Speaker 1: Happy Monday. Welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thank you for watching, for those of you on YouTube
Speaker 1: or watching as a video podcast on Spotify. Those of
Speaker 1: you listening, also, thank you for tuning in. Always appreciate that.
Speaker 1: So I had to check my watch for the year
Speaker 1: again over the weekend make sure we were still in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, because we kind of had one of
Speaker 1: these news Joe Biden news cycles over the last seventy
Speaker 1: two hours that was quite rare, meaning it was a
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. You might be forgiven if you thought Biden
Speaker 1: was still president versus Trump, because it's rare for Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to ever get overshadowed, particularly when he's actually president.
Speaker 1: But for the last seventy two hours, all things Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has very much overshadowed Donald Trump. Now some of
Speaker 1: it is intentional by Trump, and I'm going to get
Speaker 1: into that, but let's unpack this Biden news cycle. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the most recent news being his office announcing that he
Speaker 1: is an aggressive form of prostate cancer. So obviously it
Speaker 1: goes without saying that that is not good news to hear,
Speaker 1: and he is there is nobody that knows how to
Speaker 1: fight and rebound from health challenges more than Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I feel like he's been doing it off and on
Speaker 1: his whole life. The guy is tough, he's resilient, and
Speaker 1: I have no doubt he's going to make it through
Speaker 1: this and likely thrive after they make their decision on
Speaker 1: where to go with treatment. Obviously, that news came in
Speaker 1: the middle of what's been a pretty negative set of
Speaker 1: headlines for Joe Biden and for the Democratic Party as
Speaker 1: a whole. As you've had the book Jake Tapper Alex
Speaker 1: Thompson's book about what happened inside the West Wing, what
Speaker 1: happened inside the Democratic Party that that led to what
Speaker 1: was a disastrous summer, if you will, the disastrous last
Speaker 1: eighteen months of the Biden presidency. Was it a cover up?
Speaker 1: Was it not? You don't think there's any proof that
Speaker 1: it was a cover up of anything other than it
Speaker 1: was either a lot of wilful blindness by the staff
Speaker 1: perhaps making themselves feel better because it was Donald Trump
Speaker 1: that was on the other side, and had it been
Speaker 1: anybody else, maybe they would have had clear set of
Speaker 1: eyes and thinking. But that book got supercharged over the
Speaker 1: weekend with the Trump administration's decision and the timing of that,
Speaker 1: and again I'm going to get into that in a minute.
Speaker 1: To release the full audio recording, and this was a
Speaker 1: Justice department decision. They did it, So it's Trump's Justice
Speaker 1: department that did this. Just keep this in mind, and
Speaker 1: we're going to ask some questions in a few minutes
Speaker 1: about why did they choose this moment, why are they
Speaker 1: choosing to do this, But we'll get into that in
Speaker 1: a minute, But let's not beat around the bush. The
Speaker 1: release of the Robert herbick has certainly I think put
Speaker 1: that entire episode in a different light. What Robert Hurr
Speaker 1: wrote about his interview when he said that no jury
Speaker 1: would convict him, is that he was going to be
Speaker 1: that his memory of an was a bit forgetful, but
Speaker 1: it would be something that a jury would forgive considering
Speaker 1: his age. Well, when that report came out, there was
Speaker 1: immediate denunciations because remember when when it came out, he
Speaker 1: was still running for reelection at the time when this
Speaker 1: report came out, so it was obviously something that they
Speaker 1: feared would only sort of bring back the news cycle,
Speaker 1: bring back the chatter that he shouldn't run for reelection,
Speaker 1: that the party should go in a different direction. So
Speaker 1: there was a very forceful pushback attacks on her personally,
Speaker 1: accusations that he was somehow doing the bidding of the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign when he was doing it, just personal and
Speaker 1: vicious attacks by some people who are not journalists but
Speaker 1: are considered members of the media. And I do make
Speaker 1: this distinction because I do think reporters and journalists were
Speaker 1: trying to do a story and we're trying to be
Speaker 1: honest about what the heck was going on with Biden
Speaker 1: in the White House. But there were certainly pundits and
Speaker 1: analysts and hosts of cable TV shows that we're trying
Speaker 1: to protect their access to the president and use talking
Speaker 1: points that were hand delivered to them by Biden supporters
Speaker 1: and Biden defenders to attack Robert Hurr. We'll see if
Speaker 1: those folks decide to apologize, decide to do a mega
Speaker 1: Kalpa on that, because clearly, now when you listen to
Speaker 1: the recording, her was not an antagonist here. Her was
Speaker 1: not trying doesn't seem like he was at all trying
Speaker 1: to lead the witness and some sort of negative territory
Speaker 1: that he was willfully misinterpreting the conversation that he had
Speaker 1: and how the interview went. I think it was pretty
Speaker 1: clear that her was a professional in the during the
Speaker 1: whole time, behaved very professionally and certainly was even empathetic
Speaker 1: at times when the president, who of course, it turned
Speaker 1: out it was the President that brought up his son's death,
Speaker 1: not Robert Herr. So that recording has only I think
Speaker 1: taken and certainly, let's remember the Trump Justice Department released
Speaker 1: the recording to one of the two authors of the book,
Speaker 1: to the news organization Axios, which of course employs one
Speaker 1: of the two authors of the book. So the Trump
Speaker 1: White House knew exactly what it was doing here. They
Speaker 1: saw an opportunity to take a news cycle that was
Speaker 1: growing and developing and really was more of a Washington
Speaker 1: news cycle about the Democratic Party, and essentially ad an
Speaker 1: accelerant it. Right the release of this recording, which is
Speaker 1: not in the book. Okay, this was not something that
Speaker 1: they were able to get for the book, but they
Speaker 1: sort of giving it to the author only seemed to
Speaker 1: supercharge the attention and it certainly now created a much
Speaker 1: bigger news cycle and has forced a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: to have to answer for this because at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, the Democratic Party did turn a blind eye,
Speaker 1: not just to Joe Biden, but they turned the blind
Speaker 1: eye to the voters. Ultimately, what they did is they
Speaker 1: we the voters were the ones that were telling Paul
Speaker 1: after poll that they had more concerns about Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: age than they did Donald Trump's character. And it was
Speaker 1: Paul after Paul after poll that would show that. And
Speaker 1: it was amazing to me how often Democrats would dismiss
Speaker 1: those numbers and say, oh no, you know, once, once
Speaker 1: the public sees Joe Biden in action, that will go away.
Speaker 1: But Donald Trump's character is built in, and the issues
Speaker 1: and the fear of his presidency will kick in and
Speaker 1: people will focus on that. Well, that didn't happen because
Speaker 1: Joe Biden wasn't able to reassure folks that he was
Speaker 1: able to do the job. The debate, obviously, the infamous debate,
Speaker 1: ended up being the moment that only reinforced what the
Speaker 1: voters were already telling us. And that's what I think
Speaker 1: is the biggest problem the Democratic Party has right now
Speaker 1: in this moment in dealing with this Biden situation. Look,
Speaker 1: it does appear that Joe Biden is about to experience
Speaker 1: what Jimmy Carter experienced starting in nineteen eighty one, which
Speaker 1: is the Democratic Party is going to do everything it can.
Speaker 1: Anybody that's currently active in the party is going to
Speaker 1: do everything they can to find a way to distance
Speaker 1: themselves from him in some form. Maybe they will say, well,
Speaker 1: I thought, you know, you'll hear. Richie Torres, who I'm
Speaker 1: interviewing today, is one of the rising stars in the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. He may be a candidate for New York governor,
Speaker 1: a primary challenger to the New York governor there, Kathy Hochel.
Speaker 1: He will admit that, hey, it turns out we were wrong.
Speaker 1: We should have had a deeper conversation about this is
Speaker 1: essentially his message. But I want to read something Chris
Speaker 1: Murphy said on Meet the Press to my friend Kristen Welker,
Speaker 1: and he said this, because I think this gets it
Speaker 1: to the heart of the challenge for the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: going forward, if they're going to ever convince voters to
Speaker 1: trust them. In retrospect, Chris Murphy says, you can't defend
Speaker 1: what the Democratic Party did because we are stuck with
Speaker 1: a madman, a corrupt president in the Oval office, and
Speaker 1: we should have given ourselves a better chance to win.
Speaker 1: So what is he saying there. What he's saying is
Speaker 1: to voters, it's okay to blame the Democratic Party for
Speaker 1: Trump's election. That if the Democratic Party had behaved more responsibly,
Speaker 1: had the Democratic Party put the wishes of the voters
Speaker 1: ahead of the wishes of the establishment, they may have
Speaker 1: gone somewhere. They may be in a different place. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump may not be president, you know, the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: If Donald Trump ends up a failed president and sets
Speaker 1: the democracy back decades and sets American exceptionalism back decades,
Speaker 1: not only will you have the Republican Party to blame,
Speaker 1: because they've willfully gone down this road and they've looked
Speaker 1: the other way on character, and they've looked the other
Speaker 1: way on sort of the historical nature of what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do here. But the Democratic Party did the
Speaker 1: same thing. They didn't put the interests of the country
Speaker 1: ahead of the interests of the party or the interests
Speaker 1: of themselves. And what really makes it, I think even
Speaker 1: more damning for the Democrats and why this recovery is
Speaker 1: going to be so much harder no matter how unpopular
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and the Republicans are in this moment, because
Speaker 1: it's a trust issue, right, there was this this lack
Speaker 1: of being able to of being able to see, and
Speaker 1: the rhetoric was Donald Trump's an existential threat to the democracy. Well,
Speaker 1: if you believe that, then you had to make sure
Speaker 1: you were doing everything you can as a party to
Speaker 1: put that front and center, that that issue would be
Speaker 1: front and center. So if you had a sitting president
Speaker 1: that wasn't up to the challenge, then that he needed
Speaker 1: to be he needed to be primary or he needed
Speaker 1: to be convinced not to run again. And it should
Speaker 1: have happened a heck of a lot sooner. The party
Speaker 1: never seemed to take the Trump threat as seriously as
Speaker 1: the rhetoric. They would utter because their actions didn't back
Speaker 1: up the rhetoric. How do we know that, Just look
Speaker 1: at how they handled the Biden situation in the last
Speaker 1: two years of the Biden presidency. So the question is
Speaker 1: how many people in the Democratic Party are going to
Speaker 1: be tainted with this? So let me go back. I
Speaker 1: want to go back to the experience of the last
Speaker 1: time that the Democrats had sort of this. They had
Speaker 1: sort of an era of defeat that called into question
Speaker 1: whether the Democratic Party was strong enough to lead in
Speaker 1: this country. The Democratic Party had got blown out in
Speaker 1: seventy two by George McGovern. They narrowly win the White House,
Speaker 1: even though they should have won it by a lot.
