Speaker 1: It's sponsorship time. But you know what, it's really great
Speaker 1: when you get a sponsor that you already use.
Speaker 2: And guess what.
Speaker 1: Quint's is something that in the Todd household we already
Speaker 1: go to. Why do we go to Quint's Because it's
Speaker 1: a place you go where you can get some really
Speaker 1: nice clothes without the really expensive prices. And one of
Speaker 1: the things I've been going through is I've transitioned from
Speaker 1: being mister cot and ty guy to wanting a little
Speaker 1: more casual but to look nice doing it. Is I've
Speaker 1: become mister quarter zip guy.
Speaker 2: Well guess what.
Speaker 1: Guess he's got amazing amounts of quarter zips. It is Quints.
Speaker 1: I have gotten quite a few already from there. The
Speaker 1: stuff's really nice. They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.
Speaker 1: I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good. You don't
Speaker 1: normally get that for fifty bucks or less. Italian wool
Speaker 1: coats that look and feel like designer the stuff. I'll
Speaker 1: be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay,
Speaker 1: is this really as nice as it looks? Well, when
Speaker 1: I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I
Speaker 1: take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw
Speaker 1: it up when I clean it. But I've been quite impressed.
Speaker 1: In Hey, it's holiday season. It is impossible to shop
Speaker 1: for us middle aged men. I know this well. Tell
Speaker 1: your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners. Try Quints.
Speaker 1: Or if you're trying to figure out what to get
Speaker 1: your adult child, what to get your mom or dad,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you you're gonna find something that is going
Speaker 1: to be comfortable for them on Quints. So get your
Speaker 1: wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with quints. Don't wait,
Speaker 1: go to quins dot com slash chuck for free shipping
Speaker 1: on your order and three hundred and sixty five day
Speaker 1: returns now available in Canada as well. That's qui nce
Speaker 1: dot com, slash chuck, free shipping and three hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck.
Speaker 2: Use that code.
Speaker 1: Hello there, Happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast. So got another loaded show today. The
Speaker 1: guest is a gentleman named Jeff Clements. He's part of
Speaker 1: an organization called American Promise. They are an organization that
Speaker 1: is campaigning a state by state to get I think
Speaker 1: they're up to twenty three state legislatures right now to
Speaker 1: approve a constitutional amendment that would allow for regulation of
Speaker 1: the financing of campaigns. Essentially thanks to Citizens United and
Speaker 1: thanks to the belief in our judiciary system that money
Speaker 1: is speech that without a constitutional amendment, there really is
Speaker 1: no law that will successfully sort of get through the
Speaker 1: courts and pass muster in order to limit the influence
Speaker 1: of money. I think the debate about the First Amendment
Speaker 1: is I think we are having a debate about amplification
Speaker 1: of your right to free speech. I think we all
Speaker 1: agree everybody's a right to free speech.
Speaker 2: The question is.
Speaker 1: Who's got the right to amplify who should have access
Speaker 1: to amplification? How does that work? If you will, And
Speaker 1: it's pretty simple. Well, we go through it quite a bit.
Speaker 1: As you know. I've one of if I have a
Speaker 1: pattern of guests that I will that I will default to.
Speaker 1: It is those that are looking to improve the infrastructure
Speaker 1: of the democracy. I've had a conversation about open primaries
Speaker 1: and how do we get rid of partisan primaries. In
Speaker 1: this case, I think there is agreement that we've gotten
Speaker 1: sort of you know, we don't know how to do
Speaker 1: anything anymore in moderation, right, we take a little thing
Speaker 1: and we go to an extreme, right. I mean we
Speaker 1: do this in society all the time. We should pay
Speaker 1: players in college sports, yes, but the system we created
Speaker 1: creates all sorts of essentially absurdities in the market. Should
Speaker 1: sports betting be open to all fifty states instead of
Speaker 1: the state of Nevada? I think we thought, okay, that's fair.
Speaker 1: How we've allowed this system to populate and sort of
Speaker 1: consume the lives of some people is kind of out
Speaker 1: of control, right, every we go from we have a
Speaker 1: system that seems to only know how to regulate when
Speaker 1: we let things go to excess, right, We don't seem
Speaker 1: to know how to do it that way. So in
Speaker 1: this case, I think we all know now money and
Speaker 1: politics has gotten crazy. Just to give you a sense
Speaker 1: of it. In twenty twelve, I had this idea at
Speaker 1: NBC to audit the two presidential campaigns after the fact,
Speaker 1: Obama and Romney. And my thesis was, this was the
Speaker 1: first time that both campaigns each spent a billion dollars.
Speaker 1: It's the first billion dollar campaign. Obama had a billion,
Speaker 1: Romney had kind of just under a billion, but if
Speaker 1: you throw in all the outside money, it was Basically
Speaker 1: it was the first time we had a billion. To
Speaker 1: put that in perspective. In two thousand, both Al Gore
Speaker 1: and George W. Bush were within state, within the system,
Speaker 1: which meant it was publicly funded general election campaigns. Bush
Speaker 1: did not take public funding during his primary campaign, but
Speaker 1: he did during his general election campaign. Basically, it limited
Speaker 1: both sides to sixty five million dollars, so we more
Speaker 1: than ten x from the general election in twenty to
Speaker 1: twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: Well where are we today?
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty five, North Carolina is likely to be
Speaker 1: the first billion dollar Senate race. So in twenty twelve
Speaker 1: we had a billion. We had one campaign spending a
Speaker 1: billion dollars, so it combined two billion dollars. And now
Speaker 1: we're gonna have one singular US Senate race. They might
Speaker 1: not even decide the balance of power in the United
Speaker 1: States Senate. Okay, cost a billion dollars. So we have
Speaker 1: gotten to absurd degrees of money. And I think everybody's
Speaker 1: fine with small donors populating these things. You're not going
Speaker 1: to see many people say that that's a bad idea.
Speaker 1: It's the large donations. It's the anonymity of the large donations, etc.
Speaker 1: It is the idea that an outside group can essentially
Speaker 1: spend more than the two actual campaigns combined, and they
Speaker 1: can decide what the agenda is, not the actual voter
Speaker 1: powered campaign. So, you know, we have created a system
Speaker 1: that is definitely in need of some sort of regulation.
Speaker 1: Congress is actually tried, but the courts have said they're
Speaker 1: all unconstitutional. So if that's the case, then there really
Speaker 1: is only one answer on the on campaign finance, and
Speaker 1: it is that is that's why if you believe in
Speaker 1: term limits, well those have all been struck down as unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: It was a big movement in the nineties. A bunch
Speaker 1: of states past term limits for members of Congress. None
Speaker 1: of them pass constitutional muster because once you put in
Speaker 1: age required, you know, it's sort of that was the
Speaker 1: only there was. The only requirement was age in the constitution,
Speaker 1: and so they were not considered constitutional. If you want
Speaker 1: term limits in, you're going to have to put a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment in. We have one constitutional amendment that has
Speaker 1: to do with term limits. It's term limits for the presidency.
Speaker 1: So there are certain things where the judiciary decided to
Speaker 1: overrule the legislative branch. And when it turns when it
Speaker 1: comes to campaign finance laws, the judiciary has written the legislation.
Speaker 1: They are legislating from the bench. There is nobody that
Speaker 1: passed a law wanting super PACs. There is nobody that
Speaker 1: passed the law that wanted unlimited money in politics. Those
Speaker 1: laws did not pass, they were interpreted after legal rulings.
Speaker 1: And so I think the case to put in to
Speaker 1: put this in and it's interesting and you'll hear I
Speaker 1: don't think this is you know, this gets you know,
Speaker 1: we get to the you know where each party on this.
Speaker 1: But there's an argument for both conservatives and progressives that
Speaker 1: you want to you want to you want a fair fight,
Speaker 1: and the way we finance our campaigns makes it where
Speaker 1: there is no such thing as a as a fair fight.
Speaker 1: So that's the conversation. I kind of think we're we're, uh,
Speaker 1: we're on the cusp, as I've said before, where we're
Speaker 1: going to get more and more interest in doing this
Speaker 1: with our constitution. Can we get thirty eight states interested?
Speaker 1: Can you get Congress to pass a law anyway? We
Speaker 1: go through all the mechanics of this as well as
Speaker 1: the larger idea with Jeff. I think it's for those
Speaker 1: of you concerned about that issue, I think you will
Speaker 1: enjoy that conversation. I'm also going to have my top
Speaker 1: five list, and for those of you looking for a
Speaker 1: holiday guide. In some ways, my Top five list will
Speaker 1: serve a bit as a holiday guide buying guide for
Speaker 1: the for the person who wants to feel extraordinarily well
Speaker 1: informed about the zeitgeist of the world and of America.
Speaker 1: I hope my Top five list will do that for you.
