Speaker 1: Well, This episode of the Chuck Toddcast is brought to
Speaker 1: you by ship Station. When your company is growing fast,
Speaker 1: order fulfillment can make or break your success. Ship Station's
Speaker 1: intelligence driven platform brings order management, rate shopping, inventory and returns,
Speaker 1: warehouse systems, and comprehensive analytics all in one place, saving
Speaker 1: customers fifteen hours per week on fulfillment and guess what
Speaker 1: time is money? So with Shipstation, everything you need to
Speaker 1: manage getting orders to customers is in one place. You
Speaker 1: connect to over two hundred sales channels instead of five
Speaker 1: to seven disconnected tools. You've got one. Shipstation compares rates
Speaker 1: across all major global carriers, United States Postal Service, UPS
Speaker 1: and FedEx, including your own discounted rates. That's pretty good
Speaker 1: if you have them to find you the best shipping
Speaker 1: option on every order and discounts up to ninety percent
Speaker 1: off set up time saving automation. Ship Station picks the
Speaker 1: best carrier, finds you the best rate, prints labels in bulk,
Speaker 1: sends tracking updates, and you're done. One million businesses have
Speaker 1: trusted ship Station. Trust me. I have a little side
Speaker 1: hustle on sports cards. I think I've mentioned it a
Speaker 1: few times. The most annoying part is the shipping and
Speaker 1: if stuff's convoluted, you can't get it done. And that's
Speaker 1: the beauty of shipstation is it essentially streamlines that shipping process.
Speaker 1: So try shipstation free for sixty days with full access
Speaker 1: to every feature I just talked about. No credit card
Speaker 1: is needed. You go to shipstation dot com and you
Speaker 1: use the code toodcast to get those sixty days for free.
Speaker 1: Sixty days gives you plenty of time to see exactly
Speaker 1: how much time and money you're going to be saving
Speaker 1: on every shipment. So that's shipstation dot com toodcast. Shipstation
Speaker 1: dot com use the code toodcast. Hello there, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Thursday edition of the Chuck Toodcast. Has been a
Speaker 1: pretty busy It obviously started with the scary situation at
Speaker 1: the White House Correspondent's dinner. There's been a little bit
Speaker 1: of focus on that. But hello, we're still in this
Speaker 1: war pause if you will, with Iran with really no
Speaker 1: end in sight, and I want to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the pretty useless briefing that we got from
Speaker 1: Pete hag Seth with his testimony before the House. Perhaps
Speaker 1: the Senate side might be better at this, but you
Speaker 1: know what, It's pretty clear Pete Haggseth isn't interested in
Speaker 1: being a public servant and doing the things that you
Speaker 1: would expect taxpayer funded people to do and explain themselves.
Speaker 1: He is basically got internet brain, right, he has got
Speaker 1: his brain is rotting from too much time on the internet.
Speaker 1: War is way too much about his woke ideology, woke
Speaker 1: write ideology, whatever. It is, constantly not thinking about actually
Speaker 1: doing what would be in the best interest of the administration,
Speaker 1: which is actually make a coherent case for why this
Speaker 1: war is justified. Because he didn't do a very good
Speaker 1: job of that, and he does a terrible job at
Speaker 1: trying to pick political fights he thinks he's doing. I
Speaker 1: think he thinks he's being helpful to the president. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's doing what he thinks it's doing. But
Speaker 1: the big news politically, we got that new map from Florida,
Speaker 1: and I was talking about it yesterday and it was
Speaker 1: right in the middle of when I was taping that.
Speaker 1: We got the Komi News and I'll have a little
Speaker 1: bit more on that. But the big news is this
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, and incredible narrowing.
Speaker 1: Some would call it gutting, depending on your point of
Speaker 1: view on this, but an incredible narrowing of the Voting
Speaker 1: Rights Act which essentially eliminates it from usage in the South. Right,
Speaker 1: the initial reason for the Voting Rights Act was for
Speaker 1: the systemic way that Southern states in particular disenfranchised black voters,
Speaker 1: and the point of creating these majority minority districts or
Speaker 1: plurality minority districts, particularly in the South was essentially right
Speaker 1: a century's long wrong on this stuff, and it was
Speaker 1: about representation, making sure that there was a seat at
Speaker 1: the table when over for over a century there was
Speaker 1: a denial of a seat at the table. And I
Speaker 1: want to tackle this in two different ways. Okay, one
Speaker 1: is the near term politics and what does this mean
Speaker 1: for the maps? What does this mean for campaign twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six and really more campaign twenty twenty eight and
Speaker 1: possibly the redistricting of twenty thirty. But I also want
Speaker 1: to do something, and you're going to some of you
Speaker 1: may already know where I'm going to add, but I'm
Speaker 1: gonna head onto a hobby horse of a solution that
Speaker 1: I think now hopefully people will see, makes a heck
Speaker 1: of a lot more sense than when I was on
Speaker 1: this hobby horse about a year ago where I even
Speaker 1: did a ted talk about it. But first let's talk
Speaker 1: about the near term decision. What does it mean? In theory,
Speaker 1: you may see a handful of states try to redistrict
Speaker 1: in the South where suddenly the majority minority districts in
Speaker 1: say Mississippi, Benny Thompson's district could be at risk. You've
Speaker 1: got the case was about Louisiana, so there'll be a
Speaker 1: new Louisiana map. It's likely you will go from two
Speaker 1: majority African American districts down to one. For what it's worth, Alabama,
Speaker 1: the governor has already said no to any sort of
Speaker 1: special session, and it's my understanding the court actually pretty
Speaker 1: much said they can't do anything until twenty thirty. So
Speaker 1: you know that the state courts that is in Alabama,
Speaker 1: so they're not going to touch in twenty thirty. We
Speaker 1: already had the new Florida remap was anticipating this, which
Speaker 1: is why the Darren Soto District, which is mostly a
Speaker 1: Puerto Rican district in central Florida, basically got carved up,
Speaker 1: and it was arguably in anticipation of this. Isn't at
Speaker 1: this point another district in Florida that somehow this court
Speaker 1: ruling would have any influence on. There's certainly the possibility
Speaker 1: in South Carolina. There's certainly the possibility in Tennessee. In fact,
Speaker 1: it is worth I would point you to the down ballot.
