Speaker 1: And joining me now is a member of Congress from
Speaker 1: western Pennsylvania, which is probably as important of a swing
Speaker 1: geographic area as there is in the country. It's Congressman Christallusio.
Speaker 1: He's from the seventeenth district. And for political junkies when
Speaker 1: they think of PA seventeen, the first name they may
Speaker 1: come to mind is Connor Lamb. Well, Christi Luzio replaced
Speaker 1: Connor Lamb in Congress. It is mostly that district, And
Speaker 1: in fact, i'll make that your first question, Congressman, how
Speaker 1: much does it you know that famous PA seventeen race
Speaker 1: at the time was a big deal because it leaned
Speaker 1: more Republican in the teens. How much of your district
Speaker 1: is the same? How much of it's different?
Speaker 2: You know, when Connor first won that special election, big offset, right,
Speaker 2: he really won that seat, captured the country's attention. Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: Supreme Court drew fair maps after that there was a
Speaker 2: Republican gerrymander. So the district that he represented from really
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen on very similar to mine. It maybe a
Speaker 2: point or so different. All of Beaver County, about half
Speaker 2: Alleghany County, which for Eddie folks who know Pennsylvania that's
Speaker 2: the County of Pittsburgh in so it's a I don't know,
Speaker 2: the best district in the country if you ask me,
Speaker 2: but it's competitive, it's got a mix of everything. It's
Speaker 2: really a great part of the world.
Speaker 3: Well, you grew up there, so you know this.
Speaker 1: You know, there was the I don't know whether the
Speaker 1: infamous saying James Carvell once said about Pennsylvania, which is
Speaker 1: no longer true, but it used to be. He'd say,
Speaker 1: just for political purposes, Philadelphia and the east, Pittsburgh and
Speaker 1: the west, and Alabama in the middle.
Speaker 3: And the point.
Speaker 1: He was making is that, as you know, the Democrats
Speaker 1: needed to care about the two coasts of Pennsylvania, you know,
Speaker 1: putting coasts.
Speaker 3: In plural there. But the fact of the matter is, you.
Speaker 1: Know, as the Pennsylvania, as the Philly suburbs, became more democratic,
Speaker 1: the reason the state didn't become a lot more democratic
Speaker 1: is that western Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh market, became much less democratic.
Speaker 1: That is, your childhood to adulthood, walk me through that chain,
Speaker 1: you know, tell me how your community.
Speaker 3: Sort of swung there.
Speaker 1: From there, I would argue Reagan Democrats to Clinton Democrats,
Speaker 1: to even some Obama Democrats to now Trump Republicans.
Speaker 2: I think a big part of that story the factory
Speaker 2: towns and the rural communities, right And the factory towns
Speaker 2: you drive along the rivers in my district, especially through
Speaker 2: Beaver County on the Ohio River and the Beaver those
Speaker 2: there are still great manufacturing jobs that anchor.
Speaker 3: A lot of those communities.
Speaker 2: And I think as you saw those jobs go away
Speaker 2: in a lot of what's southwestern Pennsylvania, you saw political realignments,
Speaker 2: You saw anger and frustration at how that happened. And
Speaker 2: also where you see Democrats like me who are winning
Speaker 2: and overperforming, and those kinds of communities we're winning and overperforming,
Speaker 2: and those exact types of towns, and the same story.
Speaker 2: If you look at John Fetterman's win, Josh Heroes win,
Speaker 2: you look at what happened in the Senate race last
Speaker 2: year with Bob Casey and Dave McCormick, the margins in
Speaker 2: my part of Pennsylvania, in those factory towns, in the
Speaker 2: rural communities, I think made the difference. It shows in
Speaker 2: those races who can do a little better when they're
Speaker 2: even losing.
Speaker 3: Those counties or losing those towns to.
Speaker 1: Eat out a win. Did you over perform Casey? Yes,
Speaker 1: who's the McCormick Deluzio voter.
Speaker 2: There's a state House district Beaver County, communities like Ambridge,
Speaker 2: al Equippa, Beaver Falls. Rob Matzey's the state rep there
Speaker 2: and that state House district he won it. I won it,
Speaker 2: and Dave McCormick won it, and it's an interesting story, right,
Speaker 2: and Donald Trump won that district too. And you know,
Speaker 2: I think if you spent time in that part of
Speaker 2: my district, I think you talk to the voters who
Speaker 2: might have voted that way, voted for me, or voted
Speaker 2: for Rob Matsy and maybe voted above us as Republican.
Speaker 2: Always hard to summarize, but these were folks who are
Speaker 2: fired up and angry about costs one good jobs. I
Speaker 2: think the economic fight was front center, and they heard
Speaker 2: from me since I ran in twenty twenty two. Always
Speaker 2: an economic fight at the heart of it. Again, hard
Speaker 2: to summarize voter by voter, but they exist, and it's
Speaker 2: that part of my district really where it made the
Speaker 2: difference for me and certainly above us in the ballot.
Speaker 1: So you operate that there are swing voters, there are
Speaker 1: there are not everybody agrees that there are right that
Speaker 1: there's two. I always say there are two types of
Speaker 1: swing voters. I do think there are voters that facillate
Speaker 1: between party strategically, but far more often the most common
Speaker 1: swing voter is somebody that swings between voting and not voting.
Speaker 2: So I think both things are true, and I don't
Speaker 2: want to oversay that it's just, Hey, you can convince
Speaker 2: someone to vote Republican for president Democrat for the US House.
Speaker 2: It's the other thing to believe. I mean, we have
Speaker 2: work to do on turnout and frankly, rebuilding some of
Speaker 2: the trust with younger voters. I mean, I'm forty one,
Speaker 2: makes me an older millennial, right, so I guess I
Speaker 2: can't call myself a young voter anymore. We'll see, but
Speaker 2: I do think there are folks who will split ticket.
Speaker 3: I saw it in my election.
Speaker 2: I saw it with the vote drop off from presidential
Speaker 2: right Harris Trump, Casey McCormick down to my race. I mean,
Speaker 2: they exist, and you got to get you got to
Speaker 2: know your district.
Speaker 3: You gotta have candidates who know their districts.
Speaker 2: I come back to I think the economic fight, not
Speaker 2: the expense of anything else, but fighting on the economic
Speaker 2: front principally is a good way to earn those votes.
Speaker 2: And you don't have to be a whip about it.
Speaker 2: You don't have to be backtracking on anything else. I
Speaker 2: think it's the part of the path for Democrats to
Speaker 2: win more consistently in places like western Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: Look, it's an eighty percent. Nobody likes concentrations of power, right,
Speaker 1: that's an eighty percent. You know, people, you know recoil
Speaker 1: from too much power, too much concentration of power, government corporations, whatever.
Speaker 1: So if you're talking about the economy in those terms,
Speaker 1: it does strike me that you can have a conversation.
Speaker 3: How much does the D next to your name make
Speaker 3: it harder?
Speaker 1: I had a couple of independent candidates now they're running
Speaker 1: an Idaho in South Dakota. This is not Western Pennsylvania, Okay,
Speaker 1: but they they said not having the D next and
Speaker 1: then their name actually was an impediment to having the
Speaker 1: conversation with some voters about the economy. Moving to an
Speaker 1: eye next to their name at least opened the door
Speaker 1: to a conversation.
Speaker 2: Doublass, I mean, I'll tell you at least and from
Speaker 2: my part of the world, and again, like it's different everywhere.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: You know, some of the folks in some of those
Speaker 2: factory towns maybe for generations, were Democrats and they've left
Speaker 2: my party, right, And so I'm trying to rebuild some
Speaker 2: trust and reconnect.
Speaker 3: With those new deal routes.
Speaker 2: For why for three four generations your family might have
Speaker 2: been a Union household, you may have been voting Democrat
Speaker 2: and at the same time picking up.