Speaker 1: But they narrowly win the White House in seventy six
Speaker 1: post Watergate, essentially because Ford pardons Nixon and that was
Speaker 1: an unforgivable sin. Carter gets blown out in eighty Walter
Speaker 1: Mondale gets blown out in eighty four, and Michael Ducaccus
Speaker 1: gets blown out in eighty eight. So four landslides in
Speaker 1: five elections. And after that eighty eight election, there were
Speaker 1: serious there were serious debates about what was the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party going to do with itself. There was books that
Speaker 1: were put out that's a permanent minority party. The Democratic
Speaker 1: parties headed for permanent minority party status. And what happened.
Speaker 1: Somebody decided to pick a fight and take the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party in a whole new direction. And that's somebody was
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton. And I've gone through this a few times before,
Speaker 1: so I'm not going to re talk about this moment,
Speaker 1: but that was a cathartic moment for a party. And
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton confronted the establishment. Bill Clinton confronted the very
Speaker 1: basic issues that swing voters were saying they didn't trust
Speaker 1: whether it was law and order issues, national security, or
Speaker 1: the economy. Right, he came out and was centered the
Speaker 1: party as being more pro business, more pro free trade, tough. Essentially,
Speaker 1: when he got elected president, he basically adopted half of
Speaker 1: the national defense policy that George H. W. Bush had kept.
Speaker 1: Colin Powell kept a bunch of holdovers at the time
Speaker 1: and essentially preserved much of this of the status quo
Speaker 1: in the national security, and of course he projected himself
Speaker 1: as much tougher on law orders, even famously leaving the
Speaker 1: campaign trail to oversee the use of the death penalty
Speaker 1: when he was governor of Arkansas late in the campaign,
Speaker 1: just to reinforce the message that he was a different
Speaker 1: type of Democrat. It was all about him making contrast
Speaker 1: that he wasn't Jimmy Carter, that he wasn't Michael Ducacas,
Speaker 1: and that he wasn't Walter Mondale. And the one thing,
Speaker 1: and he actually had to push back that he wasn't
Speaker 1: George McGovern. That was a little harder for him, why
Speaker 1: because Bill and Hillary Clinton ran Texas for McGovern back
Speaker 1: in seventy two. But still, you see my larger point,
Speaker 1: he had to not just run against the party, but
Speaker 1: contrast himself and put those previous Democratic leaders in a
Speaker 1: negative light. That's likely the situation the Democrats are in now.
Speaker 1: Right if you put the grouping of candidates together of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. We've had three
Speaker 1: elections and two of them lost, and the Joe Biden
Speaker 1: victory turned out to be probably more of an accident
Speaker 1: in hindsight than we all realize. I think that one
Speaker 1: of the fundamental problems Democrats I think have made and
Speaker 1: why they may have chosen not to confront the Biden
Speaker 1: age issue when they should have, is I think they
Speaker 1: misinterpreted both what happened in twenty twenty and twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: I think the Democrats mostly believe that their success in
Speaker 1: twenty and they're doing and they're better than expected showing
Speaker 1: in twenty two was due to a rejection of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and trump Ism, when it looks like if you
Speaker 1: actually dig in and now sort of see how voters
Speaker 1: behaved in twenty four, now we can look back and realize, oh,
Speaker 1: in twenty this was simply about COVID, and that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump managed COVID better heat of one reelection, and oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, he almost won reelection anyway. And in
Speaker 1: twenty two it was simply superior Democratic candidates running against
Speaker 1: terrible Republican nominees. And if there weren't those terrible Republican nominees,
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two midterms go differently. And perhaps it
Speaker 1: actually motivates the Democratic Party to say, hey, they've got
Speaker 1: a pivot from Joe Biden. Something is wrong here, this
Speaker 1: isn't working. But they believe the voters that the message
Speaker 1: the voters were sending was a full on rejection of Trump,
Speaker 1: when really it was just a rejection of the specific
Speaker 1: policy of the moment, and of that moment in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty was covid. And I also think what happened on
Speaker 1: January sixth really clouded the judgment of a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of Democrats believe the country would
Speaker 1: never forgive Republicans for what happened on January sixth, not
Speaker 1: realizing that what the conservative media machine had done a
Speaker 1: great job building an alternative ecosystem, and Donald Trump supercharged
Speaker 1: that alternative ecosystem. When Facebook and Twitter decided to deplatform him,
Speaker 1: he was forced to have to go find a new
Speaker 1: way to communicate. And all that did was, I think
Speaker 1: less in whatever impact democrats thought January was going to sick,
Speaker 1: January six was going to have on the electorate as
Speaker 1: a whole. So look, I think you're going to continue
Speaker 1: to see more Democrats try to distance themselves. I think
Speaker 1: it's going to be really tough for some of them.
Speaker 1: I saw James Carvill just attack Pete Bootajige the other
Speaker 1: day saying, oh, now you're saying because Botajige went in Iowa,
Speaker 1: essentially said yeah, maybe we should have gone in a
Speaker 1: different direction rather than Biden seeking reelection. And of course
Speaker 1: Carvel's first answer was because Carvel was out there early
Speaker 1: on saying Biden shouldn't seek reelection. He was saying it
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three when many Democrats were not saying
Speaker 1: it then, or certainly weren't saying it publicly. And he
Speaker 1: basically said, where were you, Pete Bootagige. Why didn't you
Speaker 1: say anything then? And so I think that that's going
Speaker 1: to be It's going to be an albatross that every
Speaker 1: single Democrat that runs for office. The closer you are
Speaker 1: to Biden, the more questions you're going to have to
Speaker 1: answer about what you saw and what you didn't see,
Speaker 1: and if you didn't see it, the question is going
Speaker 1: to be why didn't you see it? Why didn't you
Speaker 1: ask questions about why you weren't allowed to meet more
Speaker 1: often with the president if you were a cabinet secretary
Speaker 1: for instance, or why did you say what you said?
Speaker 1: Some of these defenses, Oh, you know when people it
Speaker 1: was it was always you know, all these quotes are
Speaker 1: coming back to haunt so many Democrats because they'd be
Speaker 1: out there saying I was with Biden and he was amazing,
Speaker 1: and he was this. It was almost like over the
Speaker 1: top rhetoric and trying to defend Biden, which after the
Speaker 1: release of the her tapes and after the release of
Speaker 1: this Tapper book is only makes those quotes age really
Speaker 1: really poorly. So, look, I suspect you're going to have
Speaker 1: to that the Democrats are not anywhere near answering the
Speaker 1: question that voters are going to end up asking them
Speaker 1: at some point, because I go back to what I
Speaker 1: to what Chris Murphy said on Sunday. The more unpopular
Speaker 1: Trump gets, the more unpopular the decisions he makes, the
Speaker 1: worse our economy is. Some of that blame isn't all
Speaker 1: going to go to the Republicans. There are going to
Speaker 1: be some voters who do blame the Democratic Party for
Speaker 1: not focusing on the task in hand back in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, for looking the other way on Biden. And
Speaker 1: so what does that mean? Right? I've posited here that
Speaker 1: if we didn't if they're if the duopoly of ballid
Speaker 1: access didn't exist, I do think the Democratic Party's major
Speaker 1: party status would be in real jeopardy. But because of
Speaker 1: how embedded, and because there's only one vehicle to guarantee
Speaker 1: ballid access without having to go around gathering partition signatures
Speaker 1: and things like that in many states, it gives them
Speaker 1: essentially a chance to try to reinvent themselves. But they
Speaker 1: have to reinvent themselves. Make no mistake, if you're thinking
Speaker 1: about leading this party in twenty six or twenty eight,
Speaker 1: go spend some time watching what Bill Clinton did in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine, in nineteen ninety, Go take a look
Speaker 1: at the DLC. It doesn't mean you have to move ideologically.
Speaker 1: I do think that sometimes strength can be projected without
Speaker 1: shifting your ideology left to center or center to left.
Speaker 1: What you've got to do is project strength whatever it is,
Speaker 1: either if it's strength on an issue, strength on character.
Speaker 1: But these mealy mouthed answers, and this sort of attempt
Speaker 1: to try to try to sort of vaguely blame others
Speaker 1: or blame the establishment is is, I think a fool's
Speaker 1: Errand I do want to remind folks why is the
Speaker 1: her tape public? The her tape is only public because
Speaker 1: the Trump White House chose to make it public. Now
Speaker 1: you ask yourself, why do they choose? Why Why is
Speaker 1: Donald Trump so so enamored with constantly bringing up Joe Biden?
Speaker 1: Because in many ways, you know, if you think about it,
Speaker 1: like how a poker player might analyze somebody at a table,
Speaker 1: why is he doing this? Well, to me, it's a tell.
Speaker 1: What's the tell? He knows he's not popular. He knows
Speaker 1: many of the things he's doing are not popular. That
Speaker 1: Middle East trip, there were he did a few things
Speaker 1: that that may pay dividends long term. I think Syria
Speaker 1: and Iran could pay some long term dividends and some
Speaker 1: stability in the Middle East. But the stinkiness of the
Speaker 1: business transactions and the clear sort of intent of his
Speaker 1: personal businesses and his sons profiting off of the government's
Speaker 1: businesses with those three golf countries UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Katar,
Speaker 1: plus the whole plane business. Right, there's some stinkiness to it,
Speaker 1: So what was the best way to get people to
Speaker 1: ignore that stinkiness for about twenty four to forty eight
Speaker 1: hours release the Biden her tapes. Anyway, it's obvious that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is pursuing a strategy that Joe Biden might
Speaker 1: actually might admire, which is Donald Trump doesn't want you
Speaker 1: to judge him by the Almighty. He wants you to
Speaker 1: judge him by the alternative that he chooses to compare
Speaker 1: himself to, and constantly bringing up Biden he thinks is
Speaker 1: a net positive for him. But it does lead to
Speaker 1: a curious question that I have in watching the full response,
Speaker 1: if you will, over the weekend, and where the anger
Speaker 1: was coming up when the first clips of the her
Speaker 1: it came out. It was interesting to me that it
Speaker 1: fears as if the right conservative media Republican elected officials,
Speaker 1: all of them seemed to be angrier about this, about
Speaker 1: Biden's about the attacks on her, about Biden's appearance on there,
Speaker 1: and how it was clear that he was certainly, if anything,
Speaker 1: had a bad day when he did that first interview,
Speaker 1: But there was more anger from Republicans than there was
Speaker 1: from Democrats, and that's been a head scratcher to me.
Speaker 1: I think the release of the her tapes should be
Speaker 1: making Democrats a heck of a lot angrier than Republicans.
Speaker 1: You would think Trump allies are ecstatic that Democrats did
Speaker 1: nothing about Joe Biden for as long as they did.
