rules changes, is
Speaker 1: going to be pulled in about a million different directions.
Speaker 1: And I think what will be called oversight by Republicans
Speaker 1: is going to be a really important thing to watch
Speaker 1: because Republicans, the bills they passed are not going to
Speaker 1: come law, and so oversight is the way that they
Speaker 1: can toss red meat to the kind of more maga
Speaker 1: members of their conference to keep them happy and to
Speaker 1: keep them from revolting against Kevin McCarthy. Yet, McCarthy also
Speaker 1: has some of these new members who just came in
Speaker 1: and you might have heard some of them after the election.
Speaker 1: For example, the guy who beat Sean Patrick Maloney, his
Speaker 1: name is Mike Waller. He's elected, and he's like, you know,
Speaker 1: I really you know, I'm paraphrasing, and but he he
Speaker 1: really expressed no interest at like a Hunter Biden Benghazi
Speaker 1: Committee or anything like that. He's like, people, you know,
Speaker 1: people don't really want us to do that. So he's
Speaker 1: going to be pulled in these different directions. So I
Speaker 1: think viewing all these letters and Jim Jordan's has a
Speaker 1: bunch of letters that have come out. He's going to
Speaker 1: be the chair of the Arry Committee. Yes, I saw
Speaker 1: an amazing Jim Jordan letter today where he's going to
Speaker 1: investigate the investigators. He is without his jacket. I would hope. Right,
Speaker 1: here's a really good example of why this is all
Speaker 1: a little bit of kabuki theater. McCarthy sends out this
Speaker 1: letter saying, January six Committee, keep your records. We're going
Speaker 1: to take hold of those and we're going to show
Speaker 1: the American people, and I think people who follow the
Speaker 1: January Sifton you would say or support it was a
Speaker 1: sure man, go ahead, take them, like, get all of
Speaker 1: our stuff out there. We left some stuff on the
Speaker 1: cutting room floor. It would be great if you guys
Speaker 1: could air that. Continue to air that, because I'm sure
Speaker 1: they're sitting on plenty of stuff that is going to
Speaker 1: reflect a lot more poorly on on Trump and his
Speaker 1: his backers than it is on the January six Committee.
Speaker 1: I highly doubt that Kevin McCarthy is going to go
Speaker 1: down that road. So it's important to view that stuff
Speaker 1: through what is Kevin McCarthy's posturing and how is he
Speaker 1: using oversight or oversight threats just as a way to
Speaker 1: keep his his people in line. There is one thing
Speaker 1: that came into mind that I do think is super
Speaker 1: important to note in terms of like the lame duck,
Speaker 1: and that's kind of in the investigations thing, which is,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you're following the Ways of Means Trump tax stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: they have the taxes now, right, they have it now.
Speaker 1: They also have a month before before the before the
Speaker 1: Republicans take charge. So I think there's some really interesting
Speaker 1: questions as to how does Riche Neil, the chairman of
Speaker 1: the Ways and Means Committee, handle this. You know, Nancy
Speaker 1: closey still you know, kind of she's technically still the
Speaker 1: leader until until January three. I'm sure she's working closely
Speaker 1: with Jeffries, but how do they decide to handle this?
Speaker 1: And I think it's fair to say with with these records,
Speaker 1: I mean, when Republicans take charge of that committee, they're gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, that's going to be put in a foul
Speaker 1: cabinet um in a very very quiet corner of the
Speaker 1: Capital the file get the paper shredder or fire cabinet.
Speaker 1: So I just want to just clearly just go this
Speaker 1: for one second. So basically, all of Kevin McCarthy's grand
Speaker 1: plans will endanger all of the seats the Republicans just one.
Speaker 1: I think it's fair to say that, Yeah, the proof
Speaker 1: is sort of in the pudding. These folks got elected
Speaker 1: and they're saying, you know, we really are not really
Speaker 1: good interested in doing any of this stuff. It's a
Speaker 1: remarkable moment of you know, Republicans kind of catching the car.
Speaker 1: They've got the House after all the expectations of a
Speaker 1: huge red wave that didn't materialize, and their base is
Speaker 1: really hungry for them to make a Hunter Biden Laptop committee,
Speaker 1: and the people who just put them in the majority
Speaker 1: are like, not so fast. This is a bad idea.
