Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Mollie John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. And Donald Trump says he will flee
Speaker 1: to Venezuela if he loses the election. Audios, we have
Speaker 1: such a great show for you Today. Whitney Box talks
Speaker 1: to us about her run against Florida's most mega Congresswoman,
Speaker 1: Anna Paulina Luna. Then we'll talk to MSNBC contributor Brian
Speaker 1: Tyler Cohen about his new book, Shameless Republicans, Deliberate Dysfunction,
Speaker 1: and the Battle to preserve Democracy. But first we have
Speaker 1: the host of the time of Monsters, the nation's jeet here.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 2: Get here, always good to be on.
Speaker 1: So vibe shift End of Democracy feels like we may
Speaker 1: get another couple of years of democracy out of this thing.
Speaker 2: Yet even like what does the most pestimistic under like
Speaker 2: with bideny and thinking he's not getting real to do it.
Speaker 2: I did take some comfany in the fact that Trump
Speaker 2: is even at his best polls wasn't clearing fifty percent,
Speaker 2: was still widely hated, and you know, there was a
Speaker 2: vast spath of the population that was ready to support
Speaker 2: the Democrats if they had a candidate people were happy with.
Speaker 2: So I think, yeah, I mean I don't want to
Speaker 2: be like but I think we should also be a
Speaker 2: little bit cautious about oh yeah, quite too early, Like
Speaker 2: it's still like a tight race. But I think it's
Speaker 2: a much more winnable race now than it was a
Speaker 2: month ago. You can see to the people's wood, people
Speaker 2: are just a lot happier.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And I think, look,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton wouldn't have lost if people hadn't treated her
Speaker 1: as a fat to complay. I do think it's very
Speaker 1: very important that when looking at this race, we look
Speaker 1: at the very very real possibility that Donald Trump could win.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, No, I mean I'd say his chances
Speaker 2: of winning have gone down. A month ago, I'd say
Speaker 2: he did a seventy to eighty percent chance of winning.
Speaker 2: Now I think it's like forty five percent. But that's
Speaker 2: way too high. It's like, you know, considering what he's
Speaker 2: gonna do. But but I mean, let's not undersell the
Speaker 2: positive thing. I mean the Democrats, I mean, I always
Speaker 2: thought they had a winning message. Now they have the
Speaker 2: right passenger. They have two right messengers. Things are like
Speaker 2: much more positive. The key now is to protect the gains,
Speaker 2: like protect the people that Kamala Harris has brought back,
Speaker 2: keep them within the coalition, and that's the way I
Speaker 2: think to be the main task. Also's Greate is like,
Speaker 2: you know, there's like a little over eighty days left
Speaker 2: right like ste So I actually think that helps a
Speaker 2: lot because I think eighty four days right, Like they're
Speaker 2: obviously trying to smear Harris, they're trying to smear Tim Walls,
Speaker 2: but it takes time. Like with Hillary Clinton they had
Speaker 2: like twenty five years. Like slagging this woman the patier
Speaker 2: is like combination of Lady Macbeth and Godzilla. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: think with Harris and Walds, they're finding a little bit
Speaker 2: harder to do that time. They're running out of time.
Speaker 2: I think the optimism is warranted, you know, with the proviso,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of work to be done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I mean I think that short election cycle
Speaker 1: certainly has really helped her. You know, she has that
Speaker 1: secret sauce too, which is she was in the job
Speaker 1: or she was vice president, so she had some experience
Speaker 1: with the job. So she's sort of known, but she's
Speaker 1: also very careful and has been very careful her whole life,
Speaker 1: and probably that's good. She was a sex crimes prosecutor,
Speaker 1: so she knew, you know, that that kind any kind
Speaker 1: of information could be used against her. And then also
Speaker 1: she just is has gotten much much much better and
Speaker 1: has become a really good, really good speaker, and she
Speaker 1: was always a really good interviewer because she comes from
Speaker 1: being a prosecutor.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, I mean I think people have forgotten because
Speaker 2: her twoenty twenty campaign didn't go Maybe they forgot like
Speaker 2: how actullently she was just on the Senate floor interrogating witnesses,
Speaker 2: her real scale and sort of forensic argument. No, and
Speaker 2: she has a lot of very positive qualities. But also,
Speaker 2: like I think just the sort of attitude is really important.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think a lot of people who even
Speaker 2: if they hated Trump, we're kind of dreading the idea
Speaker 2: that it's an election between two you know, quite an
Speaker 2: old man. This is impressionistic, but I think a lot
Speaker 2: of people, especially younger people, felt like they're kind of
Speaker 2: in a country that's in decline, that has no future,
Speaker 2: that's locked in the past and locked in past battles
Speaker 2: and I think the whole thing that she and Walls
Speaker 2: offer is kind of like freshness. There, there's something new,
Speaker 2: there's something different, and you know, like even though JD.
Speaker 2: Vatt's kind of is something new, but he's so locked
Speaker 2: in past battles. He's so like trying to fight yesterday's
Speaker 2: war that I think it's really intertsive, like all that
Speaker 2: stuff about caf ladies, Like it's not just like offensive
Speaker 2: or whatnot, but it's like it's like retrograde. It's like
Speaker 2: like we want to bring back a past where we
Speaker 2: would get shamed for not having kids. Harris is able
Speaker 2: to run both as an incumbent but as a change candidate,
Speaker 2: like offer the stability and continuity you know, she's taking
Speaker 2: over from Biden, but also like offering like a fresh
Speaker 2: voice and a possibility of some changes of policy as well.
Speaker 2: The so called vibe shift. I don't think it's an illusion.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's based on something real that we're seeing,
Speaker 2: like in the big rallies and in the money that's
Speaker 2: coming in.
Speaker 1: Right, you have tons of donations, you have first time donors,
Speaker 1: you have volunteers, you have I mean, you really have
Speaker 1: a lot of excitement and activity and these kind of things.
Speaker 1: I do think it's ironic that during this Republican convention
Speaker 1: they spend so much time running on mental acuity. Trump's
Speaker 1: spendal acuity and Biden being old and now puts them
Speaker 1: in an awkward position as they are running themselves the
Speaker 1: oldest person to ever run for president.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, no, no, not the town is old.
Speaker 2: But you know, it's clearly showing the signs of age,
Speaker 2: which are like kind of invisible during the period when
Speaker 2: all the debate was about Biden. And it's interesting, polls
Speaker 2: have shown like the number of people think Trump is
Speaker 2: too old. He's like going up, you know, like and
Speaker 2: it's like like when's Trump is the oldest candidate, then
Speaker 2: that becomes a natural topic of conversation. But also, like,
Speaker 2: you know, I was really struck by watching both the
Speaker 2: press conference and the rally. Can the press conference, he
Speaker 2: referenced Walls a couple of times, but did actually name it.
