Speaker 1: Hello there, Welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast.
Speaker 1: Whether you're watching on YouTube, listening on Spotify, Apple, or
Speaker 1: wherever else you might listen, I appreciate you being there.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, I now have a free
Speaker 1: weekly sub stack. It's got to lead item and column
Speaker 1: in it every Tuesday. It's going to drop tuesdays, the
Speaker 1: one day we don't drop the podcast. So that's you
Speaker 1: see what we did there, So I hope you go
Speaker 1: over there and subscribe to it. In fact, it's something
Speaker 1: you've heard me dabble in before, but it's a more
Speaker 1: thorough analysis of how fragile the two major parties are
Speaker 1: in this moment. I think both the Democratic Party and
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. You know, as divided as America is
Speaker 1: between red and blue, right, we're polarized sort of between
Speaker 1: two sides. The two actual political parties that represent red
Speaker 1: and blue have never been weaker right and essentially more
Speaker 1: and they've been dominated by cultural personality over the last
Speaker 1: twenty years. When it just when it looks like they
Speaker 1: need refurbishing, occult to personality rises up to sort of
Speaker 1: paper over their problems. Think Barack Obama for the Democrats
Speaker 1: or Donald Trump for the Republicans, and yet we are
Speaker 1: watching around the world the movement where there's you know,
Speaker 1: we've seen this, there's clearly massive political realignment taking place globally.
Speaker 1: And what I saw take place in the UK that
Speaker 1: I brought up a while ago about what happened to
Speaker 1: the Tories there the fact that they, at least in
Speaker 1: these last elections were not treated like one of the
Speaker 1: two major parties. If you did not if you wanted
Speaker 1: to vote against labor, you didn't vote for the Tories.
Speaker 1: You voted for the Reform Party UK, the Nigel Farage Party,
Speaker 1: if you will. And it's sort of a simple premise
Speaker 1: to me, it's like, how weak are the two brands
Speaker 1: of the major parties right now? Think about it this way.
Speaker 1: If Donald Trump said today, we're going to disband the
Speaker 1: Republican Party and replace it with the MAGA with a
Speaker 1: new political party, the MAGA Party, who's with me, I'm
Speaker 1: going to guess seventy percent of the elected Republicans would
Speaker 1: sign up for the new party, and suddenly you would
Speaker 1: have a complete exodus from the official club known as
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. Similarly, if Pete Boutagic, Andy Basheer Gretchen
Speaker 1: Whitmer AOC banded together and said, you know what, the
Speaker 1: Democratic brand is broken. It is a mess. It doesn't
Speaker 1: you know, it's not what it used to be. We
Speaker 1: need a new left of center party in this country
Speaker 1: that is focused on preserving the democracy and expanding and
Speaker 1: thriving and updating it. We need a modern version of this.
Speaker 1: So we're going to start a new party. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's sort of like taking the Donald Trump Nafta approach, right,
Speaker 1: which is, can't stand nafta. So here's the new NAFTA.
Speaker 1: I got rid of NAFTA because we don't call it
Speaker 1: NAFTA anymore. But he kept NAFTA, he just renamed it, right.
Speaker 1: That is, that is arguably how badly the two brands
Speaker 1: are feeling these days, and how easily they could be
Speaker 1: rebranded into a new party. And the fact is, when
Speaker 1: I give you those two potential outcomes of how fragile
Speaker 1: the two major parties really are, the only thing that
Speaker 1: keeps them afloat is the duopoly they have on ballid
Speaker 1: access in the fifty States. If they didn't have this
Speaker 1: duopoly of ballid access, one or both of these parties
Speaker 1: would have probably disappeared at least a couple of decades ago.
Speaker 1: But because of the vehicle that they are for ballot
Speaker 1: access that actually is connected to my guest today, Rob
Speaker 1: sand the newest candidate for governor in the state of Iowa.
Speaker 1: He's basically the Democrats great hope for winning statewide in
Speaker 1: an actual red state. And I'll get more into Rob
Speaker 1: sand in a minute. He's currently a statewide elect, the
Speaker 1: only statewide elected Democrat in the state of Iowa. He's
Speaker 1: been the state auditor for two years and Democrats have
Speaker 1: been waiting for him, essentially to finally take the next step,
Speaker 1: whether it was for a Senate seat or a good
Speaker 1: natorial seat. And you will hear why he's a Democrat,
Speaker 1: and it's simply because there is no other alternative. If
Speaker 1: being an independent were a viable alternative, it sounds like
Speaker 1: he would be there. And it's for me a reminder
Speaker 1: of how fragile I think both parties are these days.
Speaker 1: The Democratic brand is so bad in some places, that is,
Speaker 1: it is more appealing to some Democrats to run as
Speaker 1: an independent. Take the newest candidate for governor in the
Speaker 1: state of Florida, Jason Pizzo, Do realize he was the
Speaker 1: Democratic leader in the state Senate in fact, just a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago. So here he is technically a
Speaker 1: leader of the Florida Democratic Party deciding to abandon the party. Now,
Speaker 1: some of that may be personal, some of that may
Speaker 1: have to do with personality clashes with the current head
Speaker 1: of the Florida Democratic Party. You know, there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of finger pointing than you know, because if he
Speaker 1: doesn't get his way, that's why he left the party.
Speaker 1: But the fact that he that he did, he has
Speaker 1: some resources to do it. And I've told you I
Speaker 1: think there's definitely Republican fatigue in the state of Florida,
Speaker 1: a lot of dysantists fatigue in the state of Florida.
Speaker 1: I don't know if the Democratic Party brand is strong
Speaker 1: enough to take advantage of it, but I do know
Speaker 1: if there's a strong independent candidate, it could. It's fascinating
Speaker 1: to me that the potential leading Democrat in Florida decided
Speaker 1: to run as an independent, this Jason Pizzo, and the
Speaker 1: leading independent candidate, a former Republican congressman and lobbyist named
Speaker 1: David Jolly, decided to become a Democrat and run for
Speaker 1: governor that way. So it'll be really interesting to see
Speaker 1: if you're trying to fix the Democratic Party brand, is
Speaker 1: being a former Republican turned Democrat the way to go
Speaker 1: as a way to sort of moderate Isaac or central centrism.
Speaker 1: It infused a little centrism in it and sort of
Speaker 1: deleftify the brand in Florida left defy de leftified that
Speaker 1: I inventor word there, or is it being a former
Speaker 1: Democrat running as an independent? And in some ways we
Speaker 1: were getting We're going to see both experience experiments take
Speaker 1: place there on that front. In fact, I'm fascinated to
Speaker 1: watch what's going on in some of the Senate races
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six. You know, you've got John Cornyn,
Speaker 1: the incumbent Republican senator from Texas who's being primary by
Speaker 1: the state attorney general. Ken paxident accident is very maga
Speaker 1: was just like Donald Trump escaped an impeachment attempt. He
Speaker 1: was impeached but not convicted narrowly. Remember Texa pretty Republican states,
Speaker 1: so quite a few Republicans voted to impeach him in
Speaker 1: the state House, and quite a few Republicans voted to
Speaker 1: convict him in the state Senate just not enough. So
Speaker 1: you do have a pretty divided Republican Party. And it's
Speaker 1: a fascinating problem that the National Republicans have with their
Speaker 1: Texas primary. And this is actually a problem they're starting
Speaker 1: to starting to percolate throughout the set, you know, as
Speaker 1: more people debate. Is the Senate in play in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six for Democrats? The map's terrible for Democrats, but
Speaker 1: Republican INFI could actually put more seats in play for them,
Speaker 1: just and we've seen It's not as if this movie
Speaker 1: hasn't played before in the theaters. Right. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: Democrats overperformed in center races thanks to bad Republican nominees.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, Democrats overperformed in center races thanks
Speaker 1: to bad nominees. In twenty twenty four, Democrats overperformed in
Speaker 1: Senate races thanks to what say it with me? Bad
Speaker 1: nominees on the Republican side of the aisle. So here
Speaker 1: we go again. And so, if you're the National Republican
Speaker 1: Party and your job is to prevent the Democrats from
Speaker 1: winning the state of Texas, the best possible way to
Speaker 1: do that is to ensure that John corn is the
Speaker 1: Republican nominee. But what if John cornn is simply not
Speaker 1: popular enough inside the Maga magafied version of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party in the state of Texas to win that nomination
Speaker 1: Ken Paxton, if he's a Republican nominee, is makes that
Speaker 1: seat a lot more vulnerable to the Democrats winning. So
Speaker 1: if you're the national Republicans, do you convince John Corny
Speaker 1: to pull at Lisa Murkowski and just simply bolt the primary,
Speaker 1: run as an independent and try to win a three
Speaker 1: way race in Texas? I know, on one hand, you
Speaker 1: can think, well, that's crazy. On the other hand, John
Speaker 1: Cornan the only shot he may have to win this
Speaker 1: seat is if he leaves the Republican Party promises that
Speaker 1: he will cauc us with the Republicans. Like Lisa Murkowski, right,
Speaker 1: she knew she couldn't win a Republican primary in Alaska,
Speaker 1: but she also knew she was more popular with independence
Speaker 1: and with Democrats and with enough Republicans that she could
Speaker 1: easily win a general and she did it as a
Speaker 1: ride in and her last name is Murkowski. I still
Speaker 1: always find that it's like, you know, why is she untouchable?
Speaker 1: Why can't Trump get rid of her because she's so
Speaker 1: politically popular in Alaska that with a Murkowski with a
Speaker 1: three syllable last name that isn't quite easy to spell,
Speaker 1: she won us a ride in Okay. That's your mic drop,
Speaker 1: m u Rkowski. When you if your last name was
Speaker 1: Smith and you ran as a ride in not that
Speaker 1: impressive Markowski another story. So, which brings me back to Texas.
Speaker 1: I think the real dilemma there either they either because
Speaker 1: I don't think Cornin is ever going to win this primary,
Speaker 1: and what it's going to take for him to win
Speaker 1: this primary is probably going to divide the Republican Party
Speaker 1: so much that it may it may become an untenable
Speaker 1: situation in either direction. A three way race suddenly who
Speaker 1: knows right? It may? It may, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: think it works the way everybody thinks it works, that
Speaker 1: two Republicans on the bat automatically will help the Democrat there.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's the case. I think Ken Paxton
Speaker 1: would do more to get the Democrats a chance of
Speaker 1: Texas than a three way race would. But that's the
Speaker 1: type of conversation that I think Republicans should be having
Speaker 1: with themselves in Washington. Of course, it all matters is
Speaker 1: who's making these decisions. If this is Trump's polit team,
Speaker 1: well they'd rather have trumpy people. But if this is
Speaker 1: say John Thune's political team and Tim Scott, who's the
Speaker 1: current rs C chair, well they may have they may
Speaker 1: have a different, different point of view. But I do
Speaker 1: find what's happening in Texas now to be something that
Speaker 1: it could lead to. You know, again, if Cornan's goal
Speaker 1: is to win the Senate seat, it may be his
Speaker 1: best path to win the Senate seats to leave the party,
Speaker 1: run as an independent and promise to caucus with the Republicans.