Speaker 1: It is the down ballot is a publication and a
Speaker 1: substack that is very much has been on top of this,
Speaker 1: and they did a terrific analysis state by state of
Speaker 1: what could happen, what would be at risk. I just
Speaker 1: you know, rather than me reading to you his work,
Speaker 1: I was done by David Near and Stephen Wolf. You
Speaker 1: should subscribe to them. I do. I don't want to
Speaker 1: take away subscription dollars for them, but they go through it.
Speaker 1: But like I said, the top line is Alabama's going
Speaker 1: to be untouched till twenty thirty. Florida has already been done.
Speaker 1: Georgia if they, I doubt there's an attempt at doing it.
Speaker 1: And we're going to get into why. I think even
Speaker 1: if they tried to do something in the Georgia legislature,
Speaker 1: it would probably implode on them and only elect create
Speaker 1: more potential democratic seats. And I'm going to give you
Speaker 1: an example of that in a minute I told you
Speaker 1: about Louisiana. That's obviously this core case was about Louisiana, Mississippi,
Speaker 1: South Carolina, Tennessee, and potentially in Texas. But again, they've
Speaker 1: already done their big remap, So let's see what this
Speaker 1: all looks like. I think it's a it's not the
Speaker 1: way they drew their map. They're anticipating winning over as
Speaker 1: many Latino votes on the Republican side of the als
Speaker 1: Donald Trump won in twenty twenty four and to a
Speaker 1: lesser extent in twenty twenty two, and I think there's
Speaker 1: some questions about whether that holds up on that front.
Speaker 1: But I want to take you back and sort of
Speaker 1: what does this mean, because look, I think we have
Speaker 1: a serious issue about representation of this country in our Congress,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to get to that because I think
Speaker 1: there is a better solution than trying to redo the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act, trying to come up with special rules
Speaker 1: and all of this stuff. There is a cleaner, better
Speaker 1: way to do this. But let's talk about the near
Speaker 1: term political impact and when it takes you back to
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety it was the nineteen ninety one reapportionment map,
Speaker 1: where essentially it was the Bush forty one Justice Department
Speaker 1: working with the Congressional Black Caucus, particularly in the southern redraws,
Speaker 1: where in conjunction with the Voting Rights Act, that was
Speaker 1: that they needed to have and they got majority increase
Speaker 1: representation in Congress of African Americans. And essentially the Bush
Speaker 1: Justice Department saw it that they had a quote win
Speaker 1: win situation with Black Democrats. They would draw some majority
Speaker 1: Black districts in the South, and Republicans would suddenly have
Speaker 1: more districts that they could win because essentially they took
Speaker 1: a chunk of Democratic voters and put them all into
Speaker 1: compact districts. I'm going to tell you the story about
Speaker 1: Georgia in nineteen ninety before this reapportionment began in Georgia
Speaker 1: four years later. By nineteen ninety four, so at the
Speaker 1: start of the nineteen ninety decade, Newt Gingridge was the
Speaker 1: only Republican in Georgia's ten member congressional delegation. At the time,
Speaker 1: it was a nine one advantage Democrats owned the state.
Speaker 1: After the nineteen ninety one reapportionment that created essentially the
Speaker 1: maximum African American districts you could create in Georgia, that
Speaker 1: was driven by the voting by the previous interpretation of
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act the second and the eleventh Congressional
Speaker 1: district districts because they increased by one, they went from
Speaker 1: ten to one. Georgia was a growing state, became majority
Speaker 1: African American for the first time in ninety two, and
Speaker 1: the delegation went from nine to one to nine Democrats
Speaker 1: to one Republican for ninety two they win. This was
Speaker 1: an election that Democrats won. Nationally, Bill Clinton wins, Democrats
Speaker 1: lose some seats in Georgia, their advantage goes from seven
Speaker 1: Democrats to four Republicans, and then two years later, after
Speaker 1: the ninety four tsunami for Republicans, it essentially flips to
Speaker 1: seven Republicans and four Democrats with three African American majority
Speaker 1: African American districts and one white Democrat. So essentially, in
Speaker 1: four years, Democrats went from nine to ten to four
Speaker 1: of an eleven. And basically it was because they created
Speaker 1: these maximum a very much large African American majority districts,
Speaker 1: concentrating black voters in a smaller number of districts. Now,
Speaker 1: the good news for African Americans is an increased representation
Speaker 1: in the US Congress, there were more Black Democrats. What
Speaker 1: it did for the party though, is it actually made
Speaker 1: it harder for them to elect more Democratic members of Congress.