Speaker 1: It would be one thing if there was a forty
Speaker 1: seat Republican majority, like Republicans talked about, and you know,
Speaker 1: folks like the guy would be tryn Patrick Mullaney would
Speaker 1: kind of be irrelevant. Well, that's not what happened. They
Speaker 1: have a four seat majority. I think because of what happened,
Speaker 1: the voices on the Republican side who are wanting to
Speaker 1: pump the brakes on all this Hunter Biden stuff and
Speaker 1: impeaching you know, my orchists and teaching you know this
Speaker 1: person and that person. Like the voices saying pump the
Speaker 1: brakes are are going to be a lot more listened to.
Speaker 1: I think by Kevin McCarthy. Fantastic, so interesting, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Please come back, Sam, Yes, I will come
Speaker 1: on anytime. That's always so. Randy wine Garden is the
Speaker 1: president of the American Federation of Teacher Welcome too Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: The most dangerous person in the world, Randy Weingarten, congratulations.
Speaker 1: You know what I saw it. Initially, Molly, I was
Speaker 1: amused because I'm like, oh my god, he must be
Speaker 1: running for president. Like I have never heard Mike Pompeio
Speaker 1: utter my name or a word about education, much less
Speaker 1: teachers or math or science or literacy or whatever. So
Speaker 1: I'm like, I guess he's trying to out Betsy Divoss here. Yes,
Speaker 1: what I really hated about it. Look, I don't really
Speaker 1: care what he says about me, although in this moment
Speaker 1: in time, because it signals things to extremists, you know,
Speaker 1: it can be very dangerous. This is what I really
Speaker 1: cared about. He called what teachers do filth. That's what
Speaker 1: I really cared about. For everyone who doesn't totally know
Speaker 1: the situation, Mike pomp, a blowhard of the worst kind,
Speaker 1: has decided that he wants to run for president, and
Speaker 1: one of the ways he's trying to get the base
Speaker 1: excited is by attacking you, because you are the two
Speaker 1: things Republicans hate, teachers unions, and this is a culture
Speaker 1: war trope that they've gotten very excited about. And then
Speaker 1: he followed up by saying, you're the most dangerous person
Speaker 1: in the world. The sort of Republican attack on an
Speaker 1: education has sort of taken. It's been a multi pronged attempt. First,
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about the book banning
Speaker 1: and that element of it. You know that there are
Speaker 1: things too dangerous to learn. That seems to me to
Speaker 1: be a sort of interesting revival of a kind of
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties thing. I mean, are you surprised that that
Speaker 1: came down the pike or were you waiting for that?
Speaker 1: Or has that always been there? So let me give
Speaker 1: you my thirty second to my minute analysis of this.
Speaker 1: You know, you have the of arcs and the gazillionaires
Speaker 1: like the Koch brothers, the U Lines, the divorces. They've
Speaker 1: always seen this amount of money that goes into education,
Speaker 1: and they've tried to figure out how do they glom
Speaker 1: onto it. You know, first they want to cut their taxes,
Speaker 1: but they really want to glom onto this money. They
Speaker 1: came up with vouchers and charters and all sorts of
Speaker 1: other competition and things like that. But ninety semi percent
Speaker 1: of parents still want to send your kids to public schools.
Speaker 1: So you have that group of people. And remember Pompell
Speaker 1: is very connected to the Koch brothers. But then on
Speaker 1: top of it, this is the new part that the
Speaker 1: combination of what happened in the aftermath of George Floyd's
Speaker 1: murder and in the aftermath of COVID is what has
Speaker 1: made the cultural wars into a high octane battle because people,
Speaker 1: you know, at the beginning of co the parents who
Speaker 1: started watching what their kids were doing with teachers on zoom.
Speaker 1: We were getting just tremendous love for teachers about how
Speaker 1: engaged they were and what they were trying to do
Speaker 1: and how much they were trying to do. And we
Speaker 1: kept you know, all sorts of places open for food
Speaker 1: delivery and things like that, and you know, you saw
Speaker 1: all that. But what happened between George Floyd's murder and
Speaker 1: everyone seeing seven minutes of this guy being killed by
Speaker 1: a police officer and seeing that video, it created a
Speaker 1: lot of empathy, and it created a lot of sense of, Oh,
Speaker 1: my god, racism is really going on in the country.
Speaker 1: Put a pin in that for a second. And then
Speaker 1: on top of that, all of the dislocation and the
Speaker 1: disruption because two or three years of people not being
Speaker 1: in school or their calendars disrupted, their lives disrupted, and
Speaker 1: the uncertainty created a lot of uncertainty. Those two things
Speaker 1: were the recipe for chaos, vilification, and division. So what
Speaker 1: has these cultural wars been now? Now? Think about them?
Speaker 1: The cultural wars. Get rid of social emotional learning in schools,
Speaker 1: get rid of the teaching forget about book banning for
Speaker 1: a second, the teaching of Anne Frank and Ruby Bridges
Speaker 1: and calling honest history critical race theory which no one knows.