Speaker 2: We said, you know, this Minnesota governor, that guy from Minnesota,
Speaker 2: and you could clearly tell like he hasn't been able
Speaker 2: to process this new name. And I have to say
Speaker 2: it's a fairly simple name. Tim Waltz, you know, in Montana,
Speaker 2: he did reference Wallts, but you could tell who's reading
Speaker 2: from the teleprompter. With the aid of a teleprompter, he
Speaker 2: can know who the vice Parzila candidate, where the Democrats are,
Speaker 2: but only with the aid of a teleprompter. He kept
Speaker 2: on referencing Joe Biden and put forward this fanciful scenario
Speaker 2: that Biden is angry. I will like at the convention
Speaker 2: next week, the Democratic Convention, will reassert himself and be
Speaker 2: ready again. And you can kind of tell this is
Speaker 2: like a little fantasy of Trump, like if only I
Speaker 2: could be running against Biden again. That he was asking
Speaker 2: the cow in Montana, you know, like what do you
Speaker 2: prefer sleepy Joe or krooked Joe? And like you're not ready?
Speaker 2: Who gets Joe Biden?
Speaker 4: Joe?
Speaker 3: Yeah, but he's not going to be on the vellod
Speaker 3: Why are you talking about?
Speaker 2: But he also talked a lot about Hillary, you know,
Speaker 2: like if Trump at twenty sixteen was like the Elvis,
Speaker 2: you know who electrified America, who appeared on Ed Sullivan
Speaker 2: you know, was a Harvard Jerven new agent politics. Trump
Speaker 2: right now, within a few years he's become gone from
Speaker 2: Ed Sullivan Elvis to Las Vegas Elvis. He's the old
Speaker 2: daughtery Elvis, who has nothing new. Is just like doing
Speaker 2: a nostalgic tour of his greatest hits, you know, Cricket, Hillary,
Speaker 2: Sleepy Joe, and he contrast that with Harris. They're talking
Speaker 2: about we're not going back, We're going into the future.
Speaker 2: I think that's a very good contrast for Democrats.
Speaker 1: I have a theory about what Trump is saying when
Speaker 1: he talks about Biden getting pushed out and his sort
Speaker 1: of fantasy with this. I believe he's saying it because
Speaker 1: he really wants those divisions in sixteen that helped him
Speaker 1: become president.
Speaker 2: That is the sort of political logic behind it. It's
Speaker 2: not just yeah, wish fulfillment. He's trying to create a
Speaker 2: scenario where there is like people in the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: who feel like they were portrayed and that there was
Speaker 2: a coup. And then you see not just Trump, but
Speaker 2: sort of what I would call Trump's fellow travelers, including
Speaker 2: sadly Glenn Greenwald. We're like really pushing this narrative Jesus.
Speaker 2: But I have to say there's a couple of differences.
Speaker 1: Basically everything, but yes.
Speaker 2: Go on, yeah, everything is totally different with Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 2: you have like really hardcore Bernie.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I think not even comparable. It's bullshit.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just bullshit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's totally not comparable. What's been striking is the
Speaker 2: degree to which the Democrats have quickly solidified behind Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris and like really coalesced. And I know, I know,
Speaker 2: like before Biden Withdrew, there's like worries that you know,
Speaker 2: we're gonna have like a devisive primary or what top,
Speaker 2: but like we saw what happened. None of that happened.
Speaker 2: But I think thanks to Biden giving the endorsement, gave
Speaker 2: a strong endorsement, and then like you know, everyone of
Speaker 2: significance in the party has coalesced around her. And I
Speaker 2: think it's partially because the differences between the two parties,
Speaker 2: which is like the Democrats are not a personality cult, right,
Speaker 2: We've actually seen like cutemps. I'm sure there are very
Speaker 2: powerful Republicans that wanted the coup attempt against Trump that
Speaker 2: we're kind of wishing like something would happen to get
Speaker 2: him out of the way, or you know, they'd be
Speaker 2: a twenty fifth Amendment solution or anything, or he would
Speaker 2: just go away. But none of that has happened because
Speaker 2: he actually has this hardcore of the MAGA followers that
Speaker 2: are the base of the party now and would scream
Speaker 2: and rage. Nobody ever had that sort of cultic relationship
Speaker 2: with Joe Biden. Joe Biden was you know, people liked him,
Speaker 2: who appreciative of stuff he did, but they were you know,
Speaker 2: they saw him as a politician who was given a job,
Speaker 2: and then he's got up to the job. They you know,
Speaker 2: fortunately there's a vice president in place who could take
Speaker 2: over the ticket. It's just a fundamental misreading of what
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party is because I mean, you look at
Speaker 2: the Democrats, who isn't on Kamala Harris's side, you know,
Speaker 2: the pretty froze all became KHive like with it, like
Speaker 2: as the step of a figure.
Speaker 1: This is one of my favorite hobby horses. We really
Speaker 1: saw the Progressives have the centrist Democrats back, and I
Speaker 1: think some of that was because centrist Democrats did for
Speaker 1: them in some ways, right.
Speaker 2: Biden made certain like horse trading agreements with Bernie Sanders
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty, and Biden kept to them, and that
Speaker 2: has really helped solidify the party and unify the party
Speaker 2: in a way that it wasn't unified in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: but even twenty sixty. I think a lot of that
Speaker 2: narrative is a little bit over sold in the sense
Speaker 2: that if you look at the apolle the actual Bernie
Speaker 2: Sanders supporters came out for Hillary. I think the problem
Speaker 2: was like the more marginal voters who are like less
Speaker 2: frequent voters, who weren't enthusiastic and were alienated by certain
Speaker 2: things like the email scandal if we could remember that.
Speaker 1: You mean the hacking the yeah, yeah, mainstream media out
Speaker 1: are no longer publishing hacked materials as a drip drip
Speaker 1: to wait, remind me what did that happen in twenties?
Speaker 1: Oh wait, sorry, come.
Speaker 2: On, yeah, I know. And I have to say, like
Speaker 2: Ran if you're listening that if you want to leak
Speaker 2: to me, I will happily release any information that you
Speaker 2: give me because I think it's in the public interest.
Speaker 1: Do you love wiki leaks? Is that what's going on?