Speaker 1: So what does that mean now? So this is why
Speaker 1: these this remap is not going to be as clean
Speaker 1: as people think. It isn't going to be automated automatic
Speaker 1: pickups in order to draw these new districts. If they're
Speaker 1: going to no longer have majority African American districts, well
Speaker 1: they're going to be. Then you're gonna have African American
Speaker 1: voters who are vote sort of eight times out of
Speaker 1: ten more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. You're something
Speaker 1: going to have a whole bunch more swing districts. Right.
Speaker 1: We sort of saw this already, and we're getting this
Speaker 1: example in Florida with the with the Soco district. In
Speaker 1: order for them to essentially eliminate that district, they spread
Speaker 1: out Democrats into a whole bunch of other central Florida districts.
Speaker 1: And it's in theory taken a lot of likely Republican
Speaker 1: districts and turn them into quote lean Republican district Well,
Speaker 1: guess what in a waveyear like we're anticipating here in
Speaker 1: this midterm election with the party out of power sort
Speaker 1: of seeing a surgeon turnout, the party in power seeing
Speaker 1: a depression in turnout all of these Any sort of
Speaker 1: remap that does this sort of spreading out of Democratic
Speaker 1: voters and trying to put them in Republican seats is
Speaker 1: suddenly going to dilute these maps. And what it, in theory,
Speaker 1: could end up doing is creating more swing districts throughout
Speaker 1: the South, which is exactly what we had in the eighties,
Speaker 1: and then in pre nineteen ninety and the nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: one reapportionment between the Bush Jets Department and the Congressional
Speaker 1: Black Caucus, we did not have nearly the number of
Speaker 1: swing districts in Southern states in the old sort of
Speaker 1: Confederate states. So it is a So this is there
Speaker 1: is a lot of anxiety on the left about this decision,
Speaker 1: and when it comes to representation. I absolutely understand why
Speaker 1: there's so much anxiety about this because in some ways
Speaker 1: it's claiming that we've somehow all of the wrongs that
Speaker 1: took place all the way through nineteen sixty five is suddenly, oh,
Speaker 1: they're all gone. Well, we know they're not all gone,
Speaker 1: and so taking away. This guardrail on representation in the
Speaker 1: South is quite risky. But just for the political outcome,
Speaker 1: if you're looking for D versus R on this, this
Speaker 1: is not an automatic I mean, yes, it gives a
Speaker 1: Republican's an opportunity to redraw their maps in the South,
Speaker 1: and so there'll be certainly less court pushback on certain things.
Speaker 1: Although I still think the Florida map could get some
Speaker 1: pushback based on what's in their state constitution when they
Speaker 1: passed a fair districts referendum a few years back. But
Speaker 1: it's not clear to me that this is going to
Speaker 1: be an automatic net gain for Republicans. If you get
Speaker 1: rid of packed part of and districts, and these districts
Speaker 1: get unpacked, you are essentially going to create more swing areas.
Speaker 1: Now what you may see is you may see some more.
Speaker 1: You may see some reciently charged democratic primaries in some
Speaker 1: of these districts where you will have a large chunk
Speaker 1: of African American voters, another chunk of Democratic voters of
Speaker 1: either white Democratic voters, Latino, et cetera. So you might
Speaker 1: see more. You know that there certainly will be more
Speaker 1: a diverse set of candidates perhaps running in primaries. How
Speaker 1: identity politics works in that is going to probably depend
Speaker 1: on the candidate's running and the issue sets of that day.
Speaker 1: But when you're just looking at it as far as
Speaker 1: Democrats versus Republicans, it's not clear to me, And if anything,
Speaker 1: it could be a wash, if not a potential in
Speaker 1: a waveyear of an advantage for the out party, which
Speaker 1: in this year is this. But again, how many districts
Speaker 1: are we really going to see get changed this year
Speaker 1: this cycle versus those that will happen for twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 1: and then of course we have the actual reapportionment going
Speaker 1: in twenty thirty, so that's the near term political impact.
Speaker 1: You know, we've already seen, like I said, we've already
Speaker 1: seen Florida's already did their redraw that would have this
Speaker 1: is the redraw they would have done. They've almost assumed
Speaker 1: that the court ruling was going to be what it was,
Speaker 1: with really the darren Sodo district being the one that
Speaker 1: falls under the Voting Rights Act on this one, Now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about what is a better perhaps a better
Speaker 1: thing to fight for. Now. You know that one of
Speaker 1: the arcane sort of very political sciencing nerdy things that's
Speaker 1: out there is this idea of uncapping the House and
Speaker 1: what does that mean. Well, in nineteen thirty, after a dispute,
Speaker 1: and I've gone some of you have heard me on
Speaker 1: this rant before, but in you know, the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives used to expand with the population of the country,
Speaker 1: the number that we would have in the House. Not
Speaker 1: just you don't just decide how you reapportion the foreign
Speaker 1: and thirty five congressional districts among the fifty states, of
Speaker 1: course in nineteen thirty it was among forty eight states,
Speaker 1: but also whether the population size has increased enough that
Speaker 1: it's time to expand the actual House of Representatives itself.