Speaker 1: You would think Republicans should be celebrating that Democrats essentially
Speaker 1: didn't put their best foot forward in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: But if anything, they're attacking. They seem to be angrier
Speaker 1: about the development and angrier that Aha, see, they were
Speaker 1: right in their minds, they were right Biden wasn't up
Speaker 1: to the job. Now. I know that some on the
Speaker 1: right they think this is going to be some sort
Speaker 1: of vindication for them, that this will reinforce that you
Speaker 1: can't trust the left on anything. I think there are
Speaker 1: some on the right that believe this Biden cover up,
Speaker 1: if you want to call it that, as akin to
Speaker 1: the no weapons of mass destruction that sort of saddled
Speaker 1: Republicans for over a decade, if you will, And so
Speaker 1: I think that's what the right things but I will
Speaker 1: say this, I don't understand why Democrats aren't angrier. It
Speaker 1: was a lot of hiding a little bit in response
Speaker 1: to the hur tapes when it and while the Republicans
Speaker 1: seemed to be venting and frustrated, it was almost as if,
Speaker 1: why couldn't the Democrats have put up a better candidate
Speaker 1: so that Donald Trump didn't become president. Now they didn't
Speaker 1: say the second part, but that the anger is so
Speaker 1: palpable on the right that it's like, wow, why did
Speaker 1: you make us nominate Donald Trump? As almost what they're
Speaker 1: saying without saying it anyway, just something to think about
Speaker 1: into the motivation into why Trump's doing this. And I'll
Speaker 1: say this, it says a lot to me that the
Speaker 1: Trump White House feels the need that they have to
Speaker 1: do this because guess what, they've had a bad ninety
Speaker 1: six hours Russia is clearly Trump has no influence over Putin.
Speaker 1: He continues to snub Ukraine, snub an he ceasefire and oh,
Speaker 1: they just bombarded him with one of the larger drum
Speaker 1: strikes that Ukraine has experienced in a while. All in
Speaker 1: the run up to where Donald Trump says He's going
Speaker 1: to engage talk to putin and see if he can
Speaker 1: talk him into this. You also have House Republicans shooting
Speaker 1: at each other, unable to get this one big, beautiful
Speaker 1: bill onto the floor for a vote. Donald Trump's probably
Speaker 1: going to have to play Speaker of the House again.
Speaker 1: I mean, as we've learned, Mike Johnson is not his
Speaker 1: speaker and title only whenever he actually has to get
Speaker 1: a vote across the finish line. He desperately needs Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to make individual phone calls, individual threats. And let's
Speaker 1: just say, Donald Trump has a lot of work to
Speaker 1: do this week playing House speaker. And that again, when
Speaker 1: you have all that on your plate, it's no wonder
Speaker 1: They said, Hey, let's throw up the distraction shiny metal object,
Speaker 1: and let's release the her Biden tape. All right, let
Speaker 1: me sneak in a break here, and for those of
Speaker 1: you that are listening on audio when we come back,
Speaker 1: you're going to hear from one of the fascinating rising
Speaker 1: stars of the New York City Congressional delegation. And he
Speaker 1: could be a future candidate for governor of New York One,
Speaker 1: Richie toires New York City Democratic Congressman Richie Torres. Richie,
Speaker 1: it's good to see you. You're in some ways, I
Speaker 1: think a lot of the folks that listen to me
Speaker 1: and are watching me do know who you are. You're
Speaker 1: a progressive Democrat who's really pro Israel. Been one of
Speaker 1: the been one of the more important voices for those
Speaker 1: that support Israel in the New York City area. But
Speaker 1: I miss the old Stephen Colbert days of get to
Speaker 1: know your district. So I've made I made Goldman do this.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna make you do this because this you know,
Speaker 1: tell me about your district, like I've never been to
Speaker 1: New York City. Describe this district to somebody that lives
Speaker 1: in Rolla, Missouri.
Speaker 2: So I represent one of the few congressional districts that's
Speaker 2: wholly contained within one county. I represent about half the Bronx.
Speaker 2: So my district is home to the New York Yankees,
Speaker 2: and it's it's really known for its int intitutions. We
Speaker 2: have the New York Botanical Garden, we have the Bronx
Speaker 2: SIOU at Fordham University. The largest employer in the Bronx
Speaker 2: is the monsterra House System. And it's just an ethnically
Speaker 2: and racially very district, Dominican and Latino and Puerto Rican
Speaker 2: and Mexican population in the South Bronx, an African, American
Speaker 2: and Caribbean population in the Northeast Bronx, a Jewish population
Speaker 2: at Riverdale, Irish population, and Woodlaw. And so I have
Speaker 2: Little Italy, little Ireland, Little Yemen. It is remarkable for
Speaker 2: its diversity, and I have a special reverence for Arthur Abu. Literally,
Speaker 2: there may be no community in New York City that
Speaker 2: has a greater concentration of businesses that have been owned
Speaker 2: by the same family for more than one hundred years.
Speaker 2: So it's one of the most I would argue it's
Speaker 2: the best congressional district in America, But of course I
Speaker 2: have a bias.
Speaker 1: You better, you better say that. So you bought up
Speaker 1: against AOC in her district? Yes, yes, And what's the
Speaker 1: difference between hers and yours? Is it beyond geography? Beyond
Speaker 1: just butting up against I mean what her district is.
Speaker 1: It's not all contained in the Bronx, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I'm exclusively in the Bronx, whereas AOC represents
Speaker 2: both the Bronx and Queens. I split the South Bronx
Speaker 2: with AOC, I split the West Bronx with Adriano s
Speaker 2: Bayot and I split the Northeast Bronx with George Latimer,
Speaker 2: and AOC primarily represents the East Bronx, which happens my
Speaker 2: mother happens to live in her districts.
Speaker 1: Oh, well, there you go. It's just she can't vote
Speaker 1: for you. Mom can't vote for you.
Speaker 2: She cannot vote right now. She votes for me in spirit,
Speaker 2: but not in practice.
Speaker 1: You served on the New York City Council, and I
Speaker 1: don't think people are fully appreciate how enormous the New
Speaker 1: York City Council is. I mean every time I hear like, wait,
Speaker 1: one hundred and how many members?
Speaker 2: Yes, so I might have had more staff as a
Speaker 2: New York City Council member than I did as a
Speaker 2: member of Congress. Unlike most local legislators who operate with
Speaker 2: volunteer staff with part time staffers, New York City has
Speaker 2: a full time, professional legislature. It's about fifty one members,
Speaker 2: one of whom is the speaker, and each member of
Speaker 2: the City Council represents about one hundred and sixty to
Speaker 2: one hundred and seventy thousand people and have enormous power
Speaker 2: over land use development within their districts. I was in
Speaker 2: charge of investigations. I had not only my own personal staff,
Speaker 2: but the investigations and oversight division of the City Council
Speaker 2: reported to my committee. So it was great preparation for
Speaker 2: my role in Congress because I feel like, as a
Speaker 2: former city council member, I have an on the ground
Speaker 2: knowledge of how federal policies and programs operate at the
Speaker 2: local level because so much of what we did locally
Speaker 2: was essentially the administration of federal programs and for our
Speaker 2: So look.
Speaker 1: I'm obsessed with uncapping the House. I think we need
Speaker 1: to double the size of Congress. And you have a
Speaker 1: unique You have a nique window here. You went from
Speaker 1: a constituency of about one hundred to one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand. You just said right, to a constituency of
Speaker 1: approximately eight hundred thousand. Talk to me about those challenges
Speaker 1: and is eight hundred thousand too much? Should it be
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand?
Speaker 2: I would maintain the status quo. To be honest with you,
Speaker 2: I can. I mean, the House has trouble functioning with
Speaker 2: four hundred and thirty five members. Not to mention the
Speaker 2: representatives of territories, the thought of doubling the size of
Speaker 2: the House. I mean there is a point at which
Speaker 2: just operationally becomes overwhelming, So I would maintain the status quo.
Speaker 2: The greatest concern I have about the House is just
Speaker 2: running every two years. That the moment you've won your election,
Speaker 2: you're beginning a new election cycle. And I feel like
Speaker 2: they're members of Congress who's just spend too much time fundraising,
Speaker 2: too much time campaigning. It has a crowding out effect
Speaker 2: on governing. You know, we have two year terms, the
Speaker 2: president is four year term, Senators have six year terms.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court as a lifetime appointment. So the House
Speaker 2: got the short end of the stick. Well did it?
Speaker 2: Or is it supposed to be the most small d
Speaker 2: democratic right? Like?
Speaker 1: You know, this is where I do think it. I
Speaker 1: think in this case, more is better. If the if
Speaker 1: the founders were here, they would say that.
Speaker 2: It's a good it's a fair point. I would if
Speaker 2: I have to choose between a world in which both
Speaker 2: the Senate and the House have four year terms or
Speaker 2: the status quo, I probably would prefer both to have
Speaker 2: four year terms.
Speaker 1: Interesting, what was the term length on the city council
Speaker 1: four years? Four years and same four years? Or did
Speaker 1: they stagger it.
Speaker 2: To your your term limited, so you you're confined to
Speaker 2: two terms. And when I actually, when I entered the
Speaker 2: New York City Council, I was in favor of term
Speaker 2: moments because I felt to create space for a new
Speaker 2: generational leadership. But since then, I've become a skeptic because
Speaker 2: the mass exodus of members from the City Council has
Speaker 2: led to a real brain train and and it, you know,
Speaker 2: has the effect of shifting power from elected officials to
Speaker 2: the unelected staff, the permit diet, the so called deep
Speaker 2: state of the City Council.
Speaker 1: I am. I believe this every single state legislative capital,
Speaker 1: okay that has done this. The lobbyist run the legislature
Speaker 1: because they have the institutional memory. By the way, some
Speaker 1: very well meaning lobbyists. Just because your lobbist doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you're you're only out for the you know, standing up
Speaker 1: for bad guys. It just doesn't. But they're not termalmenting, right.
Speaker 2: And I you know, and it's even more so at
Speaker 2: the federal level. You know, the the issues that I
Speaker 2: tack was a member of Congress are so immensely complicating,
Speaker 2: complicated that you cannot learn them? Will you can only
Speaker 2: learn them over time by osmosis, and so there is
Speaker 2: something to be said for institutional memory. I feel creates
Speaker 2: a much more democratic government.
Speaker 1: So I went on a bit of a rant the
Speaker 1: other day about the lack of bipartisanship these days. In
Speaker 1: this respect, here you had Donald Trump, who was in
Speaker 1: favor of a couple things that they are a majority
Speaker 1: of Democrats that are in favor of raising. He wants
Speaker 1: a tax rate for millionaires as one way. He floated
Speaker 1: it out there. We know that there's Democratic support for that,
Speaker 1: yet he didn't go and seek it. He did an
Speaker 1: executive order on prescription drugs that has no teeth whatsoever.
Speaker 1: If he had worked on finding Democrats to help him,
Speaker 1: you could suddenly probably get some bipartisan legislation. He's not alone.
Speaker 1: The last Democratic president didn't make much. But I don't
Speaker 1: feel like Biden made much of an effort to reach
Speaker 1: out Republicans, and we could say Republicans didn't want to
Speaker 1: be outreached to. Barack Obama had to do Obamacare. So
Speaker 1: George W. Bush basically passed his prescription drug benefits solo.