Speaker 1: And then what happened with trans kids? Fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: in the last election cycle to try to vilify trans
Speaker 1: kids and it didn't work. Not working is the best
Speaker 1: part of that whole story. Yeah, exactly. But my point
Speaker 1: is there were seeds here that made it very seductive
Speaker 1: for the Steve Bennins and the chaos disruptors, divide yours
Speaker 1: to say, let's exploit the anxiety. But also they were
Speaker 1: really really fearful, which is why you saw the attack
Speaker 1: and teaching honest history and why you see the attack
Speaker 1: on social emotional learning. They're really afraid that we were
Speaker 1: bringing people together and understanding that everybody has to be
Speaker 1: seen and we really need to take on racism and
Speaker 1: anti semitism and homophobia and Islamophobia, and that idea of
Speaker 1: bringing people together and public schools doing it. They're really
Speaker 1: really afraid of that. That's why I think that I
Speaker 1: am the most dangerous person to him, because that's what
Speaker 1: public school should be doing, bring people together and helping
Speaker 1: kids not only recover but thrive. As someone who has
Speaker 1: school aged kids who went through the pandemic, there has
Speaker 1: definitely been learning loss. I mean, that's no what he
Speaker 1: is arguing about that. In fact, the teachers have been
Speaker 1: pretty open about that, the thing I always hoped would happen.
Speaker 1: And I wonder why there isn't more openness to this.
Speaker 1: This is just like me as a parent, is I
Speaker 1: wonder why there isn't more openness to like doing a
Speaker 1: thirteenth year of school for people because I do feel
Speaker 1: like they missed a lot of like emotional learning, et cetera.
Speaker 1: What happens when people start talking about a thirteen and
Speaker 1: fourteenth year of high school as opposed to a dual
Speaker 1: enrollment program is that everybody is leary about the concept
Speaker 1: of leaving kids back or you know, holding people back
Speaker 1: because of a pandemic. Having kids suffered enough and leaving
Speaker 1: kids back is always viewed as a penalty as opposed
Speaker 1: to you know, this is good for someone. It's always
Speaker 1: you know, even thinking about how the term is used.
Speaker 1: So that's why those of us in education talk about
Speaker 1: accelerated learning. Of course, this pandemic of hurt kids and
Speaker 1: hurt families and hurt the country. And if you're five
Speaker 1: years old and all of a sudden you're not playing
Speaker 1: with your friends for months and months at a time,
Speaker 1: and you don't know one day from the next year,
Speaker 1: got to wear masks and do not have to marry.
Speaker 1: And I think we were wrong by not being more
Speaker 1: open to saying, look, of course, this period of time
Speaker 1: is terrible. What we were trying to do is educators
Speaker 1: were trying to do everything in their power to keep
Speaker 1: kids up. I think what we have to do and
Speaker 1: think about accelerated learning, think about high schools really differently,
Speaker 1: meaning let's make sure there's pathways in high schools to
Speaker 1: college and to career. Let's make sure that we can
Speaker 1: readily do dual enrollment programs and businesses be part of
Speaker 1: this in terms of how we help kids get certification
Speaker 1: or apprenticeship programs or things like that, so effectively having
Speaker 1: a thirty year or fourteens here, but doing it in
Speaker 1: a really different way, because I think the psychological issues
Speaker 1: right now are as important as almost anything else. We
Speaker 1: have to help kids get their mojo back and their
Speaker 1: profidence back in a sense that they can be on
Speaker 1: the path to you know, success, because think about, Look,
Speaker 1: I'm old already. I'm I'm gonna be sixty five years
Speaker 1: old this month. But think about the generation gen Z
Speaker 1: and the other generations born in the nineties and the
Speaker 1: two thousand's, they went through the two thousand and eight recession,
Speaker 1: and they're going through this. That's a lot of pain
Speaker 1: to go through at the start of one's life. So
Speaker 1: that's why I'm I'm thinking, let's find real ways of
Speaker 1: having pathways like career tech ed, like all the stuff
Speaker 1: that's happening with chips do all the kind of tutoring
Speaker 1: that is going on right now. Let's help kids get
Speaker 1: their mojo back and really focus on mental health and
Speaker 1: and disrupting isolation. There was a moment with the pandemic
Speaker 1: where I really thought that, um, it would bring us
Speaker 1: all together, and a lot of historians sort of hoped
Speaker 1: that it would be that. And instead, you know, the
Speaker 1: way the Great Depression did, there were sort of moments
Speaker 1: of connection, and even the nine eighteen flu pandemic in
Speaker 1: a certain way brought people together. But instead we've had
Speaker 1: this very polarized sort of attack on these teachers, you know,
Speaker 1: mad the right has been very mad at teachers for masking,
Speaker 1: mad at teachers for not having in person school sooner.