Speaker 1: Pretty much every decade before nineteen twenty, every single decade,
Speaker 1: after every census, we pretty much we expanded the House,
Speaker 1: and then we stopped doing it. Now, in nineteen twenty,
Speaker 1: you'll be shocked to know what. You know, there was
Speaker 1: a big impass and both parties were fighting over this,
Speaker 1: and they couldn't agree on how many seats to add
Speaker 1: to the House and which states were going to get them,
Speaker 1: and there was a big fight, and eventually they got
Speaker 1: a compromise of let's just lock it down, let's not
Speaker 1: expand the size of the House. Anymore anyway, they were
Speaker 1: worried it was getting too big, too unruly, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And so we've back in nineteen thirty we locked in
Speaker 1: four hundred and thirty five district and it was one
Speaker 1: per three hundred and fifty thousand, you know, basically one
Speaker 1: congressional district for three hundred and fifty thousand people. Well
Speaker 1: we're now at basically one per eight hundred thousand. And
Speaker 1: you see, eight hundred thousand is the size of major cities. Right,
Speaker 1: there's only like eleven cities in America that have a
Speaker 1: population greater than that, and we now have we have
Speaker 1: four and thirty five that are just massive, and so
Speaker 1: that's why we have so much factional representation. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I understand the frustration about what we saw today, what
Speaker 1: we saw in the Supreme Court, But if you're looking
Speaker 1: to get a seat at the table, then you should
Speaker 1: fight to expand the size of the table. Right, we
Speaker 1: have not talked about expanding the size of the table.
Speaker 1: The table being here the House. Now, what was founder's intent.
Speaker 1: Founders intent was the House of Representatives to grow with
Speaker 1: the country number one and number two be the most
Speaker 1: most representative of the people, Right, now, the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives is not representative of the people. Each congressional district
Speaker 1: essentially is dominated by a faction. It could be a
Speaker 1: faction on the right or a faction on the left. Right,
Speaker 1: it's and it is sometimes a faction within that party
Speaker 1: that is able to dominate an entire congressional district. And
Speaker 1: so look, I know some people are out there going,
Speaker 1: you know, so take Louisiana and Louisianas with thirty percent
Speaker 1: African American population, if they suddenly have no African American
Speaker 1: representation or one African American, is that truly fair? If
Speaker 1: a third, right, third of the congressional districts are not
Speaker 1: you know, right now they are, right, it's about a
Speaker 1: third of the population. Third of the congressional district two
Speaker 1: out of six is majority and representative by African Americans. Now,
Speaker 1: another way to do this you could always have multi
Speaker 1: member districts, right, or this idea that you know, Okay,
Speaker 1: the state of Louisiana has six and you you know,
Speaker 1: the top six people get elected to those districts. And
Speaker 1: you would think over time that if there's various constituency
Speaker 1: groups or identity groups want to make sure they have representation.
Speaker 1: As long as they finish in the top six, you
Speaker 1: could have that. Now again, I don't think we're moving
Speaker 1: to sort of that sort of proportional representation or the
Speaker 1: idea of multi member districts. It is an idea we
Speaker 1: usually export whenever we're helping fledgling democracies around the world,
Speaker 1: because it's the fairest way to get various constituency groups
Speaker 1: to feel as if they all have a seat. It detata.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, arteisonal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce in a
Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
Speaker 1: your belly little gut health there right, and richer in
Speaker 1: nutrients and oxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts.
Speaker 1: The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to
Speaker 1: their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a
Speaker 1: vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell you.
Speaker 1: I have done the gluten free box. I have done
Speaker 1: it a second time. I have also used the code,
Speaker 1: the todcast code. If you use the promo code podcast
Speaker 1: at check out, you get thirty dollars off. I've already
Speaker 1: used it as a gift to somebody else who loves
Speaker 1: this bread. It is hard to find good gluten free bread.
Speaker 1: It is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions.
Speaker 1: I really dig this. There is nothing like having an
Speaker 1: artesian bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill.
Speaker 1: Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy
Speaker 1: some comforting homemade meals with Wild Grain. I obviously highly
Speaker 1: recommend it. It is worth giving wild Green to try.
Speaker 1: Right now, Wild Grain is offering my listeners thirty dollars
Speaker 1: off your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on,
Speaker 1: when you go to wildgrain dot com slash toodcast to
Speaker 1: start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first
Speaker 1: box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code
Speaker 1: Toodcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace,
Speaker 1: so use that code. But there's another way to do this,
Speaker 1: And the other way to do this is simply an
Speaker 1: Act of Congress to expand the size of the House.
Speaker 1: You don't need a constitutional amendment. You don't need new
Speaker 1: legislation beyond this, beyond deciding. Now, you know, if you
Speaker 1: ask me, I'd put in a constitutional amendment that said
Speaker 1: no congressional district can be bigger than point oh three
Speaker 1: percent of the population. Yes, I've done the math. Point
Speaker 1: oh three percent of population is essentially one per eight hundred,
Speaker 1: eight hundred thousand. But this by putting it in the constitution.