Speaker 1: But before we begin, I want to pick up on
Speaker 1: something that I did it, you know, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: we're in one of those moments where we're trying to
Speaker 1: figure out does this latest outrage mean anything, And of
Speaker 1: course the outrage being you know, Donald Trump's just horrendous
Speaker 1: comments about Rob Reiner and his wife and the death
Speaker 1: and the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife. And
Speaker 1: you know, in some ways it's not a new debate,
Speaker 1: right Donald Trump has put us in this position before.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has embarrassed us collectively as a country, collectively,
Speaker 1: as a society, collectively as a human species. Right he
Speaker 1: just this is what he does. And I know that
Speaker 1: we've been at these moments before or where he says
Speaker 1: something so outrageous, Well this, you know, nobody can survive this, well,
Speaker 1: nobody other than Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: He seems to be teflon don on just about everything,
Speaker 1: but the reaction on this one he has been fascinating
Speaker 1: because it seemed as if it was a bridge too
Speaker 1: far for a lot of people. And what he did,
Speaker 1: especially so soon after the Charlie Kirk assassination, so soon after,
Speaker 1: so many on the right targeted anybody who said anything
Speaker 1: remotely negative about Charlie Kirk, you know, in some cases,
Speaker 1: got him doxed, got him fired, cost them jobs, And
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden, we have behavior modeled by
Speaker 1: the President of the United States that if anybody else
Speaker 1: behaved this way in the workplace, they'd be fired. Of course,
Speaker 1: he's done this multiple times, right, this is not the
Speaker 1: first time he's done something that if any of us
Speaker 1: did it, it would cost us our marriage, it would
Speaker 1: cost us relationships, it would cost us our jobs, it
Speaker 1: would cost us our cost us our you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: our whatever place we feel like we are in society,
Speaker 1: you know, we might be shunned, we might be ostracized,
Speaker 1: and frankly, in some of the behavior you know that
Speaker 1: is that is it's sometimes the only the only thing
Speaker 1: we have. You'd be shamed, right, We know that the
Speaker 1: real superpower of Donald Trump is shamelessness. It's fascinating to
Speaker 1: see on the heels of this story because I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what, really what I couldn't shake with the with
Speaker 1: the Reiner story with Trump. As appalling as the first
Speaker 1: tweet was, it was the second it was the second
Speaker 1: time he dealt with it when he when he sort
Speaker 1: of reinforced the tweet on camera. Because I actually think
Speaker 1: that this space signal a larger, more alarming issue that
Speaker 1: if we take seriously people's concerns about Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: his loan term, then we need to start taking seriously
Speaker 1: about whether he's all there and how quickly you know
Speaker 1: you're going to it's going to sound like I'm trolling him,
Speaker 1: but you know, at what point is his behavior twenty
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment alarming type of behavior? Because think about it
Speaker 1: this way, there's probably two things that may have happened
Speaker 1: in between Donald Trump tweeting what he did on social
Speaker 1: on his truth social platform and reiterating what he said
Speaker 1: on camera about Rob Reiner. One would two things happened
Speaker 1: or didn't happen, right, Either somebody said to him, perhaps
Speaker 1: it was the chief of staff, Suzie Wiles. We're going
Speaker 1: to get to her in a minute, but perhaps it
Speaker 1: was said, hey, you know at the Reiner stuffs, they'd
Speaker 1: be careful that didn't you know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: you intended to say.
Speaker 2: It didn't play well.
Speaker 1: Why don't you you know, express just straight up condolences
Speaker 1: and sort of, you know, move on, or nobody said anything.
Speaker 2: Either.
Speaker 1: Either potential outcome is alarming to me. Why is it
Speaker 1: alarming because either he was told don't do it again,
Speaker 1: and he did it anyway, and he is that sort
Speaker 1: of stubborn that caught up in his own filter bubble,
Speaker 1: that delusional, right, or nobody has the guts to tell him, hey,
Speaker 1: this is not good. Don't do it, don't talk about it.
Speaker 2: Don't say it.
Speaker 1: That's so either way, you have to ask yourself, oh
Speaker 1: my god, what's going on here? And for me, it
Speaker 1: is a different Donald Trump, you know, I know. So
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden, when you know, as folks started making
Speaker 1: the case asking questions about whether Biden was the same Biden,
Speaker 1: you would show Biden clips doing interviews in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, even twenty sixteen, and you would see, my god,
Speaker 1: that's not even the same Joe Biden as twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: That's it was my impression. I spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time at Joe Biden in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty
Speaker 1: before the pandemic, and I thought he had definitely slowed down.
Speaker 1: It was the same Joe Biden, but an older version,
Speaker 1: and he definitely seemed to lack the same energy he
Speaker 1: once had. He wasn't the glad hander. He was certainly
Speaker 1: a talker, but he wasn't as fast as a.
Speaker 2: Talker, you know.
Speaker 1: There was definitely And then the difference between Joe Biden
Speaker 1: circa twenty nineteen and circa twenty twenty three was even
Speaker 1: more so. But the real contrast was between the Joe
Speaker 1: Biden that I covered in the Obama era and the
Speaker 1: Joe Biden that I was covering for the one term
Speaker 1: of his presidency.
Speaker 2: It was a big difference.
Speaker 1: So in some way the questions were natural, Hey, he's
Speaker 1: definitely getting older, you know, the younger Joe Biden would
Speaker 1: be traveling the country. Why isn't older Joe Biden traveling?
Speaker 1: And it was you know, they never wanted to say
Speaker 1: it was because he can't, or because he gets tired,
Speaker 1: or because they don't you know, it was always some
Speaker 1: other excuse and things like that. It was definitely some
Speaker 1: form of a you know, you can call it a
Speaker 1: cover up, but it was definitely, you know, it was
Speaker 1: definitely some form of rationalization for why there is they were.
Speaker 1: They were certainly concerned and sensitive to the age issue,
Speaker 1: sensitive to the idea that he wasn't and they were
Speaker 1: kind of always trying to push back on this idea
Speaker 1: that he wasn't up to the child, up to the job,
Speaker 1: or as energetic as he once was. With Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: it's admittedly a little bit harder, right because you know,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has had erratic behavior for years. Right, this
Speaker 1: is not new his erratic behavior. And so as the
Speaker 1: title of my substack goes, how will we know? Right,
Speaker 1: we had a clear idea that something had changed about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden because his speech text had changed. His energy
Speaker 1: levels were clearly different. He was you know, more spry,
Speaker 1: he was walking, he was younger, you know, all those things.
Speaker 1: There were physical changes that you couldn't ignore and the
Speaker 1: public side, right some eight you know, that's why the
Speaker 1: numbers were consistently in the seventies and eighties, you know,
Speaker 1: which is why I've just sort of, you know, the
Speaker 1: false narrative that somehow the media was covering this up?
Speaker 1: What is there to cover up? Media was the one
Speaker 1: asking pole questions. Do I think there were some within
Speaker 1: the White House Press score that could have been more aggressive? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: But I kind of think, you know, we you know,
Speaker 1: it's not like the media didn't show the footage. It's
Speaker 1: not like the media didn't let you know he was
Speaker 1: taking the short staircase. It's not like the med you know,
Speaker 1: media didn't show you him shuffling around and tripping over sandbags, things.
Speaker 2: Like that with trumpets. Admittedly a little harder.
Speaker 1: Right, you know, when you see him behave erratically, you know,
Speaker 1: but this was a moment with the Reiner thing where
Speaker 1: ten years ago, you know, Donald Trump is no more
Speaker 1: or less narcissistic today than he was ten years ago.
Speaker 1: But ten years ago he was still sensitive to what
Speaker 1: the public thought of him, and he didn't quite live
Speaker 1: in his own bubble is filtered bubble that is more
Speaker 1: so today than he's ever had before. He's got surrounded
Speaker 1: by yes people and sycophans, who don't want I don't
Speaker 1: think want to present him with the with reality if
Speaker 1: reality the only show him reality when reality looks good
Speaker 1: for him. They don't show him reality when it paints
Speaker 1: an ugly picture for him. And so he definitely seems
Speaker 1: more detached from reality today than he did when he
Speaker 1: first entered the political arena. But you know, the Donald
Speaker 1: Trump of ten years ago, when a celebrity died, his
Speaker 1: narcissism would put him, would sort of link him up.
Speaker 1: He would say, you know I was in his movies,
Speaker 1: or you know I was able. You know, he's most
Speaker 1: and in this case with Michelle Reiner who took the photo,
Speaker 1: who was the photographer for the Art of the Deal
Speaker 1: photo that Donald Trump posed for back in the eighties,
Speaker 1: you know, the old Donald Trump, the guy who was
Speaker 1: you know, just as shameless, but in that sort of
Speaker 1: I've got something to sell you shamelessness would have said, boy,
Speaker 1: her career would have been nothing without me, Her career
Speaker 1: wouldn't have happened without me. They in some ways that
Speaker 1: would have been the normal. Oh boy, there he goes, putting,
Speaker 1: making everything about himself, which he always does, but sort
Speaker 1: of within his own weird semi positively, it would at
Speaker 1: least try to say, hey, they were successful, but he
Speaker 1: would try to take credit for their success. This time,
Speaker 1: he's in this really ugly place right where he just assumes,
Speaker 1: you know, because by the way, imagine like, you know,
Speaker 1: he because there's another alternative here that he said that
Speaker 1: because he feared one of his supporters did this, which
Speaker 1: in itself is such a warped version of thinking. Right,
Speaker 1: can you imagine that he actually said it because that's
Speaker 1: what he thought was going to be the case, That
Speaker 1: in itself is troubling behavior. But you know, he's an
Speaker 1: eighty year old man, and any of us with older
Speaker 1: relatives have experienced the older relative with no filter or
Speaker 1: with less filter who doesn't feel like they have to
Speaker 1: round the edges of commentary anymore, that they can just well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, man, Grandpa's got to be grandpa, grandma's
Speaker 1: got to be grandma, uncle's got to be uncle. Ann's
Speaker 1: going to etcetera, etcetera. But he's president of the United States,
Speaker 1: and we don't know when he blurts one of these
Speaker 1: bizarre things that he says in front of a world
Speaker 1: leader that actually changes the nature of our relationship with
Speaker 1: said country. These are things that should concern us and
Speaker 1: if you were is you know, do we have and
Speaker 1: given what we just learned with the Vanity Fair story
Speaker 1: that you know, it's funny with the Vanity Fair story,
Speaker 1: it sort of confirms everything that I'd been hearing about
Speaker 1: the role Susie Wilds plays that she is try She
Speaker 1: is the sort of the reality you know, she's the
Speaker 1: reality check. But she's got a light touch, right, She's
Speaker 1: kind of a she sees things the way most normal
Speaker 1: people see things. But she's gonna let the process play
Speaker 1: out and just clean up the worst messes, you know,
Speaker 1: just try to try to steer a choppy shift a
Speaker 1: ship through choppy waters. And you know, they've sort of
Speaker 1: given up on the small stuff, and I think they
Speaker 1: would put mean tweets under the category of small stuff.