Speaker 2: I have all one paper of that. Now. My conspiracy
Speaker 2: theory is that this is a controlled burn. But in
Speaker 2: any case doesn't matter. Well, the key issues with you know,
Speaker 2: the Democrats, Trump started to divide the Democrats. I don't
Speaker 2: think it's getting any traction. There was never a Biden
Speaker 2: personality cult that could make, you know, that sort of
Speaker 2: a possible scenario. Harris was able to unify a broad
Speaker 2: spectrum with the party, you know, going from the left
Speaker 2: to the most centrist people who were who are the
Speaker 2: ones who really pushed for Biden to withdraw and everything
Speaker 2: that we're seeing from the rallies and from the fundraising
Speaker 2: and for the small donors. I mean, I think Harris
Speaker 2: actually has a lot of opportunities, and one of which
Speaker 2: is that she's actually gonna be less reliant on big
Speaker 2: donors than Biden was, and so she can actually like
Speaker 2: pick fights with certain like donors, whether it's big Pharma
Speaker 2: or other people, and not have to worry about it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Like there's a lot of push about Wall Street types
Speaker 2: to get Lena Kahan out of so I actually think
Speaker 2: like it would be a smart move for Harris because
Speaker 2: she doesn't need the money with the Wall Street money
Speaker 2: the way Biden to just say, like Kahn was appointed
Speaker 2: by Joe Biden. She's done a great job. She stands
Speaker 2: where we do on Freakia monopolies. You know, Harris actually
Speaker 2: has like room not just build a healthy lead, but
Speaker 2: to really expand and to show a lot of independence
Speaker 2: that could win over skeptical voters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. And also I think, really when you
Speaker 1: think about Harris, this is part of this idea that
Speaker 1: she has the benefit of incumbency and she has less
Speaker 1: of the burden of incumbency because with Biden, I think
Speaker 1: there were different things happening with Biden. I also think
Speaker 1: that the energy that brought Biden to the White House,
Speaker 1: and again, I think the man devoted himself to service,
Speaker 1: and I really do think that history will look back
Speaker 1: on him as a really a selfless public servant when
Speaker 1: all is said and done.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that's the other thing though, I mean, like
Speaker 2: the Biden conquered thing that Trump is trying to do,
Speaker 2: Like you misunderstands Joe Biden. I mean I think like
Speaker 2: I was worried there that for a while that Joe
Speaker 2: Biden was getting very bad advice. Like what always gave
Speaker 2: me comfort was the knowledge that Biden has always been
Speaker 2: a party man. He's always been a loyal Democrat, and
Speaker 2: that was a key to his success, Like throughout his
Speaker 2: whole political career, going back to the Senate, right That's.
Speaker 1: Why I thought he would drop out. Actually, if it
Speaker 1: looked like he was a drag on the ticket, I
Speaker 1: was pretty sure he would drop out because she is
Speaker 1: a company man and his company is the United States Senate.
Speaker 1: But I did think like the reason that he got elected,
Speaker 1: some of it was the left, the right, the middle
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party was like, we need somebody who
Speaker 1: is a white guy, who is just a sort of
Speaker 1: very kind of centrist broad Democrat who can go in there,
Speaker 1: and we're going to trade that up from an inspirational candidate.
Speaker 1: You know, he was never a gifted orator. He always
Speaker 1: had trouble speaking, and then he ultimately became a very
Speaker 1: progressive president. But I think there was a sort of
Speaker 1: a decision made on the fly there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, But I mean I think it was always
Speaker 2: a smart decisions sort of, you know, if it wasn't
Speaker 2: going to be someone I preferred, like Elizabeth Warren or
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders, I always thought Biden was the best choice
Speaker 2: because he is that company man, because he puts the
Speaker 2: party first, and you can kind of see that, like
Speaker 2: just like in the midterm result, he really organized the
Speaker 2: whole presidency to be a coalition of the Democratic party,
Speaker 2: and then the Democrats did well in the midterms and
Speaker 2: in the special elections, And that's a very striking contrast
Speaker 2: to you know, both Obama and Bill Clinton, where you know,
Speaker 2: because they were sel charismotic, they kind of over dominated
Speaker 2: the party in a way that wasn't good for down
Speaker 2: ballid people. So yeah, no, I think there's a lot
Speaker 2: to respect with Joe Biden, and but I think it's
Speaker 2: also says something more about the Democratic Party that I
Speaker 2: think this is a crucial Like the two parties are
Speaker 2: not the same, They're not equal. The Repoblicans under Trump
Speaker 2: have become hollowed out and taken over by this like
Speaker 2: con man grifter who is running a cult. Even if
Speaker 2: the party elite is against him, they can't ever do
Speaker 2: anything about him. The Democrats are not the same. They
Speaker 2: are an actual political party, a coalition of people. It's
Speaker 2: never about just one percent, right, That is crucial, Like
Speaker 2: that's actually how you build like actual lasting, real change.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure, And I think that's a really important
Speaker 1: point here. Thank you for joining us. You are the best.
Speaker 1: I hope you will come back.
Speaker 2: Oh you can't stop me, you can't heal it.
Speaker 5: We have even more toward dates for you. Did you
Speaker 5: know the Lincoln Projects, Rick wils that have Fast Politics
Speaker 5: Mali jug Fast are heading out on tour to bring
Speaker 5: you a night of lasts for our dark political landscape.
Speaker 5: Join us on August twenty sixth at San Francisco at
Speaker 5: the Swedish American Hall, or in la on August twenty
Speaker 5: seventh at the Regent Theater. Then we're headed to the Midwest.
Speaker 5: We'll be at the Vivarium in Milwaukee on the twenty
Speaker 5: first of September, and on the twenty second we'll be
Speaker 5: in Chicago at City Winery. Then we're going to hit
Speaker 5: the East coast. On September thirtieth, we'll be in Boston
Speaker 5: at Arts at the Armory. On the first of October,
Speaker 5: we'll be in Affiliates City Winery, and then DC on
Speaker 5: the second at the Miracle Theater. And today we just
Speaker 5: announced that we'll be in New York on the fourteenth
Speaker 5: of October at City Winery. If you need to laugh
Speaker 5: as we get through this election and hopefully never hear
Speaker 5: from a guy who lives in a golf club again,
Speaker 5: we got you covered. Join us in our surprise guests
Speaker 5: to help you laugh instead of cry your way through
Speaker 5: this election season and give you the inside analysis of
Speaker 5: what's really going on right now. Buy your tickets now
Speaker 5: by heading to Politics as Unusual dot bio. That's politics
Speaker 5: as Unusual dot bio.
Speaker 1: Whitney Fox is a candidate in Florida's thirteenth congressional district.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics, Whitney.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for having me, Mollie.
Speaker 1: So tell us what you're running for. Tell us all
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 4: Sure well, I am born and raised right here in
Speaker 4: the Tampa Bay area, and we currently have a representative
Speaker 4: who is quite extreme for our district in a Paulina Luna.
Speaker 4: But what really fired me to run for office myself
Speaker 4: was having children. My firstborn was born in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: I remember holding her as a newborn baby and getting
Speaker 4: our medical bills in the mail and just thinking, with
Speaker 4: our medical bills, the lack of paid print to leave,
Speaker 4: the lack of affordable childcare. There was just such little
Speaker 4: support for families in America as they're starting out. So
Speaker 4: something lit inside of me and I said I needed
Speaker 4: to do something about it. But also the fact that
Speaker 4: now my two little girls are growing up a few
Speaker 4: rights than I did. I decided I had to stand
Speaker 4: up and run for office.
Speaker 1: You are running against someone who is a very trumpy candidate.
Speaker 1: Tampa is a mixed place. There are lefties, rities, everything
Speaker 1: in between, but it's a city. So explained to us
Speaker 1: what this sort of looks like and what people think
Speaker 1: of having this MAGA congresswoman.
Speaker 4: Sure, well, I'm running in the Tampa Bay area, but
Speaker 4: it doesn't include the city of Tampa. It's Panellis County,
Speaker 4: which is Saint Petersburg's Clearwater area of Florida. And it
Speaker 4: was redistricted in twenty twenty two. It was previously held
Speaker 4: by Congressman Charlie Cris and he left to run for
Speaker 4: the governor of Florida. And when he vacated the seat
Speaker 4: and the district was redistricted, that is when Annapolina Luna
Speaker 4: won in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: So it's more of a red district.