Speaker 1: You can't just not. I do think that, you know,
Speaker 1: trying to keep your you know, if you don't, you
Speaker 1: don't go promise to go there, then you would eliminate
Speaker 1: potential Republicans that might vote for you. But I think
Speaker 1: that would likely be and especially Colin Allred's the Democratic nominee.
Speaker 1: Colin Allred ran a race that basically said, hey, I'm
Speaker 1: a John Cornyan Democrat. You know, all he did was
Speaker 1: praise John Cornyan. So I think he'd have a harder
Speaker 1: time being able to differentiate himself from Cornyan, and Cornyn
Speaker 1: may may actually benefit from having having a third candidate
Speaker 1: in the race that's done nothing but praise him. So
Speaker 1: it is, it is I think something worth watching there
Speaker 1: is I've you know, I have a few other campaign
Speaker 1: nuggets I want to share North You know, the Republican
Speaker 1: Party is dealing with too many crowded primaries. With the
Speaker 1: Senate races. We talked about Texas, there's North Carolina where
Speaker 1: now Laura Trump is once again thinking about wanting to
Speaker 1: be in the Senate. Maybe she primaries Tom Tillis. Tom
Speaker 1: Tillis is somebody who's who's seen is quite vulnerable to
Speaker 1: the MAGA wing of the Republican Party. He's another one
Speaker 1: where is Pat McCrory's experience not being able to come
Speaker 1: even close to beating Ted Budd. He was the non
Speaker 1: Maga Republican. Ted Budd was the Trump endorsed candidate, and
Speaker 1: we saw what happened there. If Tillis, you know, is
Speaker 1: it in the best interest of the Republican Party in
Speaker 1: the Senate, if they're trying to keep that receipt to
Speaker 1: have Tom Tillis run as an independent. He's another one. Again,
Speaker 1: the ballot access laws are not easy in North Carolina.
Speaker 1: Ditto with Texas to run as a third party or
Speaker 1: as an independent. Don't get me wrong, but in both
Speaker 1: of these cases, and I'd throw in Bill Cassidy in Louisiana,
Speaker 1: where the governor is working with the president to try
Speaker 1: to find a Republican primary challenger to build Cassidy. Julia Letlow,
Speaker 1: a congresswoman, is the latest idea being floated. Would Cassidy
Speaker 1: be better off running as an independent? So you know
Speaker 1: it is. It is again my bigger theme being you know,
Speaker 1: you have two You have two party brands here that
Speaker 1: are broken. You have two party brands that I think
Speaker 1: are very distrusted by the public. You have two party
Speaker 1: brands that it where it may be easier running away
Speaker 1: from that party brand even if you agree with seventy
Speaker 1: percent of what that party brand stands for and running
Speaker 1: as an independent if you're a Democrat in Florida, if
Speaker 1: you're a Democrat in Iowa, if you're a Republican now
Speaker 1: on mega Republican in Texas, or a non mega Republican
Speaker 1: in North Carolina. So I definitely think it's something to
Speaker 1: watch for. There a couple other news topics from the
Speaker 1: last few days, and I want to I want to
Speaker 1: I want to talk about here. One is, of course,
Speaker 1: this Biden book. The excerpts are coming out the book.
Speaker 1: I'm going to have Jake tapperon pretty soon, who's co
Speaker 1: author with Alex Thompson of this of this book about
Speaker 1: uh that is about the Biden cover up? Was it
Speaker 1: a cover up? You know? Were there people inside the
Speaker 1: West wing not telling the truth or being disingenuous when
Speaker 1: people when people like myself would inquire about why Biden
Speaker 1: couldn't do this event or that event, or was afraid
Speaker 1: of doing a Super Bowl interview, all of those things.
Speaker 1: You know that we all saw with our own eyes
Speaker 1: that he clearly there was something foot. But of course,
Speaker 1: you know, you you're only as good as as your
Speaker 1: actual sourcing there, and it's pretty clear a bunch of
Speaker 1: aids did did their best to prove people from knowing
Speaker 1: any truths right, keeping cabinet secretaries away from him, keeping
Speaker 1: Biden away. But there's something as much as that. I
Speaker 1: think it's terrible that the Bidens are once again trying
Speaker 1: to come out and defend themselves, putting themselves before the party.
Speaker 1: You know, they ought to take a page from from
Speaker 1: George W. Bush. Right after Obama won, after there was.
Speaker 1: It was clear the Bush brand was done inside the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. He didn't go out there to try to
Speaker 1: fight for his legacy. He went and took up painting right,
Speaker 1: and in many ways by not trying to be out
Speaker 1: there engaging every day in his legacy, and thanks to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, his legacy is oddly improved in the minds
Speaker 1: of many voters. Certainly his personal legacy, there's still a
Speaker 1: lot of people question whether, you know, the greatest mistake
Speaker 1: made and you know, since Vietnam was the Iraq War,
Speaker 1: and I don't think anybody that that isn't going to change.
Speaker 1: And what certainly his character and is in his sort
Speaker 1: of how he you know, how he treated the institution
Speaker 1: of the presidency as something that has only grown with
Speaker 1: time and not trying to make, you know, make people
Speaker 1: uncomfortable by coming back out to defend himself and to say, no,
Speaker 1: you know, my own popularity is wrong, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So I do think that the bidens ought to take up.
Speaker 1: But I get human nature wanting to defend yourself. But
Speaker 1: there's something about these these books where you're gonna have
Speaker 1: all these people make anonymous claims that well, they were
Speaker 1: hiding it, or they were doing this, or they were
Speaker 1: doing that. Well, then shame on you. You know you
Speaker 1: own this. If you believe the country is at risk
Speaker 1: of slipping in the democracy, shame on you and all
Speaker 1: of these anonymous aids, and frankly all the people that
Speaker 1: work for him that are now they tell us. This
Speaker 1: is one of those. I think it's Brian Curtis of
Speaker 1: at the Ringer Is dubs these stories in the sports world.
Speaker 1: Right every time somebody gets traded, you're like, oh something,
Speaker 1: and then like right after the person gets traded, then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the beat writer for said team
Speaker 1: writes the big tell all story about how the relationship
Speaker 1: between player and the ownership totally broke down, and he
Speaker 1: calls it. Now they tell us, and this is a
Speaker 1: now they tell us, right, So now all these Biden
Speaker 1: aids who didn't say a word for two and a
Speaker 1: half years are suddenly now speaking anonymously to folks. It's
Speaker 1: it is or early aids coming out. Where were you
Speaker 1: at the time when many of us were pointing out
Speaker 1: he seems to be too old to be running for president.
Speaker 1: I know I did it quite a bit publicly. People
Speaker 1: like David Ignatius. And you know what many of those
Speaker 1: same aides did who are now talking to these authors,
Speaker 1: They would push back privately and publicly with me and
Speaker 1: others and say, no, no, no, it's fine, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: my interactions with them are fine. This is just exaggeration.
Speaker 1: You're buying into a right wing narrative. So you know,
Speaker 1: these people have talked about both sides of their mouth.
Speaker 1: So in many ways, I think this Biden book is
Speaker 1: only going to not just undermine Biden, but I think
Speaker 1: make it toxic for anybody that worked for Biden, because
Speaker 1: then it becomes where were you, How did you participate
Speaker 1: in the cover up? Pete Bootage? This may mean something
Speaker 1: for you. You know you were a cabinet secretary. A
Speaker 1: You're going to now tell us, yeah, I didn't have
Speaker 1: much interaction with him. Well, then why didn't you say something?
Speaker 1: I had a cabinet secretary tell me that they had
Speaker 1: no interaction with them, and wondered about that. I had
Speaker 1: that off the record. I've after Biden quit, I've since
Speaker 1: shared it with people. Still not going to share who
Speaker 1: the cabinet secretary was, because that's not my I'm trying
Speaker 1: to you know, I believe in keeping your word as
Speaker 1: a journalist, and it was an off the record as
Speaker 1: far as being told to me. And I think it's
Speaker 1: up to that person to decide whether to speak out
Speaker 1: or not. But I think it's a question anybody who
Speaker 1: worked directly for Biden, So Gina Ramondo if she thinks
Speaker 1: about running for president, Pete bootajej all of these cabinet
Speaker 1: secretaries are now going to have to answer for all
Speaker 1: of this. And I do wonder if it's going to
Speaker 1: make anybody that touches Biden persona non grata, not just
Speaker 1: anybody directly in the Biden world. As far as you know,
Speaker 1: it could be the way, you know, anybody touching Carter
Speaker 1: was sort of exiled for decades in the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: in the eighties and nineties. It really wasn't until Obama
Speaker 1: that sort of parts of Carter world were resurrected in
Speaker 1: a positive light inside the Democratic Party. That's some nearly,
Speaker 1: you know, nearly thirty years later. That's probably the best
Speaker 1: Biden world can hope for, is that they need to
Speaker 1: the generation that lived through this mess will have to
Speaker 1: go away before they maybe get a second chance at
Speaker 1: the historical record. A lot of it. Those are going
Speaker 1: to depend on on what the Trump presidency looks like
Speaker 1: three years from now and what kind of impact it has.
Speaker 1: Because everybody who worked for Biden, and Joe Biden himself
Speaker 1: to me, is directly responsible for everything Trump does in
Speaker 1: the second term, right They their behavior and their actions
Speaker 1: led us to this place, their contributors to the place
Speaker 1: we are at. So they better hope it's a successful
Speaker 1: second term for Trump because they own a piece of
Speaker 1: that failure too, and the recovery for America from its
Speaker 1: economic what could be an economic disaster. I mean, obviously
Speaker 1: we're escaping short term problems here by this pause with China,
Speaker 1: but let's be honest. Already his management of the economy
Speaker 1: has cost a lot of people, a lot of people money,
Speaker 1: and it is still going to create inflation. So it is.