Speaker 3: And earning new two votes. And say, the.
Speaker 2: Suburban parts of a district like mine, right, where folks
Speaker 2: aren't as longer as long term Democrats who are coming
Speaker 2: in to the party, those things can be attention. But
Speaker 2: we can't find a way to do both of those things.
Speaker 2: We're not going to win, nor can the Republicans. By
Speaker 2: the way, that's the reality of political train here. And
Speaker 2: you know, I think for my party's brand to be seen,
Speaker 2: number one is tougher, right, And it's not just about
Speaker 2: what's happening in Washington and being tough with Trump and
Speaker 2: his administration, as we should be, but tougher on the
Speaker 2: economic fight, which every survey I see, every conversation I have,
Speaker 2: it comes up. Folks are mad about the cost of living.
Speaker 2: I think for a party to be seen tougher. There
Speaker 2: would help some of those folks you're talking about, say
Speaker 2: in Idaho, where they don't have some deep democratic loyalty
Speaker 2: to build on, to try to restore some crusts.
Speaker 3: I think it helps with those guys too.
Speaker 1: You've spent time in the Navy, and you're a lawyer.
Speaker 1: You went to Georgetown Law School. Why'd you decide on
Speaker 1: public service?
Speaker 3: So I was a senior in high school.
Speaker 2: Nine to eleven happens, and I was pursuing the Naval Academy.
Speaker 2: I mean that day sealed it that if I got in,
Speaker 2: I go. And I got in pretty shortly thereafter, and
Speaker 2: I went, And it's a tough place, it's a special place.
Speaker 2: I really internalized, you know, the mission of what we
Speaker 2: signed up to do there, which is a lifetime of service,
Speaker 2: whether that's in uniform or public service. We talk about
Speaker 2: citizenship even and so I just believe it deeply. That's
Speaker 2: who I am. It's the part of the world I'm from.
Speaker 2: You drive down most of the streets in western Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: main streets, you see banners honoring veterans in a lot
Speaker 2: of communities. You walk into nearly any house in my
Speaker 2: part of the world. Someone's got a picture of somebody
Speaker 2: in uniform, like, we value that, and that's it. That's
Speaker 2: the shorthandswer for why I'm trying to do something in
Speaker 2: public service, why I think this is a noble pursuit.
Speaker 2: And that's even before I get into the stress the
Speaker 2: country is under. What I think Ronald Trump and his
Speaker 2: movement is doing. It's real, it's profound, and I think,
Speaker 2: if not now to try to step up and do
Speaker 2: something about it when it feels like this is the
Speaker 2: moment to try to serve and that's that's what I'm
Speaker 2: trying to do in this.
Speaker 3: So it is.
Speaker 1: It's quite a moment, right, It's a There are times
Speaker 1: that I know I feel powerless, but I'm not an
Speaker 1: elective office. But you're in the minority, which sometimes means
Speaker 1: you're also can be more powerless than you'd like to be.
Speaker 1: It is, you know, every week I can put together
Speaker 1: a list of stories that says, boy, this feels this
Speaker 1: feels like we're are we are? We did we really
Speaker 1: just take the wrong fork in the road. How the
Speaker 1: hell are we going to get back? And then it
Speaker 1: like and then we go even further, right, how do
Speaker 1: you answer that? Question, what's the state of the democracy
Speaker 1: and how concerned should we be.
Speaker 3: I am concerned.
Speaker 2: I think it's healthy and normal insane to look around
Speaker 2: and say something's not right. And it's not just the
Speaker 2: political violence, which of course is a problem, and I
Speaker 2: think a symptom of a deeper wound to be American psyche.
Speaker 3: That we got to fix.
Speaker 2: And I think about now, I can criticize Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: and I will. Right, He's identified that wound, and he
Speaker 2: offers to me snake oil, right, division, autocracy, threats to
Speaker 2: the rule of law. Okay, let's criticize that. But then
Speaker 2: what do we have to offer that's different?
Speaker 3: But he does identify the problems, and I think we
Speaker 3: have to start with that. That's right.
Speaker 1: Like this is where I think sometimes you know that
Speaker 1: there are some Just because Trump has identified a problem correctly,
Speaker 1: doesn't you know, doesn't mean it's not a problem. Right,
Speaker 1: just because Trump says it's a problem, you shouldn't ignore it.
Speaker 3: And I've always said that.
Speaker 1: I think the voters when they when they sour on Trump,
Speaker 1: they don't sour on the problems he's identified. They sour
Speaker 1: on his solutions.
Speaker 2: So I'm forty one, and we can look at this
Speaker 2: data pretty quickly. If you're my age, you're younger, you're
Speaker 2: now the first Americans since at least the Second World
Speaker 2: War who don't expect me better off than your parents.
Speaker 2: That is a failure of our government, across parties, across decades.
Speaker 2: That's multiple presidents think of that, and you should be
Speaker 2: mad about that. I'm mad about that. If you're younger
Speaker 2: than me, you're even angrier about it because the prospects
Speaker 2: look worse, and so we have to confront that. That
Speaker 2: goes to the fundamental trust or distrust in our government.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: If you're going to work hard and follow the rules
Speaker 2: and you still can't afford your life, you are mad
Speaker 2: and maybe you don't trust the way our governments work.
Speaker 2: So to me, I think battling corruption, rebuilding trust, putting
Speaker 2: muscle back in the American dream, those things are all linked.
Speaker 2: It's part of why the anti corruption fight matters so
Speaker 2: much to me. It's part of why this vision of
Speaker 2: economic patriotism mine others are talking about matters putting muscle
Speaker 2: and something real back in the American dream. Because if
Speaker 2: if we're going to just pay lip service to try
Speaker 2: and to restore trust without fixing the problem underlying our system.
Speaker 1: It's not going to work in my voot. How do
Speaker 1: you feel about the redistricting wars? I say this because look,
Speaker 1: you're because your state's not going to do it. There's
Speaker 1: a variety of reasons for that. There's just I think
Speaker 1: the legislature's too split. There's even if you wanted to,
Speaker 1: you couldn't. I know that a lot of your colleagues
Speaker 1: in Congress don't like what's happening, including Texas Republicans in
Speaker 1: California Democrats, but that they feel like pawns in a
Speaker 1: larger fight, because guess what your pawns in a larger fight.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: But I look at how the Democrats are fighting this,
Speaker 1: and simultaneously you've got Pete Bootagees going to Indiana saying
Speaker 1: please don't do this. And then you've got Democrats raising
Speaker 1: money so that Gavin Newsom can win a proposition which,
Speaker 1: like I, at least you get the voters get You're
Speaker 1: including the voters in the say so here because they
Speaker 1: have to. But that feels like such a mixed message
Speaker 1: that I you know, it is really hard to get
Speaker 1: my arms around if you're upset about disenfranchising voters in Texas.
Speaker 1: How is the answered disenfranchising voters in other states. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's start with here's what I would like to see,
Speaker 1: which we just have a federal ban on partisan jerrymandering
Speaker 1: and we have federal standard for fair maps.
Speaker 3: That was in what was.
Speaker 2: I don't know, for the People Act or HR one,
Speaker 2: but before I got to the Congress.
Speaker 1: Some of that was in there, and there was also
Speaker 1: a lot of partisan stuff which made it less of
Speaker 1: a serious bill unfortunately. I mean, look, I'm for somebody
Speaker 1: that says, you have messaging bills, and you have bills
Speaker 1: you want to get passed.
Speaker 3: That was a bill for messaging, not necessarily.
Speaker 2: Let's do a federal anti jerryman ring thing. Just take
Speaker 2: this off right, it's out of the playbook for either party.
Speaker 2: While it's not the standard until that happens, I'm not
Speaker 2: interested in Democrats fighting with like a wet spaghetti noodle
Speaker 2: while the Republicans are carrying to Maszooka like this is
Speaker 2: control of Congress and how they write a map and
Speaker 2: say Indiana and Texas affects what happens to my constituents.