Speaker 1: What does it take And if Donald Trump came to
Speaker 1: the House, Democratic House, Democratic Caucus and said, hey, I
Speaker 1: want to raise tax I want to create a tax rate,
Speaker 1: you know, a higher tax rate for those that make
Speaker 1: two million or more. Are we in a space where
Speaker 1: there could be a bipartisan agreement on that, or is
Speaker 1: the toxicity of Trump himself now make it impossible for
Speaker 1: bipartisanship in this current conference.
Speaker 2: I feel the appearance of DC is much more partisan
Speaker 2: than the reality. Particularly so I want to take issue
Speaker 2: with something you said with Biden. I actually felt, you know,
Speaker 2: for all the partisanship, particularly in the wake of January sixth,
Speaker 2: that he had a bipartisan and productively bipartisan presidency. Veteran healthcare,
Speaker 2: gun safety, chips ack, infrastructure, all of which were passed
Speaker 2: on a bipartisan basis. And those are significant pieces of legislation.
Speaker 1: Not all of them were. A lot of them were
Speaker 1: in the party line vote, but some of it was
Speaker 1: in the body.
Speaker 2: The Inflationial Reduction Act was party line, but ships ack
Speaker 2: was bipartisan. Yeah, kind safety was bipartisan. Veteran healthcare was bipartisan,
Speaker 2: Infrastructure was bipartisan. And those are four significant pieces of legislation.
Speaker 2: And I'm and Trump one point, oh was with somewhat bipartisan. Right,
Speaker 2: you had the trade bill, you had a criminal justice
Speaker 2: reform which was actually directly negotiated with Leader Jefferies.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Trump two point zero is quite different. I mean, he's
Speaker 2: just much more vindictive and aggressive and emboldened than ever before,
Speaker 2: and he is poisoning the well and has made it
Speaker 2: increasingly impossible for Democrats to have anything resembling a working
Speaker 2: relationship with him. So I felt like there were a
Speaker 2: prospect for bipartisanship with Trump one point zero. But he's
Speaker 2: a radically different person.
Speaker 1: Look, you have a reputation for being incredibly reasonable. Have
Speaker 1: you heard from his congressional liaisons.
Speaker 2: I've had no communication with Trump. I mean I have
Speaker 2: relationships with congressional Republicans.
Speaker 1: Sure, No, I'm talking about the Trump White House, you know,
Speaker 1: because I remember stories about the early Reagan days where
Speaker 1: they specific now granted they had a Democratic House they
Speaker 1: were dealing with, so there was they certainly they had
Speaker 1: to have relationships if they were going to pass legislation,
Speaker 1: but it was a day one priority. And you're right,
Speaker 1: Trump one point zero did want to you know, there
Speaker 1: would be days where it felt like, hey, he brought
Speaker 1: in Democratic lawmakers to have a conversation about this or that.
Speaker 1: There seems to be no demand, no interest in that whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Even as he again, I this prescription drug Executive Order,
Speaker 1: you get three hundred votes in the House for it.
Speaker 2: It just suits me as contempt for Congress. He expects
Speaker 2: the Republicans to fall in line, and they largely do.
Speaker 2: And he's in vindictive mode. I mean, he's just intent
Speaker 2: on dismantling what, you know, the bureaucracy of the government
Speaker 2: and higher education. Like everyone including Democrats, seemed to be
Speaker 2: on his Nixsonian enemies list. So I see no appetite
Speaker 2: for bipartisanship in either direction.
Speaker 1: What is that going to I mean, that's a pretty
Speaker 1: ugly next two and a half years we're going to spend,
Speaker 1: is it not.
Speaker 2: It bolts poorly for the country. And look, I think
Speaker 2: a few weeks ago I wrote something to the effect
Speaker 2: if a superpower we're planning the seeds of its own decline, right,
Speaker 2: it would paralyze the global economy with a certainty of uncertainty.
Speaker 2: It would erode confidence in the reserve status of the dollar.
Speaker 2: It would discard due process, it would defund scientific and
Speaker 2: medical research, It would sabotage advanced trip making, and it
Speaker 2: would grow the deficit until debt service becomes the largest
Speaker 2: expense in the federal budget, and that is in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five under Donald Trump. But I feel like we're
Speaker 2: in a dangerous place.
Speaker 1: So what do you do as a lawmaker? You're a Democrat,
Speaker 1: You're a lawmaker. You in theory, you you're in the
Speaker 1: you're in the arena. What do you what role can
Speaker 1: you play to get us out of this?
Speaker 2: Well, well, first we have to I mean I have
Speaker 2: to resist, you know, so take Medicaid. There's no congressional
Speaker 2: district in America that has a greater stake in Medicaid
Speaker 2: than mine. Sixty seven percent of my congressional district is
Speaker 2: a role to Medicaid. In my district, more than seventy
Speaker 2: percent of troldren, more than eighty percent of nursing home residence,
Speaker 2: more than ninety percent of baby deliveries are covered by Medicaid.
Speaker 2: And so I have to spend much of my political
Speaker 2: capital fighting this unprecedented assault on the social safety upon
Speaker 2: which the BRONX is heavily heavily dependent. The largest employer
Speaker 2: in the BRONX is the Montafuer Health System, which employs
Speaker 2: tens of thousands of people and depends heavily on Medicaid.
Speaker 2: And Medicaid matter not only the districts like mine, but
Speaker 2: to Blue states and Red states urban communities.
Speaker 1: Well, you saw Josh Holly, Republican senator from Missouri. He's
Speaker 1: well aware of majority of his constituents love Medicaid or reliable.
Speaker 2: And it's you know, Medicaid is not only health insurance
Speaker 2: for the lowest income. It has become long term care
Speaker 2: for the elderly and the disabled and richie.
Speaker 1: Both my grandmother and my wife's grandmother the end of
Speaker 1: life care that they needed we couldn't have afforded without
Speaker 1: the help of Medicaid both instances.
Speaker 2: I feel Medicaid is every bit as vital to senior
Speaker 2: citizens as medicare. Like in New York State, the elderly
Speaker 2: and the disabled account for twenty percent of the enrollees
Speaker 2: but make up sixty percent of the expenses. And so
Speaker 2: an attack on Medicaid is ultimately an attack on the
Speaker 2: elderly and the disabled. And that's the case we're making.
Speaker 1: Do you take any so the way they're right this bill,
Speaker 1: and guys like Chip Roy are unhappy with it. It
Speaker 1: feels as if all of the potential cuts to medicate
Speaker 1: or reforms, whichever side of the ale you want to
Speaker 1: be on on this don't kick in for a few years,
Speaker 1: which means it feels as if they're going to get
Speaker 1: their hamburger today, they'll pay for it down the road,
Speaker 1: and by the time down the road comes, there'll probably
Speaker 1: be a different Congress that make sure those either work
Speaker 1: requirements don't kick in or those cuts don't kick in.
Speaker 1: You do you think that's Do you take any sort
Speaker 1: of solace in the fact that that's probably what this
Speaker 1: legislation may end up looking like.
Speaker 2: It's not clear and the only issue is not the legislation.
Speaker 2: So you know, under Donald Trump, you know, thirteen point
Speaker 2: seven million people are in danger of losing their healthcare.
Speaker 2: So the Republican Reconciliation Bill could cause eight point six
Speaker 2: million to lose the healthcare. But then you have the
Speaker 2: exp of the Affordable Care Acts premium tax credits, which
Speaker 2: might cause four point too many people to lose their healthcare.
Speaker 2: And then there's a Trump regulation that could cause one
Speaker 2: point eight million. So those numbers are staggering. That's comparable
Speaker 2: to the number of people would have lost their healthcare
Speaker 2: during the initial attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Acts.
Speaker 2: So I do feel the impact will be felt. Republicans
Speaker 2: are going to message that their targets are not the
Speaker 2: elderly and the vulnerable, it's undocumented immigrants or its work requirements.
Speaker 2: But you know it's deceptive if you're reducing money for
Speaker 2: the overall system, which will not only kill people's lives
Speaker 2: but also livelihoods. And the work requirements are essentially paperwork requirements.
Speaker 2: There's no evidence the work requirements lead to actual work.
Speaker 2: It simply causes people to lose their health insurance. So
Speaker 2: Arkansas was the first state to implement a work requirements program.
Speaker 2: It did not boost employment. It simply led eighteen thousand
Speaker 2: people to lose their health insurance in the first five
Speaker 2: months of the program, and the majority of those people
Speaker 2: were eligible for Medicaid.
Speaker 1: What is there a Can you split Medicaid eligibility between say,
Speaker 1: children who are citizens versus maybe one parent who may
Speaker 1: not be.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't, I don't know how you could.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't know
Speaker 1: how you I get the thesis, but I don't know
Speaker 1: how you do it. And that's what I was curious.
Speaker 2: Look, if you are well, if you a seven and
Speaker 2: fifteen billion dollars, defunding a Medicaid is going to reduce
Speaker 2: funding for every safety net hospital, for every hospital in America,
Speaker 2: which means must care for everyone, not simply for the
Speaker 2: population you're targeting. You're reducing funding for the overall system.
Speaker 2: And I also feel like we should be a compassionate society.
Speaker 2: If you're an undocumented immigrant and you have a heart attack,
Speaker 2: are the Republicans suggesting that you should not get emergency
Speaker 2: care and that care should not be covered by the
Speaker 2: federal government. Is that the kind of society that we
Speaker 2: want to live in, that we want people to be
Speaker 2: left to die because of their immigration status or because
Speaker 2: of their income. Like, the consequences of what they're proposing
Speaker 2: are barbaric.
Speaker 1: So when you is there any so you don't even
Speaker 1: see a feasible way of even if you were trying
Speaker 1: to do this and say, well, children who are citizens
Speaker 1: are eligible for Medicaid but their parents are not.
Speaker 2: I do not buy that you can surgically target undocumented
Speaker 2: immigrants without destabilizing the overall system. I mean, even today
Speaker 2: we are underinvesting in long term care right there, are
Speaker 2: eight hundred thousand people on the waiting list for MEDICAI
Speaker 2: funded long term care. And we're in aging society, so
Speaker 2: more and more people are going to be living longer
Speaker 2: and longer their health can needs will become more complex,
Speaker 2: The need for long term care will rise over time,
Speaker 2: and most of the hospitals and places like New York
Speaker 2: are either teetering on the brain core underwater.
Speaker 1: Ritchie, let me tell you on this long term care try.
Speaker 1: Even if you think you can afford your own long
Speaker 1: term care policy, you can't get one to sell you.
Speaker 1: My wife and I got our long term care policies
Speaker 1: when we were in our early thirties. We're now in
Speaker 1: our fifties. Do you know how many times this insurance
Speaker 1: company has tried to buy us out. They're desperately trying
Speaker 1: us to get us off their books. They don't want it.