Speaker 1: Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
Speaker 1: personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
Speaker 1: We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
Speaker 1: the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow, myself
Speaker 1: sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
Speaker 1: pay for college? And lo and behold, my dad had
Speaker 1: one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,
Speaker 1: but it was important at the time, and it's why
Speaker 1: I was able to go to college. Little did he
Speaker 1: know how important that would be in that moment. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what. That's why I am here to tell you
Speaker 1: about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of
Speaker 1: mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst
Speaker 1: comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes
Speaker 1: getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect
Speaker 1: your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process,
Speaker 1: and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam
Speaker 1: require you just answer a few health questions online. You
Speaker 1: can get a quote in as little as ten minutes,
Speaker 1: and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving
Speaker 1: your home. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage, and some policies start as low as two
Speaker 1: dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of
Speaker 1: March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number
Speaker 1: one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect
Speaker 1: your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free
Speaker 1: quote at ethos dot com slash chuck so again, that's
Speaker 1: Ethos dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary, and
Speaker 1: the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me,
Speaker 1: life insurance is something you should really think about it,
Speaker 1: especially if you've got a growing family. To me, it's
Speaker 1: an alarming moment where you have to start the question
Speaker 1: is he all there all the time? Is he so
Speaker 1: consumed with himself? The fact that he can't concentrate all
Speaker 1: the time? I bet the fact that in the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal interview, he's doing an interview and then he
Speaker 1: takes a call, and then the Interior Secretary, Doug Bergram,
Speaker 1: wants to talk with him about remodeling the DC golf courses,
Speaker 1: and you're what what And you're in the middle of
Speaker 1: doing this interview. I mean, I appreciate that the journal
Speaker 1: people told us about that. I mean, I think it's
Speaker 1: a terrible look politically that he cares more about redesigning Washington,
Speaker 1: DC's three public golf courses than he does about lowering
Speaker 1: the price of electricity or lowering the price of groceries, right,
Speaker 1: like you could those TV ads right themselves. But that's
Speaker 1: also another sign of of sort of you know, where
Speaker 1: you can't keep concentration, you can't keep focus that you're
Speaker 1: sort of that you're erratic. Now again, he's kind of
Speaker 1: been this way all the time, So it is going
Speaker 1: to be harder. While it was easier us for us
Speaker 1: to see sort of the the you know, we could
Speaker 1: just see boy Biden used to be this, Now he's this.
Speaker 1: That evolution of Trump is harder to fully appreciate because
Speaker 1: he's kind of always been kind of outrageous, He'll always say,
Speaker 1: but it was sort of it felt like it was
Speaker 1: planned outrage in twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen. This
Speaker 1: feels a lot more sort of unfiltered, unpasteurized, if you will,
Speaker 1: on this front. But my point is is that for
Speaker 1: all of those folks on the right that we're concerned
Speaker 1: about whether or not the staff was running things, whether
Speaker 1: it's about Joe Biden's faculties were all there, I would
Speaker 1: argue the behavior we've seen of this president, particularly over
Speaker 1: the last few months, given his age, given how quickly
Speaker 1: this stuff happens. I mean, look, we are not getting
Speaker 1: a straight story about his current health. You don't go
Speaker 1: through as many he's had I think three annual physicals
Speaker 1: this year. You get my point, right, That's what they
Speaker 1: keep calling him, he keeps going back. They keep calling
Speaker 1: a routine you know, you know, it's not routine going
Speaker 1: back to the doctor more than once a year. I mean,
Speaker 1: something out of the ordinary that they're concerned about the
Speaker 1: fact that, you know, he seemed to tell us that
Speaker 1: the last time he took a one of these cognitive tests,
Speaker 1: there was an audience. That's interesting. Why was there an audience?
Speaker 1: Why were there so many people observing this? What was
Speaker 1: the concern? Were there more experts that were brought in?
Speaker 1: It is, there is something different, and there is more
Speaker 1: You can feel the sort of concern about I don't know,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not going you know, there's fear of
Speaker 1: ever contradicting him. There's fear of pushing back at him.
Speaker 1: There's fear of telling him news he doesn't want to hear.
Speaker 1: These were all concerned that people had on the right,
Speaker 1: in particular with Joe Biden in twenty twenty three and
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. So again, if you're looking to to
Speaker 1: find out who's high on the hypocrisy scale of concern,
Speaker 1: you know, watch the people that express the most concern
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden's faculties. See pretty much everybody in primetime
Speaker 1: on Fox News and ask them if this behavior were
Speaker 1: at all being you know, if this were Biden a
Speaker 1: second term of Biden behaving this way, I wonder what
Speaker 1: the coverage would be on primetime of Fox right. But
Speaker 1: in all, you know, snark aside, this unfiltered behavior is
Speaker 1: alarming for either one of two things. One, he was
Speaker 1: told this is not good and he still can't help himself,
Speaker 1: which means he's got a self control issue. He's got
Speaker 1: a staff so afraid of telling him bad news that
Speaker 1: they won't do it, and therefore he was why he
Speaker 1: ended up doubling down on this in the first place.
Speaker 1: Whatever the answer is, neither is good for the country.
Speaker 1: Neither is good, by the way, for the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And I'll ask you know, if JD. Van's and Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio right, they're going to have to they want to
Speaker 1: succeed this presidency, one of them does. Look at how
Speaker 1: unhappy the voters are with the Democratic Party, even though
Speaker 1: they're voting for Democrats right now. Right, we saw this
Speaker 1: in Virginia, majority had an unfavorable view of the party. Well,
Speaker 1: what's driven that? What what's driven that? Was this idea
Speaker 1: that they all had their head in the sand when
Speaker 1: it came to Biden in twenty twenty four. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of resentment among Democrats for how Democratic leaders
Speaker 1: look the other way when there was an obvious, slow
Speaker 1: motion train wreck taking place with the vot voters were
Speaker 1: concerned about long before there was a debate between Trump
Speaker 1: and Biden on June twenty seventh, twenty twenty four. The
Speaker 1: voters have been pretty angry about it. You know, I
Speaker 1: think if you want to know why there's such limited
Speaker 1: trust in Chuck Schumer by fellow Democrats and Akeem Jeffries,
Speaker 1: it's the entire Democratic leaders in Washington are just seen
Speaker 1: as somehow they were in kahoots and they had their
Speaker 1: head in the sand when it came to the Biden thing. Well,
Speaker 1: these same voters are going to have the same reaction
Speaker 1: if it appears that Trump progressively gets worse, his behavior
Speaker 1: gets more erratic, you have sort of more you know,
Speaker 1: enablers not wanting to either say something, and you know
Speaker 1: we're finding out today. Look the few sober quotes that
Speaker 1: Susie Wiles did give a reporter and this case a
Speaker 1: biographer and Chris Whipple. She didn't like what it looked
Speaker 1: like once they went public, and there's a fear that
Speaker 1: the president can't handle any sort of criticism or analytical criticism,
Speaker 1: or even just sort of acknowledging when there are tough
Speaker 1: moments or when there are awkward things that happen in
Speaker 1: the administration, which only serves to concern me that when
Speaker 1: you really need somebody to step in, are they going
Speaker 1: to be willing to do it? Are they going to
Speaker 1: be willing to say, hey, man, the emperor has no
Speaker 1: clothes here. We have got to acknowledge this. We cannot
Speaker 1: continue to pretend this isn't happening. I think it's a
Speaker 1: legitimate concern, and I think in some ways the president's
Speaker 1: own behavior, the odd things he has said about his
Speaker 1: own health, and then the erratic nature of what he
Speaker 1: did with Reiner and some other folks. I think this
Speaker 1: is a storyline that's only going to grow. And you know,
Speaker 1: he's not getting younger, This is not going to get better.
Speaker 1: This is only going to become more obvious. Look, we
Speaker 1: don't see him travel the country, and I think there's
Speaker 1: a reason for it. Right, just like with Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: you got to ask yourself, boy, Normally in a president
Speaker 1: in this situation would be traveling the country to try
Speaker 1: to sell his agenda and he's not doing it.
Speaker 2: Why is that right?
Speaker 1: That is what began the conversation for folks who were
Speaker 1: concerned about whether Biden was up to the job. Certainly
Speaker 1: not up for a second term. He couldn't do the
Speaker 1: job to self to sell his agenda in the first term. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we've entered that same situation. And again, if
Speaker 1: you were truly concerned about Biden because of his physical
Speaker 1: ailments and not due to your own politics, then you
Speaker 1: should be equally alarmed by the currents situation with our
Speaker 1: current president and the situation that he's in. Now. All right,
Speaker 1: before I go to my interview, I want to share
Speaker 1: with you a poll that came to me via the
Speaker 1: search Light Institute. Now, if you recall that may seem
Speaker 1: familiar to some of you listeners out there, I had
Speaker 1: interviewed the founder of search Light Institute, which is search
Speaker 1: Light is the hometown search Light, Nevada is the hometown
Speaker 1: of Harry Reid. Adam Gentilssen, of former Harry Reid staffer,
Speaker 1: started this up and it's basically an attempt to try
Speaker 1: to move the Democratic Party in a more pragmatic direction.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even say ideologically moderate, just more of a
Speaker 1: mainstream sort of try to make the party more big
Speaker 1: ten again between progressive in the center a little bit
Speaker 1: and so. But they did a poll on corruption, and
Speaker 1: why I find it interesting, it's sort of it was
Speaker 1: sort of the question is what is corrupt? What do
Speaker 1: the voters think is corrupt versus sort of what the
Speaker 1: definition perhaps we in the media have, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: when I say think of the word corrupt, I think
Speaker 1: of like, who's ripping off taxpayers? Right? But what's interesting
Speaker 1: is what the voters themselves view as corrupt. And they
Speaker 1: asked a terrific question, and the question was this, if
Speaker 1: you describe a politician as corrupt, what are you saying
Speaker 1: about them? And then they offer, please select one that
Speaker 1: comes closest to your view, and the number one answer
Speaker 1: was not somebody that was stealing taxpayer dollars. It was
Speaker 1: using public office for personal financial gain.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That could mean insider trading on stocks. That could mean
Speaker 1: finding out that you're buying a piece of property that's
Speaker 1: about to be zone for a government funded highway or
Speaker 1: something like this, that somehow your net worth grows that
Speaker 1: your own relatives get to start a lobbying business and
Speaker 1: use your last name to get on a board, say
Speaker 1: with a company in Ukraine, or they use your last
Speaker 1: name to start a meme coin and you make money
Speaker 1: off of the crypto market. Jeez, I don't know what
Speaker 1: two families might might have qualified for that, but that
Speaker 1: was the number one definition of corrupt. The number two
Speaker 1: most popular definition of corrupt politician was this they change
Speaker 1: rules to hold onto power instead of improving lives. Well,
Speaker 1: basically that's re redistricting. They simply want to pick voters,
Speaker 1: pick voters that they don't have to persuade. They pick
Speaker 1: more voters that are already on their side, so they
Speaker 1: don't have to do the hard work of representative democracy.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That was the second most popular. The third most popular
Speaker 1: definition was they only serve wealthy donors instead of regular people. Well,
Speaker 1: I just told you about we're going to have our
Speaker 1: first billion dollar center rights. Do you think that ten
Speaker 1: dollars donor to a Senate race as much as one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollar or even the one the ten million
Speaker 1: dollar donor I've had. I've had donor sources of mine
Speaker 1: who only give six figure donations okay, which for just
Speaker 1: about all of us, writing a check for one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars or more is a lot of money. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know, that's purchasing a home type of money that
Speaker 1: you write that to send your kid to college type
Speaker 1: of money. And they're considered they're not considered big donors anymore.