Speaker 2: The same reason why I've been endorsing some folks in
Speaker 2: competitive districts in Pennsylvania, because those members of Congress are
Speaker 2: taking votes that are my constituents. So I don't want
Speaker 2: Democrats to be fighting limply while Republicans are taking seats
Speaker 2: all over the country. And I would start and end
Speaker 2: with let's just get rid of this as a tool
Speaker 2: for either party and just have a federal standard.
Speaker 3: I think that's where this has to go.
Speaker 2: And I think, look, ruck I also think this goes
Speaker 2: to that distrust and government problem when politicians are right
Speaker 2: in their own maps, when they're picking their districts, when
Speaker 2: they're carvering little communities and all the matters is a
Speaker 2: competitive primary, I don't think you get great representation.
Speaker 1: But you understand that, look and understand the issue of
Speaker 1: of when when you sort of compromise your principle for
Speaker 1: you know, and again like I get it right, I
Speaker 1: understand the rationale and I get all of that. It
Speaker 1: just doesn't feel like a long term way to win
Speaker 1: trust back. That's and that's what makes it so such
Speaker 1: a flawed way to fight back because I also think
Speaker 1: I think that what Texas did is not as is
Speaker 1: not going to be as effective as they think it is. Right,
Speaker 1: you know, the unintended consequences always bite you on this stuff.
Speaker 1: And that's that's why I'm thinking the fight quote unquote,
Speaker 1: fighting fighting fire with fire is like, you know, be
Speaker 1: careful out there.
Speaker 3: You don't you don't know what you've opened up.
Speaker 2: No, and look, when you draw these things with aggressive
Speaker 2: Jerry managers, I think you're alluding to this fact. You
Speaker 2: make some of those seats potentially gettable, especially if it's
Speaker 2: a big way of election the other direction, right, And
Speaker 2: so that's a part of this. That's a risk they're
Speaker 2: gonna have to take on because I hope and expect
Speaker 2: we might have a good year next year.
Speaker 3: And that could go very different webs.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of ways to do confrontation with Trump, there's
Speaker 1: we consider in debates shutdown, no shutdown. I sort of understand, Hey,
Speaker 1: when you've got leverage, use it right. That's that's sort
Speaker 1: of part of the process. That's what politics is about.
Speaker 3: It does feel like the timing now is when do
Speaker 3: you use it right? Is this is this six.
Speaker 1: Week cr the hill to die on? Or do you
Speaker 1: let this one go and you fight the fight in November?
Speaker 1: Where's your mindset on this?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: Number one, nobody wants a shutdown let's just start with that.
Speaker 2: And you know, much like the last funding fight, my
Speaker 2: counterparts in the Senate have much more leverage than we
Speaker 2: do in the House, and they should use it, and
Speaker 2: they use it to protect American people as use it
Speaker 2: for good. They use it's a fund the government responsibly.
Speaker 2: They have a filibuster. We don't have that House. And
Speaker 2: I've long felt like the Republicans have full control of
Speaker 2: our government, you know, this House, Senate, White House. If
Speaker 2: they want our votes, they should do something to work
Speaker 2: with us.
Speaker 3: But I don't have to go along with saying yes
Speaker 3: to rescinding funding.
Speaker 2: I don't just stick go along with saying yes to
Speaker 2: using the bully pulper the White House to suppress speech
Speaker 2: and to shut down critical voices.
Speaker 3: In the media. I don't do any of those things.
Speaker 2: And so I think there's a path here. They can
Speaker 2: decide to work with Democrats responsibly, or they can do
Speaker 2: it on their own, because they have enough power to
Speaker 2: do it. And if they shut the government down, it
Speaker 2: falls on them. It's not going to fall on the
Speaker 2: House minority Democrats who aren't saying yes with a crazy
Speaker 2: spending plan.
Speaker 1: No, I get that. I mean, I just guess just tactically.
Speaker 1: And again, I know I'm a little weeds this year,
Speaker 1: but it's like I might let the six weeks see
Speaker 1: r happen clean, Hey, you want six more weeks to talk, Fine,
Speaker 1: we'll give you six more weeks to negotiate, but you're
Speaker 1: not getting another extension.
Speaker 3: Like you know it.
Speaker 1: I go there because I see the shoes literally been
Speaker 1: on the other foot on that. Hey we need six
Speaker 1: more weeks to negotiate. Can we buy that while we
Speaker 1: get through this. It's one of those where you're like,
Speaker 1: you know it's That's what I mean is do you die?
Speaker 1: You know you got to pick. I get the battle's
Speaker 1: going to happen. The question is when do you want
Speaker 1: the battle to happen.
Speaker 2: Well, look, if there's any real effort to work with
Speaker 2: us to have some kind of negotiation, great, let's do that.
Speaker 2: I haven't seen any of that, And so I think
Speaker 2: to your point, if it's about buying time to work
Speaker 2: something out, responsible, okay, I think you actually have support
Speaker 2: for it. I haven't seen any of that yet. I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe what I heard today is there some interest from
Speaker 2: the White House, a meeting with Leader Jeffreys and Schumer.
Speaker 2: You know, it's we're now a week out from the
Speaker 2: end of the fiscal year.
Speaker 1: One of the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania has already indicated
Speaker 1: he's going to vote to keep the government open pretty
Speaker 1: much no matter what.
Speaker 3: And you know betterman, it's been interesting viewed him for my.
Speaker 1: About I guess it's been about five or six months now,
Speaker 1: and his mindset was, Look, we've got one north starts
Speaker 1: the seven swing states. Whatever it takes to get a
Speaker 1: majority of the seventh swing state ought to be the
Speaker 1: focus of the party. See, I get that. That's an
Speaker 1: interesting north star. That's what you'd want the head of
Speaker 1: the party to say. He's been in uh shifted on that.
Speaker 1: What do you make of it? And do you where
Speaker 1: are you with his He doesn't want to shut down
Speaker 1: the government mindset?
Speaker 2: Yep, me neither, And yet I wouldn't vote for a
Speaker 2: shutdown bill that repealed the Civil Rights Act or you know,
Speaker 2: made national right to work or some national abortion band like.
Speaker 3: Of course not.
Speaker 2: We can do a basic level of analysis and have
Speaker 2: some basic values that we're not going to compromise, and
Speaker 2: so I don't think it's that complicated. We can say
Speaker 2: and support funding the government and also say on there
Speaker 2: are lines I'm not going to cross.
Speaker 3: May we balance those and put those in different places.
Speaker 2: I guess we do, But I don't really get the
Speaker 2: argument that there is no circumstances ever where I wouldn't
Speaker 2: vote against a very partisan bad spending bill from the Republicans.
Speaker 1: There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
Speaker 1: there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury
Speaker 1: law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
Speaker 1: twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
Speaker 1: It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,
Speaker 1: just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Speaker 1: Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
Speaker 1: which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
Speaker 1: insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across
Speaker 1: the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.
Speaker 1: If you're injured, you need a lawyer. You need somebody
Speaker 1: to get your back, check out for the People dot com,
Speaker 1: Slash podcast or now Pound Law, Pound five two nine
Speaker 1: law on your cell phone. And remember all law firms
Speaker 1: are not the same, So check out Morgan and Morgan.
Speaker 1: Their fee is free unless they win. You were on
Speaker 1: the ballot with Betterman in twenty two. Did you believe
Speaker 1: he was to your left or to your right?
Speaker 3: You know it's funny. I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't really think about him or maybe even Joshapiro
Speaker 2: right like our Pennsylvania Democrats in that way, I don't
Speaker 2: think we're so obviously in a certain orientation in the party,
Speaker 2: and certainly now things are different. But like I think
Speaker 2: there has been a scrambling of the old centrist, progressive,
Speaker 2: whatever lanes of the Democratic Party. I think there is
Speaker 2: a very different orientation now about your willingness to be
Speaker 2: a fighter.