Speaker 1: And we got it because she lost her parents early
Speaker 1: in life. And you know, it was more of a hey,
Speaker 1: this is our and this is something that we were
Speaker 1: concerned about. But there's not even a marketplace for long
Speaker 1: term care that's realistic. And I feel like government has
Speaker 1: been dropping the ball on this one for a long
Speaker 1: period of time. Now I don't know what long term care,
Speaker 1: government funded insurance looks like here. Do you have a thought,
Speaker 1: do you have a blueprint in your head about how
Speaker 1: you would help to because this is increasingly people are
Speaker 1: my age. Right, we've got kids in college, and we've
Speaker 1: got aging parents. Right, We're in this sort of we're
Speaker 1: caught in this. Is there a realistic policy here that
Speaker 1: can help out? Is it all just through medicators or
Speaker 1: something else?
Speaker 2: I mean medicaid is what we have. It's inherently expensive.
Speaker 2: I mean, nursing homes are expensive, the siste living is expensive.
Speaker 2: You know, I think we should be advocating for home care,
Speaker 2: allowing people to age at home and agent place. But
Speaker 2: there's no uskeeping the course. You know, the problem in
Speaker 2: America is not that we're investing too much in long
Speaker 2: term care. The problem is that we're investing too little.
Speaker 1: Look, I've got a grandmother. She's all there, she's physically
Speaker 1: just has to be in an assisted living facility. And
Speaker 1: she tells me all the time, She's like, yeah, they're
Speaker 1: always understaffed, especially on weekends. They never have enough staff.
Speaker 1: And this is universal and so we have a healthcare
Speaker 1: worker shortage in this country as well, you.
Speaker 2: Know, innovations like telehealth can make a difference. So you know,
Speaker 2: I have a constituent who is caring for her father
Speaker 2: who has Alzheimer's, and she would have to wake up
Speaker 2: five hours before his appointment in order to pick him
Speaker 2: up from his bed and bathe him and feed him
Speaker 2: and close him and then bring him down the stairs.
Speaker 2: Like the process of bringing him to the hospital was arduous.
Speaker 2: And then telehealth is a game changer, right. It allowed
Speaker 2: him to receive medical care from the comfort of his
Speaker 2: own home. So there are innovations that can dramatically lower
Speaker 2: the cost of health care and make it more personalized.
Speaker 1: Let me switch to national security. This is also in
Speaker 1: the Middle East and the president's trip. We're speaking here
Speaker 1: when a timestamp is Thursday, May fifteenth, presidents just wrapping
Speaker 1: up his trip to the Middle East. I want to
Speaker 1: get your reaction to something he said in a speech
Speaker 1: he gave us Saudi Arabian sort of his version of
Speaker 1: real politique. He said, far too many American presidents have
Speaker 1: been afflicted with the notion that it is our job
Speaker 1: to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use
Speaker 1: US policy to dispense justice for their sins. It is
Speaker 1: God's job to sit in judgment, My job to defend
Speaker 1: America and to promote the fundamental interests of stability, prosperity,
Speaker 1: and peace. It's sort of a real polity. Hey, you know,
Speaker 1: we're not going to tell Saudi Arabia how to run
Speaker 1: their society. We're not going to tell Qatar, We're not
Speaker 1: going to tell I assume this also means we're not
Speaker 1: going to tell Germany how they should manage their politics.
Speaker 1: But I'll get to that. It is sort of selective here,
Speaker 1: I think a little bit. But in theory what he's saying,
Speaker 1: where are you on that issue? You know, what, should
Speaker 1: America conduct its foreign policy always through this prism of realism?
Speaker 1: How much aspirational pro democracy morality should we also be preaching.
Speaker 2: So I'm not a Jacksonian like Donald Trump, but nor
Speaker 2: am I Wilsonian. I am skeptical about the use of
Speaker 2: American power to spread democracy throughout the world. I thought
Speaker 2: both the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and the decision to invade
Speaker 2: Rock was a grave miscalculation, was a grave, colossal waste
Speaker 2: of American resources and lives. I saw one study indicating
Speaker 2: that the cost of every post nine to eleven war
Speaker 2: is eight trillion dollars when you factor in the cost
Speaker 2: of disability benefits and veteran healthcare, and that's eight trillion
Speaker 2: dollars not spent on meeting the domestic needs of the
Speaker 2: American people. So there is a sense in which his
Speaker 2: critique loss.
Speaker 1: Of prestige, lost soft power, things like that that you
Speaker 1: can't really put it price on.
Speaker 2: There is a sense in which his you know, critique
Speaker 2: of neo conservatism resonates widely, including with me and my
Speaker 2: My generation, which came of age during the Iraq War
Speaker 2: and during the Afghanistan War, is suspicious of the establishment,
Speaker 2: and it is suspicious of the whover zealous use of
Speaker 2: American power. But I'm more of a Hamiltonian. I do
Speaker 2: feel like we have to build relationships with countries based
Speaker 2: on shared economic interest, but also values do matter. But
Speaker 2: you know, someone once made an observation, Someone said to me,
Speaker 2: you know, China goes to the Global South and gives
Speaker 2: us infrastructure, and America goes to the Global South and
Speaker 2: gives us a lecture.
Speaker 1: And one hundred percent there's.
Speaker 2: Something to that. I think, you know, people want to
Speaker 2: have a relationship with the United States. They want us
Speaker 2: as a security partner. They want us as a trading partner,
Speaker 2: and we should have a Hamiltonian focus on winning their
Speaker 2: goodwill rather than lecturing people about their about their government.
Speaker 1: All right, well we established that, So let's talk about
Speaker 1: Cutter because I've been I've been uh a Cutter skeptic
Speaker 1: for some time. The amount of money they throw at Washington.
Speaker 1: I've I'd like to think I've worked really hard to
Speaker 1: make sure it didn't infuse in anything I was working on.
Speaker 1: But you know, whether it's purchasing a minority stake, and
Speaker 1: are some sports franchises in DC too. It's hard to
Speaker 1: go to an event in Washington that isn't somehow partially
Speaker 1: funded by Cutter. And now this airplane business. How do
Speaker 1: you view them and what they're doing, because they might say, hey,
Speaker 1: we're doing We're doing what Saudi Arabia did in the
Speaker 1: seventies and eighties and it worked for them. Why shouldn't
Speaker 1: we use the same playbook.
Speaker 2: I feel like there are two models in the Middle
Speaker 2: East right there. There's the Ammaradi and now Sauty model
Speaker 2: of pursuing modernization and moderation. Uh, you know, we want
Speaker 2: to we want to put it for you mean on prosperity,
Speaker 2: you want to actually, frankly, be more like the West.
Speaker 2: And then there's the Iranian and Katari model of sponsoring
Speaker 2: terrorism and destabilizing the region. But unlike Iran, the United
Speaker 2: States does not treat Qatar like the pariah. It should.
Speaker 2: I feel like Qatar has been a destructive force in
Speaker 2: the world. It is a state sponsor of Hamas, which
Speaker 2: committed the deadliest day, you know, October seventh, the deadliest
Speaker 2: day for juic since the Holocaust. So I feel like
Speaker 2: there should be a re examination of our relationship with
Speaker 2: Qatar and the ties that the Trump administration has to
Speaker 2: Qatar or Corus Bohlan.
Speaker 1: I mean, I look not to be super cynical here,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to be for a second. So if
Speaker 1: Joe Biden accepted an airplane from Qatar, what do you
Speaker 1: think the Republican response would be among your congressional colleagues.
Speaker 2: If if Joe Biden were promoting his personal mean coin,
Speaker 2: or selling access to the White House to the two
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty eighes bidders, or receiving two billion dollars
Speaker 2: in foreign deposits in exchange for his personal stable coin,
Speaker 2: or we're accepting a four hundred million dollar palace in
Speaker 2: the sky. The Republicans would be pursuing his impeachment.
Speaker 1: By the way, would that be outrageous that they were
Speaker 1: in your mind.
Speaker 2: They would be grounds for doing so?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is, you know this is.
Speaker 2: Or even if Joe Biden, we're imposing a global tariff regime.
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean the out going to Congress without without
Speaker 1: Congression support powers of Congress.
Speaker 2: The organizing principle of our politics is no longer policy,
Speaker 2: it's personality. Like Donald Trump has completely reversed the diet
Speaker 2: ideological dynamics of the two parties. He has made Republicans
Speaker 2: the party of protectionism and price controls. I've heard Democrats
Speaker 2: quoting Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman while critiquing Donald Trump's
Speaker 2: tariff policy. It's the world has been inverted.
Speaker 1: There's like a there's but now there's small ways that
Speaker 1: he's taken advantage of this that might be in net positive.
Speaker 1: He's going to cut a deal with Iron that Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: He's literally the same deal that Barack Obama cut. It's
Speaker 1: like us MCA versus NAFTA. Right, He's just going to
Speaker 1: change the name. I cut the deal. So it's different Syria.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure a democratic president would have any Republican
Speaker 1: support for doing what he did with Syria this week,
Speaker 1: am I am I being overly cynical here.
Speaker 2: I think if Biden had done it, there would have
Speaker 2: been Look, if Biden had given the speech that Trump
Speaker 2: gave in told Arabia, they would have been the same
Speaker 2: outreage against Biden that we saw against Obama when he
Speaker 2: delivered his speech in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: Which also was very similar that Cairo, strikingly some ways
Speaker 1: thematically saying hey, look, this is a different culture, these
Speaker 1: are different you know, we've got to be careful when
Speaker 1: we impose. And yeah, it was a it was deemed
Speaker 1: by some unpatriotic, Unamerican.
Speaker 2: Or going on an apology tour, right, the apology tour.
Speaker 1: Yes, although it sounds like that this would be that
Speaker 1: he's basically apologizing to our allies in the MIT least.
Speaker 1: What should that teach us about where we're headed with
Speaker 1: our politics? And because I sit here, look, eighty five
Speaker 1: percent of what he's doing I think is very damaging.
Speaker 1: But then there's that fifteen percent, Well, look it is
Speaker 1: I think this is healthy that we're trying to move
Speaker 1: to a different place with Iran. It's healthy that we're
Speaker 1: trying trying to your reward, Seria. Look, we had a
Speaker 1: policy of getting rid of a sad this guy got
Speaker 1: rid of him. Let's give him a chance, right, So
Speaker 1: what does that tell you about maybe how Democrats ought
Speaker 1: to use power when they're in charge.
Speaker 2: You know, full all, aren't you perfections?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: The Democratic Party, he continues to be a normal political party,
Speaker 2: like we are a wide we're an ideologically very coalition
Speaker 2: and ranging the squad to the blue deb dogs. The
Speaker 2: Republican Party is no longer a normal political party. It's
Speaker 2: become a cult to personality around Donald Trump. I mean,
Speaker 2: he is a singular phenomenon in American history. I'm aware
Speaker 2: of no political figure who has had as much control
Speaker 2: over political party as Donald Trump has had over the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. I mean, it's close.
Speaker 1: FDR came close, but that was also he at the
Speaker 1: time that the era on his side, if you will, enough,
Speaker 1: it was a crisis. But but but then there were
Speaker 1: certain Democrats he didn't have control over.
Speaker 2: It just feels like the Republican politics has become a
Speaker 2: religion and the devotion to Donald Trump has a religious
Speaker 2: quality to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it does. So let's talk about the Democrats.