Speaker 1: It is now. He's already done damage. The question is
Speaker 1: can he mitigate the damage he's done or is more
Speaker 1: coming He's just delayed when that happens. But mark my words,
Speaker 1: if you're not happy with any part of this second
Speaker 1: term and you're angry, some of that anger belongs to
Speaker 1: the Bidens, and some of that anger belongs to the
Speaker 1: people who had no guts to speak out when it mattered,
Speaker 1: and waited till talking to an author of a book. Finally,
Speaker 1: there's the story of the DNC in this issue of
Speaker 1: David Hogg. Oh, of course, was an activist born out
Speaker 1: of the Parkland shooting in Florida. I'll be honest, it's
Speaker 1: very personal to myself. I have my own connections to
Speaker 1: somebody who's in that school. Uh when when when it
Speaker 1: when it happened, So I have a lot of personal
Speaker 1: empathy for anybody that went through that, you know. I
Speaker 1: think the way David Hogg has conducted his politics is
Speaker 1: hard to It is hard to it's hard to to
Speaker 1: see him as a member of the leadership of the
Speaker 1: d n C considering what the role of the d
Speaker 1: n C is now. There's obviously people that are unhappy
Speaker 1: with him that as vice chair of the d n
Speaker 1: C he got elected vice chair of DNC, that he
Speaker 1: now wants to work with a group to primary essentially
Speaker 1: democratic incumbents in very blue areas who he believes are
Speaker 1: stagnant right who need generational change. In all of this,
Speaker 1: this has created an uproar that a member of the
Speaker 1: DNC leadership is talking about primarying elected Democrats, and I
Speaker 1: understand that criticism. It was like, wait a minute, you
Speaker 1: can work on the outside, you chose to work on
Speaker 1: the inside. When you choose to work on the inside,
Speaker 1: you're choosing to work with the Democrats that have been
Speaker 1: elected and help new Democrats get elected, not necessarily purge
Speaker 1: the party from the inside. So I have empathy for
Speaker 1: the criticism of Hawk. But now they're trying to create
Speaker 1: a So apparently now they've come up with a instead
Speaker 1: of instead of forcing the situation about Okay, you've got
Speaker 1: to make a decision, David Hog, are youre going to
Speaker 1: work on the outside or work on the inside, they've
Speaker 1: come up with a convoluted It feels like a pollit
Speaker 1: bureau decision. Well, we've got to figure out how to
Speaker 1: get rid of this person, but we don't want to
Speaker 1: make it look like it's politics. We want to make
Speaker 1: it look like it's a technicality. So in this case,
Speaker 1: there was a challenge. They's supposed to be gender equity
Speaker 1: in the leadership of the DNC. Well after when the
Speaker 1: DNC chair won and it turned out to be a
Speaker 1: man not a woman, it should have triggered that one
Speaker 1: of the vice chair can't you know that there was
Speaker 1: going to be gender equity on the vice chair level
Speaker 1: and there was not, so there's been a complaint file.
Speaker 1: So now the DNC has decided they have to redo
Speaker 1: this vice chair race. So all they've done is turned
Speaker 1: and David Haggas said, well, this is really about them
Speaker 1: being angry at me. They're just using this technicality to
Speaker 1: force a to force a new vote. Malcolm Kinyata, who
Speaker 1: is the other person elected vice chair, clearly doesn't like
Speaker 1: that he's been attached to the David Hog controversy. He's
Speaker 1: up said about this, let me just tell you something.
Speaker 1: I think that DNC looks ridiculous right now, just effing ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It's behaving like a pollet bureau and not like an
Speaker 1: actual functioning political party. In a democracy, a pollet bureau
Speaker 1: would come up with a convoluted technicality to purge somebody
Speaker 1: from the leadership because it's making other people unhappy, rather
Speaker 1: than actually dealing with the issue straight up front. So
Speaker 1: what they've done is they're actually going to make a
Speaker 1: martyr of Hogg. You know, like I said, I'm not
Speaker 1: sitting here. I don't I don't think what Hog was
Speaker 1: doing was was you know, I thought it was I
Speaker 1: thought it was poor form. I thought it was in
Speaker 1: bad taste right to be elected member of the leadership
Speaker 1: and then work to sort of purge Democrats. But I
Speaker 1: also think the way this entire episode is being treated,
Speaker 1: how the chair is dealing with this, how it's turned
Speaker 1: into this back room thing, only makes the whole party
Speaker 1: look even less organized than we all thought they were.
Speaker 1: Clearly there's a leadership vacuum. This has not been a
Speaker 1: good start for the new DNC chair, Ken Martin. I
Speaker 1: can tell you there's quite a few Democrats I hear
Speaker 1: from who are wondering why the chair of the Wisconsin Party,
Speaker 1: Ben Wickler, who now is leaving there, who's had a
Speaker 1: ton of success, why he was an elected chair, and
Speaker 1: openly wondering would he be allowed this mess to go on?
Speaker 1: And I think, for whatever reason, Ken Martin is not
Speaker 1: taking a strong hand on this, feels like he's almost letting,
Speaker 1: letting the letting insiders get involved too much on this.
Speaker 1: Either way, it looks ridiculous. It's going to make a
Speaker 1: martyr out of David Hogg. And either he's realized he's
Speaker 1: elected again, which is talk about major with with everybody
Speaker 1: knowing this giant amounts of egg on their faces, or
Speaker 1: they don't, and it looks like a bizarre party purge.
Speaker 1: And all you've done is is thrown fuel at the
Speaker 1: fire of the of the insurgent class wanting to get
Speaker 1: rid of the establishment. So it is one of those
Speaker 1: massively unforced errors. And leave it to the DNC to
Speaker 1: somehow get in its own way while they have this
Speaker 1: target rich environment in what has been a sort of
Speaker 1: incompetence on the Trump administration, whether it's in government cutting,
Speaker 1: managing the economy, or all these very shady deals that
Speaker 1: seem to be taking place in the new crypto capital
Speaker 1: of the world in the Arabian Peninsula there. And yet
Speaker 1: it's the Democrats shooting at each other, just making a mockery, frankly,
Speaker 1: of their own party here. And they're going hog wild
Speaker 1: in all the wrong ways. All right, So coming up,
Speaker 1: I got Rob sand And here's why you need to
Speaker 1: care about this race. This is easily the best chance
Speaker 1: Democrats have of truly having a red steak governor to
Speaker 1: stand next to Andy Basheer and Laura Kelly. Andy Bsher
Speaker 1: of Kentucky, Lora Kelly of Kansas. This will easily be
Speaker 1: their best shot at it. And I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: if he wins, Iowa is going to be the first
Speaker 1: in the nation CAUCUSUS. They will get their place back
Speaker 1: if Sand proves that they can win in this environment,
Speaker 1: and it will be a better environment for him to
Speaker 1: run in than he ran in twenty two. If he
Speaker 1: wins that race, it will put Iowa in first in
Speaker 1: the nation, which will be really good news if you're
Speaker 1: Pete Boutagid's although as I pointed out, I do think
Speaker 1: his Biden baggage is going to get heavier and heavier
Speaker 1: as he goes about. But take a listen to Rob Sand,
Speaker 1: because this is a guy who's sort of you'll hear it,
Speaker 1: kind of reluctant Democrat. And you know, previous episode I
Speaker 1: had Jasmine Crockett, who's she's not a reluctant Democrat, but
Speaker 1: she's got a point of view of how the party
Speaker 1: should be messaging. Now I think you'll hear a different
Speaker 1: point of view from Rob Sand, So be curious what
Speaker 1: you think. Of course, let me know at ask Chuck
Speaker 1: at the Chuck podcast dot com. And with that I'll
Speaker 1: sneak in a break and afterwards you get Rob sand.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: Joining me now is somebody who is a new candidate
Speaker 1: for office, at least a top statewide office. It is
Speaker 1: Rob sand He's been the two term democraticly elected state
Speaker 1: auditor of Iowa, and he's now announced that he's running
Speaker 1: for governor. And to timestamp this, I'm interviewing him about
Speaker 1: four hours after he unveiled his public campaign for governor. So, Robier,
Speaker 1: you've been arguably looking to this moment for a few
Speaker 1: years now. How does it feel now that you jumped
Speaker 1: in the water.
Speaker 2: I'm excited for this moment, Chuck. I think what really
Speaker 2: one of the things that really crystallized it and made
Speaker 2: it clear that it was necessary was the gutting of
Speaker 2: the Auditor's office bill that took effect I think about
Speaker 2: not quite two years ago, where the Iowa Legislature and
Speaker 2: the governor literally made it legal for state agencies and
Speaker 2: departments in Iowa to hide documents from the state Auditor's office.
Speaker 2: It's the kind of thing that just makes you go okay, like.
Speaker 1: What do you believe it was a direct partisan attack
Speaker 1: on your office meeting You had had a lot of
Speaker 1: success running, you know, doing public corruption, and because you're
Speaker 1: a Democrat and the legislature's Republican. How much did that
Speaker 1: factor into the defunding of your office?
Speaker 2: I would I would say this, it was really more
Speaker 2: of a question of being serious about trying to do
Speaker 2: the job and do public service, as opposed to being
Speaker 2: one of the insiders that's like, oh, you don't want
Speaker 2: me to dig into that program, well don't worry about it.
Speaker 2: Then I won't because you told me not to, and hey,
Speaker 2: we're all friends, right, you know that kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: because I wouldn't go along. I wouldn't I wouldn't do
Speaker 2: the go along to get along kind of thing. And
Speaker 2: so I think that, yes, it was easier for them
Speaker 2: to do it because I was a Democrat, But if
Speaker 2: I had been a Republican who was really serious about
Speaker 2: public service not politics, they would have tried. I just
Speaker 2: don't know if they could have gotten enough majorities to
Speaker 2: go along with it, because we had bipartisan opposition in
Speaker 2: the Iowa House to it as it was.
Speaker 1: Right, well, I would imagine. I mean, you know, again,
Speaker 1: public coruption is always one of those things that there's
Speaker 1: usually pieces of both parties that are that are bipartisan
Speaker 1: in favor of strengthening public corruption. You know, offices that
Speaker 1: target public coruption, and then those that believe for a
Speaker 1: variety of reasons, some may be nefarious and some may
Speaker 1: be me me maybe intellectually honest that oh, it gets
Speaker 1: in the way of business, right, it gets in the
Speaker 1: way of regulation, or it gets in the way of
Speaker 1: government service. So I buy that. But let me ask
Speaker 1: you this. I think that I think your job being
Speaker 1: auditor to me would both be interesting and also though
Speaker 1: sometimes a negative place to come from. And here's my
Speaker 1: and here's where I'm curious where if you the auditor's
Speaker 1: job is to find you know, to find ways fraud
Speaker 1: and abuse, right essentially right, And so if you don't
Speaker 1: find it, does it mean everything is going well or
Speaker 1: you didn't do a good enough job looking for it? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: I feel like it's a never like. I don't feel
Speaker 1: like you could ever feel satisfied that you're doing the job.
Speaker 1: You know that you've you've found every thing, because I
Speaker 1: think the public is probably like me, a little bit
Speaker 1: cynical assuming well, there's always a little bit of public corruption.
Speaker 1: The question is are you finding it all?
Speaker 2: Yeah? And I think that's there's going to be a
Speaker 2: great piece for this, which is a great answer for that.
Speaker 2: Here we uncovered a record amount of misspent money in
Speaker 2: my first term, and the answer to that from politicians
Speaker 2: in Des Moines was to go, hey, we got to
Speaker 2: stop this guy. He's actually doing his job.
Speaker 1: This is great. Should we reform our practices?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: You know, right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you'd think that that would be the answer. But
Speaker 2: that's the difference, and that to me is the like
Speaker 2: I think of the heart of this campaign. It's really
Speaker 2: the question of public service and government trying to serve
Speaker 2: all Iowans versus politics and having it serve insiders and
Speaker 2: special interests. And I don't think that you could have
Speaker 2: a clearer example of that than literally them looking at
Speaker 2: us doing our job really well and going we got
Speaker 2: to slow him down.