Speaker 3: I don't just mean about Trump. I mean on this.
Speaker 2: Economic against say it's monopoly power against corruption. I think
Speaker 2: it's we're reorienting in that way. I like it because
Speaker 2: I see colleagues of mine who might wear different.
Speaker 3: Labels, who are all in with me.
Speaker 2: On a fight against say, corrupt congressional stock trading or
Speaker 2: who are with me about.
Speaker 3: Fighting against monopolies?
Speaker 2: I mean, I did this monopoly Buster's Caucus with colleagues
Speaker 2: like Pat Ryan Promilagaia, Paul Maggie Goodlander. Right, it's an
Speaker 2: interesting re scrambling of those old labels, you know, different ways.
Speaker 1: Interesting Like you know, during the twenty twenty two primary,
Speaker 1: Connor Lamb was the supposed centrist in John Fetterman was
Speaker 1: the supposed progressive right. Is that is that how that
Speaker 1: primary would look today?
Speaker 3: It's a great question. I don't know, you know, and
Speaker 3: I think I think either.
Speaker 2: And much of our conversation up to this point has
Speaker 2: been about the style of what a Democrat in Washington
Speaker 2: is in the opposition in the minority, and so it's
Speaker 2: a very different posture of going back to twenty two.
Speaker 2: I first ran Democrats on the White House, and we're
Speaker 2: still riding in the House with some control, and so
Speaker 2: it's a very different posture.
Speaker 3: And again I.
Speaker 2: Don't think the current if there are phisures, it's not
Speaker 2: so much about progressive lane, centrist.
Speaker 3: Lane, moderate, whatever. I think it's now much more.
Speaker 2: About what weather you're fighting and on what grounds you're
Speaker 2: fighting more than it is are you going to support this,
Speaker 2: that or the other piece of legislation, and what kind
Speaker 2: of label democrats.
Speaker 3: That make you.
Speaker 1: No, it's an interesting thesis. I don't disagree with it
Speaker 1: that there is sort of a little bit more. This
Speaker 1: is no longer about size of government issues and government
Speaker 1: spending issues that it really is more of how should
Speaker 1: the power of government be used?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I agree, and I think, look, you have
Speaker 2: Donald Trump trying to take what has become a very
Speaker 2: powerful imperial presidency and put it on steroids, and a
Speaker 2: question of what the heck do you do to stop
Speaker 2: that and to protect the constitution, to assert the Congress's rule,
Speaker 2: to assert the Court's rule. I don't think that lends
Speaker 2: itself to a progressive, liberal, moderate centrist, whatever kind of lens.
Speaker 2: It's a question of how do you be effective in
Speaker 2: shoring up our constitution.
Speaker 1: I had a friend of mine who might have called
Speaker 1: himself a progressive, say three or four years ago, who said,
Speaker 1: I want my own Donald Trump. And I said, what
Speaker 1: do you mean? I want somebody in there with strength, right,
Speaker 1: getting it to this strong versus weak argument, who's willing
Speaker 1: to use, to accumulate and use power? And I get it,
Speaker 1: But there's this fine line. Right, there's no doubt Donald
Speaker 1: Trump does not believe in small government. He believes in
Speaker 1: strong government. Strong government through his lens.
Speaker 3: It tells me we are likely to have.
Speaker 1: A political I'm a believer in political physics an equal
Speaker 1: and opposite reaction, so we're probably going to have from
Speaker 1: the other side of the ideological spectrum, also pursue a
Speaker 1: more robust use of government. Can you do it without
Speaker 1: it coming across as borderline authoritarian?
Speaker 2: Well, Number one, I sure hope that's the case. And look,
Speaker 2: I think there will be different political party in power
Speaker 2: in Washington. There will be a democratic provitable right, will
Speaker 2: be a democratic conference. And I think whomever that president
Speaker 2: is should use their power to shore up the government,
Speaker 2: to shore up trust and government. I talked about the
Speaker 2: economic fight, why that undercuts trust. They also should be
Speaker 2: clear about where there's been overstepping and overreach, where this
Speaker 2: president or any other has been able to expose the
Speaker 2: weak spots in our system to just relying on norms
Speaker 2: or just relying on behavior.
Speaker 1: Orcement agencies like I look at the FBI and the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice right now, and they couldn't be totally untrustworthy.
Speaker 1: But I'm not going to sit here and say you
Speaker 1: automatically restore trust by simply electing the other party. How
Speaker 1: do you build in a safeguard so that the next
Speaker 1: Trump is 'enable to weaponize the Justice Department?
Speaker 3: Right? What do you do?
Speaker 1: Do we change the status like there's a you know,
Speaker 1: does the Justice Department get treated more like the Federal Reserve?
Speaker 1: Although we're about to find out whether the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: has any independence left. But in theory, right, the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve a little bit different as far as it's supposedly
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has claimed it will be treating it differently,
Speaker 1: more independent than as part of the executive branch.
Speaker 3: Is that the model of our love that we ought
Speaker 3: to be.
Speaker 1: Taking with law enforcement, considering once you lose trust in that,
Speaker 1: you've lost the democracy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and frankly, not just I think you identify and
Speaker 2: diagnose a real problem, but it also is about well,
Speaker 2: the person who sits atop that law enforcement system, are
Speaker 2: they willing to call for prosecution of their enemies to
Speaker 2: rip up those norms? And so we can't. My point
Speaker 2: is we can't be at the whim of what's in
Speaker 2: the heart of mever happens to be the President, and
Speaker 2: that to me is about structural change.
Speaker 3: We got to have reform so.
Speaker 2: That whether you've got a good or bad guy or
Speaker 2: gal at the White House, it doesn't matter. They don't
Speaker 2: have the tools to abuse something as base.
Speaker 3: Against Look at their Look at this story that's circulated
Speaker 3: over the weekend about Tom Holman and cash right, this
Speaker 3: was an investigation taking place during Christopher Ray's FBI and
Speaker 3: now it's Cash Betel's FBI, and they just shut it down.
Speaker 3: They don't. By the way, what's amazing about this story
Speaker 3: is they don't deny it happened. It is.
Speaker 1: There's no denial of the facts of the story. There's
Speaker 1: just simply well, we're not going to prosecute. There's nothing
Speaker 1: to prosecute. And by the way, in fairness, bribery cases
Speaker 1: are a high bar. They you know, if you can't
Speaker 1: find the quit the you know, the quo in the
Speaker 1: quid pro quo, it is always it is certainly difficult.
Speaker 1: I assume the irs will have a little something to
Speaker 1: say about mister Homan's extra income from the COVID takeout.
Speaker 1: But when you look at a story like that and
Speaker 1: you realize Christopher Ray managed the FBI one way in
Speaker 1: cash Pttel who put out a statement, a joint statement
Speaker 1: with the president's former personal attorney who somehow got confirmed
Speaker 1: to be a deputy Attorney General. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, and to me, again, I think it's a symptom
Speaker 2: of we now have a person who is willing to
Speaker 2: look around and say, wow, I have all this power,
Speaker 2: I can abuse it, and there aren't formal guardrails in
Speaker 2: place to stop it. So to me, that just goes
Speaker 2: to we have to have better structure, better form. There's
Speaker 2: not some single silver bullet I can explain to you
Speaker 2: on this podcast to how we do that. But to me,
Speaker 2: we can't just hope there's a better, different person. You
Speaker 2: got to put real limits on their power in place,
Speaker 2: no matter which party has the White House in the future.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about an entity that you have some familiarity with,
Speaker 1: being somebody who's served in the Navy.
Speaker 3: It feels like there's an attempt.