Speaker 1: And you know what I think is interesting is like,
Speaker 1: you know that one year when the pandemic really started,
Speaker 1: you know, there wasn't in person school. But as soon
Speaker 1: as we started to really learn about it and there
Speaker 1: were vaccines, as soon as humanly possible, everyone got back
Speaker 1: into the classroom. Republicans tried to run on that in
Speaker 1: this mid term, and they really weren't able to because
Speaker 1: it just didn't catch fire the way they had hoped,
Speaker 1: which I do think is probably a good sign about
Speaker 1: the American people. I do too, And and look, let's
Speaker 1: just be real. In school learning is a lot more
Speaker 1: effective than being on zoom and being remote. And one
Speaker 1: of the reasons it's more effective is that people I
Speaker 1: don't want to sound like Barbara Stress and people people
Speaker 1: needing people, but people need people and kids need to
Speaker 1: be in relation with one another. But as one of
Speaker 1: the people who from April, I mean, this is this
Speaker 1: is what's so hard about living in this post true
Speaker 1: society that we're in and where there doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: be any guardrails against the extremists disinforming or telling of lies.
Speaker 1: But from April, my union was trying to figure out
Speaker 1: how to get people back into school in a safe way.
Speaker 1: And I think what happened here was the politics and
Speaker 1: Trump's political need to try to win reelection. He decided
Speaker 1: the way he was going to win re election was
Speaker 1: to first pretend that COVID didn't exist, and then he
Speaker 1: completely mishandled the pandemic as he missandaled virtually everything else.
Speaker 1: But what happened as a result is, you know, with
Speaker 1: the exception of Fauci, he didn't really trust very many
Speaker 1: other people who were speaking from that podium about what
Speaker 1: was going on. So look at what happened. Andrew Cuomo
Speaker 1: all of a sudden became the de facto president for
Speaker 1: the moment. I think that the uncertainty about what was
Speaker 1: going on created anxiety, and the politics infected it in
Speaker 1: a way that was just gross and made people more uncertain.
Speaker 1: And look at it now, millions of people have died.
Speaker 1: We now have three respiratory viruses. They're putting a lot
Speaker 1: of people in the hospiti But nobody wants to talk
Speaker 1: about any of this or take any kind of measures
Speaker 1: because of, you know, the politics of COVID. I think
Speaker 1: if Biden was the president when COVID first started, we
Speaker 1: would have had a very different response, and I think
Speaker 1: there was there would have been a real shot of
Speaker 1: bringing the country together. Oh yeah, I mean well, I
Speaker 1: would also say that under Trump we lost a million people.
Speaker 1: Most countries that are wealthy countries like US lost many
Speaker 1: many fewer. So I mean, you know, there was a
Speaker 1: lot of malpractice governing Maul to practice as one would expect,
Speaker 1: and the way in which Trump acted people were dispensable,
Speaker 1: and the way in which they acted in terms of
Speaker 1: the opening of schools. I mean, I just want to
Speaker 1: put some facts out. As soon as the vaccines were available,
Speaker 1: and we were very grateful. We are the fastest growing
Speaker 1: healthcare union and we're the second largest teacher union and
Speaker 1: the largest college union. So of my member as soon
Speaker 1: as the vaccines were available, ultimately got the vaccines and
Speaker 1: wanted to be in schools. Overwhelmingly of my members wanted
Speaker 1: to be in schools. They just wanted to be safe.
Speaker 1: And if you look at Guiden's record in terms of
Speaker 1: school opening, even during O Macron versus Trump's record, even
Speaker 1: in the highest places, the highest incidents of O Macron
Speaker 1: last January, eight percent of schools were open compared to
Speaker 1: Trump schools. These school board meetings one of the things
Speaker 1: that Steve Bannon has been well for the midterms more
Speaker 1: but also now they've encouraged their people to run for
Speaker 1: school boards. You had a lot of pretty incredible, you know,
Speaker 1: videos of people. There were people talking about that. You know,
Speaker 1: there was this uh lie that a child had identified
Speaker 1: as a cat and that the teachers had put a
Speaker 1: cat litter box in this classroom. Lat of Republican candidates
Speaker 1: ran on this lie even though it's not true. Are
Speaker 1: you seeing a downstream effect from the school board candidates
Speaker 1: and explain yes, number one, you know, and we're still
Speaker 1: getting all the results from all the school board elections
Speaker 1: in the main the pro public education candidates one, particularly
Speaker 1: in blue areas and in a lot of purple areas.