Speaker 1: Did you think about out not running as a Democrat
Speaker 1: but running as an independent?
Speaker 2: Look, I guess i'd say this people who know me.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that you asked that question, because people who
Speaker 2: know me know that I'm not satisfied with a two
Speaker 2: choice system, and I think it's important that we talk
Speaker 2: about that. The bottom line is most of us have
Speaker 2: experienced this in the ballot booth, where we look at
Speaker 2: our options and we see Democrat, Independent, Republican, and we
Speaker 2: see the independent and we like the Independent, but we're
Speaker 2: also like, man, if I vote for the Independent, I
Speaker 2: know I'm just throwing my vote away. And there's that
Speaker 2: frustration of just sort of the being trapped right, being
Speaker 2: a prisoner of this system while we are also participants
Speaker 2: in it. That's the bottom line. It's the same question
Speaker 2: for a candidate. So I would love to have a
Speaker 2: system in Iowa where independent candidates can actually get elected
Speaker 2: very easily, but we're gonna have to change how the
Speaker 2: system works before we get there.
Speaker 1: How would you change that in Iowa to do that?
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I take your point here, and yet
Speaker 1: I would just sort of warn you and other people.
Speaker 1: I bet you the Tories didn't think that they were
Speaker 1: ever going to get knocked out from their top two
Speaker 1: status in political parties in the UK, and guess what
Speaker 1: they just saw happen to them. And the Democratic brand
Speaker 1: is quite weak, particularly in the agricultural Midwest, even at
Speaker 1: a time when it's not as if the Republican brand
Speaker 1: is doing great. It's just, you know, they've succeeded by
Speaker 1: not being the Democratic party brand. You, being an auditor,
Speaker 1: I would argue it's better to be an independent than
Speaker 1: to be a member of either political party, right to
Speaker 1: feel like you could depletely function in that. But again
Speaker 1: that's why I asked that question.
Speaker 2: Sure, but if you do that, then you get back
Speaker 2: to the same thing, which is, if I run as
Speaker 2: an independent, the Republicans go out and they collect petitions
Speaker 2: to have somebody run as a Democrat, and they have
Speaker 2: someone registered as a Democrat, or they find some absolutely
Speaker 2: furious Democrat who's so mad at me for running as
Speaker 2: an independent, and then you've got a three way race
Speaker 2: and we all know what happens. I am the spoiler,
Speaker 2: or maybe it's the Democrat that's the spoiler, but either way,
Speaker 2: so before it begins, because of the way we structure elections, right,
Speaker 2: So the answer to how you do that in Iowa
Speaker 2: is again like and well, actually I want to go
Speaker 2: to a different piece of your point here about the
Speaker 2: Tories and sort of being a favored party. This is
Speaker 2: supposed to be about solving problems. This is government is
Speaker 2: supposed to be about people coming together and deciding, Okay,
Speaker 2: what do we need to address this issue? How do
Speaker 2: we address that issue? So many of our founders warned
Speaker 2: us watch out for factionalism, watch out for partisanship. And
Speaker 2: we are at the point here where people actually say,
Speaker 2: you know, like, oh, well, you know, you'd have to
Speaker 2: be careful about that, because what if then you're not
Speaker 2: electing a Democrat. Well what if we were actually solving
Speaker 2: lots and lots of problems, but we were having people
Speaker 2: with a different letter behind their name, whether it's Republican
Speaker 2: or independent or anything else do it. I'm here for
Speaker 2: solving problems, and I think as long as we have
Speaker 2: a system that allows elected officials and candidates to sort
Speaker 2: of say, well, I don't have to solve your problems,
Speaker 2: as long as I can convince you that so and
Speaker 2: so over here is worse than me. I don't think
Speaker 2: we're solving in a lot of problems because there's no
Speaker 2: incentive to do it. So I think your answer to
Speaker 2: be more specific if you want the more specific answer.
Speaker 2: Right now, in the state of Iowa, independent voters are
Speaker 2: not allowed to participate in primaries that their tax dollars
Speaker 2: pay for. I think that's wrong. So I think we
Speaker 2: should have a single, open primary, and then I'd love
Speaker 2: to see approval voting on the second side of that
Speaker 2: for three or four or five candidates. So here's three
Speaker 2: to five that make it through to the general vote
Speaker 2: for all of them that you approve of. There is
Speaker 2: no rank choice. The tabulation is available automatically. It's easy.
Speaker 1: And then the general is a fifty percent. Whoever gets
Speaker 1: fifty percent wins or just top vote getter in your just.
Speaker 2: Top vote getter. So this is what Fargo, North Dakota does.
Speaker 2: You have four or five candidates in the general election,
Speaker 2: and you, as the voter, you can vote for all
Speaker 2: of them or one of them, just however many you
Speaker 2: approve of, and so whoever as the most votes still
Speaker 2: wins the election, plain and simple.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that seems rational and logical, which will be mean?
Speaker 1: So it could never succeed, right, never succeed You don't
Speaker 1: have the duopoly? Is it going to allow for it
Speaker 1: to happen? So describe your relationship with the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: You've been a Democrat or your whole life. But is
Speaker 1: it you know, if you win, is it a victory
Speaker 1: for the Democratic Party or is it a victory for independence?
Speaker 1: In your mind?
Speaker 2: In Iowa, So I was registered as an independent when
Speaker 2: I first registered to vote. I did register as a
Speaker 2: Democrat soon after that because I realized in order to
Speaker 2: vote in the primary, I had to pick my poison.
Speaker 2: The differences. I still talk about the fact that it
Speaker 2: was poison that I picked.
Speaker 1: Do you still feel that way? I mean, I look,
Speaker 1: I feel there are political parties because I'm a character voter.
Speaker 1: I really am a character and a problem solver voter.
Speaker 1: And I'm lucky enough to live in a state in
Speaker 1: Virginia where I it's no party registration. You get to
Speaker 1: pick which you vote in. You know, you pick for
Speaker 1: that cycle, but you get to pick whichever one you want.
Speaker 1: It's a little a little more choice. So I certainly
Speaker 1: as a journalist, like that too, because you can't pigeonhold
Speaker 1: me by looking at my voting record always always voting
Speaker 1: Democrat or always voting Republican. But I like that just
Speaker 1: as a voter, and I assume more voters like that.
Speaker 1: But it does sound like you're you're a reluctant partisan.
Speaker 2: I'm a public servant. I live in a system where
Speaker 2: in order to be effective, just like when I was
Speaker 2: a voter in my early twenties, I have to choose
Speaker 2: one or the other. And so that's what I've done.
Speaker 2: If I win, Is it a victory for the Democratic Party,
Speaker 2: that would be for other Democrats to decide. I've never
Speaker 2: been to the DNC. I'm clear about what I believe.
Speaker 2: I'm clear about the fact that I'm a Democrat because
Speaker 2: I have to pick one or the other. I think.
Speaker 2: I think that if I win, then maybe that helps
Speaker 2: other people figure out what's effective out there. But I'm
Speaker 2: not doing it. I want to be a public servant
Speaker 2: to the whole state of Iowa. I don't want to
Speaker 2: be a leader for a political party. In my time
Speaker 2: at the State Ouitor's office, we had Democrats, Independents, and
Speaker 2: Republicans always in senior leadership. I actually appointed people to
Speaker 2: the most senior positions in the office who had made
Speaker 2: campaign contributions to my opponent from twenty eighteen. I think
Speaker 2: it's important to do that because do.
Speaker 1: You plan on doing that if you win this time?
Speaker 2: I would absolutely do that. If I win, Yeah, I
Speaker 2: would want to have a bipartisan camp at one percent
Speaker 2: or try that may I'd like to have some independence, yeah.
Speaker 1: Somebody that may be a contributor to the venture Republican nominee.
Speaker 1: And I saw that congressation.
Speaker 2: It's a lot easier to find, you know, You've got
Speaker 2: a bigger circle to cast from if you just say
Speaker 2: a voter or a supporter or a registered Republican. But
Speaker 2: if if I found someone who was a donor who
Speaker 2: also was well qualified to do the work, that wouldn't
Speaker 2: stop me. It hasn't stopped me in the past.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about You know, you're running because you
Speaker 1: think the direction of Iowa has been going in the
Speaker 1: wrong direction. So let's talk about that. You know, from
Speaker 1: the outside, the biggest change that I've noticed that Governor
Speaker 1: Reynolds did had to do with school funding.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: And it's certainly when you're on the ground in Iowa,
Speaker 1: when you when you get past the sort of the
Speaker 1: the red versus Blue the national conversation and you ask
Speaker 1: what's going on in Iowa? That's usually the first issue
Speaker 1: I hear about? Is that still the first issue you
Speaker 1: hear about?
Speaker 2: It's that in its rising costs, which is obviously a
Speaker 2: you know, issue that's driven mostly by national politics and
Speaker 2: international politics. But yeah, education is way up there. And
Speaker 2: the bottom line on that to me is just the
Speaker 2: complete lack of accountability for how those vouchers, how that
Speaker 2: money gets spent. The money is required, So this was
Speaker 2: one hundred million dollars last year, and the Reynolds administration
Speaker 2: didn't let us audit the controls of the program. Again,
Speaker 2: they use that new law just as we predicted they
Speaker 2: would to literally hide our ability to see what was
Speaker 2: going on with money. But even even Chuck, if the
Speaker 2: program is working the way it's supposed to, all of
Speaker 2: that money, the whole one hundred million, has to first
Speaker 2: go to tuition. Once it's paid his tuition. There's only
Speaker 2: one thing on God's green earth that can't be done
Speaker 2: with the money. With private schools, they can't pay a
Speaker 2: rebate to parents whose kids are going there, but that's it.
Speaker 2: Any other way they want to use the money totally legal,
Speaker 2: and they don't, and we're not allowed to audit it.
Speaker 2: So I don't even know how we would find out that.
Speaker 1: To me, can say, you're allowed to audit the public
Speaker 1: school use of taxpayer money.
Speaker 2: Public schools are audited every year in the state of Iowa.
Speaker 2: Now we have one hundred.
Speaker 1: Private schools using taxpayer dollars are not going to be
Speaker 1: scrutinized at all.
Speaker 2: What are we doing here? What are we doing here?
Speaker 2: It blows my mind, But again it's part of the
Speaker 2: reason that it's like okay, like we need a change
Speaker 2: in direction like this. This state truly is in a
Speaker 2: moment where their focus on the people they're taking care
Speaker 2: of is tiny. There are three million people in this
Speaker 2: state taking care of insiders. They're taking care of special interests. Odyssey,
Speaker 2: the company that runs the program, We found out after
Speaker 2: months of stonewalling, they actually doubled the pay for Odyssey
Speaker 2: to administer the state's voucher program, with no additional obligations
Speaker 2: on behalf of Odyssey in return. They just said, you
Speaker 2: know what, we told you, we're going to give you
Speaker 2: this amount of money, We're going to double it. Happy birthday,
Speaker 2: have fun.