Speaker 1: To politicize the military right now in ways that we've
Speaker 1: never seen go into it. I mean, I think about
Speaker 1: I've already heard you know, I think there are parts
Speaker 1: of this that don't get enough reporting including what's happening
Speaker 1: at war colleges, what's happening to academy at the Naval
Speaker 1: Academy at West Point.
Speaker 3: But tell me what you understand is happening.
Speaker 2: There is a real attempt here, and I think one
Speaker 2: of the opening salvos of that you mentioned the Naval
Speaker 2: Academy where I'm a graduate. I'm on the board there now,
Speaker 2: and there was an attempt.
Speaker 3: Still on the board, they don't take you out.
Speaker 2: There's a congressional slate and there are a presidential appointees.
Speaker 2: So there are Democrats from the congressional slate on the.
Speaker 1: Band that Trump couldn't just eat Theron and Seth can't
Speaker 1: remove you either, correct, And.
Speaker 2: So there was an attempt to take books out of
Speaker 2: the library. You know, this is a look, it's a
Speaker 2: proving ground and a training place for future Navy Marine
Speaker 2: Corps officers. It's also an academic institution. There are faculty
Speaker 2: who do research, and so that's just one little piece
Speaker 2: of a bigger problem. I saw the President at the
Speaker 2: West Point Commissioning wearing a Maga hat. He was in
Speaker 2: front of the troops down in North Carolina. There was
Speaker 2: merch being sold. Design understand a campaign merch talking about
Speaker 2: his political rivals in front of the troops, just stuff
Speaker 2: that would seem beyond the pale. And yet it's happening
Speaker 2: all against the backdrop of these efforts to I think,
Speaker 2: politicize the curriculum at West Point Annapolis Air Force Academy,
Speaker 2: to make changes to the senior flag and general officers
Speaker 2: seemingly around their political views. And that's just a part
Speaker 2: of it. And so I think it's a problem. I
Speaker 2: think it's a big problem. And I come from again,
Speaker 2: I was an officer immission on the Naval Academy. The
Speaker 2: culture we learned was a political You don't ever give
Speaker 2: any appearance of that kind of bias and uniform because
Speaker 2: you serve the civilian leadership, whichever party that might be,
Speaker 2: right the secretary up to the president. And I think
Speaker 2: this effort to inject political and partisan loyalty, it's dangerous
Speaker 2: to me, just again goes to eroding trust in the
Speaker 2: military as an institution that's going.
Speaker 3: To serve the civilian leadership who we elect.
Speaker 2: In this country.
Speaker 3: It's interesting to me.
Speaker 1: I don't think the timing of this attempt by the
Speaker 1: Pentagon to stifle press coverage.
Speaker 3: It literally came two days after.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal reported that there were lawyers at
Speaker 1: the Pentagon nervous that nobody was taking their legal concerns
Speaker 1: seriously regarding what could be extra judicial killings that are
Speaker 1: taking place in the Caribbean Sea. You know, if there
Speaker 1: is what I would call legal dissent and you have
Speaker 1: legal count basically members of the military legal team saying, hey,
Speaker 1: this is of questionable and none of how is it
Speaker 1: going to get out? How are we going to get
Speaker 1: this information out there if we know that our civilian
Speaker 1: or our political leaders are essentially ignoring the legal advice
Speaker 1: they're being given about whether what they're doing is legal
Speaker 1: or not.
Speaker 2: I think part of that answer, or part of my answer,
Speaker 2: gets to the importance of congressional oversight. And look, I'm
Speaker 2: on the Armed Services Committee that we don't have a
Speaker 2: subpoena power. As Democrats and the minority, I expect we're
Speaker 2: going to win.
Speaker 1: Your chair at all, is the Chair of Armed Services
Speaker 1: at all interested and at least finding out what authority
Speaker 1: is being used here to just bomb ships that the
Speaker 1: President claims are famous Psyco terrorists.
Speaker 2: I hope so, because I can tell you my Democratic
Speaker 2: colleagues do I suspect some of my Republican colleagues do.
Speaker 2: I'd like them to put some muscle behind that.
Speaker 3: Because all seems concerned, Yeah, what it's worth.
Speaker 2: And say, he's a voice in the Senate who's actually
Speaker 2: spoken up here. It looks like I'm a veteran of
Speaker 2: the war in Iraq, Right, I'm.
Speaker 3: A veteran of a war that I don't think we
Speaker 3: should have fought.
Speaker 2: But at least the Congress, for crying out loud, debated
Speaker 2: and had an authorization.
Speaker 1: They went to the UN and he went to Congress.
Speaker 1: Like we could debate was the intelligence manipulated or wrong?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Was it purposely wrong or it just was wrong? We
Speaker 1: could have that debate. But the but the separation of
Speaker 1: powers was respected.
Speaker 3: And that's my point.
Speaker 2: And look, I think, and I'm convey this in private,
Speaker 2: I'll say it to you here, my Republican counterparts. Right now, right,
Speaker 2: they're enjoying full control of Washington. That's not going to
Speaker 2: last forever. And you ought to have some respect for
Speaker 2: Congress's power, the people's power president of matter what party
Speaker 2: they're in, who is overstepping their authority? And I think
Speaker 2: something like war powers is one of those places We've
Speaker 2: seen presidents for a long time abuse this Congress not
Speaker 2: asserted much more power here. And go back to the Constitution,
Speaker 2: which says it is the Congress and the American people
Speaker 2: who decide whether we go and start a war or
Speaker 2: send Americans to fight.
Speaker 1: You know, I was thinking about you came in in
Speaker 1: twenty two and so you have no memory. You're not
Speaker 1: part of the institution that was. And frankly, it's really
Speaker 1: been about twenty years since the House knew how to
Speaker 1: be bipartisan, where committee chairs and ranking members would there
Speaker 1: was some coordination at some form or another. There's probably
Speaker 1: slightly more left in the Senate, just because some of
Speaker 1: those senators have been there a little bit longer. The
Speaker 1: House is a little a little more new. But how
Speaker 1: have you gone about trying to find Republican colleagues to
Speaker 1: work with and.
Speaker 3: What works best?
Speaker 2: It's a great question. So I'll tell give you two
Speaker 2: pieces of this. One is a very direct way I try.
Speaker 2: I'm in this caucus for country caucus. It's veterans of
Speaker 2: both parties. We mostly can find places to work together
Speaker 2: on defense, maybe some veterans issues, and so that's a
Speaker 2: real effort to try to find.
Speaker 3: Has that gotten harder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it has gotten harder, and it's gotten harder to
Speaker 2: be candid with Donald Trump as president and the threat
Speaker 2: that he always has over Republicans of they may lose
Speaker 2: a primary and look the other and may be more productive.
Speaker 2: Not more productive, but a way that I've seen some success.
Speaker 2: You know, my district right on the border with Ohio,
Speaker 2: right on the border with East Palestine. We had people
Speaker 2: in the evacuation zone of that horrible derailment. We have
Speaker 2: people in Beaver County who live through that fireball. So
Speaker 2: I've been in the real safety fight since that happened.
Speaker 2: I've found some Republicans to with me in that. Mike Ruley,
Speaker 2: the Republican Member for East Palestine.
Speaker 3: Is one of my co leades. JD.
Speaker 2: Vance was before he was the Vice president, you know.
Speaker 2: And so where I got to find partners to do
Speaker 2: something that's right.
Speaker 3: I do it.
Speaker 2: It doesn't always work. I'm not naive about the moment
Speaker 2: we're in. I'm frankly a little less interested in trying
Speaker 2: to convince my Republican counterparts to come to my point
Speaker 2: of view and a little more interested in winning power
Speaker 2: and taking gavels out of their hands and after the
Speaker 2: election next year. But we always got to try to
Speaker 2: find some ways.
Speaker 3: And I get it. And you're right though at the
Speaker 3: beginning of the question, you know, I've.