Speaker 1: They're just considered middle class donors.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: You know, a lawmaker will spend a lot more time
Speaker 1: persuading that finding a ten one ten million dollar donor
Speaker 1: then they will looking for one thousand, one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollar donors because that's you know, it's the law of efficiency.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The fourth most popular is they let corporate influence overwhelm
Speaker 1: the influence of voters. Arguably that's arguably the big donors.
Speaker 1: And then in the single digits you have they trade
Speaker 1: favors with lobbyists or special interests. They cater only to
Speaker 1: the extremes that don't look out for everyone. What's interesting
Speaker 1: is that none of the definitions were they steal money.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So the point is is that what the word you know,
Speaker 1: and I it is what the voters think is corrupt
Speaker 1: is fascinating, and I think that it is in some ways.
Speaker 1: It is sort of like you're you're you're ripping off
Speaker 1: the democracy, right. And what I appreciate about this about
Speaker 1: where the donors are the voters are on this. Listen
Speaker 1: to me, the donors the voters are on this, is
Speaker 1: that they're a little more sophisticated on what's corrupt. They
Speaker 1: say that, hey, that that corrupts the democracy, that gets
Speaker 1: in the way of you representing the average person. And
Speaker 1: this is a case where the voters are ahead of
Speaker 1: the politicians, right. The politicians don't speak of corruption this way. Right,
Speaker 1: they speak of corruption like breaking the law, corruption thinking,
Speaker 1: because I think they're all afraid that if you define
Speaker 1: corruption the way the public defines it, which is profiting,
Speaker 1: you know, having you know, essentially personal financial gain while
Speaker 1: serving in office, you know, trying to just stay into office,
Speaker 1: always worrying about raising money, always catering to donors. A
Speaker 1: lot of politicians, if you said, do you think that's corrupt, like, wow,
Speaker 1: the system's corrupt, but I'm not, you know, they might
Speaker 1: blame the system.
Speaker 2: They wish they wouldn't do it that way.
Speaker 1: But the fact that voters think this is anyway just
Speaker 1: it's interesting and it also tells me that voters are man,
Speaker 1: the pitchforks are out, the pitchforks are ready, and I
Speaker 1: don't think.
Speaker 2: I do not think.
Speaker 1: Large corporations and the tech industry is aware of this
Speaker 1: and is ready for what's coming. And I certainly think
Speaker 1: leaders in both parties don't fully appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Here's another question that came through that I want to
Speaker 2: share it.
Speaker 1: How well do you think government serves each of the
Speaker 1: following groups? Okay, the very wealthy, eighty six percent said
Speaker 1: they think government serves the very wealthy somewhat or very well,
Speaker 1: eighty six percent. About businesses, all right, seventy four percent
Speaker 1: say the government serves it serves businesses somewhat or very well.
Speaker 1: How about racial and ethnic minorities, Well, guess what, Only
Speaker 1: thirty six percent believe government serves them well. Fifty seven
Speaker 1: percent believes they do not serve racial or ethnic minorities
Speaker 1: very well at all, or not well at all completely
Speaker 1: or not not well completely all. How about you personally?
Speaker 1: You personally, that number is thirty is just under forty percent.
Speaker 1: So this isn't one of those cases where well, I
Speaker 1: think Congress is, but I like my member of Congress,
Speaker 1: I don't think Congress looks out for the interest of
Speaker 1: everybody else, but they also look out for me. Nope,
Speaker 1: you know they most people think they they're served slightly
Speaker 1: better in government than racial and ethnic minorities, but not
Speaker 1: too well. And then when you throw out ordinary people,
Speaker 1: that number is.
Speaker 2: That means.
Speaker 1: Three and four voters believe ordinary people are not served
Speaker 1: well at all in some form or another by government.
Speaker 2: What it tells you is that there's a.
Speaker 1: There's an appetite out there for government reform, for democracy reform.
Speaker 1: You just have to frame it in a way that
Speaker 1: just say, hey, do you want government to serve you better?
Speaker 1: This is why it doesn't serve you well. The system
Speaker 1: is rigged against you, which I think the folks believe
Speaker 1: the system is rigged against them. They just have yet
Speaker 1: to find a politician that has sold them a struck
Speaker 1: sure that makes sense and that they believe will work.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That I think is the missing piece here, right. Bertie
Speaker 1: Sanders and a Donald Trump have convinced seventy percent of
Speaker 1: America that the system's rigged against them. Okay, that's that's
Speaker 1: the beginning. What there is an agreement on is whether
Speaker 1: government itself is redeemable to do it, and whether it's
Speaker 1: you're going to need a singular individual.
Speaker 2: That's what Donald Trump believes that.
Speaker 1: You can't the system can't be trusted to do it,
Speaker 1: versus Bertie Sanders, who said, well, you got topend the
Speaker 1: entire system, but then the system can be can be
Speaker 1: can be trusted on this. Here's one more question to
Speaker 1: share with you, just to show you.
Speaker 2: The definition of how.
Speaker 1: Much corruption do you think there is in the Trump administration? Well,
Speaker 1: among independents, forty percent said there's a great deal and
Speaker 1: another twelve percent said there's a moderate amount. So fifty
Speaker 1: two percent said there's at least a great deal or
Speaker 1: a moderate amount of coruption in the Trump administration. And
Speaker 1: if you throw in the nine percent that say a
Speaker 1: small amount, right, so there's only thirty nine percent says
Speaker 1: that there's no corruption at all in the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: All right, but guess what how much corruption do you
Speaker 1: think there was in the Biden administration? Well, twenty eight
Speaker 1: percent said there was a great deal, another thirteen percent
Speaker 1: said there was a moderate amount, another twelve percent said
Speaker 1: there was a small amount, Which means you had a
Speaker 1: majority that believed there was some corruption. You only had
Speaker 1: forty seven percent. So you have thirty nine percent believe
Speaker 1: there's no corruption in Trump administration, and you have forty
Speaker 1: seven percent believing there's no corruption. This is just among independents,
Speaker 1: but a majority of independents believe there's some form of
Speaker 1: corruption in the Biden administration. A majority of independents say
Speaker 1: there's some form of corruption in the Trump administration. Look,
Speaker 1: the point they're trying to say. I think the point
Speaker 1: that Searchlight is trying to say is we look framing.
Speaker 1: Framing reform issues through the lens of corruption might get
Speaker 1: people's attention better. Right, if you talk about the financing
Speaker 1: of campaigns through a through the prism of corruption. If
Speaker 1: you talk about the lack of regulation of big tech
Speaker 1: through the prism of corruption, if you talk about entrenched
Speaker 1: power in term limits through the prism of corruption, you're
Speaker 1: more likely to get an audience to listen to you,
Speaker 1: and most importantly, you're going to be able to talk
Speaker 1: to the voters who are the most skeptical of the
Speaker 1: two parties right now, those that are self described independence
Speaker 1: are no parties. So anyway, in this moment that we're
Speaker 1: living in, right, we're basically, you know, we've got back
Speaker 1: to back presidencies where we're not quite sure that the
Speaker 1: actual president you know, is up to the job, you know,
Speaker 1: has the temperament of the faculties to do the job
Speaker 1: the way it needs to be done. You also then
Speaker 1: have a growing coalition of voters that are believing the
Speaker 1: system itself is rotting. And this is this Look.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's about.
Speaker 1: Affordability at home, and in order to speak to a
Speaker 1: certain segment of voters, you're going to have to make
Speaker 1: it about that. But connecting the struggle to affordability through
Speaker 1: corruption is potentially a potent force. And I will just
Speaker 1: tell you this. Anytime we've had big changes in election,
Speaker 1: big midterm waves, there's always been an element of corruption
Speaker 1: that has helped fuel it. You know, in nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 1: we had members of Congress. We were just two years
Speaker 1: removed from a check where members of Congress could bounce
Speaker 1: checks without having a bank account. It was just weird
Speaker 1: system where only Congress could write checks for money that
Speaker 1: they didn't have.
Speaker 2: It was crazy.
Speaker 1: And if you want to know more about it, you know,
Speaker 1: I'll go back on my time machine in a couple
Speaker 1: months we'll talk about it. But but go take a
Speaker 1: look in two thousand and six, there was sort of
Speaker 1: the corruption of Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay was that
Speaker 1: arguably in twenty ten and in twenty fourteen, Republicans were
Speaker 1: using more of sort of the fear of sort of
Speaker 1: the growth of government. It was less so less so
Speaker 1: corruption fueling that one. But when you see for the
Speaker 1: most our corruption usually plays role, especially when you see
Speaker 1: a total flip. Right ninety four, both the House that
Speaker 1: Republicans went, both the House and the Senate. There was this,
Speaker 1: you know, movement for term limits, movement for against entrenched power.
Speaker 1: You had the check bouncing scandal, et cetera. Two thousand
Speaker 1: and six also saw both houses flip. In this case
Speaker 1: it was Republican a Democrat, you know, the addition of
Speaker 1: the Jack Abramoff stuff and sort of the takeover of
Speaker 1: K Street.
Speaker 2: You know that had it.
Speaker 1: And I do think that is a potential potent force
Speaker 1: here if if Democrats figure out how to tap into
Speaker 1: it in a credible way. Right, It's important It's important
Speaker 1: to note they think, you know, independence think Trump's corrupt,
Speaker 1: more corrupt than Biden.