Speaker 1: In theory, this could fluctuate. Right, if we shrink our
Speaker 1: population shrinks over time, then you know we might have
Speaker 1: you might actually shrink the House of Representatives. So in
Speaker 1: this case, it would pretty close to double the size
Speaker 1: of the House. But here's what you would have. You're
Speaker 1: essentially making the table bigger, which means you're going to
Speaker 1: have a more diverse set of representatives when Congress. You're
Speaker 1: going to have a more diverse set of constituencies represented
Speaker 1: in Congress. It's not going to just be by identity
Speaker 1: group either. You're going to have the opportunity. First of all,
Speaker 1: you have districts that are more compact number one, So
Speaker 1: they truly will be geographic communities of interest, which matters
Speaker 1: a lot. You're likely to have less issues, with less
Speaker 1: need to Jerrymander. I'm not saying Jerrymander wouldn't happen. That's
Speaker 1: always going to be there. As long as you give
Speaker 1: the states the right to draw the districts, there's going
Speaker 1: to be political influence on how that's done. But when
Speaker 1: you're down, when you're when you're doing one per three
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand, it's just it's just less necessary.
Speaker 1: Oh by the way, so, oh, by the way, you
Speaker 1: would fix the electoral college conundrum that we've been in
Speaker 1: right as our population has grown. But the numerator when
Speaker 1: it comes to the electoral college it's been sitting at
Speaker 1: five point thirty eight forever. Well, if you increase the
Speaker 1: size of the House, you increase the number of electoral votes,
Speaker 1: and then you'll you're going to write size the electoral college,
Speaker 1: and so the likelihood of having a split national popular
Speaker 1: vote winner and electoral college winter being different. You you
Speaker 1: sort of shrink that from a you know, ten to
Speaker 1: fifteen percent chance down to a zero to one to
Speaker 1: you know, zero point five to one point five percent chance.
Speaker 1: So it it creates fairness across the board. It's small
Speaker 1: d democratic. And here's the other thing to me, this
Speaker 1: is something that a lot of groups on both sides
Speaker 1: of the AUL should be arguing for. Right now, the
Speaker 1: large states are underrepresented in the House of Representatives. They're
Speaker 1: also underrepresented in the Senate. Right right, two senators from
Speaker 1: Texas have the same amount of power as two senators
Speaker 1: from Wyoming. If, by the way, if you do this
Speaker 1: one para one per three or fifty thousand, you might
Speaker 1: not even add one new seat in Wyoming. Wyoming might
Speaker 1: still end up being a one congressional district state. But
Speaker 1: you certainly the big states would have more proper representation
Speaker 1: in the House of Representatives. So my point is is
Speaker 1: that I don't I think this There is no there's
Speaker 1: no ideological advantage to my idea, to this idea. I say,
Speaker 1: it's my idea, please, it's the founder's idea. We just
Speaker 1: have stopped listening to what they recommend it. But this
Speaker 1: will This only improves smaller constituency groups that are fairly
Speaker 1: large but have no representation in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: Now they're more likely. The Libertarians are more likely and
Speaker 1: actually have a couple of people actually elected as a Libertarians,
Speaker 1: and the Greens are likely to have a couple of
Speaker 1: people elected that way, and you'd certainly lower the barrier
Speaker 1: to entry, and you'd have a lot more diversity, whether
Speaker 1: it comes to age, whether it comes to ethnicity, whether
Speaker 1: it comes to jobs. Right, you also lower the in theory,
Speaker 1: if you have fewer voters you have to win over
Speaker 1: the cost of campaigns is less. So, look, the courts
Speaker 1: have spoken on this, and Congress can do some things
Speaker 1: to follow, you know, to sort of create a few
Speaker 1: more guard rails here to make sure minority voters aren't disenfranchised.
Speaker 1: Frankly anywhere in the country. I mean, I think one
Speaker 1: of the awkward aspects to this is that we were
Speaker 1: putting the Southern states, which had a history of this
Speaker 1: under more of a under more of a Justice Department
Speaker 1: scrutiny than all the states. And arguably we should be
Speaker 1: worried about this in all states rather than just the
Speaker 1: states that traditionally did this. But if you're if you're
Speaker 1: looking for a way to increase representation and you want
Speaker 1: more African Americans from the South in Congress, double the
Speaker 1: size of Congress double the you know we it is
Speaker 1: and it look I'm saying double. You know, I know
Speaker 1: that there's all this, well, we don't need more politicians
Speaker 1: in Washington, and oh my god, it's it's so it
Speaker 1: would be so big in here. Yeah. Democracy's messy. My goodness,
Speaker 1: have you seen what India does? They have a messy democracy.
Speaker 1: But it seems to you know, people feel as if
Speaker 1: there's at least opportunity and representation and so. And the
Speaker 1: House was meant to be a bit unruling. In fact,
Speaker 1: James Madison in the Federalist Papers Federalists fifty seven explicitly
Speaker 1: was arguing for an expense that the House was always
Speaker 1: going to have to expand. And the argument was this,
Speaker 1: he designed the House to grow with the people and
Speaker 1: remain dependent on the people. He would not like a
Speaker 1: frozen House at four hundred and thirty five members, which
Speaker 1: now maps are engineered to dilute the voices of minority votes.
Speaker 1: It violates the initial promise that the House was supposed
Speaker 1: to be. And remember who we wanted to elect the House, right,
Speaker 1: not the rich more than the poor, not the learned,
Speaker 1: more than the ignorant, not the hoitty heirs of distinguished names,
Speaker 1: more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune.