Speaker 1: In red areas, you saw kind of a mix, a
Speaker 1: mix bad. But what is happening is that it is
Speaker 1: creating an USA Today had a great article about this
Speaker 1: yesterday or in the last couple of days. It is
Speaker 1: really creating a huge chilling effect on teachers. So that's
Speaker 1: story about the cat, the cats and litter. It was gross,
Speaker 1: it was disgusting. It was a lie. The other thing
Speaker 1: that's gross and disgusting and a lie is that teachers
Speaker 1: are grooming kids or trying to convince kiss to change sexes.
Speaker 1: It's gross, But it goes back to the point I
Speaker 1: was trying to make before, which is new need teachers
Speaker 1: and kids to have a trusting connection with each other.
Speaker 1: All of this is intended to break that bond and
Speaker 1: to undermine public schools, and that's what's so dangerous about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a guy like Pompeo, he know it's better. He's a
Speaker 1: West Point guy he gives the head of the CIA.
Speaker 1: He knows what are the seeds of authoritarianism. It's this
Speaker 1: deshumanization and it's this distrust and he is walking right
Speaker 1: into it intentionally because of his political aspirations. This is
Speaker 1: so interesting. I hope you will come back. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, randywine Garden, of course, thank you. Congressman Richie
Speaker 1: Torres represents New York's fifteenth congressional district. Welcome to Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: Richie Torres. It's always an honor to be here. It's
Speaker 1: always an honor to have you. Such an interesting time
Speaker 1: to be a Democrat. You had some votes this morning.
Speaker 1: Will you tell our listeners about what happened this morning.
Speaker 1: So I'm proud to report that the House Democratic Caucus
Speaker 1: has selected Keem Jeffreys, Congressman Keem Jeffreys from Brooklyn, as
Speaker 1: the first person of color to lead House Democrats in
Speaker 1: the history of the United States. Hopefully one day he
Speaker 1: will become the first speaker of color in the United States.
Speaker 1: So we've made history. He's going to be a powerful
Speaker 1: bass and voice of the party. He's one of I
Speaker 1: would argue he's our best communicator, in our best spokesperson
Speaker 1: and so it's exciting to be part of making history.
Speaker 1: It's so interesting because I was thinking about it. I
Speaker 1: was thinking in the House it's different, but in the
Speaker 1: Senate there's still only two black senators. And you know,
Speaker 1: just as imporant is the racial diversity is generational. Congress
Speaker 1: historically has been something of germtocracy. You know, the three
Speaker 1: leading Democrats in the House or at or above the
Speaker 1: age of eighty, all but a few of the committee
Speaker 1: chairs are at or above the age of seventy United
Speaker 1: age thirty five and essentially in embryon in the United States.
Speaker 1: Commm wait, there are three I'm sorry, there are three
Speaker 1: African American senators, which is extremely small, and there's only
Speaker 1: ever been twelve. I think it's like their twelve or
Speaker 1: thirteen throughout history, which is like crazily small. I want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about this sort of the way
Speaker 1: that this went down, because it does seem very organized.
Speaker 1: Hakim and Catherine Clark is going to be the minority
Speaker 1: with and Pete Aguilar, who's who said to be the
Speaker 1: chair of the caucus. The three of them essentially ran
Speaker 1: as a team as a slate, and the three of
Speaker 1: them have been part at work cultivating relationships with members,
Speaker 1: campaigning for members across the country, raising money for the party.
Speaker 1: The three of them laid the ground world for you know.
Speaker 1: I mean it might it might seem like a four nation,
Speaker 1: but I feel like that ignores the mense amount of
Speaker 1: time and effort that each of them put into their
Speaker 1: campaign for leadership. Can you talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: there's some anxiety on the progressive side that Representative Jeffreies
Speaker 1: maybe won't play ball or you know, has his trained
Speaker 1: relationship with the progressive wing of the party. What do
Speaker 1: you think about that? And you're on the ground, so
Speaker 1: do you see that? Or Now, like every everyone has detractors,
Speaker 1: But you'd be hardcrest to find a member who is
Speaker 1: more deeply and broadly respected within the caucus than had Peen.
Speaker 1: I mean he has. He appeals to a broadcross section
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Caucus. He is a deep relationship with
Speaker 1: Mark Coo can is the co chair of the Progressive Caucus.