Speaker 2: Never served in a Congress that was something like I've
Speaker 2: heard about, which is not the Congress.
Speaker 1: The good old days, whatever the hell that means. All
Speaker 1: I know is when I was younger, they kept telling
Speaker 1: me about the good old days that it turns out
Speaker 1: I was in the good old days.
Speaker 3: But what did I know?
Speaker 1: And yet the nineties were seen as the most divisive
Speaker 1: era we'd ever had in politics.
Speaker 3: My god, if it should come take a look.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, if only we could have to day, that's
Speaker 1: what the how it felt in the night, because that
Speaker 1: was compared to the eighties. Right, it's always about you
Speaker 1: know what you're what are you comparing it to? Right now,
Speaker 1: the good old days of New Gigrids at Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: seem like it seemed like small potatoes. Well, the reason
Speaker 1: I was setting me up on that, to be honest,
Speaker 1: is is I thought that the one area where I
Speaker 1: feel like there is real bipartisan interest in doing something
Speaker 1: about this concentration of power is in tech, specifically with
Speaker 1: social media and kids.
Speaker 3: Now, I don't know why I can't. You can't get
Speaker 3: people if we if we know this product's terrible for kids,
Speaker 3: why should we assume it's not terrible for adults.
Speaker 1: But one step at a time, if we can get
Speaker 1: everybody agreeing this is a human brain experiment that should
Speaker 1: no longer be used on our children, then maybe over
Speaker 1: time we'll convince them that yet this, this digital smoking
Speaker 1: is bad for you, no matter what age you are.
Speaker 3: But there does seem to be real possibilities here.
Speaker 1: On kids and sort of getting at the big tech
Speaker 1: algorithm issue and all these things through the abuse of
Speaker 1: our children.
Speaker 3: It has been a rare place.
Speaker 2: I mean when you've got Kathy Hokeel and Sarah alb
Speaker 2: Sanders down in Arkansas both signing similar.
Speaker 3: Chats in the Senate, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So it's a place I see it in my
Speaker 2: own district around smartphones and schools. I sent a survey
Speaker 2: out to all my school districts just to see what
Speaker 2: they're doing. Should you know, I asked a public survey
Speaker 2: about banning smartphones from classrooms and it was like an
Speaker 2: eighty twenty response. So it seems to be a place
Speaker 2: where it hasn't fallen down on the sort you know,
Speaker 2: the typical partisan line. Parents are very worried about what's.
Speaker 3: Going on with the kids. I'm a dad, I got
Speaker 3: young kids, Believe me, I'm worried.
Speaker 2: And so maybe it's the one place we still have
Speaker 2: where we can find something to do to protect these kids,
Speaker 2: and it hasn't become the usual source of d versus are.
Speaker 2: I think there's real anger at the big tech companies.
Speaker 2: I think not just parents. People know this stuff is
Speaker 2: designed to be addictive. Right, You're talking about like teenage
Speaker 2: and preteen brains. Those kids are vulnerable, and I think
Speaker 2: politicians are just catching up to really how frustrated, especially
Speaker 2: the parents are. Have you got to do something to
Speaker 2: protect these kids?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: And it feels like once we get everybody focused on that,
Speaker 1: then we're all going to.
Speaker 3: Say, hey, wait a minute, what was everybody else? What
Speaker 3: about everybody else?
Speaker 1: And then of course, like we also have this huge
Speaker 1: content and that's the other part of this, and this
Speaker 1: is where, you know, I had a conversation with Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon who said, you know who was a big fan
Speaker 1: of Lina Kahn. And he said something that was frankly
Speaker 1: a very agreeable statement. He said, he goes, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm I'm always nervous about too much concentration of power.
Speaker 1: Me too, And I'm like me too, right, and he goes,
Speaker 1: I'm focused on government and media, and I'm like, okay,
Speaker 1: except look what we're doing in tech, Look what we've.
Speaker 3: Done with crypto.
Speaker 1: And I've got my questions about it as it is.
Speaker 1: But what we are doing is we're concentrating a small
Speaker 1: group of people to control. I mean, look at media now.
Speaker 1: It is all Donald Trump's friends who are owning a
Speaker 1: piece of TikTok. You're now going to have potentially one family,
Speaker 1: two families control Fox, CBS and CNN.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: If the Ellisons go through with both CBS and an
Speaker 1: acquisition of Warner Brothers, that's a huge concentration of power,
Speaker 1: which I don't understand where the small c conservatives are.
Speaker 3: On this well.
Speaker 2: And I think look in this moment, especially where you're
Speaker 2: seeing a president and his allies willing to stifle dissent
Speaker 2: and use the power they have to kick people off TV.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: The problem of concentration of power is related to this.
Speaker 2: If you've got a diffuse competitive market, it's a lot
Speaker 2: harder to bully. Yeah, a very competitive market versus just
Speaker 2: a handful of corporations who you have hanging over their head,
Speaker 2: the threat of blocking a merger, for instance, right finding
Speaker 2: some use of government power you can use to get
Speaker 2: action that you want somewhere else. The competition would make
Speaker 2: that a lot harder to do. And by the way,
Speaker 2: it might be better for a variety of viewpoints. It
Speaker 2: might be better to have different content creators and different
Speaker 2: sports and TV and news platforms, maybe better for consumers.
Speaker 2: And so I think these things are linked. I think
Speaker 2: the economic fight and for me, I very much include
Speaker 2: that concentration of power right that Leana Conn and others
Speaker 2: were part of in the Biden administration that it seemed,
Speaker 2: at least at the beginning there might be some carryover
Speaker 2: into this administration that now seems to be happening. I
Speaker 2: think that fight is really important, and it goes to
Speaker 2: beating back any attempts.
Speaker 3: To weekend free speech and week in the constitution.
Speaker 2: I think they are very very linked.
Speaker 1: Well, this gets it too, And I'm curious how you
Speaker 1: answer this question, because I'm sure you've had a constituent
Speaker 1: when you bring up this corruption issue, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I am just alarmed at the level of pay to
Speaker 1: play that we have right now, and I'll bring that
Speaker 1: up and I'll have somebody say, well, they're all kind
Speaker 1: of corrupt, and you're like, yeah, but like this goes
Speaker 1: to eleven, you know, like you know doing I'm sorry
Speaker 1: for the gen X reference there to spinal tap, but
Speaker 1: you know it is I hear you. I know, I
Speaker 1: just you know you're here, You're talking like a middle
Speaker 1: aged guy and I'm like, yeah, I'm a decade plus
Speaker 1: older than you.
Speaker 3: God love us, But what do you say to that?
Speaker 1: Because I really do think the biggest problem we've got
Speaker 1: is with the public is they agree that what's happening
Speaker 1: is bad, but they sit there and say it's hey, man,
Speaker 1: I thought the last guy was somewhat corrupt to you
Speaker 1: may not have thought he was as corrupt as I did,
Speaker 1: but it certainly didn't look any that much better.
Speaker 3: And all of these.
Speaker 1: People get rich off of politics, whether it's liberals or conservatives.
Speaker 1: And the thing is is that even I could say, well,
Speaker 1: it's lopside. It's like when everybody wants to have this
Speaker 1: fight over who whose extremists are more violent, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if everybody's got violent actors on their side. You
Speaker 1: need to police it, But how do we break this
Speaker 1: sort of that cynical while they're all corrupt? So I
Speaker 1: you know, I even had people say, yeah, I know
Speaker 1: Trump's corrupt, but at least he's authentic about it.
Speaker 2: So I'll give you an example on congressional stock trading. Okay,
Speaker 2: I had constituents at town hall or Senior Center event,
Speaker 2: and I'll bring it up or they'll bring it up
Speaker 2: and they might think they've so I'm gonna get chick.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to name some Democrat who abuse this,
Speaker 2: and then my answer is that I don't care. We
Speaker 2: no one should be doing this. Let's ban the damn thing.