Speaker 1: The electors are to be the great body of the
Speaker 1: people of the United States. But the founders intended on
Speaker 1: the Senate not to be sort of a house of lords,
Speaker 1: you know, elected by state legislatures, to worry about what
Speaker 1: those states would worry about, a little bit of the
Speaker 1: cooling saucer. Our house was designed to be the voice
Speaker 1: of the people. But when you do this, when you frozen.
Speaker 1: We're at one hundred years now where we haven't expanded
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives, and yet we've more than doubled
Speaker 1: the size of the US population since then, we have
Speaker 1: diluted the voices of minority votes. We have essentially created
Speaker 1: another Senate. So it is founder's intent. I think I
Speaker 1: could argue conservatives will benefit in some ways, Liberals will
Speaker 1: benefit in some ways. You know, Conservatives complain that they
Speaker 1: have no representation, there's no representation in the state of Massachusetts. Well,
Speaker 1: I promise you, if you essentially have twenty congressional districts
Speaker 1: in the state of Massachusetts, you're going to get a
Speaker 1: couple of conservatives elected. Because you're going to have smaller districts,
Speaker 1: and you have more concentrated areas, and some of those
Speaker 1: areas are going to produce a conservative. So whether you
Speaker 1: are living in a you're a conservative living in a
Speaker 1: blue state, or you're a liberal living in a red state,
Speaker 1: this will only increase the chances that your voice will
Speaker 1: actually be representative from your community or at least from
Speaker 1: your state that you have some like minded thoughts with.
Speaker 1: So ultimately, I really believe that that look this, this
Speaker 1: fight with the judiciary is over. Okay, it is not
Speaker 1: going to be you know, this is I think it's
Speaker 1: a waste of time to try to keep fighting in
Speaker 1: the courts. If the goal is to get a seat
Speaker 1: at the table, then start fighting to expand the size
Speaker 1: of the table. Stop fighting over the chairs, and instead
Speaker 1: fight over the size of the table. Increase the size
Speaker 1: of the table, and suddenly you can bring your own
Speaker 1: chair and you'll find your own seat. That is a
Speaker 1: reform that is small d democratic, and again there is
Speaker 1: no obvious advantage for anybody except for the American people
Speaker 1: that feel as if that they're no longer represented in Congress.
Speaker 1: I ask many of you you live in a congressional
Speaker 1: district that you feel like has been gerrymandered, you feel
Speaker 1: like you're represented in Congress. I promise you if we
Speaker 1: go down this road of increasing the size of the House,
Speaker 1: you will feel like you have more representation. And this
Speaker 1: will you'll have more locally oriented members of Congress. It'll
Speaker 1: be harder to be performative jackasses, right, because there'll be
Speaker 1: more and that part will be diluted. Yeah, we'll dilute
Speaker 1: a little bit of political theater. But this is a
Speaker 1: free market. And here's something else I know about a
Speaker 1: free market of ideas. When you have more people entering
Speaker 1: the free market, you're likely to get some better ideas
Speaker 1: and how to govern this country. That's the best solution.
Speaker 1: This is how you take if you're upset about what
Speaker 1: happened this week in the Spring Court, channel that energy
Speaker 1: into doing something that would be good all parts of
Speaker 1: the political spectrum. Uncap the House. Let's bring back the
Speaker 1: people's house. It no longer represents the people. It's easy.
Speaker 1: Let's get back to Founder's intents. If you believe in
Speaker 1: a Madisonian democracy, you should believe in expanding the size
Speaker 1: of the house. All right, I want to turn a
Speaker 1: little bit to what I'm calling sort of the sort
Speaker 1: of the woke right moments that we're having, and I
Speaker 1: think in some ways the Komy the sensitivity about Komy. Right. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to defend Komi's actions, and I think
Speaker 1: I said that yesterday. I told you the news sort
Speaker 1: of broke as it came through. I think we're all
Speaker 1: fascinated to how the heck did they find a grand
Speaker 1: jury to do this. I think it's pretty clear we're
Speaker 1: going to find out what instructions given to that grand jury.
Speaker 1: This thing may never make it into any This thing
Speaker 1: could get thrown out the minute the minute. Comey's defense is,
Speaker 1: can we see a transcript of the instructions that were
Speaker 1: given to the grand jury? And then once we find
Speaker 1: those out, it could be game set and matching this
Speaker 1: thing is thrown out. But I'm old enough to remember
Speaker 1: when the right thought the left was too sensitive? Right,
Speaker 1: And you know, any normal rational person you know, can't
Speaker 1: you know? Are you really telling me that this man
Speaker 1: who arranged Seashells right was hoping for an assassination attempt?