Speaker 1: What should be the first of all? Do you do
Speaker 1: you think Rocanna said that it's time for Democrats to
Speaker 1: admit we were wrong about Biden. We should have said
Speaker 1: something sooner. Where are you on the Biden question?
Speaker 2: No course, sure. I mean I think there's no point
Speaker 2: in denying that we made a great mistake in thinking
Speaker 2: that Biden was remotely capable of running again. So that
Speaker 2: was a mistake that we made as a party and
Speaker 2: we should own up to it. I feel like we
Speaker 2: should level with people, right.
Speaker 1: I take your point. There is there someone to blame
Speaker 1: outside of Joe Biden? Or is this a Joe Biden issue?
Speaker 2: I think it's principally Joe Biden and his team. And
Speaker 2: keep in mind, you know, one thing I noticed about
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is that he's extremely accessible to even the
Speaker 2: most rank and file Republicans in the House. Joe Biden
Speaker 2: was the exact opposite. He rarely met with members of Congress,
Speaker 2: particularly in the House. Maybe his first year he had meetings,
Speaker 2: but he was insulated by his staff.
Speaker 1: And do you have a meeting with him? Did you
Speaker 1: how many times did you have pace.
Speaker 2: I met with him once or two. I was part
Speaker 2: of a small group of people who met with him
Speaker 2: early on in his first year, but then he became
Speaker 2: less and less accessible over time.
Speaker 1: No, it wasn't just members of Congress. Apparently it was
Speaker 1: the cabinet as well as far as credibility, I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think do you think your leadership because both
Speaker 1: Akim Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer have just steered clear of
Speaker 1: this now. I've been critical. I think they should have
Speaker 1: sounded the alarm sooner as as leaders of the party
Speaker 1: at the time, but they've not wanted to confront this
Speaker 1: question at the moment. And I get it. On one hand,
Speaker 1: it's like, hey, let's not that's the past. We need
Speaker 1: to deal with what we have now. But what posture
Speaker 1: do you think they should be taken?
Speaker 2: I feel like the party collectively shouldmit that we made
Speaker 2: a mistake and we're paying a price in the form
Speaker 2: of a second Donald Trump presidency, which is far worse
Speaker 2: than even his first. And keep in mind, and look,
Speaker 2: I ultimately felt we lost because of inflation and to
Speaker 2: a lesser extent, immigration, the migrant crisis. But keep in
Speaker 2: mind the shift of two hundred and fifty thousand votes
Speaker 2: in the industrial Midwest could have handed the election to
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris. So maybe if we had an open primary, maybe,
Speaker 2: if we had a stronger candidate, Maybe if Joe Biden
Speaker 2: has stepped down earlier, the result of the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four election could have been different. And for those reasons,
Speaker 2: we should acknowledge that we made a terrible mistake and
Speaker 2: not frushing Biden to seek a second term.
Speaker 1: When you see these polls where Democrats are sour on
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party right, where they have an unfavorable view
Speaker 1: of the party at the moment, and there's this brand issue,
Speaker 1: do you think the party has an ideological issue? Is
Speaker 1: this a generational issue? What do you see as the
Speaker 1: problems that should be addressed right now?
Speaker 2: Look, I do feel we're well positioned to win in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six, but it has more to do with
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's weakness than it does with our strength. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's self destructing in real time. But I feel like
Speaker 2: we should know if there are I do sense to
Speaker 2: be blind among rank and file Democrats, widespread dissatisfaction, and
Speaker 2: we should take that to heart and we should do
Speaker 2: our best to improve and I sense when I'm meeting
Speaker 2: with constituents is a real hunger for more information. People
Speaker 2: want to know, like what is happening, what a we
Speaker 2: as Democrats doing to resist Donald Trump? And there's a
Speaker 2: hunger for a qual to action. People want to be
Speaker 2: part of something. People want to belong to something greater
Speaker 2: than themselves. And I feel like, as a party, it's
Speaker 2: not enough for us to stand against Donald Trump. We
Speaker 2: have to stand for something. We have to put forward
Speaker 2: a vision that will inspire not only our base but
Speaker 2: the country. Nu Gingridge had the contract with America in
Speaker 2: the nineteen nineties. You know, maybe we should have our
Speaker 2: own contract with America. Donald Trump has Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: We ought to have Project twenty twenty nine. So I
Speaker 2: think my constructive self criticism of my party is that
Speaker 2: we should do more to put forward an affirmative vision
Speaker 2: for moving the country forward.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton likes to say wrong and strong will always
Speaker 1: defeat weak and right, and the point being that there's
Speaker 1: a strength. You know, sometimes projecting strength can overcome people
Speaker 1: not liking some of your ideas, and it does. The
Speaker 1: thing that struck me about one survey I saw recently
Speaker 1: to give a word or phrase, and among Democrats they
Speaker 1: kept saying weak. So what this tells me some people
Speaker 1: are going to interpret and say, oh, the Democrats need
Speaker 1: to move left or the Democrats need to move right.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure it's a left right issue. I think
Speaker 1: it is a strength issue. But you know that's sometimes
Speaker 1: that's eye of the beholder stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, I do feel like if you swing the pencil
Speaker 2: too far to the left, you were all any most
Speaker 2: Americans as we did on immigration, and so I do
Speaker 2: feel like ideology does matter, but but it's it's a
Speaker 2: necessary but insufficient condition. Like we need to have compelling
Speaker 2: messengers on the party, and we need to offer a
Speaker 2: compelling visual.
Speaker 1: Is it? Are you a thousand flowers bloom? Right? Now,
Speaker 1: get everybody into the arena and let's see. Let let's
Speaker 1: see who rises or is there? Do you want to
Speaker 1: see a little more structure to this, fewer people trying
Speaker 1: to determine the future of the party.
Speaker 2: What did Will Rod What did Will Rogers say, I'm
Speaker 2: not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Let the let the cream rise, Let
Speaker 2: there be a free marketplace of debate. And you know
Speaker 2: that's what we were lacking in twenty twenty four is
Speaker 2: it was a sense that the political establishment had put
Speaker 2: its thumb on the scale in favor of one cant.
Speaker 1: Don't you feel like it's three nominees in a row. Actually,
Speaker 1: when you look at the sixteen, twenty and twenty four,
Speaker 1: do you really think Democrat primary voters feel like they
Speaker 1: had to say?
Speaker 2: You know, in British politics, the race for prime minister
Speaker 2: plays out in a matter of weeks. Our presidential primary
Speaker 2: plays out over the course of a year or more.
Speaker 2: But I feel like it's a character building experience. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you met think about I remember Barack Obama was
Speaker 2: the first president I voted for her, and I felt
Speaker 2: like at the end of the process he was a
Speaker 2: far better candidate. Oh and he was in the beginning.
Speaker 1: True, I'm a big defender of the long campaign. I
Speaker 1: know I'm a total polar opposite on this. I think
Speaker 1: the long campaign, by the time you actually become president,
Speaker 1: it's almost feels easier than the slog I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the decisions are weightier, don't get me wrong, right deciding
Speaker 1: how much TV should we put on in Wisconsin or
Speaker 1: what trips, But the grueling punishment, the David Aswell calls
Speaker 1: it an MRI for the soul running for president, which
Speaker 1: I believe in. So it's you think the lung campaign.
Speaker 2: Actually, I see it as a character building experience. And
Speaker 2: it could have been the case that it would have
Speaker 2: resulted in Vice President Harris as the nominee, but she
Speaker 2: would have been a better and stronger nominee because of
Speaker 2: the process. That the process matters as much as the substance,
Speaker 2: and in fact, it improves the substance the.
Speaker 1: Ten thousand hour effect, right, welcome Gladwell's ten thousand hours.
Speaker 1: You campaign for two years. You've done your ten thousand
Speaker 1: hours of stupid interviews with people like me, you know,
Speaker 1: glad handing whatever it is, the roundtables, and you sort
Speaker 1: of you learn, you just figure it out. No, it's
Speaker 1: an interesting point. Why aren't you running for New York
Speaker 1: City mayors? How many members I could tell you this,
Speaker 1: I will just I'm gonna I'm gonna make you blush here.
Speaker 1: I got a lot of friends and family in New
Speaker 1: York City and they're very disappointed you're not running.
Speaker 2: Them. How do I answer your question without diminishing the
Speaker 2: role of mayor? I have a few thoughts. First, it's
Speaker 2: probably Michael Blomberg has described it as the best job
Speaker 2: I've heard him described it as the best job you
Speaker 2: ever had.
Speaker 1: But I'd argue it's one of the five most powerful
Speaker 1: elected positions in the globe.
Speaker 2: I feel is second. It is the second most demanding
Speaker 2: executive position in America, second only to the presidency and
Speaker 2: the New York City Press Corps is notoriously aggressive and ruthless,
Speaker 2: but I feel the prestige of the position exceeds the
Speaker 2: actual power The mayor cannot.
Speaker 1: Well, you are on the council, you would know this
Speaker 1: better than most.
Speaker 2: So explain that cannot install speak cameras without the approval
Speaker 2: of the state legislature. That the most important questions on
Speaker 2: matters of housing and healthcare and public safety are often
Speaker 2: decided at the state level by the state legislature and
Speaker 2: by the governor. And so I just feel the state
Speaker 2: has a much greater systemic impact in advancing the issues
Speaker 2: that I care about. And then one more point. You know,
Speaker 2: historically the mayor's office has been a graveyard where a
Speaker 2: political careers go to die. Uh So, if I were
Speaker 2: looking to retire prematurely, then that would be the right
Speaker 2: place for me.
Speaker 1: To go. I guess the reason why. I think some
Speaker 1: of my well connected friends they see you as somebody
Speaker 1: that might be able to bring the city together, and
Speaker 1: they're just nervous about having a retread politician. You know,
Speaker 1: they don't love the choice here make them feel better.
Speaker 2: Uh, look, I I'm going to vote for Andrew Cravoo
Speaker 2: and and I'm gonna you know, share, share, share what
Speaker 2: I respect about the debtor. And I'm sure you've been
Speaker 2: following there's a new movement on on the left known
Speaker 2: as the Abundance. Who've been mm hmm and and it's
Speaker 2: you know, it's based on a recognition that America is
Speaker 2: no longer a nation of builders. We've become a nation
Speaker 2: of bureaucrats. And to his credit, Andrew Cromo was one
Speaker 2: of the few executives in the twenty first century who
Speaker 2: was a genuinely great builder. Laguardier Airport, moyni Hen Train Hall,
Speaker 2: Mario Cuomo Bridge. You know, that's a rarity. You know,
Speaker 2: it was once common in the early twentieth century. But
Speaker 2: you know, he's one of the few executives who have
Speaker 2: proven ability to execute on grand infrastructure projects. And so
Speaker 2: that to me represents Governor Cloma at his best, and
Speaker 2: that's why I would vote for him, because I see
Speaker 2: him as the most experience of everyone in the field.