Speaker 2: But they also.
Speaker 1: Majority thought the Biden administration was corrupt too, So it's
Speaker 1: not the easiest road for Democrats to go down. But
Speaker 1: it will make sense if you're a new candidate, if
Speaker 1: you're somebody without the baggage of a previous era, a
Speaker 1: previous entity, or a previous administration. Do you hate hangovers,
Speaker 1: We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you
Speaker 1: the social buzz without the next day regret. They're best selling.
Speaker 1: Out of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild,
Speaker 1: relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation.
Speaker 1: With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to
Speaker 1: fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram
Speaker 1: micro dose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a
Speaker 1: more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
Speaker 1: mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
Speaker 1: don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul
Speaker 1: is a wellness brand that leave feeling good, should be
Speaker 1: fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC
Speaker 1: and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
Speaker 1: simply help you unwind, so if you struggle to switch
Speaker 1: off at night. Sol also has a variety of products
Speaker 1: specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
Speaker 1: night's sleep, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies. It's a
Speaker 1: fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on the
Speaker 1: good vibes and treat yourself to sold today. Right now,
Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: So go to get sold dot com use the promo
Speaker 1: code toodcast. Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com
Speaker 1: promo code toodcast for thirty percent off. All right, I
Speaker 1: got my top five list. It is Wednesday to Top
Speaker 1: five top estop and I thought i'd give you the
Speaker 1: opportunity to give you maybe the Chuck Todd Holiday Book
Speaker 1: buying gift guide, if you will. These are five books
Speaker 1: that I think are worth reading this year. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they are my five favorite books of the year, but
Speaker 1: they were five books that I found informative, important.
Speaker 2: Or interesting or a little bit of both.
Speaker 1: So number five on that list is a book that
Speaker 1: did not come out this year. It actually came out
Speaker 1: a few years ago, and it's not a book that
Speaker 1: got a lot of attention. But it is now a
Speaker 1: book that I would recommend to anybody that works in
Speaker 1: the world of finance or works in the world of business,
Speaker 1: that they need to go pick up a copy in
Speaker 1: the next few weeks and read. And it is called
Speaker 1: The Drift, and it is by Kevin Hassett. So why
Speaker 1: do I say you need to write this book read
Speaker 1: this book? Well, this is a book that got very
Speaker 1: little attention when it came out. He wrote this book
Speaker 1: probably assuming he was never going to work in another
Speaker 1: Trump administration. The book came out just after the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election. Kevin Hassett worked in the first trumpet. He's
Speaker 1: one of the few people that worked in a high
Speaker 1: profile position in the first Trump administration as an economic
Speaker 1: advisor and has made it to a second Trump administration.
Speaker 1: It's basically him. Steven Miller, right, and I guess Russell
Speaker 1: Voight was was there, but more in a in a
Speaker 1: lower capacity. But Kevin Hassett very well, maybe the next
Speaker 1: chair of the Federal Reserve, and so understanding his worldview
Speaker 1: and much of his worldview, he's sort of The point
Speaker 1: of The Drift is he basically defends the Trump era,
Speaker 1: defends his work with Trump and the Trump era. As look,
Speaker 1: there may be a lot of things not to like
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump the person, which he's sort of, which
Speaker 1: he hinsid in this book, but that he was a
Speaker 1: necessary correction for what was a drift towards socialism that
Speaker 1: was taking place not just inside the Democratic Party but
Speaker 1: in various institutions of academy and the media, etc. It
Speaker 1: is how he frames his book. Regardless of whether you
Speaker 1: agree with that framing or not, I would argue, if
Speaker 1: you want to be a well informed person about understanding
Speaker 1: where's the FED going, what does Hassett believe? How does
Speaker 1: he interpret Trump's beliefs? How does he defend Trump? Kevin
Speaker 1: asked somebody who sort of came up in the world
Speaker 1: of the same world that Alan Greenspan came up through.
Speaker 1: You know, he was sort of an acolyte at times
Speaker 1: of green Span. So I think it is It is
Speaker 1: as illuminating as any ex staffer book is going to be,
Speaker 1: because what this book wasn't unlike say Pence's book or
Speaker 1: John Bolton's book. It is it's a total evisceration of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. It is more of an observation. You know,
Speaker 1: there's he takes pride. So it is not an antagonistic
Speaker 1: book on Trump, but I think it's one of these.
Speaker 1: I don't think people realized he wrote a book. It
Speaker 1: didn't get a lot of attention. It's you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's not the I'm not going to tell you it's
Speaker 1: the world's greatest read, but I think it's an important read.
Speaker 1: I know some of you listen to my podcast just
Speaker 1: for you know, whether you love or hate the direction
Speaker 1: I take this podcast. You were looking for usable information, Well,
Speaker 1: I would tell you reading this book will give you
Speaker 1: plenty of usable information to navigate a FED and a
Speaker 1: central bank that could be run by Kevin Hassett. And
Speaker 1: you get to get ahead of the game, get to
Speaker 1: know the book before senators start asking him questions during
Speaker 1: his confirmation hearing about the book. All right, so that's
Speaker 1: number five. Number four is the Mark Twain book by
Speaker 1: Ron Churnout. I enjoyed it for the most part, but
Speaker 1: I'll be honest, not as much as I enjoyed his
Speaker 1: Grant Book. I did enjoy his Grant Book more, but
Speaker 1: I learned a lot about Mark Twain, and in some ways,
Speaker 1: Mark Twain is arguably, you know, the closest thing that
Speaker 1: we had in the nineteenth century to a quote unquote influencer, right,
Speaker 1: an outsider and outside force who could who could stir
Speaker 1: the pot of the country and could galvanize the country
Speaker 1: on certain issues if he so chose. You know, now
Speaker 1: we have a million Mark Twain's right. You know, would
Speaker 1: today's Mark. Would Mark Twain himself be on YouTube? He
Speaker 1: probably would. He certainly would have a Would he have
Speaker 1: a podcast or would he be more.
Speaker 2: Of a monologue kind of guy?
Speaker 1: Right? Would he interview others or would he just simply
Speaker 1: opine on a given day?
Speaker 2: But it's a.
Speaker 1: I enjoy sure now because he's what I do. The
Speaker 1: best part of his books. It isn't just learning more
Speaker 1: about the individual he's talking about, but he's just does
Speaker 1: a great job of capturing the era as well. You know,
Speaker 1: it's the little details, it's that stuff, trying to understand
Speaker 1: the world that these folks were living in at the time,
Speaker 1: not just trying to understand the psyche of them in
Speaker 1: that moment. So but I think that Twain in some
Speaker 1: ways the quintessential American, a model for so many, so
Speaker 1: many of us, good, bad or otherwise just a it's
Speaker 1: a timely it's a timely moment. It's timely, you know
Speaker 1: it's it's timely. It's a wrong word. No, it's more
Speaker 1: of a timeless biography, if you will. But I think
Speaker 1: an important one, and it came out this year, so
Speaker 1: I definitely think it should be on your gift liss.
Speaker 2: Number three is one that you may not be surprised.
Speaker 1: That I'm pushing again, and it's the right Thompson book
Speaker 1: called The Barn. I don't know if it technically came
Speaker 1: out this year or not. I don't think it did.
Speaker 1: I think it came out last year. But as you know,
Speaker 1: you know it's this first of all, it's just this
Speaker 1: is a really just a great book to read. It
Speaker 1: is if you want to write, what it's like to
Speaker 1: read somebody who just is just better with words than
Speaker 1: most people in your life are.
Speaker 2: That's right Thompson.
Speaker 1: And I love I hope you had a chance to
Speaker 1: listen to the interview with him. Those of you that did,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've already bought the book. It is such
Speaker 1: a compelling read. But the sort of the idea behind
Speaker 1: the book, right that here was something that happened within
Speaker 1: twenty five miles of where he grew up right. Emmett
Speaker 1: Till killed in a barn just within essentially the same
Speaker 1: neighbor you know, in the same larger community that he
Speaker 1: grew up in, that right Thompson grew up in, and
Speaker 1: he didn't know anything about it. It's amazing how little
Speaker 1: of our own, a little of our local history. We
Speaker 1: sometimes know the good or the bad history. And so
Speaker 1: in some ways, reading the book, I hope a lesson
Speaker 1: to hey, don't forget to look around where you live.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to learn the history of your own neighborhood.
Speaker 1: You may be surprised on how much you learn and
Speaker 1: how much it may matter in the in the grand
Speaker 1: scheme of things. So that's number three. Number four on
Speaker 1: my list is one hundred and seven Days Kamala Harris's
Speaker 1: memoir about her campaign.
Speaker 2: Look.
Speaker 1: I've spent a lot of time talking about the book
Speaker 1: when it came out, but I did enjoy it. I
Speaker 1: you know, we can debate whether this was good for
Speaker 1: her future political career or bad for her future political career, but.
Speaker 2: Guess what it felt like. It was.
Speaker 1: Sometimes these memoirs are so dishonest art or they're honest,
Speaker 1: but they're but they're sanitized. This didn't feel very sanitized.
Speaker 1: This felt different, and you know, it's interesting about her.
Speaker 2: I was having this.
Speaker 1: Conversation with Crystalism and he said, you know, who had
Speaker 1: the He asked who had the worst, best or worst
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. You know, we both agreed that Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: for anybody think about running for president of the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom probably had the best twenty twenty eight. He
Speaker 1: believes that Kamala Harris at the worst. I don't. I
Speaker 1: disagreed with him on it. I understood the case saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, she made everybody mad, and it's true, right,
Speaker 1: she seems to have she seems to have thrown a
Speaker 1: few matches at a few of the bridges that she's
Speaker 1: crossed over the years. Right then, maybe she burned a
Speaker 1: bridge with Biden World, Maybe she burned a bridge with
Speaker 1: Josh Shapiro, Maybe she burned a bridge with Mark Kelly.
Speaker 1: Maybe she burned a bridge with Gavin Newsom. But there
Speaker 1: was another part of me that was surprised at her
Speaker 1: candor and she didn't play the type. You know, she's
Speaker 1: been a politician that's been very careful over the years,
Speaker 1: and she chose to be less careful in this memoir.