Speaker 1: He commands respect from the new Dens, from the blue dogs,
Speaker 1: from the problem solvers. You know, he's respected across the board.
Speaker 1: There's always going to be critics who will find faults
Speaker 1: with everything, but if you examine Hakeem's record progressive by
Speaker 1: any standard. I mean he was instrumental in passing the
Speaker 1: most consequential criminal justice reform legislation in recent history, and
Speaker 1: in the First Step Act giving second chances to those
Speaker 1: who had criminal records at the federal So if you
Speaker 1: look at his record rather than listen to critics in
Speaker 1: the peanut gallery, I think you would conclude that he
Speaker 1: is fundamentally progressive. He's pragmatic because his position requires it.
Speaker 1: What do you see in this lame duck? Now, it
Speaker 1: looks like today defense of marriage was voted through the Senate.
Speaker 1: That seems like a pretty big deal. What else do
Speaker 1: you see happening now in these this last month, we
Speaker 1: are set to pass the Respect for Marriage Act in
Speaker 1: the House, which would protect both the right to same
Speaker 1: sex marriage and into racial and codify marriage equality. And
Speaker 1: federal we're going to pass the National Defense Authorization Act.
Speaker 1: The hope is that we can pass an omnibus, a
Speaker 1: budget that will fund the federal government. But McConnell wants
Speaker 1: more money for the military. The Republicans always want more
Speaker 1: funding for the military. And then there are Republicans who
Speaker 1: are simply against passing an omnibus. Hold together. We simply
Speaker 1: want to shut everything down. What do you think it's
Speaker 1: going to be. It's going to be this big changeover,
Speaker 1: right with this, even though Republicans have very small are
Speaker 1: going to have a very small majority, They're still going
Speaker 1: to have the majority. But it's not clear whether the
Speaker 1: Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy has enough votes to become speaker,
Speaker 1: Like we might go to the floor without knowing whether
Speaker 1: he has the votes to become speaker. It's it's it's astonishing.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, we often draw a false equivalence
Speaker 1: between the left and the right, or the far left
Speaker 1: and the far right right, but in truth, the Democratic
Speaker 1: Caucus is unified, whereas the Republican caucus has hostage. Takers
Speaker 1: were willing to hold their own leader rants by rants.
Speaker 1: You know, we would never do to our leader what
Speaker 1: the far right is doing to Kevin McCarthy. It's amusing
Speaker 1: to watch. Yeah, I do have to say, Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 1: this will be the second time Kevin McCarthy has been
Speaker 1: I mean, there may have actually been more times, but
Speaker 1: the most recent time with Paul Ryan, where he just
Speaker 1: I feel like he doesn't want to make that mistake again,
Speaker 1: where he sort of gets to the finish line and
Speaker 1: then it doesn't work. I could see him bringing it
Speaker 1: to the floor without actually knowing what he has the votes.
Speaker 1: The last time that has happened, it's probably the early century.
Speaker 1: It's sort of fascinating because when you talk to people
Speaker 1: in the pundon class about why McCarthy is going to
Speaker 1: be the speaker, and I'm and I'm thinking of people
Speaker 1: on the conservative leaning in the pundon class, they'll say, well,
Speaker 1: there's no one to challenge him. But I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that's the kind of endorsement that gets your people's votes.
Speaker 1: There's always someone waiting in line to go speakers that
Speaker 1: seems I'm persuasive to do right. And it's like the
Speaker 1: hostage takers in the Republican conference want to make an example.
Speaker 1: I want to send a message. I mean, these people
Speaker 1: are arsenals, and we have a diversity of an opinion
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Caucus, but there's no one in our
Speaker 1: caucus who's an arsenals, who's a hostage. There's no equivalent
Speaker 1: of a mac deans. Yeah, I don't know if you were.
Speaker 1: There was a really interesting opped this morning by someone
Speaker 1: who had worked in g OP leadership during the Clinton
Speaker 1: Monica stuff, and it was super interesting, and he talked
Speaker 1: about this idea of like trying to find the scandal
Speaker 1: to pin on the Democratic can you know, candidate, politician,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And he talked in this piece about this
Speaker 1: idea that they're just convinced that Hunter Biden's laptop is
Speaker 1: going to bring down Joe Biden and that that actually
Speaker 1: voters really don't like that, but that that seems very
Speaker 1: much what they're committed to doing. I mean, what do
Speaker 1: you think about that? And like, you'll be in this
Speaker 1: Congress when this happens, which should be really interesting and strange.