Speaker 1: Can you get inside his mind? And you're sure that's
Speaker 1: what that means? The point being is we just had
Speaker 1: an election where I thought we were trying to sort
Speaker 1: of de sense it like we are. Hey, everybody's taken
Speaker 1: each other too seriously, and all this stuff that was
Speaker 1: what I thought was the heart and soul of some
Speaker 1: parts of the Magma movement, right, your great Gutfelds of
Speaker 1: the world. Right, the rationalizations that they've had about you
Speaker 1: know what's the lefts too sensitive, they're too woke, they're
Speaker 1: too worried about being nice to everybody. Well, what the
Speaker 1: hell is this talk about over sensitivity? This is clearly
Speaker 1: over sensitivity. Right, And then we're seeing and this, here's
Speaker 1: the thing. This stuff's bad politics, right, Weaponizing the DOJ,
Speaker 1: weaponizing the FCC. I mean Brendan Carr, right, the clown,
Speaker 1: the clown car, Brendan clown Car. And I know I'm
Speaker 1: not I probably shouldn't be a name color, but he
Speaker 1: really is sort of just coming across like kind of
Speaker 1: a dufus on this and again, super sensitive. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to sit here and say it was a good
Speaker 1: joke by Jimmy Kimmel. I think the frankly, there's nothing
Speaker 1: And this is the part that really frustrates me about
Speaker 1: our politics. Jimmy Kimmel can can both be angry at
Speaker 1: Brendan Carr and this White House from not caring about
Speaker 1: the First Amendment and at the same time admit, yeah,
Speaker 1: I see why, I see how that joke looks terrible
Speaker 1: after the events of Saturday. That's all right, But everybody
Speaker 1: gets in their corners and you can't ever admit weakness.
Speaker 1: And I mean, this is unfortunately why I am a
Speaker 1: believer that this is this stuff. You know, de escalation
Speaker 1: has to be across the board or it'll never happen, right,
Speaker 1: because everybody has this mindset now of well, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna I'm not gonna unilaterally disarm whatever that you know
Speaker 1: means to them in that moment. But again it goes
Speaker 1: back to apparently an inability to you know, there's no
Speaker 1: law on the books that says you have to ban
Speaker 1: bad jokes and bad punchlines, right, I mean, it is
Speaker 1: and so but the you know, you got Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: coming out sort of standing up for Jimmy Kimmel on this.
Speaker 1: I had to tell you this, Brendan Carr and Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, Jimmy Kimmel probably ought to give them his
Speaker 1: six percent rather than his agent because nobody has done
Speaker 1: more for Jimmy Kimmel's career over the last year and
Speaker 1: a half than Brendan Carr and Donald Trump, uh and
Speaker 1: and sort of the woke right, and it is it is,
Speaker 1: I you know what this really is. There's this everything
Speaker 1: is retribution, right, Everything is retaliation with Trump, right, everything
Speaker 1: is you know, it's like, why is he so you know,
Speaker 1: you know Trump, there are certain things that he just
Speaker 1: you know, he has to change the name of just
Speaker 1: to say he has to change the name of or
Speaker 1: he's going to do because he said he was going
Speaker 1: to do. Right, So he's got to go after Komy
Speaker 1: and he's got he's now got an acting Attorney General
Speaker 1: that literally was his personal lawyer now just doing retribution
Speaker 1: and things. I think it is notable by the way
Speaker 1: that Todd blanche is willing to go down these ridiculous
Speaker 1: roads of questionable you know, targeting of political opponents, as
Speaker 1: he's already done, whether it's the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling that's going to struggle when an
Speaker 1: actual judge takes a look at that with combing, that's
Speaker 1: going to be quite difficult. And so I think it's
Speaker 1: pretty clear as I said about Pambondi before. This is
Speaker 1: somebody who was a prosecutor for half her career. This
Speaker 1: was not somebody that was going to be comfortable essentially
Speaker 1: misbehaving as a lawyer. And so I don't think it's
Speaker 1: an accident that she wouldn't bring these cases and he would.
Speaker 1: And I think it does take you know, I know
Speaker 1: many of you are not big Pambondi fans that listen
Speaker 1: to me here, but you know, everything is by degree right,
Speaker 1: And as I said before, there was I think that
Speaker 1: was part of the reason why she got pushed out,
Speaker 1: because there were somethings she just wasn't going to do.
Speaker 1: And now Donald Trump has an attorney general that is
Speaker 1: pretty much willing to do all of his bidding whatever
Speaker 1: he wants. So you know, judge these people by the alternative,
Speaker 1: not the almighty sometimes. And I had a feeling that
Speaker 1: some people might miss Pam Bondi once she's gone, believe
Speaker 1: it or not, and one of those people might actually
Speaker 1: be James call me as for what we learned or
Speaker 1: didn't learn on Capitol Hill about the war. Look, the
Speaker 1: hearing was useless because hag Seth came in as a
Speaker 1: partisan and of course, you had plenty of House members
Speaker 1: who wanted to do frankly wanted to do their viral
Speaker 1: moments and hope that they get you know it is
Speaker 1: this is one of those where I wonder what would
Speaker 1: have happened had there been no cameras. Would the questions
Speaker 1: have been pointed but more substantive rather than pointed and
Speaker 1: sort of buzzwords. But you know, Hank Seth in there,
Speaker 1: he's the line I used on seeing it is they
Speaker 1: just think he's got Internet brain rot where you know,
Speaker 1: this is the Mike Lee disease where you've just certain
Speaker 1: and you know, I saw that Jade Vance gave up
Speaker 1: X for lent. Good for him. I think it's quite healthy.
Speaker 1: Just stay off because you'll do in that doom scroll
Speaker 1: and you could see, like Mike Lee is one of
Speaker 1: these people that apparently just doesn't have anything to do
Speaker 1: at night. He needs a hobby because he spends so
Speaker 1: much time trying to own the libs or own himself
Speaker 1: on social media. He sort of spins himself into into
Speaker 1: crazy and yet nobody has I don't know how many
Speaker 1: actual physical, personal, in person relationships he has these days.