Speaker 1: Hey. I want to dig into this because, to me,
Speaker 1: the biggest challenge for the school choice advocates is rural America.
Speaker 1: You know, I'd love you know if you live in
Speaker 1: rural parts of this country, whether it's in Iowa, Florida, Texas,
Speaker 1: these are three states that have been very aggressive about this.
Speaker 1: It's not like it's easy to start up another school.
Speaker 1: And either you're going to have some questionably accredited people
Speaker 1: trying to do startup schools in areas that they've never
Speaker 1: done it before, and they're going to be using taxpayer
Speaker 1: dollars to experiment and it could fall on its face.
Speaker 1: That's something we found out in Florida. You know, if
Speaker 1: you had a good administrator, maybe the school went well,
Speaker 1: but if you didn't, all of a sudden, money disappeared
Speaker 1: and parents were wondering where's all these promised teachers. But
Speaker 1: it's I've noticed, particularly in rural parts of Texas and Florida,
Speaker 1: even among very conservative voters, they're very nervous about this
Speaker 1: because they're like, where's the choice. You're really basically saying,
Speaker 1: I either homeschool my kids and maybe you're going to
Speaker 1: give me some money to do that, or I maybe
Speaker 1: get into a pod with some other like minded parents.
Speaker 1: But that is actually, why can't we just make the
Speaker 1: school in my neighborhood better? You know?
Speaker 2: Jim Pillen in Nebraska, Republican governor said what maybe three
Speaker 2: years ago, Hey, we are going to really increase our
Speaker 2: investment in Nebraska public schools. And what do you know?
Speaker 2: According to US News and World Report, Nebraska is now
Speaker 2: ranked higher than Iowa for public schools, which as in
Speaker 2: Iowan and someone that has a rivalry with Nebraska the
Speaker 2: way much of my state does really annoys me.
Speaker 1: And you grew up there, tell me correct me if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, But I believe in the nineties and this
Speaker 1: is when you were going to school there Iowa, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: they were in the top five all the time. As
Speaker 1: far as we was school, I'm always the Iowa Public
Speaker 1: school system was wash was something that was the envy
Speaker 1: of others in the Midwest.
Speaker 2: Was it not put we put it on our quarter,
Speaker 2: our quarter, our US quarter for Iowa says foundation and education.
Speaker 2: And now we're in the middle of the pack. It
Speaker 2: is in America because they've just.
Speaker 1: Just I don't I mean pulling again. I understand the
Speaker 1: frustration with a specific local school that parents can have, right,
Speaker 1: And this doesn't feel like solving a problem. This just
Speaker 1: feels like, we know you don't like it, So here go.
Speaker 1: Let's create competition, but not everything. Look, we can't create
Speaker 1: a competitive US mail service. Okay, A service is a service.
Speaker 1: You know what you do is you improve the service.
Speaker 2: Well, and I want to you know, they like to
Speaker 2: throw around this phrase school choice. What that really means
Speaker 2: is that private schools get to choose their students right
Speaker 2: right the public schools. You walk in the door, Hey,
Speaker 2: we're going to educate you. The rule should be, Hey,
Speaker 2: if we want real competition, well, competition means everybody follows
Speaker 2: the same rules and may the best fill in the
Speaker 2: blank win, whether it's a football team or a school.
Speaker 2: You want to have competition, all right, fine, private schools,
Speaker 2: in order to get this money, you too have to
Speaker 2: take every student that says they want to attend there.
Speaker 2: Oh well that's hard, it's hard to plan. Yeah, well
Speaker 2: that's a difficulty that public schools face. You said you
Speaker 2: wanted to have competition, same rules apply, job.
Speaker 1: You know what's common around here, and it's common everywhere.
Speaker 1: But this I could just tell you from experiences. You know,
Speaker 1: I have some parents who have a child that maybe
Speaker 1: needs some extra help, special needs, some you know, in
Speaker 1: different variations. Private schools can say, no, we don't have
Speaker 1: the services to help your kid. You should try this place.
Speaker 1: So then, of course your choice is actually smaller than
Speaker 1: it was because maybe there's only one private school that
Speaker 1: has decided to invest in helping kids with this same
Speaker 1: sort of you know who has a different learning plan
Speaker 1: than kids over here. And guess what happened. It turned
Speaker 1: out he was better off staying in Arlington public schools.
Speaker 1: And his kid got some services because the public school
Speaker 1: had to provide the services, and it was actually really
Speaker 1: good services.
Speaker 2: I know a family in our neighborhood that that same experience.
Speaker 2: They switched. Our kids are in public schools in Iowa.
Speaker 2: They switched from a private school to the public school
Speaker 2: and it's been going much better for them. But again,
Speaker 2: I just to me, this is just a question of Okay,
Speaker 2: you want fairness, you want competition, you want choice, then
Speaker 2: actually implement policies that do that, as opposed to just
Speaker 2: saying those words, because the law in the state of
Speaker 2: Iowa right now doesn't do those things. Most of the
Speaker 2: private schools have had their tuition skyrocket, So if the
Speaker 2: idea was to help you get this money to get
Speaker 2: so you can cover tuition, and then tuition skyrockets, it's
Speaker 2: still out of reach for those people. But I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that that's ever what this was about. Because we
Speaker 2: also have no income limits on the program. So the
Speaker 2: wealthiest islands this year are using this program where people
Speaker 2: in rural areas where they don't have private schools or
Speaker 2: paying state taxes, and now a lot of that money
Speaker 2: is going to wealthy islands to send their kids to
Speaker 2: private schools.
Speaker 1: No. I mean, it's what happens whenever you increase money
Speaker 1: into the system who the beneficiary gets to, it becomes inflationary.
Speaker 1: They get to raise their prices, and they will raise
Speaker 1: their prices. It's like that. All right, Look, we're making
Speaker 1: a pretty good argument against the school choice, but we're not.
Speaker 1: I want to hear you make your tell me how
Speaker 1: you can how can we get because I do think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of frustration that here we are. Basically
Speaker 1: it's over one hundred years since we started our public
Speaker 1: school infrastructure in this country, let alone in the state
Speaker 1: of ioware everywhere else, and it really hasn't changed, right, Like,
Speaker 1: I think this is why there's parental frustration here. I
Speaker 1: don't want to parents wanting something different is a real issue. Now,
Speaker 1: you and I were saying, Hey, what you think is
Speaker 1: a fix? Is it going to work the way you
Speaker 1: think it's going to work? So what's your plan to
Speaker 1: improve public schools and more importantly, to restore confidence in
Speaker 1: the public school system with these parents?
Speaker 2: Sure? So we started a government efficiency program in twenty
Speaker 2: nineteen that is so good at saving tax dollars it's
Speaker 2: actually been copied in two other states. It's called PIE
Speaker 2: Public Innovations and Efficiencies, and it covers cities and counties too,
Speaker 2: but it also covers school districts. We have an incredible
Speaker 2: checklist of ways that they can save money, and the
Speaker 2: more of them that they implement, the more money they're
Speaker 2: going to save. And So what I would like the
Speaker 2: state to do we have right now a really meaningful
Speaker 2: surplus that's presently just sort of sitting there. I would
Speaker 2: like us to actually start a revolving fund to help
Speaker 2: schools with the upfront cost for those efficiency investments, because
Speaker 2: most folks know, you know, if you're going to make
Speaker 2: some efficiency investments, you pay a little bit upfront and
Speaker 2: it pays off down the road. So we could use
Speaker 2: those state dollars to help dig in and make efficiency improvements.
Speaker 2: Those would help us do the things that we know
Speaker 2: make schools more effective, parental involvement, smaller class sizes, right,
Speaker 2: But you can do those if you're saving that money
Speaker 2: in a way where it doesn't necessarily cost more money.
Speaker 2: I think that's a no brainer. And I don't know
Speaker 2: why we're sitting here in twenty twenty five and it's
Speaker 2: only being proposed right now as opposed already being done.
Speaker 1: It does seem as if this has become such a
Speaker 1: partisan issue that Republicans feel like they have to be
Speaker 1: anti public school even if they want their local I mean,
Speaker 1: we've turned it into almost a litmus test on the right.
Speaker 1: So make your case to a conservative that they should
Speaker 1: want to spend more time investing in the public school
Speaker 1: system rather than in a private school.
Speaker 2: Carb app part of my belief in public schools is
Speaker 2: because of my patriotism. I love this This country is
Speaker 2: about democracy. It's about all Americans working together. The one
Speaker 2: place in our lives where we can meet everyone is
Speaker 2: when we are students in public schools. Whatever you do
Speaker 2: after that, whether it's you're going to college, while you're
Speaker 2: going to college with people who go to college. Are
Speaker 2: you going to be an electrician, Well, you're going to
Speaker 2: be an apprentice electrician with other folks learning to be
Speaker 2: an electrician.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Whatever path you choose after that point is a narrowing experience.
Speaker 2: One of the best experiences you can have to understand
Speaker 2: just how good the people are who surround us is
Speaker 2: being a part of and supporting public schools where the
Speaker 2: kids you are next to are the kids who are
Speaker 2: from wealthy families and from poor families. The kids you're
Speaker 2: there are from well educated families or not well educated families.
Speaker 2: The kids you're next to are from families with both
Speaker 2: parents working or zero parents working. You know, and you
Speaker 2: understand society, I think so much better. And that gives
Speaker 2: you such a better sense of who we are as
Speaker 2: a state or as a country. If you're participating in
Speaker 2: public schools.
Speaker 1: Look, I went to a public high school in Miami,
Speaker 1: Florida that was nineteen in the late nineteen eighties. It
Speaker 1: was a third to third third, third Latino, third African American,
Speaker 1: third white. It was pretty segregated inside the school. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to sit here and say it wasn't you'd
Speaker 1: have friend groups, but there were plenty of ways that
Speaker 1: it wasn't segregated, and in fact, you ended up with
Speaker 1: relationships because of a student activity. Maybe it was in sports,
Speaker 1: maybe it was in music, whatever it is, and it Look,
Speaker 1: it does give you a better understanding of the world
Speaker 1: we live in rather than some fantasy, you know, isolated bubble. No,
Speaker 1: that's a good argument. Let me ask you this on
Speaker 1: Governor Reynolds. What's a policy that what are some policies
Speaker 1: that you're going to keep if you're elected governor. What
Speaker 1: has she done right?