Speaker 1: The Republican Party, particularly the extremes of the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: are radically disconnected. For real, the mid term elections were
Speaker 1: clearly a rejection of extremism. You know, we're not for
Speaker 1: January six, We're not for the reversal, reverses weight, We're
Speaker 1: not for the extremism of the Republican Party. You might
Speaker 1: have had the makings of a traditional red weight elect Instead,
Speaker 1: the Republicans were undone at the hands of their own extremism,
Speaker 1: and instead of allowing themselves to be chastened and humbled
Speaker 1: by the results, you have people like mc gates who
Speaker 1: are doubling down on their extremes. I predict the Republicans
Speaker 1: will self destruct and we will take back the House
Speaker 1: in two years. I was thinking about this a lot,
Speaker 1: this idea that like Trump has been responsible for the
Speaker 1: loss of three elections now every swing state Trump candidate lost.
Speaker 1: But there seems to be no self reflection there. You
Speaker 1: get the sense that there is some measure frum fatigue.
Speaker 1: But you're right, the grip that Trump has on the
Speaker 1: Republican Party is not yet broken. And in fact, what
Speaker 1: I found telling, and Trump had dinner with vicious anti
Speaker 1: semis and I mean Dick Fuentis is an avowed white
Speaker 1: supremisis and Kanye West. When he had dinner with them,
Speaker 1: there were very few Republicans who are willing to speak
Speaker 1: out against There were very few Republicans who were willing
Speaker 1: to condemn Donald Trump for elevating probably the most anti
Speaker 1: Semitic voices in the United States. And so that speaks
Speaker 1: to the fear factor. That speaks to the continuing grip
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has on the psyche of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party and the terror and the fear that he strikes
Speaker 1: in the hearts of Republicans. I know you're not a psychiatrist,
Speaker 1: but do you think they're that it's just they're scared
Speaker 1: of the primary challenges and they hate male and the
Speaker 1: death threats, or do you think they really think there's
Speaker 1: no other way that they think that their base is
Speaker 1: really still very much belongs to Trump. I think it's
Speaker 1: a combination of factors. You certainly have people who are
Speaker 1: true believers, who are true adherents of trump Is, which
Speaker 1: has become a religion, and the Republican Party. There are
Speaker 1: Republicans who do recognize that Trump is a liability, you know,
Speaker 1: his endorsement is the kiss of death, but who are
Speaker 1: too afraid to speak out against them. For the reasons
Speaker 1: that you just said, he remains popular among the base
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party, and he's heavily favored to become
Speaker 1: the Republican omnique, the only person who has a fighting
Speaker 1: chance of defeating him in a Republican primaries. Rond de Santist.
Speaker 1: But no one should underestimate Trump's control of the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: and for what it's worth, I prefer him as the
Speaker 1: nominee because he's much more. But that he's so toxic.
Speaker 1: That is just like the things he does to America
Speaker 1: are not worth it. You know, I fear round the
Speaker 1: Stantis because he's a more competent warm up shop. But
Speaker 1: he plays the same game, but he can do so
Speaker 1: while appearing competent and moderate at the same time. And
Speaker 1: there's a sense in which that is more insidious, more dangerous. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes sense. So I just want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about what your plan is now. My plan is
Speaker 1: to remain Congress, but unfortunately I'm gonna join the minority,
Speaker 1: and so We're going to be part of the resistance
Speaker 1: to the extremes and accesses of a House Republican majority.
Speaker 1: I have no doubt that the Republicans will attempt to
Speaker 1: wage frivolous impeachment proceedings, particularly against my Orkists, like he's
Speaker 1: the Cabinet secretary who has become the prime target of
Speaker 1: the Republicans. I expect an endless dream of frivolous hearings
Speaker 1: about Hunter Biden. So it's going to be a painful
Speaker 1: two years, but look hopefully for fair to push back
Speaker 1: against the Republicans and fight for the American team. There
Speaker 1: will be Democrats on these committees, so the committees will
Speaker 1: remain by partisans, but the Republicans will control. Whether the
Speaker 1: Republicans controlled the House by one seat or a hundred seat,
Speaker 1: the outcome is the same. The Republicans control the speaker,
Speaker 1: will control the speakership, and will control the committees. Will
Speaker 1: they decide who go as on committees. Historically, the Republicans
Speaker 1: will determine the number of seats that the minority party
Speaker 1: gets and then leaves it to the party to decide
Speaker 1: who gets to be a member of the committee. But
Speaker 1: there's an exception. McCarthy announced that he's going to remove
Speaker 1: particular Democrats from particular committee. So he's targeting Adam Chef
Speaker 1: on the Intelligence Committee, Eric swallll on the Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: and Elano mare on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which to
Speaker 1: me is a dangerous game. Right, he's doing that as
Speaker 1: reciprocity for Marjorie Taylor Green. Right, Okay, to me, it's
Speaker 1: dangerous to remove people from committees simply because you disagree
Speaker 1: with the boy, right, because when does that end? It
Speaker 1: never stops. It's going to be an endless cycle over Talis. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, but you know, Marjorie Taylor Green didn't get
Speaker 1: removed from her committees because she was wacky. She got removed.