Speaker 1: Is this a different Kamala Harris? Is this the beginning
Speaker 1: of a different relationship she wants to have with with
Speaker 1: her political career, a different way she would go about
Speaker 1: running for office.
Speaker 2: The point is is that I think there's.
Speaker 1: A lot to learn about one hundred and scent about
Speaker 1: sort of the state of the Democratic Party Circle twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. But I found it quite compelling, and it was,
Speaker 1: you know, not a hard read. Especially you know, it
Speaker 1: was sort of like it's like reading the director's notes
Speaker 1: on a movie you already saw, but in some ways
Speaker 1: the director's notes help you understand the movie even a
Speaker 1: little bit better.
Speaker 2: I think you will.
Speaker 1: You're not wasting your time by reading this book. I
Speaker 1: think there's something to learn the number one book, and
Speaker 1: I'm in the middle of it now, but I think
Speaker 1: it is absolutely consequential reading Sarka twenty twenty five is
Speaker 1: a book called Fateful Hours. It is by Vulkar Ulrich
Speaker 1: and it's been translated from the original German by a
Speaker 1: gentleman named Jefferson Chase, and it is a new take
Speaker 1: on the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the democracy that
Speaker 1: was in place after World War one and before the
Speaker 1: rise of Hitler. Why did it fall? How did it collapse?
Speaker 1: What were the warning signs. There's a lot of commentary
Speaker 1: about how democracies fail, how republics die. Well, this is
Speaker 1: an example of a republic that died one hundred years
Speaker 1: ago and in its place came made off Hitler. How
Speaker 1: did it happen? How could such a modern westernized place
Speaker 1: do this. Let's just say I have found it both
Speaker 1: reassuring and arming, but most importantly it's eye opening.
Speaker 2: And look, I is the they must.
Speaker 1: Read article of the month that I gave you last
Speaker 1: episode from the political quarterly of the Council on Foreign
Speaker 1: Relations called Foreign Affairs, about this idea that we the
Speaker 1: United States, have slipped from a democracy to something called
Speaker 1: competitive authoritarianism. Let's just say this is a pretty good
Speaker 1: companion read, and I think one that will round out.
Speaker 1: You read all five of these books. Okay, you read
Speaker 1: all five of these books, and I think you will
Speaker 1: be as well informed and as ready for the political
Speaker 1: landscape that we are all having to navigate going in
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty six. So my five books, The Drift
Speaker 1: by Kevin Hassett, The Mark Twain Biography by Ron Chernoud,
Speaker 1: the Barn, the place where Ed Mattil was killed by
Speaker 1: Wright Thompson one hundred and seven days by Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: and my number one recommendation book that you should be
Speaker 1: reading going into twenty twenty six fateful hours, the collapse
Speaker 1: of the wim Are Republic.
Speaker 2: So there you go.
Speaker 1: There's your shopping list for the political junkie in your life.
Speaker 1: There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
Speaker 1: there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury
Speaker 1: law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
Speaker 1: twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
Speaker 1: It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,
Speaker 1: just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Speaker 1: Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
Speaker 1: which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
Speaker 1: insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred fifty thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country.
Speaker 1: They know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
Speaker 1: you need a lawyer, You need somebody to get your back.
Speaker 1: Check out for the People dot Com, Slash podcast or
Speaker 1: Dow Pound Law Pound five two nine law on your
Speaker 1: cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same.
Speaker 1: So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free
Speaker 1: unless they win. All right, let's do a little ass.
Speaker 2: Chuck Ask Chuck. First question today comes from Jason in
Speaker 2: NY otherwise known as New York.
Speaker 1: He goes, Hey, I really appreciate the bonus episodes that
Speaker 1: you put out recently as political events have warnted, I
Speaker 1: too believed that the Indiana GOP's rebuke of Trump and
Speaker 1: Trump's revolting comments about Rob Reiner were significant enough moments
Speaker 1: to call for quick reactions. Hope to see if more
Speaker 1: of those in the future.
Speaker 2: Well, I appreciate it. Look, I go hot and cold
Speaker 2: on that.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be I'm not you know, somebody
Speaker 1: who's just chasing you know, I don't want to be
Speaker 1: here quote chasing the news, if you will. But I
Speaker 1: also think that that if I think I have something
Speaker 1: to add and trying to add a perspective about how
Speaker 1: you should think about a major event. That's when I
Speaker 1: try to try to chime in on that. And I
Speaker 1: think these were both significant events, and I think that
Speaker 1: they're going to trigger larger discussions.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I think the INDIANAGOP rebuke is a reminder that something
Speaker 1: that I've been sort of forecasting for the last three months.
Speaker 1: I send you back to a sub steck I think
Speaker 1: I wrote in late September early October, which the cracks
Speaker 1: in the coalition were beginning to show. And then you know,
Speaker 1: right after that piece, we've seen more and more examples
Speaker 1: of it, right, whether it's Marjorie Taylor Green, whether it's
Speaker 1: the Indiana Republicans, and YadA, YadA, YadA. So it is,
Speaker 1: you know, it is part of this is just time, right,
Speaker 1: No political movement has that I can think of in
Speaker 1: our history, has been able to go more than more
Speaker 1: than eight to ten years. And we're sort of we're
Speaker 1: at the end, right, We're at the We're at the We're.
Speaker 2: At the beginning of the end. We're not the end.
Speaker 2: It's not the end of the end, it's at the
Speaker 2: end of the beginning. Okay.
Speaker 1: I think that's that we're past the end of the beginning.
Speaker 1: I think we're at the beginning of the end, and
Speaker 1: this is you know, it's everything is going to get
Speaker 1: It's going to get worse for him everything. You know,
Speaker 1: You're going to see the Republicans fracture a little bit
Speaker 1: more the closer.
Speaker 2: We get to election day.
Speaker 1: So look, I'm not saying some new outside event that
Speaker 1: none of us have thought of won't create a rally
Speaker 1: around the flag effect. There's always there are always possibilities.
Speaker 1: There's always the one percent, the two percent chances where
Speaker 1: things go another direction. But on the trajectory we're on
Speaker 1: and assuming sort of you know, events that take place
Speaker 1: within the normal sort of set of expectations that we have,
Speaker 1: this is only going to get more acute. And then,
Speaker 1: of course, on the writer thing, I really think it.
Speaker 1: I think there's a reason I'm framing it as a
Speaker 1: do we need to be thinking about whether he's this
Speaker 1: is the beginning of his own downfall of is just
Speaker 1: his basic capacity. If you don't have a filter for
Speaker 1: something like this anymore, what else is not going so well?
Speaker 1: So I think this is one of those that we
Speaker 1: needed this. This for me is a bit more alarming
Speaker 1: because either staff was afraid to tell him this was
Speaker 1: crazy or they did and he did it anyway, right,
Speaker 1: And so these felt significant enough. So I appreciate you noticing,
Speaker 1: but I promise you I don't want to go down,
Speaker 1: you know, chasing every squirrel down that road.
Speaker 2: All right. Next question comes from Eric.
Speaker 1: From another question from New York. Given the competitiveness of
Speaker 1: Ohio and Iowa US center races, do you think a
Speaker 1: Democrat could win the Florida center race?
Speaker 2: Thanks?
Speaker 1: Eric, Well, look, all the ingredients are they are for
Speaker 1: a competitive race. You have an appointed senator. The history
Speaker 1: of appointed senators in general indicate that, you know, they're
Speaker 1: the most you know, they're more vulnerable than even a
Speaker 1: first term senator trying to seek reelection. Appointed senators, you know,
Speaker 1: have the have the worst of all worlds, right they
Speaker 1: they have the they're an incumbent without any of the
Speaker 1: upside of incumbency. They only have the downsides of it.
Speaker 1: So there's that, right, And Ashley Moody's you know, she's
Speaker 1: not a well known political figure yet, but Florida's very expensive,
Speaker 1: and that Florida Democratic Party is just structurally so far behind,
Speaker 1: you know, shared Brown has an organization that these almost
Speaker 1: turn key for Ohio Democrats. And even though that's a
Speaker 1: state where overall the Democratic Party is in worshi Democratic
Speaker 1: maybe brand is in worship in Ohio than it is
Speaker 1: in Florida. Structurally, they're already more competitive Iowa be in
Speaker 1: a smaller state. They have a very strong gubernatorial candidate
Speaker 1: in Rob Sand That also helps it be competitive. I
Speaker 1: do think that if the governor's race gets competitive, then
Speaker 1: the Senate race will automatically start to get more competitive.
Speaker 1: Keep an eye out on Jared Moscowitz. I think if
Speaker 1: he ends up running. He's a member of Congress. He's
Speaker 1: been on this podcast, he said. I asked him point
Speaker 1: blank if he was thinking about running statewide and he said, well,
Speaker 1: if they redistrict me and he would be among the targets.
Speaker 1: And I do think Florida still might. I mean, I'll
Speaker 1: be curious to see whether Indiana's rejection of redistricting if
Speaker 1: it means the fever's broken. But if we do have
Speaker 1: two more states that engage in this, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: Florida in Virginia, one for the Team Red and one
Speaker 1: for Team Blue. And we'll see what kind of We'll
Speaker 1: know pretty quickly. I think Jared moscow It's could be
Speaker 1: a very powerful Senate candidate if because he said, if
Speaker 1: he gets redistrict he represents of northern Broward County southern
Speaker 1: Palm Beach County, they could sort of make it a
Speaker 1: bit you know already was only sort of a I
Speaker 1: think a plus two Harris district. He could turn. It
Speaker 1: could turn into something that he's buyinging. And he basically
Speaker 1: said if if they go after his district, then he'll
Speaker 1: probably just run for the Senate. There's a candidate in
Speaker 1: there now, somebody who's a school board part of the
Speaker 1: school board wars with the Moms of Liberty. It's an
Speaker 1: organization on the left that went after Moms for Liberty
Speaker 1: and somebody there. But you know she's got a You're
Speaker 1: not going to get a financial commitment unless you get
Speaker 1: a higher profile candidate. Moscowtz might be a high profile
Speaker 1: enough where he could bring a decent a decent financial
Speaker 1: following with him. But I don't think the Senate race
Speaker 1: gets competitive without the governor's race being competitive, and that's
Speaker 1: an open question. I do think that Democrats ended up
Speaker 1: with two pretty good candidates in the governor's race, and
Speaker 1: David Johny and Jerry dem One could argue one of
Speaker 1: them out a run in the center race, that they've
Speaker 1: got too many good candidates in the governor's race, not
Speaker 1: enough good candidates in the Senate race. But we'll say,
Speaker 1: but I do think it should be. But the cost
Speaker 1: is it's so prohibitive. I think they're more likely to
Speaker 1: spend money targeting Mississippi and trying to put Mississippi in play,
Speaker 1: which is not as far fetched as you might think,
Speaker 1: because five million dollars, you know, an extra five to
Speaker 1: ten million dollars in Mississippi would have a huge impact.