Speaker 4: It's slightly more red, that's correct. And we had very
Speaker 4: low voter turnout in twenty twenty two, which I think
Speaker 4: was also part of the issue. So she won as
Speaker 4: an extremist and a very moderate pragmatic district. I mean
Speaker 4: a third of our voters are independents, and many people
Speaker 4: were shocked that she won and are appalled that she
Speaker 4: is our representative at the moment. So it's considered the
Speaker 4: most flippable congressional district in the state of Florida because
Speaker 4: of how extreme she is and because of how great
Speaker 4: of a Canada I am. So we know as long
Speaker 4: as we can get our message out to the voters,
Speaker 4: we can win. We have a recent poll that was
Speaker 4: done that shows once the voters are informed on her
Speaker 4: extreme stances like supporting a national abortion ban and denying
Speaker 4: the twenty twenty election, we know that once they learned
Speaker 4: about my background here in the community as a public
Speaker 4: servant and my stances on the issues, it ends with
Speaker 4: Luna at forty seven percent and with myself, Whitney Fox
Speaker 4: at forty nine percent. So we know as as as
Speaker 4: long as we inform the voters of what she is
Speaker 4: and is not doing for the district, that we kind
Speaker 4: of flip the seed.
Speaker 1: So in Florida, you guys have an abortion referendum on
Speaker 1: the ballot. We interviewed the woman who is championing it
Speaker 1: is from the nonpartisan municipality wing of government. So talk
Speaker 1: to me about if you think that will turn out
Speaker 1: voters and will that turn out a sort of more
Speaker 1: moderate but still Democratic voter.
Speaker 4: Listen, I think many people are fired up about this issue,
Speaker 4: and especially now that this is on the ballot. I'm
Speaker 4: excited because it's an educational opportunity, especially for Florida. You know,
Speaker 4: many people talking about these the abortion issues and the
Speaker 4: reproductive care and reproductive freedoms that we deserve. And Ina
Speaker 4: Paulina Luna supports a national abortion ban without exceptions for
Speaker 4: rape incests or the life of the mother. And this
Speaker 4: past year when the sixth week abortion ban went into
Speaker 4: place for Florida, with her response to people who did
Speaker 4: not like the ban was move out of the state,
Speaker 4: you can leave. I mean, she has voted to repeal
Speaker 4: policies that help service women access reproductive healthcare. And she's
Speaker 4: also a member of the republic and Study Committee and
Speaker 4: BAX policies that put access to IVF and birth control
Speaker 4: at risk. And I'm sure, I mean, we're all familiar
Speaker 4: with Project twenty twenty five. She has received a ninety
Speaker 4: eight percent reading from the Heritage Foundation, among the highest
Speaker 4: in Congress, which is responsible for Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 4: So I think that this issue is a big issue
Speaker 4: in the state of Florida. It is part of why
Speaker 4: we are going to see the pendulum swing this year.
Speaker 4: People in Florida are tired of the extremism in Florida.
Speaker 4: They want to have their reproductive freedoms, to be able
Speaker 4: to make their own healthcare decisions without the government telling
Speaker 4: them what they can and cannot do, which is why
Speaker 4: we are going to see women and men who support
Speaker 4: women show up and droves to the polls in November.
Speaker 1: You have in Florida a very You have now a
Speaker 1: very restrictive abortion ban which just recently came into a fact.
Speaker 1: Some of this is you have a sort of Kansas
Speaker 1: situation where what happened with Governor Brownback is happening with
Speaker 1: Governor DeSantis, which is he he is enacting he's very
Speaker 1: very right wing policies. Talk to me about what the
Speaker 1: abortion band looks like on the ground there in Florida
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 4: It's been very interesting because you know, I had a
Speaker 4: conversation with Planned Parenthood recently, who just endorsed me today.
Speaker 4: By the way, we're very proud of their support, you know,
Speaker 4: asking them what has it been like now that the
Speaker 4: six week band has put into place, and you know
Speaker 4: they're letting me know that they're having to direct women
Speaker 4: to the Carolinas to receive care, and that many of
Speaker 4: these women can't afford to get travel out of the state,
Speaker 4: or they have other children and can't afford the child
Speaker 4: care to do. So it's interesting because I have so
Speaker 4: many stories I can share. One recently is I don't
Speaker 4: leave my home without a Whitney Fox for Congress logo on.
Speaker 4: And I was at the playground with my girls a
Speaker 4: few months back and a woman ran up to me
Speaker 4: and said, are you Whitney Fox running for Congress against
Speaker 4: Anna Pauline A. Luda And I said, yes, I am,
Speaker 4: And she said, I have to share my abortion story
Speaker 4: with you. This is my son. And after I had
Speaker 4: my son, I had a miscarriage and if I hadn't
Speaker 4: received the reproductive healthcare I received, my two year old
Speaker 4: daughter would not be here today. And she said, I
Speaker 4: will do whatever I can to volunteer to help your campaign,
Speaker 4: to share my story. And she is one of our
Speaker 4: best volunteers that we've had. So we have many people
Speaker 4: who have approached us, who have come out up to
Speaker 4: our campaign and said, I need to share my story.
Speaker 4: How can I get involved? I mean there are many
Speaker 4: women who are especially even some NPAs independents or modern
Speaker 4: Republicans who maybe haven't had to think much about politics
Speaker 4: lately in their life, but now they're saying, wait a minute,
Speaker 4: this attack on IVF, that's how I had children, or
Speaker 4: I'm going through infertility now and going through the IVF process,
Speaker 4: and now that's being threatened. And it's a very real
Speaker 4: issue for many people in our district, and they are
Speaker 4: fired up that this is an issue that Anna Pauline
Speaker 4: a Luna is so extreme.
Speaker 1: About the other thing that I've seen. And again there's
Speaker 1: finn studies about this since the overturning of Row we
Speaker 1: saw in Louisiana, other red states that there are women
Speaker 1: who are in their first trimester of pregnancy who cannot
Speaker 1: get care, just regular pre natal care because doctors are
Speaker 1: afraid of miscarriages and that that might cause them to
Speaker 1: get in trouble or be blamed. And then also we
Speaker 1: just saw this case out of Texas, these MDALA cases
Speaker 1: to women are suing this hospital because they were turned
Speaker 1: away with atopic pregnancies and a topic pregnancy can never
Speaker 1: become a baby because it's growing in the fallopian tubes.
Speaker 1: It can only destroy your fertility. I mean, are you
Speaker 1: seeing stories like that out.
Speaker 4: Of Florida, Yes, Molly, it's pretty awful. I mean there's
Speaker 4: a story of a woman here in the Tampa Bay
Speaker 4: area who you know, her water broke very early in
Speaker 4: the case where no fetus will be able to survive,
Speaker 4: and the emergency rooms here in Florida turned her away.