Speaker 1: Does he need to do more on the on sort
Speaker 1: of acknowledging the character flaws?
Speaker 2: I feel I think we all benefit from acknowledging our failings.
Speaker 2: I think when you level with people and say I
Speaker 2: made mistakes and I have failings, people appreciate him.
Speaker 1: I have resistance to that tone. I've not heard that
Speaker 1: tone from him.
Speaker 2: There is something to be set for humility and acknowledging
Speaker 2: your own fallibility. That's just human. People want their elected
Speaker 2: officials to be vulnerable and authentic and humble and acknowledge
Speaker 2: and like them.
Speaker 1: It's a representative democracy.
Speaker 2: It will all work in progress, right. You know, I've
Speaker 2: made decisions that I regret, but you live and you learn.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like to me you've made the case
Speaker 1: that if you want to make life better in New
Speaker 1: York City, the best place for you to do that's
Speaker 1: an Albany and you've been floated. They've been rumored about that,
Speaker 1: So let me ask you directly. You know, is that
Speaker 1: something you've thought about for twenty six or not yet.
Speaker 2: I'm exploring a run for governor. I will make a
Speaker 2: final decision in the summer after the mayor's race. I'll
Speaker 2: conduct polling. But but if you ask me what would
Speaker 2: I prefer? Would I prefer to be one of four
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty five or one of five hundred and
Speaker 2: thirty five in Congress, or an executive with a uni
Speaker 2: lateral domain of action. I would prefer to be an
Speaker 2: executive because you could have a far greater impact in
Speaker 2: improving people's lowed.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about housing. This is a passion of yours.
Speaker 1: You grew up in public housing, you see, you know
Speaker 1: housing is essential. We have a housing crisis in this country.
Speaker 1: And it's not just in New York, it's everywhere. You know.
Speaker 1: It's the biggest argument in the county that I live
Speaker 1: in Arlington County, how are we going to get more housing?
Speaker 1: And it's you know, ymbi's versus nimbi's and all of that. Right,
Speaker 1: what do you think you could do as governor of
Speaker 1: New York to supercharge the availability and the affordability of
Speaker 1: housing for everyday New Yorkers?
Speaker 2: And so at the core of the affordability crisis is
Speaker 2: a gap between supply and demand. Like the demand for
Speaker 2: affordable housing for exceeds the supply. There's a need for
Speaker 2: both deeper housing subsidy and greer housing supply. So we
Speaker 2: have to expand the supply of housing so that we
Speaker 2: can meet the demand. But we also have to ensure
Speaker 2: that the housing we do create is affordable to the
Speaker 2: lowest income families. One of the criticisms of affordable housing
Speaker 2: in New York is that much of the affordable housing
Speaker 2: we create is unaffordable to the poorest New Yorkers. And
Speaker 2: so I'm in favor of a concept known as housing vultures.
Speaker 2: Fall like every family either who's homeless or struggling with
Speaker 2: with housing and security should have access to a voucher
Speaker 2: which ensures that you pay no more than thirty percent
Speaker 2: of your income towards your rent. Universalizing access to vultures
Speaker 2: would radically reduce the amount of homelessness and housing and
Speaker 2: security in American society. So that's one piece. But second,
Speaker 2: we have to expand housing supply. I do feel are
Speaker 2: in public review process. Our environmental review process is so
Speaker 2: cumbersome that it stifles affordable housing creation in blue cities
Speaker 2: and blue states like New York and those processes have
Speaker 2: to be reformed so that we can build, We can
Speaker 2: re establish our country as a nation of builders.
Speaker 1: So your campaign for governorce, if it happens, housing I know,
Speaker 1: is going to be in the top of that list.
Speaker 1: What else is on on the top of your agenda
Speaker 1: that the voter's going to think? No, if you do
Speaker 1: run the focus of your campaign.
Speaker 2: Lower cost, lower crime rates.
Speaker 1: That simple. And you feel, as governor, how do you
Speaker 1: impact the crime right? As governor?
Speaker 2: Well, public safety policy is ultimately set at the state level,
Speaker 2: and I would submit to you New York has the
Speaker 2: most dysfunctional criminal justice system in the country. We have
Speaker 2: a practice of releasing repeat violent offenders, which has led
Speaker 2: to a cycle of recidivism. So since twenty nineteen, there's
Speaker 2: been a one hundred and fifty percent rise in the
Speaker 2: number of repeat offenders for felony assaults, more than eighty
Speaker 2: percent for robberies, more than sixty percent for burglaries and shoplifting,
Speaker 2: more than one hundred percent for grand larcity auto, more
Speaker 2: than seventy percent for grand larsity. And I'll cite one example.
Speaker 2: There was a gentleman by the name of a man
Speaker 2: by the name of Jamar Banks who stabbed to people
Speaker 2: on New Year's Day, and he had fifty four priors,
Speaker 2: including an attempt shooting, a murder, multiple stabbings, multiple acts
Speaker 2: of domestic violence. And despite his extensive criminal history, he
Speaker 2: was released back onto the streets, where he proceeded to
Speaker 2: commit more violence against more innocent New Yorkers. And here's
Speaker 2: the problem. New York is the only state in the
Speaker 2: country that prohibits judges from considering the public safety risks
Speaker 2: of repeat violent offenders. You can only consider flight risks
Speaker 2: and the question of whether judges should have the authority
Speaker 2: to consider public safety risk. If I were to present
Speaker 2: that question to the people of New York in the
Speaker 2: form of referendum, it would be an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 2: Eighty percent of New Yorkers would vote for it. Why change?
Speaker 1: Is this a legislative legislative It's going to take legislation, yes.
Speaker 2: But the trouble with City Hall, the trouble with City Hall,
Speaker 2: Albany and Washington d C. Is that common sense has
Speaker 2: become dangerously income. And one of the criticisms that I
Speaker 2: have of my own party is that there are times
Speaker 2: when when more responsive to special interest groups than we
Speaker 2: are to everyday people on the ground, particularly on issues
Speaker 2: of public safety.
Speaker 1: On if Governor Holcal is there anything she could do
Speaker 1: to convince you not to challenge her?
Speaker 2: I mean, if she becomes an effective governor, then certainly
Speaker 2: that could persuade me to.
Speaker 1: Is there an issue you could see if she took
Speaker 1: up it would be persuasive or unlikely?
Speaker 2: At this point, the issue, it's not a failure of conception,
Speaker 2: it's a failure of execution. Like, there are issues in
Speaker 2: which I agree with the governor, but I just feel
Speaker 2: like she's fundamentally and effective at governing the state. And
Speaker 2: I'll be blunt, I'm not aware of any New Yorker
Speaker 2: who's like a passionate Kathy hocal supporter, Like when when
Speaker 2: Andrew Coromo was governor, he had a deep reservoir support.
Speaker 1: Hundred percent and up to some people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm aware of no one who's like a passionate
Speaker 2: champion of Kathy Hochl. She simply benefits from the power
Speaker 2: of incumbency. And but look, the broken system is deeper
Speaker 2: than one governor, and it long predates the incumbent governor.
Speaker 2: You know, in twenty fifteen, New York had a one
Speaker 2: hundred and forty two billion dollar budget twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty four billion dollar budget. I am
Speaker 2: not aware of a single New York who has seen
Speaker 2: a one hundred and ten billion dollar improvement in the
Speaker 2: delivery of state services.
Speaker 1: So, you know, your challenge to her. It's not easy
Speaker 1: to say, are you challenging her from the left or
Speaker 1: the right? You're not. Really, It's not really an ideological challenge.
Speaker 1: If you end up doing this, this is really more
Speaker 1: of a competency.
Speaker 2: I feel like transcend those I feel like I transcend
Speaker 2: those categories.
Speaker 1: Well, no, it's why, it's why so many of my
Speaker 1: friends in New York wish you would be the next
Speaker 1: mayor because of that, the idea that you're not easily
Speaker 1: pigeonholed and that you have a broader, a broader perspective.
Speaker 2: Some would think of my advocacy for public safety as
Speaker 2: challenging from the right. I would disagar that characterization because
Speaker 2: I feel like, yeah.
Speaker 1: But you you know that that's how it'll look as
Speaker 1: far as the polling is concerned.
Speaker 2: Right, we're concerned about affordability. I mean, that's argued, you know,
Speaker 2: that could be argued that that's a challenge from the left.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm I'm someone, for example, who believes that
Speaker 2: our public utilities, particularly our gas and electric utilities, should
Speaker 2: be owned by the pension files so that people pay
Speaker 2: a far lower rate. I mean, every every year my
Speaker 2: constituents have seen double digit increases.
Speaker 1: The government pension fund should be should own the elect Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's an interesting.
Speaker 2: Because I don't want to get too complicated.
Speaker 1: But no, no, no, no, but I find this a fascinating idea.
Speaker 2: Go. Yeah, So the Public Service Commission regulates utilities like
Speaker 2: con Edison, and the trouble with the Public Service Commission,
Speaker 2: which is ultimately accountable to the governor, is that it
Speaker 2: authorizes a rate of return that's far above the actual
Speaker 2: cost of capital, the actual cost that you would need
Speaker 2: to operate the utility. And I'm convinced if those utilities
Speaker 2: were owned by pension funds, which would which would demand
Speaker 2: lower returns than shareholders because their patient capital. Like if
Speaker 2: you tell them we guarantee you six percent returns for
Speaker 2: the next fifty years, they're happy with six percent. They
Speaker 2: don't need nine percent, they don't need ten percent. So
Speaker 2: I'm convinced that public ownership of these utilities to the
Speaker 2: pension funds would actually lower cost utility cost for everyday
Speaker 2: New Yorker's.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you I had not heard an idea like that.
Speaker 1: That makes it especially when you think about the cost
Speaker 1: of pensions and all of this. It is, it's a
Speaker 1: it's an to me, that's a that's an interesting idea
Speaker 1: to sort of solve two problems, if you will.
Speaker 2: But is that left wing or right wing? You could
Speaker 2: argue that's an attack from the left, but I just
Speaker 2: think that's common sentence. It's good policy.
Speaker 1: No, you could sit here, I could make a right
Speaker 1: wing argument against it or left wing argument against it
Speaker 1: right which is the beauty of the idea. Sometimes sometimes
Speaker 1: you just have good ideas or bad ideas. You know,
Speaker 1: it's okay to be a technocrat. And I say that
Speaker 1: with with I mean Michael Bloomberg problem.
Speaker 2: My core criticism of the progressive is that it's become
Speaker 2: more concerned with ideological purity and with the actual functioning
Speaker 2: of government. And what I appreciate about the Abundance movement
Speaker 2: is that it sends the message, no competence matters, the
Speaker 2: functioning of government matters.
Speaker 1: This is what concerned It's funny you say that's about
Speaker 1: the progressive. But this is what concerns me about the
Speaker 1: reactionary nature of what we've the so called successful rise
Speaker 1: of Trump, and that there are folks on the left
Speaker 1: that look at what MAGA was successful, it was able
Speaker 1: to do, and they see that as a blueprint.