Speaker 2: And it's an easy anti corruption thing that we should do.
Speaker 2: And yet I think it actually it's one example of
Speaker 2: many of this stuff that just three needs distrust for people.
Speaker 2: Right when you see politicians do this, people know it's gross.
Speaker 2: They're not dumb, people are smart. They know that when
Speaker 2: politicians get rich doing this stuff, it's crooked. And I
Speaker 2: can cite the same stuff about the abuse of the
Speaker 2: mean coins and everything else in the administration, but I
Speaker 2: think the congressional stock trading really hits for people, and
Speaker 2: you got to be willing to just say I don't
Speaker 2: care who is doing this, it's wrong.
Speaker 3: You just need that.
Speaker 2: And I think it seems like a low hanging through
Speaker 2: of something we could take on and just do right now,
Speaker 2: and we ought to do. And frankly, there has been
Speaker 2: movement finally of some legislation that you've got Dems and
Speaker 2: Republicans both on we should just do this stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's crazy. Notion here, what if you combine
Speaker 1: the Congressional stock band with a pay raise? Oh gosh, look,
Speaker 1: I know that it's about Look you know, I'm one
Speaker 1: of these people who at least understands the life you live,
Speaker 1: and like you know, if you don't want members of
Speaker 1: Congress to interact with each other, then make them sleep
Speaker 1: in their own offices and make them not. If you
Speaker 1: do want them to interact, then you better pay them
Speaker 1: a decent salary so they can maybe have their family
Speaker 1: in Washington. And if you move your family to Washington,
Speaker 1: you're more likely to get to know people across the
Speaker 1: aisle than if you don't.
Speaker 3: You end up.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, there's I could I could sit here
Speaker 1: and talk myself in circles about what's better or worse.
Speaker 1: But if I've been empathetic to. One argument about the
Speaker 1: Congressional stock band is, if you're a middle class person
Speaker 1: who's had a decent job, got a four to one k,
Speaker 1: what are you supposed to do?
Speaker 3: What you get there?
Speaker 1: And you get it, but hey, I'm trying to plan
Speaker 1: for retirement too, and it isn't a very you know.
Speaker 1: I know, it sounds like a lot of money that
Speaker 1: you make, and it is to a lot of people.
Speaker 3: But what I always say is great, try having two
Speaker 3: households on that one hundred and six seventy two thousand
Speaker 3: dollars a year salary. That's hard.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no one's going to feel bad for us.
Speaker 3: And you know, you know, you know that and like
Speaker 3: it to the point on.
Speaker 1: I know, I'm like baiting. I don't mean to pitch it,
Speaker 1: like to make it, but I do think that it is.
Speaker 1: It is not the easiest lifestyle for a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: and yet they take so much. There's this perception that
Speaker 1: life is so easy.
Speaker 2: One look, even let's let's do the retiring example you
Speaker 2: talk about. You could just have ETFs or mutual funds
Speaker 2: and you are trading individual companies, which I think is
Speaker 2: such a an obvious red flag given the count.
Speaker 1: And we saw this during the pandemic, where wow, Richard
Speaker 1: Burr made a whole bunch of trades literally an hour
Speaker 1: after he got the word about what was coming with
Speaker 1: the pandemic, like, yeah, that was bad.
Speaker 3: So I'm not going to cry tears for you know that.
Speaker 3: That get that.
Speaker 2: Look at the end of the day, this is public service.
Speaker 2: It's a great honor to get to do this job.
Speaker 2: It is a public trust. And I think it's one
Speaker 2: of those things that if the members who won't support
Speaker 2: a band were to look themselves in the mirror and ask, like,
Speaker 2: because this is good for public trust in our government,
Speaker 2: they would say, of course, stop or they're deluding themselves.
Speaker 2: I don't get it. I just think it's an obvious
Speaker 2: one and your point's well taken, but man, we ought
Speaker 2: to just here's.
Speaker 3: Okay, here's the problem I'm trying to solve for yaes.
Speaker 1: I want a working class person to be able to percent,
Speaker 1: to be able to be a member of Congress. And
Speaker 1: the way it all works now is you really need
Speaker 1: to be wealthy in order to be an effective member
Speaker 1: of the House, and that's that shouldn't be how it works.
Speaker 2: I agree, and that's a real problem. And part of
Speaker 2: it is look, when we've got candidates, and the Republicans
Speaker 2: will have their own version of this with the NRCC
Speaker 2: and all the rest, but you know, it's part of
Speaker 2: it is trying to give candidates who come from a
Speaker 2: working class background a shot to run. I'm supporting Bob
Speaker 2: Brooks running in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. Is a firefighter.
Speaker 2: You know, that's that's not the norm for folks who
Speaker 2: end up being in Congress.
Speaker 3: No, it's a lot of lawyers. No offense to your JD.
Speaker 1: But like, in fact, that is a lion's share of
Speaker 1: the Democrats that are in the House or lawyers.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, no, I get it. It look like at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, we're lawmaking. That helps a little bit.
Speaker 2: But man, you've got to have different perspectives. It can't
Speaker 2: just be one thing. And I think that's a really
Speaker 2: good question, and what we do about it is not
Speaker 2: an easy answer. But a part of it has to
Speaker 2: be folks helping when we've got good candidates who come
Speaker 2: from a working class background, getting some supported help, because man,
Speaker 2: the fundraising reality of getting elected to Congress is obscene.
Speaker 2: We can spend an hour talking about campaign finance. But
Speaker 2: it's not an easy thing, and it's I think we
Speaker 2: would do better as a Congress, as a country if
Speaker 2: we have people who came from far more normal jobs
Speaker 2: and careers.
Speaker 1: I want to get you out of here on two
Speaker 1: more questions, once politics and one will be easy because
Speaker 1: it's it should be easy because it's sports.
Speaker 3: But I'm a politican front.
Speaker 1: It seems like every Democratic strategists out there, and no
Speaker 1: matter the flavor that they may be ideologically, all is
Speaker 1: agreeing on the same thing, which is, hey, Democrats need
Speaker 1: to drop the culture stuff and just focus on economics
Speaker 1: and sort of day to day things. It's easy to say,
Speaker 1: but it's turned out to be really difficult in practice,
Speaker 1: hasn't it.
Speaker 3: I guess that here's what I'll say.
Speaker 2: And look, I talk about my own experience running and winning,
Speaker 2: and I've never backtracked on people's civil rights. And you know,
Speaker 2: my part of the world is very competitive. It used
Speaker 2: to be, you know a lot of the old blue
Speaker 2: dog Dems in my part of the world who were
Speaker 2: anti abortion. I was just going to say a lot
Speaker 2: of pro life Democrats have represented Western Pennsylvania in the past.
Speaker 2: I want to say, Mike Doyle was I don't remember
Speaker 2: for sure, but I feel like that was the case.
Speaker 2: But matter, I guess where I'm going is I have
Speaker 2: put this economic fight front center, and I've also been
Speaker 2: clear I don't have to backtrack on anybody's freedom to
Speaker 2: do that, and I've been talking about it on the
Speaker 2: stump and at rallies. As much as Donald Trump might
Speaker 2: want to divide people, right, some trans person wanting dignity
Speaker 2: is not why you're housing or your healthcare is a ripoff,
Speaker 2: and We're not going to fall for that. I don't
Speaker 2: think the path to Democrats rebuilding trust is now throwing
Speaker 2: people under the bus. And by the way, the other
Speaker 2: side of this, the Republicans ought to be careful because
Speaker 2: not only are they hurting people, they're spending a lot
Speaker 2: of time, a lot of time worrying about inspecting kids
Speaker 2: genitals on sports fields when they are failing to bring
Speaker 2: down the cost of living, And that is I think
Speaker 2: them failing at their core task and spending way too
Speaker 2: much time picking on kids and what sports they're going to.