Speaker 4: And you know, the very first thing that she did
Speaker 4: the next day, she went to the salon to get
Speaker 4: her hair done, and the reason was is she didn't
Speaker 4: want to burden her parents with getting her hair done
Speaker 4: for her funeral because she was certain she was going
Speaker 4: to die. She ended up giving birth to her fetus
Speaker 4: in the bathroom of the hair salon and lost half
Speaker 4: of the blood in her body. I mean, these are
Speaker 4: the types of things that are happening, and the fact
Speaker 4: that we are in this moment fighting for our lives
Speaker 4: and our healthcare is quite terrifying. I mean, I'm reminded
Speaker 4: of my own pregnancies and sitting in those ultrasound rooms
Speaker 4: hoping and praying that everything is going to be okay.
Speaker 4: I cannot imagine being told everything is not okay and
Speaker 4: there's nothing that we can do about it. I mean,
Speaker 4: this isn't pro life by any means. It's forced birth.
Speaker 4: It's forced birth. Then get back to work and your
Speaker 4: entire paycheck going to childcare. I mean, this is not
Speaker 4: pro family, and this is not supportive of women in
Speaker 4: any capacity. And we are starting to hear the horrifying
Speaker 4: stories of what's going on and the fact that it's
Speaker 4: affecting people's lives and doctors are leaving the state of Florida.
Speaker 4: It is a horrible effect that we're having here in
Speaker 4: the state. Since the six week into place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I relate to that. One of my kids had
Speaker 1: a single artery in his himbilical cord. We had endless
Speaker 1: meetings about what is this going to mean? He ended
Speaker 1: up being fine, but it was really scary, and you know,
Speaker 1: I had my twins from IVF and there was tons
Speaker 1: of times where I was just praying that they were okay.
Speaker 1: The sort of second consequence of this, the inadvertent consequences
Speaker 1: of these bands, is really women unable to get pre
Speaker 1: natal care, doctors leaving the states, making it even more
Speaker 1: unsafe to be a pregnant woman in this country. Absolutely.
Speaker 4: I spoke to a constituent the other day who has
Speaker 4: children in their thirties and and his daughters is pregnant
Speaker 4: and he told her to go stay somewhere in the
Speaker 4: northern part of the United States, that he did not
Speaker 4: feel comfortable with her going through her pregnancy in the
Speaker 4: state of Florida. I mean, how awful is that to
Speaker 4: feel like you need to send your daughter away because
Speaker 4: it's not safe to be pregnant in the state of Florida.
Speaker 4: It's pretty terrifying. And that's the issue here, Mollie is
Speaker 4: Floridians are tired of the extremism. They're tired of the
Speaker 4: left versus right, the Democrat versus Republican, They're red versus blue.
Speaker 4: They want to have their freedoms, to make their own decisions.
Speaker 4: They want a government that's going to work for them.
Speaker 4: And Anna Paulina Luda is so extreme in her stances,
Speaker 4: and that's why our campaign is going so well, and
Speaker 4: that's why we have a shot at winning not only
Speaker 4: flipping the seat, but getting one of the worst members
Speaker 4: of Congress out of office. I mean, she's a member
Speaker 4: of the Freedom Caucus. She has been listed as more
Speaker 4: extreme than Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gates, and Lauren Bobert.
Speaker 4: Which is setting the bar pretty low. And you know,
Speaker 4: we are a moderate district of pragmatic voters that are
Speaker 4: that are eager for new leadership.
Speaker 1: That is really something that's such a crazy metric. Do
Speaker 1: you think that when you're talking to people, because you
Speaker 1: really are in Florida and you really are in this
Speaker 1: in this purple district. I mean, what's the feeling on
Speaker 1: the ground. Do you think that Florida is sick of DeSantis?
Speaker 1: I mean, he won re election really by a staggering margin,
Speaker 1: but I think some of his policies have boomeranged on
Speaker 1: him absolutely well.
Speaker 4: You know, Anna pulling a little ran on making Penillas
Speaker 4: County affordable again, and by that measure, she's a complete failure.
Speaker 4: I mean, Florida has some of the highest inflation and
Speaker 4: insurance rate increases in the country. I mean, her self
Speaker 4: serving political games do not put food on the table.
Speaker 4: Her attending criminal trials in New York is not lowering
Speaker 4: drug costs. Her going on tour across the country with
Speaker 4: JD Vance will not lower our bills here in the district.
Speaker 4: She's a self described influencer, and the time in taxpayer
Speaker 4: dollars she is wasting is infuriating. I mean, this has
Speaker 4: been the least productive Congress in decades, and Luna's efforts
Speaker 4: to constantly shut down the government is part of that problem.
Speaker 4: Instead of protecting IVF and birth control, she's chasing headlines.
Speaker 4: Instead of upholding our democratic institutions, she's attempting to weaken
Speaker 4: them simply because she doesn't like the outcome of investigations.
Speaker 4: She attacks the DOJ anytime they don't rule in her favor,
Speaker 4: and tried to have The latest thing she did was
Speaker 4: trying to have Attorney General Mayor Garland arrested. I mean,
Speaker 4: she wrote a children's book about how the election was stolen.
Speaker 4: She is dangerous and eroding trusts in our institutions. So
Speaker 4: I think that we are seeing from the boots on
Speaker 4: the ground and talking to voters in our district that
Speaker 4: people are tired of the extremism. She made a lot
Speaker 4: of promises in her campaign, and they see that she
Speaker 4: is not delivering. She can talk a good talk, but
Speaker 4: when it comes to actually taking action and doing the
Speaker 4: hard part of governing, which is to sit down with others,
Speaker 4: make compromises and get things done, she's not doing it.
Speaker 4: Her idea of governing is if I don't get my way,
Speaker 4: I'm going to take my ball and go home. Or
Speaker 4: you know, we need beachery nourishment desperately here in our district,
Speaker 4: and instead of working with the Army Corps engineers in
Speaker 4: order to get it done, she has threatened to defund them.
Speaker 4: She's not a serious person to have in government, and
Speaker 4: our district knows that, and that's why we have so
Speaker 4: much support behind our campaign. We are going to be
Speaker 4: able to unsee her.
Speaker 1: That is so important and interesting. One of the big
Speaker 1: problems you guys are having in Florida with inflation is insurance. Right,
Speaker 1: It's skyrocketing. Do you think people connect that with the
Speaker 1: Republican governor or not so much.
Speaker 4: I think that it's become pretty clear that this is
Speaker 4: an issue that typically would need to be handled at
Speaker 4: a state level, and that is not happening. I mean,
Speaker 4: when I'm talking to voters, the number one issue I'm
Speaker 4: hearing from them is affordability, and at the top of
Speaker 4: that list is the home insurance crisis. You know, I
Speaker 4: attended a firefighter one oh one day recently and learned
Speaker 4: that most of our firefighters don't live here in the
Speaker 4: district because they can't afford it, and this is an
Speaker 4: issue for all of our frontline workers, teachers, healthcare workers, firefighters.
Speaker 4: It's become completely unaffordable to live here in the district.