Speaker 2: I was delighted to see the state require that public
Speaker 2: schools have a cell phone, Paul, to limit the usage
Speaker 2: of cell phones. And I actually want to go back
Speaker 2: to one thing you had just said there about you
Speaker 2: know the friends that you made. This weekend, I went
Speaker 2: home to Decora, my hometown, and invited high school buddies
Speaker 2: to come over. And I was sitting there with two
Speaker 2: of my best friends from high school. One does construction work,
Speaker 2: bridge construction, the other one does autobody work. And their
Speaker 2: wives came over, their kids came over. We had a
Speaker 2: great time. One of their wives is a public school teacher,
Speaker 2: although she's in Minnesota. The other one, until very recently,
Speaker 2: was a teller at a bank. These are smart people,
Speaker 2: and I know them, and I know they have tons
Speaker 2: of common sense, and then they have great worth a
Speaker 2: work ethic, and that they're smart because I spent twelve
Speaker 2: years in public schools growing up with them. And it
Speaker 2: doesn't matter what people's choices are after I think that
Speaker 2: they're smarter or than some of the people that I
Speaker 2: went to college with. And I think it's important to
Speaker 2: understand that but you need to get that experience before
Speaker 2: you can understand that.
Speaker 1: Right. No, it's good. Go back to Governor Reynolds. What
Speaker 1: she done, right? Oh yeah, yeah, school phone, cell phone ban,
Speaker 1: anything else that, Yeah, policies you'd like to keep that
Speaker 1: she's been doing.
Speaker 2: I was happy to see that one done. I was
Speaker 2: glad to see the state government reorganization done. For the
Speaker 2: most part. There were pieces of it that I wouldn't
Speaker 2: have done. But we had thirty six cabinet level agencies
Speaker 2: in Iowa. I don't think that we needed that many.
Speaker 2: I don't know, thirty six that's more than the federal government. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so now we're down to sixteen. I don't know that
Speaker 2: sixteen is the magic number, but certainly we did not
Speaker 2: need thirty six. So that was a good move. Wow,
Speaker 2: thirty six.
Speaker 1: So you came of age politically during arguably the most
Speaker 1: bipartisan era in the history of Iowa. Right. It was
Speaker 1: one R and one D for senators, literally two and two,
Speaker 1: you know, be it two to two of the congressional delegation,
Speaker 1: three to two when it was five, you know, going
Speaker 1: back and forth, you had a you know, what was
Speaker 1: it twelve years of sixteen years of Republican governors followed
Speaker 1: by twelve years of Democratic governors, right, and it was
Speaker 1: a very even now right, there's not a clean It
Speaker 1: wasn't a clean Republican suite. But Iowa has shifted, or
Speaker 1: it feels like it's shifted. Has it shifted or is
Speaker 1: this a is this a red mirage? Is this a
Speaker 1: Trump phenomenon that will look like an outlier ten years
Speaker 1: from now.
Speaker 2: So there's kind of two pieces of my answer to
Speaker 2: that question. One is there are still a huge number
Speaker 2: of islands that are focused on the candidate, not in
Speaker 2: the party, or you know, public service rather than politics.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty two, Tom Miller and Mike Fitzgerald both
Speaker 2: ended up about one percent shy of winning theirs for
Speaker 2: state treasure and Attorney General. If those guys had won,
Speaker 2: we would be the only state in the country with
Speaker 2: an evenly split delegation for the state offices stay wide offices.
Speaker 2: That would be a measure where you could say, literally,
Speaker 2: we are the most purple state, right, and we were
Speaker 2: one percent off of that. So Republicans have won a
Speaker 2: lot of elections in Iowa lately, but Iowans are still
Speaker 2: just sort of looking for the person, right, and this
Speaker 2: is why this state I think went for Obama twice
Speaker 2: and then Trump three times, not because the state changed overnight,
Speaker 2: but because both of those guys were outsiders who promised
Speaker 2: to change politics.
Speaker 1: No, it's I completely agree that they have more in
Speaker 1: common than they don't, that that is what they're that
Speaker 1: bond of the voter was looking for an outsider, shake
Speaker 1: up the system, don't keep the system running as it's been. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so does that mean you're gonna do you think it
Speaker 1: would behove the Democratic Party if Iowa were first in
Speaker 1: the nation on their side of the isle. Again, I do.
Speaker 2: Make we're gonna and we're going to follow Iowa law.
Speaker 2: I'm not confroned with what the d n C says,
Speaker 2: but sure.
Speaker 1: But but yeah, the case to the d n C
Speaker 1: like why should they why should I you know, I
Speaker 1: I can I know the case i'd make of why
Speaker 1: Iowa should be first of the nation. And I and
Speaker 1: I you know, folks who listened to know my father
Speaker 1: grew up in eastern Iowa, Waterloo. I've got more family
Speaker 1: buried in Edgewood, Iowa than I do a live in
Speaker 1: the state of Iowa. So I'm a I'm an Eastern
Speaker 1: Iowa guy, I know, I know the area well, and
Speaker 1: I think Iowans are good at doing this. But but
Speaker 1: make a make up, make the case that you have
Speaker 1: to make to the d n C.
Speaker 2: To do this. Sure, pretty straightforward. Iowans have been doing
Speaker 2: this for a very long time, folks like yourself. I
Speaker 2: don't know if you ever said it specifically, but there
Speaker 2: are other reporters who, when they were here for the
Speaker 2: Caucuses would say, Man, I've been in every state and
Speaker 2: I've done this for years. Nobody asks better questions than
Speaker 2: Iowa voters. Nobody's more into it, No one is more
Speaker 2: you know, I appreciate that you made a personal phone
Speaker 2: call to me, but I'm gonna still yeah, I'm gonna
Speaker 2: I'm still going to make sure that I have a chance.
Speaker 1: To like, I love my friends at New Hampshire too.
Speaker 1: There they asked tough questions to the New Hampshire voters.
Speaker 1: Good at this too. I've always said the two of
Speaker 1: you together are good at this, by way, go go
Speaker 1: for it now.
Speaker 2: Well, but then, you know, then the DNC comes in
Speaker 2: here and says, okay, well Iowa, oh uh, they complain
Speaker 2: about uh diversity, and they complain I can't remember what
Speaker 2: the other thing was. But then they added a state
Speaker 2: that was less diverse, own competitiveness, and then they added
Speaker 2: another state that was also less.
Speaker 1: Competitive, less competitive. Right yeah, Now, look, I actually think
Speaker 1: they're the real rejecting Iowa first in the nation status
Speaker 1: is also sending a message to a whole group of
Speaker 1: voters that they don't want them to be Democrats. And
Speaker 1: I think that is here, you know what they subtly
Speaker 1: this is the message that I think this is not
Speaker 1: too subtle, not at all. And I mean, look, Eastern
Speaker 1: Iowa was the great example. This is as democratic it
Speaker 1: used to, you know, you like, I don't have to
Speaker 1: tell you this. The state was basically the east side
Speaker 1: was Democrat, the west side was Republican, and literally des
Speaker 1: Moines in the middle was the swing area still is
Speaker 1: the swing area. But Donald Trump racked up all sorts
Speaker 1: of support along the Mississippi River and in Bait where
Speaker 1: you grew up in the court you've seen it firsthand.
Speaker 1: Is it as much of what did what did the
Speaker 1: MAGA movement do in Eastern Iowa? Or is it what
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party didn't do in Eastern Iowa.
Speaker 2: Look, it's always a little bit of six on one
Speaker 2: and a half dozen in the other. Right, I mean
Speaker 2: two things can be true at once. Again, keep in
Speaker 2: mind that during those presidential races, Democrats also nominated consummate insiders. Right.
Speaker 2: I don't think that that helped, not in a place
Speaker 2: where people look at politics and they see a bunch
Speaker 2: of bs when what they want is people working together
Speaker 2: to just solve problems.
Speaker 1: You know, the last time you and I were face
Speaker 1: to face, I think it was into Korra and I
Speaker 1: was doing a piece about what happened to the Democrats
Speaker 1: in eastern Iowa. And you know, the one Democrat that
Speaker 1: these folks kept bringing up was Pete Bootage. They don't
Speaker 1: bring it up. They were like Hillary Clinton never came
Speaker 1: in sixteen I'd hear that all the time. She never came.
Speaker 1: She'd fly to Des Moines, do a few events within
Speaker 1: driving range of Des Moines, and then leave again. And
Speaker 1: I heard similar complaints in twenty twenty by Biden and
Speaker 1: some of these others. But Pete was the one doing
Speaker 1: it the old fashioned way, and he was showing up
Speaker 1: in these towns and then, oh look who ended up
Speaker 1: overperforming in the caucauses. I'm shocked that campaigning worked you know.
Speaker 2: Well, and I think that goes to the idea of
Speaker 2: listening and how much that can matter to voters. Let
Speaker 2: me tell you a story from a month ago, Chuck,
Speaker 2: that still blows my mind. There's a conservative group in
Speaker 2: northwest Iowa in what you would probably pronounce Gaza. It's
Speaker 2: Gaza here in Iowa. Gaza. They're the gay patriots in
Speaker 2: their conservative group, and they have a hard time getting
Speaker 2: some of the Republican elected officials in the state of
Speaker 2: Iowa to come there to do a town hall. I'm
Speaker 2: an open book. They reached out said will you come
Speaker 2: to a town hall? I said absolutely. I went up there.
Speaker 2: We had a great event. I don't know if we
Speaker 2: had seventy eighty ninety people. We had Q and A,
Speaker 2: which they ended up pre screening. It wasn't my request.
Speaker 2: When I do buy one hundred town halls, I don't spreak, prequeens, spreek,
Speaker 2: I don't pre screen questions. But times I can't. I can't.
Speaker 2: I can't even say it once slowly. But when they announced,
Speaker 2: Chuck that I was going to come talk to them,
Speaker 2: the Iowa GOP headquarters read them the Riot Act. They
Speaker 2: treated these Iowans like they own them, and that to
Speaker 2: me is the kind of stuff that man, it just
Speaker 2: makes me want to fight the idea that a political
Speaker 2: party would call people and sort of tell them, don't
Speaker 2: you go listening to your state wide elected official. Don't
Speaker 2: you go and asking questions of the state wide elected official.
Speaker 2: There's something deeply wrong in the establishment of that party
Speaker 2: right now, and that, to me is a great, great
Speaker 2: example of it.
Speaker 1: Well that look, that's usually how party runs end in
Speaker 1: a state, where there becomes where you're so entrenched, you're
Speaker 1: so used to winning that you you think you can bully,
Speaker 1: you know, you think you can keep it up. That's
Speaker 1: usually the beginning of an unravel on that. Let me
Speaker 1: let me get you out of here. I want you
Speaker 1: to do a shorthand version of the of the of
Speaker 1: the lottery scam because you wrote a book. You wrote
Speaker 1: a true crime book, and I think it's pretty good.
Speaker 1: It really reminds me of the McDonald's monopoly scam because
Speaker 1: it was a similar it was a similar discovery. And
Speaker 1: for those that remember that Netflix special about the McDonald's thing,
Speaker 1: this had to do with was it Powerball and the
Speaker 1: Mega Because I des moins headquarters for a couple of
Speaker 1: a hot lot of these multi state lotteries, and I'm
Speaker 1: guessing you didn't even think it was as corrupt as
Speaker 1: you ended up finding out. Give me the Give me
Speaker 1: the elevator, I guess the long elevator ride version of
Speaker 1: the story.