Speaker 1: An extra five to ten million dollars in Florida would
Speaker 1: have minimal impact. Next question comes from tboor Shinto from Toronto.
Speaker 1: He says, longtime listener watcher from Toronto here, I have
Speaker 1: a possibly naive question about journalism in the US. Why
Speaker 1: didn't reporters directly challenge the president when he makes inappropriate
Speaker 1: offensive statements like the ones about Rob Ryner are calling
Speaker 1: journalists stupid. Many in the media react on TV or
Speaker 1: in print, but rarely pushed back to his face in
Speaker 1: the moment. Why isn't anyone asked him directly why he
Speaker 1: behaves that way, maybe using more polite language, just curious
Speaker 1: why no one takes that shot. Thanks for all the
Speaker 1: great insights. Well, I would argue in the first term,
Speaker 1: we all did. I would ask him questions about it.
Speaker 1: I confronted him directly an off the record meeting during
Speaker 1: when he was president elect, basically saying when he name
Speaker 1: checks our correspondence in the field, he puts their lives
Speaker 1: at risk, He puts a spotlight on him in ways
Speaker 1: that I believe he didn't intend, is how I put it.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's a reason I think in Trump
Speaker 1: two point zero why so many people in these same
Speaker 1: positions that some of us were in have chosen not
Speaker 1: to do it Because none of you know, nobody wants
Speaker 1: to be fodder to help somebody else's social media following,
Speaker 1: And so I think there's this belief that it doesn't
Speaker 1: do what you think it's going to do, and if anything,
Speaker 1: it only it only.
Speaker 2: It only puts you.
Speaker 1: In a position of having to debate the president, right,
Speaker 1: which is you're.
Speaker 2: Just so it's.
Speaker 1: A lot of us don't want to be a story,
Speaker 1: and we don't want to insert ourselves, not out of fear,
Speaker 1: out of distraction. We don't want to be used as
Speaker 1: a you know, I didn't like it. I always whenever
Speaker 1: I got a whiff of a guest trying to use
Speaker 1: an appearance to raise money to don't fundraise, you know,
Speaker 1: I did my best to gum that up. There's a
Speaker 1: fairly memorable back and forth I had with Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: one time that it was clear he accepted the invitation
Speaker 1: only to try to use me as an attempt for
Speaker 1: political fundraising fodder. But the own of the conversation went
Speaker 1: in such a way that he would have been a
Speaker 1: self owned had he tried it. I didn't realize that's
Speaker 1: what he was up to until about halfway through the interview,
Speaker 1: and it was like, oh, now I know why you
Speaker 1: came on. And it was just anyway it was during
Speaker 1: the first impeachment. If you want to go back and
Speaker 1: go find that back and forth that I had with him,
Speaker 1: let's just say I'll just use three letters to give
Speaker 1: you a hint about where the conversation went to JFK
Speaker 1: and I'll just let you know and you can sort
Speaker 1: of imagine where the where that part of the conversation went.
Speaker 1: So I think that's the That's why you know, it
Speaker 1: doesn't feel like it gets you anywhere, and it I
Speaker 1: don't want to say journalists don't do it out of fear.
Speaker 1: Fear is the wrong word. I think terms of it's
Speaker 1: sort of like is it effective? Like ultimately, what is
Speaker 1: our role? Is your role to get information out to understand?
Speaker 1: I could tell you the private conversations I've had with
Speaker 1: him about this. I'm like, why do you you know
Speaker 1: you do that?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: He he sort of has always viewed the press as
Speaker 1: playing a part, like almost like the chorus and a
Speaker 1: Shakespeare play, that we're all playing a role, and his
Speaker 1: role is to go after the press. The press is
Speaker 1: sort of that, you know, I've always equated it. He
Speaker 1: sees us all as if you're familiar with the WWF
Speaker 1: slash WWE And I have the reason I used WWF
Speaker 1: is back in my day, it was the WWF and
Speaker 1: it was a guy named the press person was a
Speaker 1: guy named gene Okerland, mean gene Oakerland, and he was who,
Speaker 1: you know, all the wrestlers picked on because he was
Speaker 1: the press, you.
Speaker 2: Know, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And I always said that that Trump sort of viewed
Speaker 1: us as mean gene Oakerland, that we were kind of
Speaker 1: in on the joke, and he would say even say
Speaker 1: things to me like, oh, this is good for your ratings,
Speaker 1: it's good for your name. I d you know, it
Speaker 1: only gives you more attention, it only makes you more money,
Speaker 1: it only gives you or book deals. That was his
Speaker 1: mindset about it back then. It's I think that's a
Speaker 1: little more nefarious.
Speaker 2: But I don't, you know, what what do you expect?
Speaker 1: What do you expect him to say? Sometimes when you ask,
Speaker 1: you know, I understand sort of like, you know, I'd
Speaker 1: rather press him on why is he pardoning a convicted
Speaker 1: drug Uh? Why did he pardon somebody who was convicted
Speaker 1: of being a drug trafficker? Are you taking you know?
Speaker 1: Did you know?
Speaker 2: Did it? You know?
Speaker 1: Why do you pardon your friends?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: Why did you pardon you know, Henry Kuayer? You know,
Speaker 1: I think there are other questions that if you have
Speaker 1: the chance at a shot a question, because let's say,
Speaker 1: you know, why did you say that about Rob Bryner
Speaker 1: and his answer, I can tell you what his answer was, Well,
Speaker 1: he attacked me first. It's always that's always usually his
Speaker 1: defense when they came after me. You know, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have said anything had they not said this. You know,
Speaker 1: he always says, I don't attack people, I defend myself,
Speaker 1: so but I could, but I definitely you're right, there
Speaker 1: is less of this in Trump two point zero because
Speaker 1: many of us tried this in Trump one point oh,
Speaker 1: and it didn't seem to go anywhere, It didn't seem
Speaker 1: to didn't really produce an answer. You know, I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people, and I'm you know that
Speaker 1: listen to this podcast that want the press to express
Speaker 1: the outrage that they have. But it's the equivalent of
Speaker 1: punching your you know, punching a wall, a dry wall.
Speaker 1: You know, you might punch a hole in the wall
Speaker 1: and you might feel strong, but then you've got to
Speaker 1: go back and patch up the wall, and what have
Speaker 1: you really accomplished? You know, you can express your outrage
Speaker 1: at him, he doesn't say anything satisfactory, and whatever he
Speaker 1: says will outrage people who are already outraged.
Speaker 2: And so it's.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that's you know, I don't and
Speaker 1: maybe that's not a satisfactory answer to you. I get it,
Speaker 1: But you know, there comes a point of you know,
Speaker 1: is there anything to be gained in understanding more about him?
Speaker 1: Or are you just trying to go viral for yourself
Speaker 1: right to Hey, look, I took on Donald Trump. Some
Speaker 1: of us are not in the game of just making
Speaker 1: this about ourselves, right, and so I think that's also
Speaker 1: also plays a role on that front. Next question comes
Speaker 1: from Adam w Any writes, I'm curious about your thoughts
Speaker 1: on this. Affordability seems to be the central theme that
Speaker 1: Democrats seem to be winning on. One of the sneaky
Speaker 1: culprits of rising costs is the complete lack of competition
Speaker 1: and various segments of the economy. Perhaps it is the
Speaker 1: lawyer in me, but I don't understand why democrats haven't
Speaker 1: begun at least bringing up the issue of breaking up
Speaker 1: big monopolies. Thanks Adam w.
Speaker 2: So, you're right, I think that.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think there's going to be a fear
Speaker 1: of doing that, but you know there's you know, I
Speaker 1: think the the stuff that's popular is when you point
Speaker 1: out how these monopolies are costing you money. And so
Speaker 1: I just had a interview with an economist on my
Speaker 1: newsphere show a couple episodes ago where we spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time on the issue of surveillance pricing and
Speaker 1: the fact that you have this. We have this phenomenon
Speaker 1: these days of dynamic pricing, where basically the new goal
Speaker 1: is to figure out, Hey, how do I maximize you know,
Speaker 1: you Chuck Todd have a little bit more money to
Speaker 1: spend versus you Jane Doe, who has less money to spend.
Speaker 1: I want to have you both as customers. But I
Speaker 1: you know you can pay more than Jane Doe. How
Speaker 1: can I get you to pay more in Jane Doe
Speaker 1: to pay me something? And I think that you know,
Speaker 1: whether we've seen that airlines are thinking about going down
Speaker 1: this road. There was a really good story and I
Speaker 1: think it was the Washington Post about Uber and lyft
Speaker 1: and how you know, on one phone, you know, based
Speaker 1: on information they may have about you, the price is
Speaker 1: one thing. On another phone, based on information they have
Speaker 1: on the person who owns that phone, the price for
Speaker 1: the same ride from the same location to the same
Speaker 1: location is suddenly different. And how much of it is
Speaker 1: based on what they think you're sort of Oh, I'm not,
Speaker 1: I'm not that's too expensive for me versus that And
Speaker 1: I think that's the type of of discrimination that will
Speaker 1: really sort of, you know, middle class discrimination is when
Speaker 1: the middle class grabs the pitchforks watch out right, like,
Speaker 1: you know, when when the supposedly comfortable, you know, enough
Speaker 1: to own a home, you know, have a couple, have
Speaker 1: two cars, be able to afford kids college, all that stuff,
Speaker 1: and they feel as if they're being taken advantage of
Speaker 1: because they have a couple extra dollars, you know, the
Speaker 1: middle and the upper middle class revolting. That's that's when
Speaker 1: politicians sometimes finally finally start to pay attention to some
Speaker 1: of these things. I think it's possible you will see
Speaker 1: going after you know, tech monopolies on this, but we're
Speaker 1: not quite there yet because I don't think the public
Speaker 1: sees the evidence yet, right. I don't think we're you
Speaker 1: kind of have to. The public needs to be a
Speaker 1: bit better informed on this, and I think you're seeing
Speaker 1: more and more coverage that's focused on so of how
Speaker 1: consolidation in various industries has cost the consumer money. Now,
Speaker 1: this is what I think has been the you know,
Speaker 1: I think local media used to do consumer reporting a
Speaker 1: lot better than national media, and the loss of local
Speaker 1: journalism has really gutted the consumer journalism world. This is
Speaker 1: where influencers, I think, come in, and this is something
Speaker 1: that I think, if you know, I think trusted media
Speaker 1: was higher when we had a lot more consumer reporters
Speaker 1: dedicated to saving consumers money and from being ripped off.