Speaker 4: And on top of that, a majority of our voters
Speaker 4: are over the age of fifty. We have many seniors
Speaker 4: here in the Tampa Bay areas. You can imagine, they
Speaker 4: are on fixed incomes, and as costs like home insurance
Speaker 4: are going up, they are having to make tough decisions
Speaker 4: about whether they should pay for prescription drugs or pay
Speaker 4: for their rent. And we have a staggering number of
Speaker 4: seniors becoming homeless. If you think about that, these poor
Speaker 4: seniors becoming homeless, and when it comes to home insurance,
Speaker 4: because we hear so often from so many people, you know,
Speaker 4: I believe that if you are a representative here in
Speaker 4: the state of Florida, or you are running for office,
Speaker 4: and you are not talking about home insurance, you're not
Speaker 4: addressing the issue that people want you to address. So,
Speaker 4: you know, many people have told me that it's an
Speaker 4: issue that needs to be addressed at a state level,
Speaker 4: but I am not taking that as an answer. Hurricane
Speaker 4: Debbie just a week ago left thousands of people without
Speaker 4: power here in our district and the solution that we
Speaker 4: are coming up with is we are coming up with
Speaker 4: a plan of how can we address this home insurance
Speaker 4: crisis from a federal level. One idea we have is
Speaker 4: a national natural disaster plan. You know, we have something
Speaker 4: like this in place already nationally, which is our flood insurance.
Speaker 4: But it used to be a problem, the home insurance
Speaker 4: crisis here in Florida only a few years ago. But
Speaker 4: now it's become a national issue. And there are many
Speaker 4: states from out west with wildfires or in the Midwest
Speaker 4: with you know, hailstorms and windstorms. Home insurance companies are
Speaker 4: tripling their costs or dropping people left and right. So
Speaker 4: we need a play on nationally that's going to protect
Speaker 4: us as climate change continues to get worse. And that
Speaker 4: is an issue that I am hearing from the voters,
Speaker 4: and we are putting a plan together and that's what
Speaker 4: we deserve as representatives who are going to actually hear
Speaker 4: what the issues are and address them.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Whitney. Are you concerned about Project twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five and how awful Trump's second term could be, Well,
Speaker 1: so are we, which is why we teamed up with
Speaker 1: iHeart to make a limited series with the experts on
Speaker 1: what a disaster Project twenty twenty five would be for
Speaker 1: America's future. Right now, we have just released the final
Speaker 1: episode of this five episode series. They're all available by
Speaker 1: looking up Molly Jong Fast Project twenty twenty five on YouTube.
Speaker 1: And if you are more of a podcast person and
Speaker 1: not say a YouTuber, you can hit play and put
Speaker 1: your phone in the lock screen and it will play
Speaker 1: back just like a podcast. All five episodes are online now.
Speaker 1: We need to educate Americans on what Trump's second term
Speaker 1: would or could due to this country, So please watch
Speaker 1: it and spread the word. Brian Tyler Cohen is the
Speaker 1: host of No Lie, an MSNBC contributor and the author
Speaker 1: of Shameless, Republicans Delivered, Dysfunction and the Battle to Preserve Democracy.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics, Brian Tyler.
Speaker 3: Cohen, Ollie, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: So tell me about this book, why you decided to
Speaker 1: write this book, and how you got here.
Speaker 3: I thought it was important to explore this topic now
Speaker 3: as we get into another election cycle where Americans look
Speaker 3: at Republicans and the polling reflects that they give them
Speaker 3: all this credit. On the economy, on national security on
Speaker 3: family values. That's basically the cornerstone of JD. Vance's campaign.
Speaker 3: And yet Republicans have long since done this where they
Speaker 3: rely on their historical branding to give themselves cover to
Speaker 3: act in a way that's completely antithetical to that. So
Speaker 3: they claim that the Party of family values, of fiscal responsibility,
Speaker 3: of states rights, of the constitution, of the military, of
Speaker 3: law and order, And when you drill down into each
Speaker 3: of these, they don't actually deserve any of that branding,
Speaker 3: but they still kind of ride the wave of that
Speaker 3: branding anyway, and so I think it really benefits them
Speaker 3: to a degree that they don't actually deserve.
Speaker 1: Give us an example of something where they say one
Speaker 1: thing and do another.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, if you look at family values, for example,
Speaker 3: right now, they are blocking a bill in the Senate
Speaker 3: that would actually allow for IVF to move forward that
Speaker 3: is quite literally building families. How you can claim that
Speaker 3: you're the Party of family values and yet you are
Speaker 3: currently blocking a bill that would allow people to actually
Speaker 3: build families is just beyond me. Then beyond that, if
Speaker 3: you look at their lack of support for snap benefits,
Speaker 3: for earn benefits, Medicare, and Medicaid, and social security. On
Speaker 3: every instance where Republicans actually have the opportunity to prove
Speaker 3: out this thesis that they're good for families, they behave
Speaker 3: in a way that's diametrically opposed to that.
Speaker 1: If you look at.
Speaker 3: Somebody like Donald Trump, for example, the Republican Party is
Speaker 3: lined up behind him, a guy who was just found
Speaker 3: guilty of thirty four felony counts for the were charges
Speaker 3: related to hush money payouts for an a fairyad while
Speaker 3: his wife was at home with their infant son. That's
Speaker 3: the Party of family values, the Party of the Constitution.
Speaker 3: This is the first party that refused to abide by
Speaker 3: the peaceful transfer of power in over two hundred years.
Speaker 3: The Party of States Rights, even though you had a
Speaker 3: bunch of Republican attorneys general who lined up behind this
Speaker 3: Texas lawsuit in twenty twenty that would seek to invalidate
Speaker 3: the election results in four other states just because they
Speaker 3: didn't like the outcome. The Party of Fiscal Responsibility. This
Speaker 3: party added seven point eight trillion dollars to the debt.
Speaker 3: On each branding point, they actually again behave in a
Speaker 3: way that is completely antithetical to their own professed values.
Speaker 1: Where do you think this started.
Speaker 3: So if we look at somebody like Donald Trump, for example,
Speaker 3: who is in large part who people blame for this,
Speaker 3: he is a symptom of a broader problem and problem
Speaker 3: that has existed for a long time within the Republican Party.
Speaker 3: You look back to the Ale's Memo, which ultimately became
Speaker 3: the creation of Fox News, so that what happened to
Speaker 3: Richard Nixon would never happen to a Republican president. Again,
Speaker 3: you look at somebody like Newt Gingrich for example, who
Speaker 3: I would in large part claim is responsible for the
Speaker 3: acrimony in politics today. And this whole idea that when
Speaker 3: Barack Obama became president, their sole goal, the Republican's sole
Speaker 3: goal in government, was just to prevent any progress from
Speaker 3: moving forward. That's where a lot of this started. And
Speaker 3: these plans were put in place decades ago. And to
Speaker 3: their credit, Republicans are really good at very patiently allowing
Speaker 3: these plans to see themselves through to fruition. And so
Speaker 3: in terms of, you know, building up a right wing
Speaker 3: media ecosystem, look at what they have right now. Democrats
Speaker 3: can hardly compete. There is a massive asymmetry at play
Speaker 3: where the Republicans enjoy Fox News, Newsmax, Oan, Daily Wire,
Speaker 3: Daily Caller, all of their podcast Dan Bongino stuff, Steve
Speaker 3: Bannon shows. There's no major equivalent on the left to
Speaker 3: take on just that deluge of disinformation being perpetuated by
Speaker 3: the right, and so I think that the onus is
Speaker 3: right now on the Democrats to kind of see the
Speaker 3: asymmetry at play for these plans that were laid out
Speaker 3: so long ago, and where disadvantage we have to rush
Speaker 3: to fight back. But I think to our credit, we're
Speaker 3: finally doing that.