Speaker 2: Sure. Bottom line is there was a guy who had
Speaker 2: the job of writing the code that was going to
Speaker 2: pick random numbers through a computer program. And you put
Speaker 2: a little bit extra into that code so that on
Speaker 2: two dates a year, if that date fell on a
Speaker 2: Wednesday or a Sunday, I think it was, if the
Speaker 2: draw was happening after eight pm, if all three of
Speaker 2: those things would meet, then instead of using a random
Speaker 2: number generator, it would use a six variable formula to
Speaker 2: sort of pick the seed. And so, of course, because
Speaker 2: he was an insider, he knew, he knew, he knew
Speaker 2: what day this could happen, right, and he would know
Speaker 2: what those variables were so he could go out and
Speaker 2: buy a small number of tickets and guarantee a win.
Speaker 2: He his best friend, his brother, and then some guys
Speaker 2: who are big foot hunters because his brother is one,
Speaker 2: and they're believers.
Speaker 1: Meaning like bigfoot, like bigfoot sasquatch.
Speaker 2: Yes, Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah somewhere. Yeah he might
Speaker 2: be somewhere, but he is, but he is definitely. In
Speaker 2: my book, which is called The Winning Ticket, they.
Speaker 1: Were able to have a big foot story that only
Speaker 1: helps your true crime maarity.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well they were able to get away with this
Speaker 2: for effectively for a decade, and we found.
Speaker 1: Out how often did they win? I mean, so they
Speaker 1: and what would they do? Were they being careful, like
Speaker 1: not trying to win the whole thing, winning small like
Speaker 1: because you know, sometimes the best way to rip somebody
Speaker 1: off is not to try to get the big score,
Speaker 1: but like you get ten medium size scores.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, no, I mean the Iowa one was a
Speaker 2: very big one. They had a couple of tiny jackpots
Speaker 2: in there for twenty k, but they were winning jackpots
Speaker 2: of over a million dollars. And one of my favorite
Speaker 2: stories in the book actually is about how the first
Speaker 2: one they actually had the FBI come and question the
Speaker 2: brother about how the money had gotten one. He was
Speaker 2: questioned while he was in a hospital bed because he
Speaker 2: broke both of his legs while falling out of a
Speaker 2: tree big foot hunting. So there's that. But when Eddie
Speaker 2: the Mastermind was trying to convince his best friend. Hey,
Speaker 2: it's okay, don't worry about it. We can do this
Speaker 2: a second time. One of the things he shared with
Speaker 2: him only at that point, after the best friend had
Speaker 2: already won one jackpot, was.
Speaker 1: Hey, look, this is how easy this is.
Speaker 2: This is how sure I am. The FBI actually questioned
Speaker 2: my brother when I did this with him before I
Speaker 2: did it with you the first time, and the guy
Speaker 2: I blue was top because he hadn't. That was the
Speaker 2: first time he learned about this other jackpot. Not only
Speaker 2: was there another jackpot, but also the FBI had questioned
Speaker 2: some of the people involved, so he got very He
Speaker 2: got a lot less happy with his best friend after that.
Speaker 1: It's always nice when the when the people you're you're
Speaker 1: investigating aren't that bright.
Speaker 2: Uh, you know what, This is human nature, and Chuck,
Speaker 2: you wanted to We wanted to wrap it up. This
Speaker 2: is why we have checks and balances. This is why
Speaker 2: we want people to be led, not into temptation. This
Speaker 2: is why the Constitution is a genius document, because when
Speaker 2: you give one person all the power, eventually they're gonna
Speaker 2: misuse it. And they also they're gonna make mistakes.
Speaker 1: Before I let you go. These what's been harder on
Speaker 1: the Iowa farmer, the tariff uncertainty or the aid contracts
Speaker 1: going away.
Speaker 2: Good question. Most of the folks that I'm talking to
Speaker 2: right now are pretty focused on tariffs. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: just you want to be able to grow what you're
Speaker 2: going to grow and fight for the price that you
Speaker 2: think is the right price. But when you don't know
Speaker 2: where the price is going, because you have no idea
Speaker 2: what's going to happen next, it is so hard to
Speaker 2: make that decision. And most people want to They want
Speaker 2: to sink or swim according to their own decision making.
Speaker 2: But when there's all this uncertainty out there, they they
Speaker 2: they are sort of trapped in this system that they
Speaker 2: have no control over, which then means they have very
Speaker 2: little control over their own success.
Speaker 1: This is going to be one of those rare occasions
Speaker 1: where there's full bipartisan support against these tariffs. And I
Speaker 1: have seen Chuck Grassley. He came out very quickly trying
Speaker 1: to you know, because he's the only one.
Speaker 2: He's the only one.
Speaker 1: I am curious. Do you do you is? And that's
Speaker 1: why I was going to ask you. Has the State
Speaker 1: of Iowa filed onto that lawsuit against the tariffs or not.
Speaker 2: I don't think so, and I would be shocked if
Speaker 2: they do, because our attorney general.
Speaker 1: But if you were sitting there, if you were working
Speaker 1: with Tom Miller again, would you would you be pushing him.
Speaker 2: In that I think they I like. I like Chuck
Speaker 2: Grasse's answer. I would agree with if these tariffs work,
Speaker 2: I'm going to say, amen, helllujah. But I don't think
Speaker 2: they're going to work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's hard to see how they're going to work.
Speaker 1: I don't This is not the nineteen twenties. And by
Speaker 1: the way, they didn't really work in the nineteen twenties either.
Speaker 1: Rob said, it's going to be a fascinating campaign. You're
Speaker 1: going to be you know, there's a lot more riding
Speaker 1: on your on your campaign than maybe you may realize,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, belief and whether I was a
Speaker 1: swing state again, belief of if you win, I bet
Speaker 1: you first in the nation status comes with you. I
Speaker 1: know that's not why you're running for governor, but I
Speaker 1: just have a feeling that that sort of the perception
Speaker 1: of the Midwest is a swing territory, the perception of Iowa.
Speaker 1: All of those things probably on your shoulders. Whether you
Speaker 1: like it or not. I don't know if you whether
Speaker 1: you appreciate that or not.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to do my job.
Speaker 1: Well, look, it's going to be an interesting race, and
Speaker 1: do you expect a primary.
Speaker 2: There's someone who's said that she'll run. We'll see if
Speaker 2: she really does. I got no problem with the primary.
Speaker 1: And there's gonna be probably a pretty big primer around
Speaker 1: there on the other side, I.
Speaker 2: Would imagine, so, but you know, we'll find out. I'll
Speaker 2: tell you this, whoever comes out of it is going
Speaker 2: to be an advocate for lockstep, the agenda that Kim
Speaker 2: Renolds has run that I think is unpopular in the
Speaker 2: State of Islands right now. I think it's a change
Speaker 2: in a new direction.
Speaker 1: You're betting on that this is going to be a
Speaker 1: change a change environment no matter who comes out in anomine.
Speaker 2: I'm a guy that looks at politics and is mostly
Speaker 2: disappointed with what it is, so I might change you
Speaker 2: guy regardless.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, Rob, I'll be watching closely, as you know,
Speaker 1: and hopefully i'll get you back here again.
Speaker 2: All right, thanks, Joe.
Speaker 1: Well, I have a feeling you should pin that interview
Speaker 1: with Rob sand There'll be interesting things in there. We
Speaker 1: may revisit it when twenty twenty six comes. But you know,
Speaker 1: you could argue how Rob sand goes so goes the
Speaker 1: future of the Democratic Party as a national party. They
Speaker 1: need to recover in places like Iowa if they're going
Speaker 1: to be a viable national party. All right, let's do
Speaker 1: a little ass Chuck, ask Chuck. First question comes from
Speaker 1: Peter and he writes this, I listened to Jasmine Crockett
Speaker 1: interview where you discussed the Obama election. I was working
Speaker 1: in Texas one day. Many of my colleagues came back
Speaker 1: after lunch, all very joyful and happy, and one colleague
Speaker 1: told me that they had registered as Democrats to vote
Speaker 1: for Obama. Reason being Russia. Limbaugh told people to do
Speaker 1: that as no way USA would vote for a black man,
Speaker 1: and they could somehow get Hillary to the Democratic to
Speaker 1: be the Democratic choice, which in turn would mess up
Speaker 1: the Democrats. I wasn't a US citizen, so I didn't
Speaker 1: know what the effect of this Limba idea was. So
Speaker 1: my question was there a study made on the Limbaugh effect?
Speaker 1: Best regards Peter, I remember this. It was an Operation Chaos.
Speaker 1: I think Limbaugh called that he was trying to encourage
Speaker 1: Republicans or independents not necessarily read, but where they could
Speaker 1: vote in a Democratic primary to vote for Hillary to
Speaker 1: extend his theory was the longer the primary process, the
Speaker 1: mess here, it was the better to keep the Democrats
Speaker 1: all tied up the Republicans McCain was largely locked up
Speaker 1: the nomination a bit earlier than Obama did. I believe
Speaker 1: there was an academic study or too, and it didn't. Really.
Speaker 1: There isn't many places where that seemed to have an impact.
Speaker 1: And I think whenever you get people trying to do
Speaker 1: that kind of voting, trying to organize sort of you know,
Speaker 1: you know, vote in the other primary for somebody to
Speaker 1: mess things up, you know, I think the informed voter
Speaker 1: might do it. You know. My old man was a
Speaker 1: registered Democrat in the state of Florida at a time
Speaker 1: where if you wanted to participate in most elections, the
Speaker 1: only primaries that were competitive or Democratic primaries. But he
Speaker 1: was a Republican voter, but he was a registered Democrat.
Speaker 1: A lot of southern Southern Democrats were in this vote
Speaker 1: where they were registered as Democrats but almost exclusively voted
Speaker 1: for Republican in general elections. So I remember in eighty
Speaker 1: four distinctly, and not only that, in the Democratic primary
Speaker 1: in Florida back then in the eighties, you voted, you
Speaker 1: could there was a beauty contest quote unquote where you
Speaker 1: picked the candidate that you wanted in the primary, but
Speaker 1: then you had to actually pick the specific delegates for
Speaker 1: said candidate to represent at the national convention. So my
Speaker 1: father was one of those. He was petrified in eighty four.
Speaker 1: I'll never forget this. He was petrified that Gary Hart
Speaker 1: would be the nominee because he thought Gary Hart actually
Speaker 1: could beat Ronald Reagan in eighty four. He didn't think
Speaker 1: Mondale could, and he didn't think Jackson could, so he
Speaker 1: believed he was trying to support Jackson. So he ends
Speaker 1: up voting Jackson in the primary and the delegates, it
Speaker 1: was less about voting for Jesse Jackson and more about
Speaker 1: trying to deny, you know, trying to improve Jackson's chances
Speaker 1: to weaken heart sore. And there certainly is plenty of
Speaker 1: evidence that the long primary campaign hurt while her Mondale
Speaker 1: in eighty four. But I think in hindsight, the long
Speaker 1: primary campaigns for Obama and eight and for Trump and
Speaker 1: sixteen didn't weaken the eventual nominees. They actually strengthened them.