Speaker 1: In case of Marjorie Taylor Green, she you know, she
Speaker 1: engaged in rhetoric that incited violence, potential to incite violence,
Speaker 1: so there was unethical conduct. But you know, removing Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff from the Intelligence Committee simply because you disagree with
Speaker 1: his views on the connection between Russia and Trump, that's ridiculous. Yeah,
Speaker 1: McCarthy is, you know, is hostage to these more fringey Republicans.
Speaker 1: But in the end he might be hosted by his
Speaker 1: own right. He is also very, very stupid, which will
Speaker 1: make this even more strange and interesting. I expect the
Speaker 1: Republicans to self destruct. The party has become unhinged, it's
Speaker 1: become a cultural personality around Trump. It's becoming capable of governing.
Speaker 1: Like the irony is that democratic control of the presidency,
Speaker 1: the House, and the Senate actually led to more bipartisanship,
Speaker 1: not but also the GOP based They don't want to
Speaker 1: see that. The MATC. Gates is the Josh Holly's, the
Speaker 1: Ted Cruises of the world are content to be performers
Speaker 1: and to grant stand in front of cameras and to
Speaker 1: obstruct and oppose everything none of these people have the
Speaker 1: slightest interesting doctor which really, like, you know, if you
Speaker 1: have no interest in governing or legislating, then why become
Speaker 1: a legislator. I mean, I feel like it's like with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. They want to be a celebrity but not
Speaker 1: necessarily a legislator. And my views, you can either be
Speaker 1: a celebrity or a congress person, but in the end
Speaker 1: you cannot be Richie Torres so interesting. Very thrilled to
Speaker 1: have you keep us posted always never a dumb woman
Speaker 1: in decent Yes, come back soon. Secondly, Molly jun Fast
Speaker 1: Jesse Cannon, I saw that you spent your day doing
Speaker 1: what I did. The moment of Juckery has to be
Speaker 1: the three hour live stream that you and I both watched.
Speaker 1: I did not watch three hours. I only watched like
Speaker 1: about forty minutes. No. I tapped out what he started
Speaker 1: saying that colckwork Gards was really about the Jews. Everything
Speaker 1: is about the Jews. So for those of you who
Speaker 1: are not extremely online, and also for my dad, Hi, dad,
Speaker 1: what we're talking about is a man called Alex Jones.
Speaker 1: You know him for lying about the murders of children
Speaker 1: in Sandy Hook, Connecticut that Alex Jones had a live stream,
Speaker 1: and on it was Kanye West now called Yea spelled
Speaker 1: ye and Nick fuent as a white supremacist, and also
Speaker 1: Ali Alexander, who is most famous for his involvement in
Speaker 1: the January six riots, and also Laura Loomer and the
Speaker 1: long Panel. It was long panel where Kanye said a
Speaker 1: lot of really really, really really anti Semitic things about
Speaker 1: the Jews. Was a lot of back and forth. Probably
Speaker 1: the most absurd part of the whole thing was that
Speaker 1: Alex Jones was actually trying to tell Kanye that the
Speaker 1: Jews weren't all bad. So, you know, one of my
Speaker 1: favorite parts is when he said, come home, Kim, come
Speaker 1: home to Christ. Kanye says, Hitler invented highways and microphones.
Speaker 1: Kanye also said, I see good things about Hitler. Also,
Speaker 1: Kanye also said, as Jesse and I both watched it, Uh,
Speaker 1: he said my website is the Bible. That was one
Speaker 1: thing he said that didn't make much sense. And then
Speaker 1: another thing he said is I love Jewish people, but
Speaker 1: I also love Nazis. I like Hitler. He said, they
Speaker 1: did good things. We've got to stop dissing the Nazis
Speaker 1: all the time. To end it, he had Alie, Alexander
Speaker 1: and Alex Jones tweet to his thirty two million followers
Speaker 1: on Twitter tons of dumb things about January six prisoners. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just unbelievable. So it is our moment of factory
Speaker 1: and Jesus Christ. That's it. We didn't kill him. That's
Speaker 1: it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday to your the best minds in politics
Speaker 1: makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what
Speaker 1: you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep
Speaker 1: the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.