Speaker 1: And the lion's share of those reporters were on the
Speaker 1: local level. So the gutting of local gutted out the
Speaker 1: reporters that were providing a real service to average Americans.
Speaker 1: And I think the you know, this is among my goals.
Speaker 1: Why do I want to revitalize local news because I
Speaker 1: think this is the biggest missing piece when it comes
Speaker 1: to the lack of trust that we have nationally with media,
Speaker 1: is we lost our local character references and they did
Speaker 1: a better job worrying about helping people on a local
Speaker 1: level than we have the ability to do on the
Speaker 1: national level. And so I think if once we know
Speaker 1: there's more reporting locally on scams and pricing discrimination and
Speaker 1: things like that, which is where you're more likely to
Speaker 1: see this, then you'll hit critical mass and it becomes
Speaker 1: suddenly something that they want politicians to do something about.
Speaker 1: All Right, The last question for today is going to
Speaker 1: come from Dave, and he writes, is Chuck really enjoy
Speaker 1: the podcast? Appreciate the mixture of politics, history, and college
Speaker 1: football right on. Also love the guests you have for
Speaker 1: interviews and all the information that comes from those conversations.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us how interview prep has changed for
Speaker 1: you from the shorter time limits you had to meet
Speaker 1: the press to now being able to do long form
Speaker 1: interviews on the podcast. Would love to hear some of
Speaker 1: your thoughts on what you think makes a great guest
Speaker 1: conversation on your show. Thanks and happy holidays. Well, the
Speaker 1: biggest thing is just right just having more time it
Speaker 1: means that I spend more time on a specific policy
Speaker 1: idea that the guests may have in wanting to go four,
Speaker 1: five or six questions deep on said right. In a
Speaker 1: meet the press, if somebody who was rolling out a
Speaker 1: policy proposal for your eight to ten minute interview, you
Speaker 1: do one follow up, maybe you know, maybe a second
Speaker 1: if it's you think it's really interesting to the viewers,
Speaker 1: then you end up moving on. We don't have to
Speaker 1: do that here, and that's you know, that.
Speaker 2: To me.
Speaker 1: Allows for some of the nuanced debate and we end
Speaker 1: up what you get and what I think I'll tell
Speaker 1: you. You ask me what makes a good I think what
Speaker 1: makes a good conversation is when we end is when
Speaker 1: you end up understanding all sides of an argument without
Speaker 1: having me and the guests debate each other, because hopefully
Speaker 1: I have asked a few of the let me ask
Speaker 1: the perspective from the left, let me ask perspective from
Speaker 1: the right, and needed depending on what their point of
Speaker 1: view is, and that by the end of the conversation,
Speaker 1: if you feel like that you would understand how this
Speaker 1: issue would then get debated between sort of stereotypical left
Speaker 1: versus stereotypical right, then I've accomplished something. Right then I've
Speaker 1: given you a complete conversation that makes you prepared to
Speaker 1: understand this issue no matter where else you end up
Speaker 1: getting information about it. I think the best conversations are
Speaker 1: when that when I kind of know them a little bit.
Speaker 1: I think that always helps because they're more comfortable with
Speaker 1: me because they know me a little bit. So I
Speaker 1: think those make good conversation better podcast conversations. Obviously, I
Speaker 1: do take a much less antagonistic posture because this is
Speaker 1: you know, I always say this, you know it meet
Speaker 1: the press. There was an expectation that this is an
Speaker 1: accountability show, and this is where we're gonna you know,
Speaker 1: you've got to you're test, you're testing your your beliefs
Speaker 1: that you know, you're you gotta, you gotta, you got
Speaker 1: to tell them, you know, you got to explain your rationale.
Speaker 1: And it's devoted to a you know, single issue or
Speaker 1: a topic or a couple of topics versus here where
Speaker 1: I may have, you know, a large singular reason for
Speaker 1: booking that guest, say, on the issue of how do
Speaker 1: we open up primaries, uh to to all voters. But
Speaker 1: it means we can meander around a little bit. But
Speaker 1: it's also you know, not everybody can carry forty five minutes,
Speaker 1: so you have to be mindful of that, just like
Speaker 1: you know, some people are great ten minute interviews, terrible
Speaker 1: thirty minute.
Speaker 2: Interviews and vice versa.
Speaker 1: So in that sense, you've you've got to you've got
Speaker 1: to know. But it is I will tell you this,
Speaker 1: there was only one interview, and I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say who it is. You guys might be able to
Speaker 1: figure it out by just listening. There's only one interview
Speaker 1: where I felt like I ran out of questions before
Speaker 1: I ran out of time. And ultimately that means we're
Speaker 1: doing a good job of booking. Because I hope to
Speaker 1: have the type of guests where we you know, an
Speaker 1: hour is great, but believe it or not, there were
Speaker 1: some questions left on the table. If there are no
Speaker 1: questions left on the table, then probably the guest wasn't
Speaker 1: quite worth the forty five minutes I may have spent
Speaker 1: with them. But I actually think since I started this
Speaker 1: podcast re upped this podcast on April, I could think
Speaker 1: of only once that I sat here and I thought, boy,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of exhausted from questions.
Speaker 2: I got to go.
Speaker 1: But I kind of if I finally go twenty minutes
Speaker 1: with this interview, am I sending the signal that this
Speaker 1: was a total dud?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: It's like I almost didn't want to do I didn't
Speaker 1: think that was fair to the person. So I wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure I hit a minimum a minimum time slot.
Speaker 1: My guess is I'm not I don't want to. I
Speaker 1: don't want you guys to play the guessing game of
Speaker 1: who it is. But it's usually pretty obvious when you
Speaker 1: know somebody isn't working out. It's usually because they don't
Speaker 1: want to answer questions, and you're like, well, why the
Speaker 1: hell did you come on here?
Speaker 2: Right? What did you think this was going to be? Uh?
Speaker 1: And and thankfully, in some ways the format is self selecting.
Speaker 1: Right if you if you're not comfortable sort of having
Speaker 1: a conversation for forty minutes with me, then you're not
Speaker 1: going to come on anyway. So in that sense it
Speaker 1: can be self selecting. Look, I wish I've had there
Speaker 1: are there are a few more Republicans that I've been
Speaker 1: trying to get to come on that won't or haven't
Speaker 1: said yes yet. Hopefully they're listening right now, And I
Speaker 1: think I know why. Like it's not that they worried
Speaker 1: about me. They just somehow think that their own voters
Speaker 1: will that that that they only want to spend forty
Speaker 1: five minutes talking to their to their base. They're not
Speaker 1: interested in talking to swing voters, talking to independence, talking
Speaker 1: to you the intellectually curious, And that's disappointing to me.
Speaker 1: I think in it, I think once the Orange Man
Speaker 1: leaves the Oval office, these people I've been trying to
Speaker 1: get to come on will come on. But you know,
Speaker 1: I know that in for some for some of these folks,
Speaker 1: they don't want to They don't want to have to
Speaker 1: not answer a question that they know is logical for
Speaker 1: me to ask, which is just a disappointment, all right,
Speaker 1: but this is the world we live in. Look what
Speaker 1: Look what Susie Wilds just had to do. You know,
Speaker 1: she had to put out an apology tweet for an
Speaker 1: audience of one. And there are people that are always
Speaker 1: looking to aggregate and cherry pick what somebody says. Hey,
Speaker 1: you know Tom Cotton said this to Chuck Todd on
Speaker 1: his Todd on his podcast. You know, and you know
Speaker 1: that's just unfortunately the way things, you know, things get
Speaker 1: weaponized on the on the stupid left and the stupid right,
Speaker 1: which is right, We know right that it's those it's
Speaker 1: those that are in the business of grifting you on ideology.
Speaker 1: And these people exist on the left and the right,
Speaker 1: my friends, that have scared off some of these folks
Speaker 1: from from coming and swimming in the intellectually curious pool.
Speaker 1: But hey, come on in, the water's comfortable and if
Speaker 1: you're comfortable in your own skin, everything's going to be
Speaker 1: easy on the Chuck podcast. But if you're not comfortable
Speaker 1: in your own skin, then yeah, it's going to be
Speaker 1: an uncomfortable forty five minutes.
Speaker 2: Hey, listen to another round of a great question.
Speaker 1: There's more, a lot more to come. I am also waiting.
Speaker 1: I am curious. I've not gotten a lot of feedback
Speaker 1: yet from you, specific feedback on where you guys aren't
Speaker 1: prediction markets. I just would love an array of experiences,
Speaker 1: the good, the bad, the ugly, you know again, non sports,
Speaker 1: the prediction markets, through the prism of non sports everything else.
Speaker 1: I'm very curious good experience, bad experience, you know, Are
Speaker 1: you curious, are you nervous? Any of those things? I am,
Speaker 1: Like I've expressed to you, I'm cautiously pessimistic about the
Speaker 1: prediction markets and yet and keeping an eye on them
Speaker 1: because somehow I have a feeling it's going to be
Speaker 1: more impactful than we want to admit.
Speaker 2: Anyway.
Speaker 1: With that, I'm going to shut it down for another
Speaker 1: twenty four hours, but I will be back in twenty
Speaker 1: four hours, So thank you for listening until we upload again.