Speaker 3: Play in your community.
Speaker 1: What is the one big economic issue that you think
Speaker 1: is about to just explode that you know we'll like
Speaker 1: people aren't realizing it about three to six months X
Speaker 1: is going to happen.
Speaker 2: People's energy bills are already been going up and they're
Speaker 2: mad about it. And that's on top of healthcare getting
Speaker 2: more and more expensive.
Speaker 3: Is there a good.
Speaker 1: Explanation on energy what's happening here? Because this doesn't feel
Speaker 1: like an easy answer.
Speaker 3: And here's the things. Yeah, it's a mix.
Speaker 2: I've been working with Congressional Research to get really dug
Speaker 2: in on what's going on in my part of the country.
Speaker 3: Pj's across the board.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw the New Jersey governor's race,
Speaker 1: both candidates are, hey, we're going to try to fight
Speaker 1: for you, Like yeah, when you see both candidates do
Speaker 1: it something, you're like, oh, this is everywhere.
Speaker 3: Trust me. I mean my wife and I had this discussion. Yeah,
Speaker 3: have we always paid this much? Like no, this is
Speaker 3: really a new spike. Yeah, there's something happening out here.
Speaker 2: You've got a problem with not enough power generation period,
Speaker 2: no matter the source of power.
Speaker 3: That's a real problem. And you know, you.
Speaker 2: Also got a mix of the traditional co ops, but
Speaker 2: you've got these investor owned or private owned utilities that's
Speaker 2: seen to be jacking up prices at.
Speaker 3: Higher rates than the old co ops. If you've got
Speaker 3: that in your part of the world.
Speaker 2: And I think it's a power generation problem. It's the monopolies.
Speaker 2: They're all monopoly essentially on the transmission distribution side, some
Speaker 2: of those investor owned companies there. There's not an easy answer,
Speaker 2: but man, I think people are mad about it, and
Speaker 2: I think the Republican Big beautiful.
Speaker 3: Bill just made it worse.
Speaker 2: And we're going to see as those tax credits go
Speaker 2: away for things like getting new power, new transmission going,
Speaker 2: that's going to make bills go up.
Speaker 1: I'm old enough to remember when the Republican stance on
Speaker 1: energy was all of the above. I'm and suddenly it's
Speaker 1: no longer all of the above. It's whatever. President Trump
Speaker 1: likes oil and gas, he likes nuclear, he's okay with solar,
Speaker 1: he doesn't like wind.
Speaker 3: And you're like, what does it matter? Don't we want
Speaker 3: all of it? Tell you why?
Speaker 2: You talk to people in the building trades in western Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: They would just like jobs and any any energy work.
Speaker 2: Those can be good jobs.
Speaker 1: Are you going to go to the you know the
Speaker 1: your I assume you're a beloved Pittsburgh Steelers fan.
Speaker 3: I am.
Speaker 1: I think when we when this, this will air before you,
Speaker 1: Pittsburgh's going Ireland right.
Speaker 2: Double right about this coming Sunday, I think, yeah.
Speaker 3: That's got to be a tempting field trip.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not going. I'm staying home. I'll watched from Afar.
Speaker 2: It's going to be like an early game on Sundays
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: Well the Rooneyes. I mean, I just think, what a
Speaker 1: right the pop on me was the ambassador. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's going to be.
Speaker 3: I mean, I have a feeling that's going to be
Speaker 3: a Pittsburgh home game.
Speaker 2: You know, some tells me if Steelers will travel well everywhere,
Speaker 2: and I'm gonna guess we got good fans in Double.
Speaker 3: How how you holding up with the Aaron Rodgers experience.
Speaker 3: I'm from a weird fan. I know, I know this world.
Speaker 2: Well, he's older than me, I'm pretty sure, which is bizarre.
Speaker 3: You guys are about the same age. I think that's right. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: The New England win, so we're recording this Monday after.
Speaker 3: We just beat the Patriots. It was kind of an
Speaker 3: ugly game. You know, better win than lose. Better the
Speaker 3: win than lose.
Speaker 1: He is and and then of course there's the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Speaker 1: It is why does an incredible franchise with its history
Speaker 1: like that? You know, I say this, I come from
Speaker 1: Miami and we didn't have baseball on I was growing up.
Speaker 1: I moved to Washington and didn't have baseball. Now has
Speaker 1: the Nats. I feel like Pittsburgh's just a worse version
Speaker 1: than what Miami and Washington have experienced, which is owners
Speaker 1: that just either don't have the resources or don't spend
Speaker 1: the resources.
Speaker 2: I think it's a simple question of whether you're going
Speaker 2: to spend and invest in the team. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: we play in a beautiful ballpark. You got a fan
Speaker 2: base who will show up a magnetic ballpark, meaning people
Speaker 2: will travel. You hear it all the time, Like you know,
Speaker 2: there's a.
Speaker 3: Whole baseball community that loves to do the ballpark traveling.
Speaker 3: I mean yeah.
Speaker 1: In fact, my son is one of them. He's one
Speaker 1: of the few eighteen year olds that actually likes baseball.
Speaker 1: As he says, he's in college and he goes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I wanted to go check out a Rangers game. He's
Speaker 1: down in Texas and he had a hard time recruiting
Speaker 1: people to go check out a baseball game, Like, that's
Speaker 1: how badly baseball is not penetrating gen Z. But he
Speaker 1: loves to see all the parks and PNC Park is
Speaker 1: always right at the top of the list. PNC Colorado,
Speaker 1: you know, after Wriggling, Fenway, P and C Colorado and Camden,
Speaker 1: those three are just fantastic.
Speaker 2: Well we't even gone to the fact that we have
Speaker 2: the best pitching.
Speaker 3: He's so great.
Speaker 2: I mean, Paul Skeens is unbelievable.
Speaker 3: He's going to be terrific for the New York Yankees
Speaker 3: one day.
Speaker 2: And you know, it kills me to know that we
Speaker 2: are probably not going to be able to keep this guy.
Speaker 2: And you know, I look at from his perspective. You
Speaker 2: want to win, and you want an ownership that wants
Speaker 2: to win. I mean, we should be pitchers.
Speaker 3: Do this.
Speaker 1: What's your career lifespan? Right, Like you'll have a finite
Speaker 1: amount of time before your arm falls off, you.
Speaker 3: Know, I know, I know, I wish. Look, I want
Speaker 3: to build a team around this guy. I want us
Speaker 3: to compete and win.
Speaker 2: I mean, we have this guy who's such a generational talent.
Speaker 2: And I don't know, are the.
Speaker 1: Pirates owners good community citizens? I mean, do they invest
Speaker 1: in the community or not really.
Speaker 2: I think if you went to a game, you would
Speaker 2: see his banners and T shirts and tell them to
Speaker 2: sell the team. And that tells you about what the
Speaker 2: public sees. You know, Look, they want to winner. These
Speaker 2: guys would would spend and invest. People would come around
Speaker 2: this ownership. I think it's a simple lesson and you
Speaker 2: see it with We're talked. We talked about the Rooneyes
Speaker 2: and the Steelers. They invest, they spend a win, they
Speaker 2: have a culture of winning. The Bucos could do this
Speaker 2: with a little bit of money.
Speaker 3: One last question.
Speaker 1: If you go through the various suburban communities on a
Speaker 1: college football Saturday, are there going to be more Penn
Speaker 1: State flags or Pitt Panther flax?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm a pit fan through and through, so we're
Speaker 2: we're going with Pitt.
Speaker 3: But there are pretty big fifty is it it? It's?
Speaker 3: Is it? Well? And they're also West Virginia fans. We're
Speaker 3: not that far from Morgantown, right, so you got a
Speaker 3: little bit of that too. Yeah, it's a mix, all right. Congressman,
Speaker 3: it's great to get to know you appreciate the time
Speaker 3: Chuff Banks found me on