Speaker 2: It's the wrong lesson. Yeah, the I feel the American
Speaker 2: people have a pattern of punishing incompetence. When George W.
Speaker 2: Bush catastrophically mismanaged the response to Katrina, he never recovered,
Speaker 2: Right When when when Joe Biden sloppily with true from Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: he never recovered, you know when?
Speaker 1: I don't know if Trump's going to recover. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's recovering from this.
Speaker 2: When he missed, I would argue, but for the mismanagement
Speaker 2: of COVID, Trump would have been re elected to a
Speaker 2: second Yeah, butt for the mismanagement of the migrant crisis
Speaker 2: as well as inflation, a Democrat would be in the
Speaker 2: White House. So competence matters. And the people ask me,
Speaker 2: you know, how should we we structure the Democratic Party?
Speaker 2: And for me, the key to restructuring the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: is restructuring democratic governance. Good governance is good politics, Delivering
Speaker 2: is good politics.
Speaker 1: I've held you longer than I promised your staff that
Speaker 1: I would, so uh, not a bad way to end competence.
Speaker 1: That is, I always say I'm not people like to
Speaker 1: understand my politics, and I'm always like, I'm just who's
Speaker 1: going to get stuff done? Excuse my language, right, Who's
Speaker 1: just going to get stuff done? That that's kind that's
Speaker 1: sort of in the rational middle, the folks that live
Speaker 1: between the thirty five yard lines.
Speaker 2: So I'm on that scene.
Speaker 1: So it is. It is good to see are you
Speaker 1: are you? Are you fired up about the Knicks. By
Speaker 1: the time this airs will know whether they didn't blow
Speaker 1: it in Game six or not. I hope they don't.
Speaker 1: It's fun to I hate rooting for New York teams.
Speaker 1: It's fun to root for this next team.
Speaker 2: No, it's it's long overdue. And I know my chief
Speaker 2: of staff is fanatical about the next He is even
Speaker 2: more excited than I am.
Speaker 1: Is Well, yeah, Jalen Brunson could maybe be the next
Speaker 1: mayor of New York City if things go right. Richie Torres,
Speaker 1: congressman from the Bronx, good to see it, Thank you well.
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Richie Torres, how
Speaker 1: about that he does not think much of Kathy Hokeel
Speaker 1: he is and also believes there is more power to
Speaker 1: fix New York City as governor of New York than
Speaker 1: it is to be mayor of New York, which I
Speaker 1: think introduces an interesting set of questions for Andrew Cuomo,
Speaker 1: who is the front runner to be the next mayor
Speaker 1: of New York City. How often is he going to
Speaker 1: say certain things he can't deal with because he's got
Speaker 1: a it's it's up to the it's up to the
Speaker 1: democratic governor. So a fascinating set of analysis there from
Speaker 1: Richie Torres. I think that is somebody to pay attention to.
Speaker 1: And if he she does challenge her in a primary,
Speaker 1: you know the problem. The one thing she could benefit
Speaker 1: from is if there's multiple candidates in her former lieutenant
Speaker 1: governor's challenge, possibly she could end up having two or
Speaker 1: three primary challengers, which would guarantee her renomination. The question
Speaker 1: is going to be can she win a one on
Speaker 1: one if it ever gets down to being a one
Speaker 1: on one? And I think with the anger that is
Speaker 1: out there among Democrats, I think incumbent democrats in general
Speaker 1: are all going to be have targets on their back
Speaker 1: from voters. I think you're going to have to prove
Speaker 1: to voters that you're willing to go in a different direction,
Speaker 1: that you're willing not to sort of to sort of
Speaker 1: be a part of whatever this democratic establishment has been
Speaker 1: the last decade. So being an incumbent politician is going
Speaker 1: to be tough. I think a tougher road in Democratic
Speaker 1: primaries than maybe some incumbents are prepared, are prepared to
Speaker 1: believe in. Speaking of that, it does look like and
Speaker 1: you heard it from Rocanna. I love the fact that
Speaker 1: podcast listeners heard it here before CNN reported it, which
Speaker 1: was Rocanna said that she's been doing. The stuff she's
Speaker 1: been doing in California are what candidates for governor do,
Speaker 1: meaning she was going to events that only statewide candidates
Speaker 1: go to. Essentially, what Rocanna was saying me, the guy
Speaker 1: is thinking about running for president. It's not going to
Speaker 1: those events. But she is now. Of course, news circulating
Speaker 1: that she appears to be leaning more towards running for
Speaker 1: governor of California and twenty six and obviously if she
Speaker 1: makes that decision, she's taking herself out of the presidential
Speaker 1: sweepstakes in twenty twenty eight. You've heard me say this before,
Speaker 1: but for those that haven't heard this, I think this
Speaker 1: is going to be a tougher campaign for her than
Speaker 1: she realizes. And if she does run, she is going
Speaker 1: to that the shadow, the five o'clock shadow that is
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon, is going to be hovering over her. Richard
Speaker 1: Nixon loses a close race as a sitting vice president
Speaker 1: for the presidency in nineteen sixty, decides to go home
Speaker 1: to California run for governor, and he loses to Jerry
Speaker 1: Brown's father Pat Brown. It was after the infamous you
Speaker 1: won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore, as he
Speaker 1: yelled at the press Corps after losing in sixty two.
Speaker 1: That's where that quote came from. And then he spent
Speaker 1: the next six years preparing to see if he could
Speaker 1: come back and win the presidency in sixty eight, which
Speaker 1: of course he did. I do think there are some
Speaker 1: lessons here for Harris in the Nixon campaign. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of voters saw Nixon in sixty two. Is
Speaker 1: somebody that he was running for governor as a consolation prize. Well,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, if she's running for governor in twenty six
Speaker 1: has to explain she never planned on being available to
Speaker 1: run for governor twenty six. After all, I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody believes that she was going to run for governor
Speaker 1: of California in twenty six as the sitting president, So
Speaker 1: it's a consolation prize. She also is going to have
Speaker 1: to It's pretty clear, and it's going to be interesting.
Speaker 1: Later this week, you're going to hear an interview that
Speaker 1: I conducted about last week with another candidate for governor,
Speaker 1: a wealthy developer who was close to Harry Reid for
Speaker 1: a long time named Steve Klueback. And Steve Kluebeck is
Speaker 1: quite the personality. And look, I don't want to take
Speaker 1: away from the interview itself, but when you hear it,
Speaker 1: you may be one part entertained, in one part scratching
Speaker 1: your head, and one part liking what you hear, in
Speaker 1: one part a little uncomfortable. The point is is that
Speaker 1: he's a big personality, and he is some he's not
Speaker 1: a big fan of Kamala Harris, and he will not
Speaker 1: will not hold back, and I think that that's going
Speaker 1: to be she is going the minute she gets in,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a whole bunch of people who are
Speaker 1: going to target her in a negative way in all
Speaker 1: sorts of directions. Her connection to Biden is going to
Speaker 1: be an issue. What did she see? What didn't she see?
Speaker 1: Why didn't she say something? Perhaps she's going to take
Speaker 1: heat for not for the campaign that she ran for president.
Speaker 1: I think for the most part, she ran a pretty
Speaker 1: good campaign for president given the situation she was in.
Speaker 1: But she's got an answer for the fact that she
Speaker 1: didn't sound the alarm that sooner about Joe Biden that
Speaker 1: she you know, You've even had some some on the
Speaker 1: right say how come she didn't push to invoke the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment and things like that. So while I
Speaker 1: think that's a bit extreme, she still has to provide
Speaker 1: an answer that isn't snarky and that isn't defensive, and
Speaker 1: that is believable. So look, I'm I'm a skeptic. On
Speaker 1: one hand. Look, if she's in the top two, she's
Speaker 1: probably the next governor. But I think this is an
Speaker 1: awfully risky decision because what's interesting if she decided not
Speaker 1: to run in twenty six for any office and chose
Speaker 1: not to run in twenty eight for any office, I
Speaker 1: think she could have sort of preserved herself to possibly
Speaker 1: run for governor in twenty thirty or run for president
Speaker 1: in twenty thirty two. But she's putting herself in a
Speaker 1: situation where she loses a governorship in twenty six and
Speaker 1: she can't get and she can't win that race, her
Speaker 1: political career is over. There's no comment back from that.
Speaker 1: Not in this era. Maybe Richard Dixon could pull it
Speaker 1: off back in an era of three television channel and
Speaker 1: no internet, no communications system like we have today. So
Speaker 1: I will say this, I think it's an awfully risky decision,
Speaker 1: and I just don't know if I'd be making a
Speaker 1: decision like this for an office I hadn't thought about
Speaker 1: running for before. I mean, that's a real question I
Speaker 1: have for her. Have you thought about being governor? When? When?
Speaker 1: You know? When was when was the first time you
Speaker 1: ever thought about being governor of California? Did it only
Speaker 1: start after you lost the presidents Anyway, it's a it's
Speaker 1: going to be interesting to watch and it certainly will
Speaker 1: become one of the premier races that national media covers
Speaker 1: if she does indeed run. All Right, that's the end
Speaker 1: of my Monday, big kind of praise my Gnats. They
Speaker 1: swept the Orioles and the Big Beltway Series. I think
Speaker 1: the Oriols firing their manager after Game one tells you
Speaker 1: everything you need to know about the state of the Orioles.
Speaker 1: But man paging my friend David Rubinstein, a bunch of
Speaker 1: US NATS fans were upset. David Rubinstein is this wealthy industrialist.
Speaker 1: He's the owner of the Orioles. He's also the guy
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump fired from the Kennedy Center. I will
Speaker 1: just tell you a lot of US NATS fans were
Speaker 1: disappointed and when he chose to buy the Orioles, when
Speaker 1: I was hoping he'd be the person to buy the Gnats,
Speaker 1: but he's a Baltimore native and he want to. He's
Speaker 1: going to become a reviled owner pretty quickly. Forget Donald
Speaker 1: Trump not being his biggest fan. He's going to have
Speaker 1: the entire Orioles fan base angry with him because before
Speaker 1: he was owner, they were winning one hundred games and
Speaker 1: ninety one games. Since he's become owner, they didn't have
Speaker 1: any big free agent signings. In fact, they lost a
Speaker 1: big free agent in Corbyn Burns, and now they have
Speaker 1: a worse und I'll tell you this. I never thought
Speaker 1: they'd have a worse record than the Nats at this
Speaker 1: point in the season, but they do. This was supposed
Speaker 1: to be an Oriols team on the rise. They've got
Speaker 1: some amazing young talent. So kudos to my Gnats, my
Speaker 1: man James Wood, Dylan Cruz even got a Homer was
Speaker 1: Homer have it on Sunday? So look, if I can't
Speaker 1: take this opportunity to use my own podcast to praise
Speaker 1: the Gnats, and what the hell do I have my
Speaker 1: own podcast for, right, So with that, I'll take the
Speaker 1: twenty four hour break of sorts and I'll talk to
Speaker 1: you the next time we upload to you again. M