Speaker 1: But cable news is not as powerful as it once was,
Speaker 1: and that's certainly true with Fox Right. Tucker Carlson used
Speaker 1: to set the agenda. Now he is in a very
Speaker 1: siloed universe. Now he still gets to his people, but
Speaker 1: he may not get to sort of casual users. Can
Speaker 1: you explain how that's changed the dynamic.
Speaker 3: I think that for a long time, Republicans have been
Speaker 3: very good at embracing independent media or digital media because
Speaker 3: they knew that the mainstream media wasn't overtly conservative overtly Republican,
Speaker 3: and so they've had no choice but to embrace independent media.
Speaker 3: And as mainstream media, legacy media has descended in terms
Speaker 3: of importance and in terms of eyeballs. We were kind
Speaker 3: of left at a real structural disadvantage because Republicans have
Speaker 3: already invested all of this time into their podcasts, into
Speaker 3: their radio shows, AM Radio, specifically, into their alternative outlet
Speaker 3: that had already become a major base of support. And
Speaker 3: by the way, Donald Trump and a lot of these
Speaker 3: Republicans were quick to embrace them, recognizing that that's where
Speaker 3: a lot of the true influence laid. But Democrats have
Speaker 3: always been overly reliant on a mainstream media ecosystem that
Speaker 3: is not only not liberal. Maybe some of the journalists
Speaker 3: and reporters are liberal, but mainstream media as a whole
Speaker 3: doesn't perceive itself as liberal. And in fact, not only
Speaker 3: are they not liberal, but they will bend over backwards
Speaker 3: to kowtow to the right. And so, for example, in
Speaker 3: twenty sixteen, when you had the hy Hillary's emails situation happening,
Speaker 3: there were what sixty nine front page stories on the
Speaker 3: New York Times about Hillary's emails, and they covered it
Speaker 3: because they knew if they didn't, they would get called
Speaker 3: the liberal media by the right, and so they had
Speaker 3: no choice but to cover it because god forbid anybody
Speaker 3: called them the liberal media. And then when Avanka Trump
Speaker 3: did the same thing during Trump administration, well that came
Speaker 3: and went like a fart and a hurricane. So this
Speaker 3: asymmetry has been at play for a really long time.
Speaker 3: But I think to Republicans' credit, they knew early on
Speaker 3: to embrace independent alternative media. Now that that's where everybody's
Speaker 3: eyes are actually at, that's helped them in ways that
Speaker 3: are difficult to quantify. At this point.
Speaker 1: What you're talking about is this Republican working of the
Speaker 1: rafts right where they say, how dare you not cover
Speaker 1: Hillary's emails? You need to cover Hillary's emails? And now
Speaker 1: we have this leaked information from member of the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: one that is very dubious that member of the campaign
Speaker 1: and a bunch of media outlets are sitting on the
Speaker 1: leaked information. Is that what you're talking about?
Speaker 3: No, I'm talking about the twenty sixteen election just right.
Speaker 1: No, I know, but you see that asymmetry right there,
Speaker 1: right absolutely, if you look at the extent to which
Speaker 1: all of the hacked information that was sent to the
Speaker 1: DNC in the lead up to the twenty sixteen election
Speaker 1: was disseminated by WikiLeaks and widely reported on.
Speaker 3: By all of the major news outlets. And now we
Speaker 3: find out that this guy named Joe sent a bunch
Speaker 3: of leaked information from the RNC to Politico and I
Speaker 3: believe a few other outlets if I'm not mistaken. And
Speaker 3: not only have we not had reporting on that since
Speaker 3: they've had this information for what I believe is over
Speaker 3: a month now, but they're actually deciding on it's nothing
Speaker 3: more than just broad strokes about the type of information
Speaker 3: they have, but there's clearly no equivalency. And so it
Speaker 3: seems that when the media learns its lessons, it's only
Speaker 3: to the benefit of Republicans and always to the detriments
Speaker 3: of Democrats.
Speaker 1: Now, people in the straight media, you know, we're on
Speaker 1: the opinion side, so we have a little more leniency.
Speaker 1: But a straight reporter would push back and say, I'm
Speaker 1: just trying to cover this in a nonpartisan way, and
Speaker 1: you know, nonpartisan coverage tends to try to honor both sides.
Speaker 1: How would you push back on that?
Speaker 3: We would be crazy not to view how there is
Speaker 3: a major asymmetry at play in terms of both sides.
Speaker 3: I mean, what the extremists on the left, and I
Speaker 3: say extremists using air quotes. What the extremists on the
Speaker 3: left one is ultimately healthcare for everybody and a green
Speaker 3: New Deal. It's policies that will present the planet. What
Speaker 3: extremists on the right want is for the extermination broad
Speaker 3: swaths of people and for Democrats to inherently not have
Speaker 3: the right to get elected in this country. Let's put
Speaker 3: on display in our media where every time you have
Speaker 3: any left position, it has to be countered by a
Speaker 3: right position, and they're they're equating the two. Also, I think,
Speaker 3: you know, with Donald Trump, the things that he says
Speaker 3: that he can get away with because it's just baked
Speaker 3: into the cake that he's going to say this kind
Speaker 3: of stuff where you know, we can play the age
Speaker 3: old game where what happens if Joe Biden said something
Speaker 3: like this, What happens if Kamala Harris would say something
Speaker 3: like this? What happens if Barack Obama would say something
Speaker 3: like this? But it doesn't get coveraged anymore. And so
Speaker 3: when Donald Trump, for example, comes out and denies the
Speaker 3: very biraciality of Kamala Harris, it's a one day news story.
Speaker 3: But if Joe Biden said something like that, or Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris said something like that. How many days would Fox
Speaker 3: News be hammering away at this over and over and
Speaker 3: then regular mainstream media would see that and they would
Speaker 3: take their cues from them and they would cover it
Speaker 3: as well. How many days did we talk about the
Speaker 3: fact that Donald Trump decided to equate his January Insurrection
Speaker 3: crowd with Martin Luther King Junior's I have a Dream
Speaker 3: speech at the Capitol and that was just maybe a
Speaker 3: one day story. What about the fact that Donald Trump
Speaker 3: went on Twitter for his Twitter space with Elon Musk
Speaker 3: and just decided to trash union workers. Imagine if Joe
Speaker 3: Biden did something like that or Kamala Harris did something
Speaker 3: like this. I mean, we can play this game all day,
Speaker 3: but because it's just baked into the cake that Republicans
Speaker 3: are racist or misogynist or bigoted or anti worker or
Speaker 3: anti everything they claim to before, we just brush over it.
Speaker 3: It maybe gets the new cycle for a day, largely
Speaker 3: with the help of progressive media, but otherwise we just
Speaker 3: move on and see what we can attack the Democratic
Speaker 3: ticket for.