Speaker 1: And I think one of the things that hurt Joe
Speaker 1: Biden in twenty twenty was was cutting off the campaign
Speaker 1: so quickly. I wonder if the Democratic Party would have
Speaker 1: been better off as far as field. But I'll give
Speaker 1: you a perfect example in OBAMAA Obama had that thing
Speaker 1: wrapped up. I would argue, we knew after Super Tuesday
Speaker 1: he was directionally going to be the nominee. He had
Speaker 1: to collapse. And then, of course, after he did his
Speaker 1: Philadelphia speech race speech, he put it away because there
Speaker 1: was just never going to be enough delegates the delegate path,
Speaker 1: the way the Democrats distributed delegates. But Hillary kept marching
Speaker 1: on just in case, right, just in case there was
Speaker 1: some revelation that would come out and destroy his candidacy,
Speaker 1: and she'd be there to pick up the pieces. So
Speaker 1: deep into May, right, they went all the way to June,
Speaker 1: deep into May. We had a big primary night Indiana,
Speaker 1: North Carolina. This was the night that Tim Russell famously said,
Speaker 1: we now know who the Democratic nomin and he's going
Speaker 1: to be. It's Barack Obama. And he declared the race
Speaker 1: closest to anybody came on TV to declaring the race.
Speaker 1: Although we had kind of been hinting at this, it
Speaker 1: was always funny to me that him saying it became
Speaker 1: became such a gut punch to the Clinton campaign. They
Speaker 1: got really angry about this, believing this was now. But
Speaker 1: the fact is North Carolina and Indiana. Why am I
Speaker 1: singling those two states out? Well? Those were the two
Speaker 1: surprise states that Barack Obama ended up carrying in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight. Does he carry those states in a
Speaker 1: general election without actually having to run a competent primary
Speaker 1: campaign in Indiana and North Carolina in May of that
Speaker 1: election year. So my point is is that by having
Speaker 1: to organize in more states for longer during that process. Inaight,
Speaker 1: what if rush Limbaugh thought he was helping the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: extending the primary only made Barack Obama's organization better and
Speaker 1: strong in more states. So I actually believe the more
Speaker 1: contested a campaign is towards the end, arguably it has
Speaker 1: in the twenty first century, it has actually helped that
Speaker 1: party in the general election. All right, Next question comes
Speaker 1: from Steve and Vernon Hills, Illinois. He writes, you're double
Speaker 1: the size of the House idea may have merit, but
Speaker 1: where would one physically put them all? How would it work?
Speaker 1: The seating in the House chamber would look like economy
Speaker 1: seats on airplanes. And wouldn't that be great?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Shouldn't they all have to be stuffed next to each other?
Speaker 1: It's the people's house, right, Look, this is always I
Speaker 1: don't want office space to be the reason why this goes.
Speaker 1: This idea doesn't happen, but I do think that there is. Look,
Speaker 1: we're due for a new house office building. I think
Speaker 1: that the first woman Speaker of the House probably ought
Speaker 1: to have a building named for her. We have one
Speaker 1: for Joe Cannon. There probably ought to be one for
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi. And I'm not sure you strip off a
Speaker 1: name and put on a name. So I think we're
Speaker 1: due for one office space right now. Some argue is tight,
Speaker 1: but I actually would double the size of the house,
Speaker 1: but not double the size of the staff, right so
Speaker 1: that you would have so I'd have, you know, one
Speaker 1: more office building, but essentially you you would you would
Speaker 1: you would narrow it down. I'd like to see members
Speaker 1: of the House have their bigger offices in their district,
Speaker 1: and that's where a large majority of their staff ought
Speaker 1: to reside more. The staff ought to be in the
Speaker 1: district than in Washington. That you really, your Washington staff
Speaker 1: ought to be literally the chief of staff, the legislative director,
Speaker 1: your communications director, and and and some and and maybe
Speaker 1: maybe a few other helpers. And that's it. That the
Speaker 1: large chunk of your work, if it's constituent services, should
Speaker 1: actually be taking place in the district. So that's to me,
Speaker 1: I would sort of we reimagine what office space is like,
Speaker 1: and it really should be about office space in the district,
Speaker 1: not necessarily office space in Washington. And as for where
Speaker 1: do you see them in the large Chamber book, you
Speaker 1: know it's it was, you know, they they've added seats
Speaker 1: to that chamber before since we've been We expanded the
Speaker 1: house for one hundred and twenty years. So there's no
Speaker 1: reason why you can't come up with different ways to
Speaker 1: continue to expand the house seating chart and things like that.
Speaker 1: You know, I think you could do it without making
Speaker 1: us feel like we're all sitting in Southwest seats. But
Speaker 1: I certainly, I certainly think the bigger question is where
Speaker 1: do they have their offices? And this is where I
Speaker 1: would flip the script here, districts should be where a
Speaker 1: lion's share of the staff and offices are, and literally
Speaker 1: you should it almost should feel like a cubicle when
Speaker 1: you're coming to Washington. That's to me what a citizen
Speaker 1: legislature for a representative democracy ought to behave. All right,
Speaker 1: last question for the for this episode, dom from Easton PA.
Speaker 1: I believe that's the home of one Larry Holmes, the
Speaker 1: most underappreciated all time heavyweight champion of the world. Let
Speaker 1: me go. I've been thinking a lot about the issues
Speaker 1: facing American democracy. Wouldn't it be smart for a group
Speaker 1: or party like Andrew Yang's Forward Party to become dedicated
Speaker 1: to this one cause. Similar to how the Forward Party
Speaker 1: endorses candidates that are registered Republicans or Democrats, this new
Speaker 1: American Forward Party can support candidates and officials on both
Speaker 1: sides and independents who decide to support legislation that would
Speaker 1: end jerrymandering, overturn Citizens United, or vote to expand the
Speaker 1: US House. Is there an appetite for this? Well, you
Speaker 1: just described the much of the agenda the Forward Party,
Speaker 1: and it's funny you bring up the Forward Party. I'm
Speaker 1: actually going to have the chair of the Forward Party
Speaker 1: on this podcast pretty soon, hopefully before the end of
Speaker 1: this month of May, and we will ask her about that.
Speaker 1: I've been doing some deeper dives on what they're up to.
Speaker 1: You know, in theory, No Labels was trying to get
Speaker 1: to this place that you're describing, where they could create
Speaker 1: sort of a caucus or a coalition of the willing,
Speaker 1: if you will, have left and right on different issues.
Speaker 1: I think I've always thought if No Labels made a mistake,
Speaker 1: it was assuming there was an actual centrist ideology. And
Speaker 1: I think that what what there really is is a
Speaker 1: pragmatic ideology, meaning people that are willing to compromise to
Speaker 1: make incremental progress versus people that want the issue and
Speaker 1: it's their way or the highway right. And that's to me,
Speaker 1: is the difference between a partisan legislator and a and
Speaker 1: a politician.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: A politician figures out how to do the best they
Speaker 1: can with what with what is offered, and so but
Speaker 1: I look, it's been the theme of this podcast at
Speaker 1: the top. I think there's a vacuum out there for
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of Americans who feel like they're not
Speaker 1: represented very well by the Democrats or the Republicans, and
Speaker 1: there are pieces of ideas that they like in both parties.
Speaker 1: So it's you know, the idea that you can have
Speaker 1: one third party do anything is I think is I
Speaker 1: get why that? That seems like you know, there's no
Speaker 1: there's no perfect compromise there. But I do think there's
Speaker 1: something there is. I think there is a vacuum out
Speaker 1: there and there's going to be an appetite for this.
Speaker 1: And again, look, some of it is going to be
Speaker 1: by necessity. Do we have a John Corny and decide
Speaker 1: he has to run as an independent? That's an opportunity
Speaker 1: for the Forward Party, right, Ditto with Tillis or ditto
Speaker 1: with this Jason Pizzoo in Florida. So some of it
Speaker 1: will have to do with what kind of well we
Speaker 1: see ah a better quality of candidate running as an
Speaker 1: independent in some of these spots or running as a
Speaker 1: non traditional member of what either party an. I think
Speaker 1: that's you know, some of it is you know, you
Speaker 1: have you have an idealistic you have an ideal in
Speaker 1: your head of what that candidate would look like. Is
Speaker 1: there anybody that will actually resemble that ideal? And we'll see.
Speaker 1: I think it's a little early but I know, I'm
Speaker 1: hopeful that there's some attempts to shake up the system
Speaker 1: because it's clear the two party duopoly is not good
Speaker 1: for the democracy.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: With that, I ought to lament the lottery. I know.
Speaker 1: I closed the last podcast with a with begging you
Speaker 1: guys for good vibe. So thanks for nothing. I have tease.
Speaker 1: By the way, as somebody paid attention to what's going
Speaker 1: to happen to the three teams in the state of Texas, Dallas, Houston,
Speaker 1: San Antonio. Those three NBA teams, they're all on the rise,
Speaker 1: They're all in a position of strength all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: and it's a state that prefers football and baseball over basketball.
Speaker 1: It's you know, we'll see if it's a if this
Speaker 1: sort of changes, but this is a state that loves
Speaker 1: its football and loves its baseball, and basketball has always
Speaker 1: been fine. And there's certainly you know, been your Baylors
Speaker 1: had a good program. Tex UT's had a good program,
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong. But in Houston obviously has been
Speaker 1: one of the powers in college basketball off and on
Speaker 1: for years. But as you know, it is never it
Speaker 1: has never been that the core and yet the NBA
Speaker 1: three the three franchises, there have never all three been
Speaker 1: on this strong of footing at the same time. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that's going to be fascinating to watch build on that front.
Speaker 1: As for my poor Wizards, I mean, it was such
Speaker 1: a wizard's ending. Not only did they not get it,
Speaker 1: they didn't even get a top four pick, didn't even
Speaker 1: get a top two pick, end up in the sixth spot.
Speaker 1: You know, who knows. You never know who you draft
Speaker 1: in six You know, Jokic was drafted in the second round.
Speaker 1: Yannis was down in the deepen the lottery, and you know,
Speaker 1: grew three inches after he was drafted, So you know,
Speaker 1: you can always hope. But boy, go look at the
Speaker 1: NBA draft history and see how many players in the
Speaker 1: top three become All Stars versus how many players in
Speaker 1: the rest of the first round become All Stars. So
Speaker 1: it's a bummer not to get one of those first
Speaker 1: three picks. All right, that's enough with my sports update again,
Speaker 1: Like and subscribe everywhere we are, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, you
Speaker 1: name it. And oh, by the way, we now have
Speaker 1: a weekly substat that you can subscribe to as well,
Speaker 1: so go check it out there and with that until
Speaker 1: we upload again,