Speaker 1: I would say yes, and right, I think that's both
Speaker 1: true and not true. Right, Like Donald Trump gets away
Speaker 1: with things. Yes, because he's normalized. Yes, he is an
Speaker 1: Autocrat for sure, no question. And yes, there certainly is
Speaker 1: a fair amount of media being like, oh, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: faked in, you know, that's what he does. Would say
Speaker 1: that in some ways he's kind of a unique figure
Speaker 1: because he has that more than other Republicans. Now that's
Speaker 1: not to say the hypocrisy doesn't get covered the same way.
Speaker 1: But if you had a Republican you say something so
Speaker 1: outside the mainstream the way Trump does, I think it
Speaker 1: would get covered. Part of the problem I think the
Speaker 1: mainstream media has covering Trump is that Trump is not
Speaker 1: for them, right, He's not even for people who read
Speaker 1: the mainstream media. Like if you look at the polls,
Speaker 1: if you read mainstream media, you're not voting for Trump.
Speaker 1: And this is again me trying to get into other
Speaker 1: people's ps psychology, but it certainly feels like it's a
Speaker 1: little bit that they've sort of stopped trying because they
Speaker 1: know that the Trump people and even if you look
Speaker 1: at the polls, like he has a number that does
Speaker 1: not move. His number is forty whatever percent is baked
Speaker 1: in and there's almost nothing that can move it because
Speaker 1: those people is their goeshal.
Speaker 3: Right, I do agree with that, but I think that
Speaker 3: regardless of the fact the media is not in the
Speaker 3: business that part of the media is not in the
Speaker 3: business of persuasion. They should be in the business of
Speaker 3: telling the truth. And it doesn't matter if people have
Speaker 3: become normalized to it. It doesn't mean that you stop
Speaker 3: trying because when you do, it basically creates a vacuum
Speaker 3: that Republicans can then fill with whatever stories they want
Speaker 3: to put in and fill. So I think I think
Speaker 3: for a large part of this, it's just about driving
Speaker 3: the narrative.
Speaker 1: Flooding the zone was shed. It's what you're talking to do.
Speaker 3: Flooding this all with shit. When the media sees that, like, okay,
Speaker 3: there's forty six percent, forty seven percent, it's immovable. We
Speaker 3: can keep reporting on Donald Trump's lives, or we can
Speaker 3: focus on something else. But reporting on Donald Trump's lives
Speaker 3: isn't going to change anything. That doesn't matter. They're not
Speaker 3: in the business of persuasion. They should be hitting away
Speaker 3: at this stuff every single day if they have to,
Speaker 3: because their goal is not to try to move people
Speaker 3: or persuade people. Their goal should just be reporting the truth.
Speaker 3: And even if we get used to it, and the
Speaker 3: overton windows ships so much just by sheer like sheer
Speaker 3: repetition of this stuff on a day basis, that shouldn't matter.
Speaker 3: But the right knows that as soon as the media
Speaker 3: gives up on this stuff because it's not as sexy
Speaker 3: as it was when Donald Trump did it the first
Speaker 3: time or the second time or the third, fourth, fifth, tenth, twentieth, thirtieth, fortieth, fiftieth,
Speaker 3: that when the media gives up on reporting it, then
Speaker 3: that creates that vacuum, and Republicans can fill that vacuum
Speaker 3: with their stories and whatever they want to perpetuate. And
Speaker 3: that's why we get Hillary's emails, That's why we get
Speaker 3: the Hunter Biden bullshit, That's why we get all of
Speaker 3: these stories because the media gives up on reporting something
Speaker 3: that they shouldn't be giving up on reporting just because
Speaker 3: we've become used to it by now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree. I wonder what this
Speaker 1: sort of solve is for that right, because we have
Speaker 1: a very diminished mainstream media, we have local news. You know.
Speaker 1: The thing that I think is so it is what
Speaker 1: will be so bad if we can't keep it going?
Speaker 1: Is this sort of investigation stories the very I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about this investigation where Trump may have gotten
Speaker 1: money from Egypt, right, and we know Egypt likes to
Speaker 1: give people money. We saw that with a certain Democratic
Speaker 1: senator from New Jersey, so there's a precedent for this.
Speaker 1: It's a nonpartisan activity. Those stories are expensive, and they
Speaker 1: are manpower and lawyers and FactCheck and that stuff is
Speaker 1: the stuff that Republicans really get crazy about, because if
Speaker 1: you don't have investigations like that, you don't have a
Speaker 1: free press, and you really are on your way to
Speaker 1: a dictatorship.
Speaker 3: Correct. And look, I think that obviously the press is
Speaker 3: a major partner in accountability. I do think the onus
Speaker 3: is on them to figure out how to iterate and
Speaker 3: reach more people right now in this information ecosystem that
Speaker 3: we have, because we can't just allow it to kind
Speaker 3: of die on the vine. I don't want to equate
Speaker 3: that kind of very important investigative journalism with both sides media,
Speaker 3: and I do think that both sides media does a
Speaker 3: disservice to the essential investigative journalism that keeps this country
Speaker 3: running and keeps our politicis accountable. That's what hurts them.
Speaker 3: In fact, because when people look away from the media
Speaker 3: more broadly and these media figures and these media outlets
Speaker 3: because of the both sides media, the unfortunate byproduct is
Speaker 3: that we lose attention on the really important stories that
Speaker 3: you just alluded to, and so the onus is on
Speaker 3: them to either cut that out because people can see
Speaker 3: through the both sides ism, or figure out how to
Speaker 3: iterate to be able to make sure that that kind
Speaker 3: of stuff remains even as as mainstream media gets fewer
Speaker 3: and fewer viewers.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Brian, Thanks Molly.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it a moment exactly. Jesse Cannon, Molly jung Fast.
Speaker 5: I listened to too much of that Trump elon Twitter space,
Speaker 5: and my god, was it bat See.
Speaker 1: I love this because I couldn't get in, so I
Speaker 1: just want to best.
Speaker 5: I listened to the recap, you know.
Speaker 1: I was like, I can't get in. Oh well, that
Speaker 1: was one.
Speaker 5: Of the fun features is elon lying about a d
Speaker 5: DOOS attack. Verge got sources inside X that said, Nope,
Speaker 5: He's like, no DDUS attach as usual. They're full of shit.
Speaker 1: What's interesting to me about this is that it's a
Speaker 1: live stream. It's something that's like not technologically all that complicated.
Speaker 1: It's the year twenty twenty four, and they just couldn't
Speaker 1: get it to work. Trump actually said that it was
Speaker 1: because there were sixty million people on the live stream.
Speaker 1: There were maybe, if you can trust the Twitter numbers
Speaker 1: a million at the time, but who knows if it
Speaker 1: was that. So that whole fiasco. And by the way,
Speaker 1: like having maybe your biggest donor ask you questions, it's
Speaker 1: not technically.
Speaker 5: It's not exactly journalism like some people are saying today.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you want to get Melinda Gates to
Speaker 1: ask Kamila Harris a bunch of questions, we could do
Speaker 1: that too, and probably live stream would work. That's it
Speaker 1: for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds in politics
Speaker 1: makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what
Speaker 1: you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep
Speaker 1: the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.