Speaker 1: But Haig Seth also seems to have internet brain right,
Speaker 1: and certainly Sean Parnell, who I think does a lot
Speaker 1: of his right. He was very much somebody also sort
Speaker 1: of of that. But when you look at some of
Speaker 1: the some of the quotes that were out there, right
Speaker 1: he immediately, you know, for a defense secretary to go
Speaker 1: out there and basically say that the it was Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans who didn't support this war who were bigger
Speaker 1: problems than any other adversary. It's look, I don't think
Speaker 1: he's very well respected. I don't think anybody takes in
Speaker 1: Washington takes Pete Hegseth very seriously. The problem is he
Speaker 1: does hold the job of Defense secretary, and it was
Speaker 1: notable to me that you'd have a partisan hackery from
Speaker 1: Pete Eggseth, and you'd have General Kane being very disciplined,
Speaker 1: very a political talking about how he believes in the
Speaker 1: idea that the military is supposed to be a political
Speaker 1: when literally Pete hag Seth is doing everything he can
Speaker 1: to politicize the military. The biggest failure of hag Set's
Speaker 1: testimony is his inability to make the case of why
Speaker 1: this war is necessary, and that's been part of the
Speaker 1: problem that they've had right, which is, you know, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump seemed to imply regime change. At the same time,
Speaker 1: Pete Hegseth claims that there is you know, no more
Speaker 1: they're not doing any more regime change anymore, that that's
Speaker 1: not something that this uh, that's not something that this
Speaker 1: Defense Department is focused on anymore. But then he like
Speaker 1: talks about, well, we're not for regime change, but the
Speaker 1: regime changed but hasn't really changed, right, But that doesn't
Speaker 1: seem he couldn't really paint a picture of what an
Speaker 1: endgame looks like. Uh. And you know, ultimately we kind
Speaker 1: of all know what the end game is going to
Speaker 1: look like. It's just waiting to see when the president
Speaker 1: accepts the fact that if he is doesn't have the
Speaker 1: stomach to escalate and send in ground troops, then the
Speaker 1: only choice he has is to negotiate essentially the nuclear
Speaker 1: deal two point zero. And maybe it'll take fourth dollars
Speaker 1: and thirty cents a gallon at the guess station. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's until it hits four fifty, But I continue to
Speaker 1: believe that's where we're headed. And I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: Hexa did not do. I don't think he did the
Speaker 1: war any good. And you know, here's the other thing
Speaker 1: that this administration is so bad at and the first
Speaker 1: Trump administration was not this bad at it. There's never
Speaker 1: there's never anybody that will say, well, look, I understand
Speaker 1: why this isn't popular. I understand that why some people
Speaker 1: are upset. They will never accept the premise that criticism
Speaker 1: might be valid. And I will tell you, you cannot
Speaker 1: success fully lead in a democracy if you don't know
Speaker 1: how to accept the premise of your critics. And you know,
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, what
Speaker 1: made them successful two term presidents is that they were
Speaker 1: really good at that. Some would complain, oh, they're they're
Speaker 1: they're creating straw man. Yeah, it was. Sometimes their arguments
Speaker 1: are pushback was creating straw. But they accepted the premise
Speaker 1: that the criticism was valid, even if they disagreed with
Speaker 1: the criticism. These guys don't accept the premise that criticism
Speaker 1: is valid. They're always trying to blame it on people
Speaker 1: like me, right, anybody in the press. It's got to
Speaker 1: be the press's fault because somehow, you, the American voter,
Speaker 1: are too stupid to come to these conclusions on your
Speaker 1: own you're easily persuaded by us inkstained wretches in the
Speaker 1: press corps. I mean, when you really think about it,
Speaker 1: the way they the way they treat the American public,
Speaker 1: they really have for the intelligence of the American public
Speaker 1: because they consistently believe that the problem isn't the substance
Speaker 1: of what they're pushing, that the problem is how it's
Speaker 1: being interpreted by the press. So do they really think
Speaker 1: the American voter is that stupid? We can all see
Speaker 1: this with our own eyes, and ultimately we're seeing right
Speaker 1: now in the Poland public's not happy. Public's not in
Speaker 1: favor of this, and I don't think Pete Hagsif did
Speaker 1: anything this week to improve that standing even among base Republicans.
Speaker 1: This episode of the check todcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Soul. So if you love that end of the
Speaker 1: day unwined but hate the hangover, Soul's out of Office
Speaker 1: is for you. These sparkling THHC drinks and gummies give
Speaker 1: you the same relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without
Speaker 1: the calories, and without the crash. Soul is a wellness
Speaker 1: brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy.
Speaker 1: Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived, THCHC, and CBD products
Speaker 1: designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their
Speaker 1: best selling out of office Gummies were designed to provide
Speaker 1: a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity
Speaker 1: and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the
Speaker 1: dose to fit your vibe. SO also has a variety
Speaker 1: of products specifically designed to help you get a better
Speaker 1: night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan
Speaker 1: favorite for deep, restorous sleep. Look, I have made no secret.
Speaker 1: I am a believer in this stuff, in cannabis and
Speaker 1: hemp derived. I do not partake in alcohol. For the
Speaker 1: most part. I think this stuff is a lot safer
Speaker 1: than alcohol, a lot less addictive than alcohol. And yes,
Speaker 1: I have to say I love these drinks. It is
Speaker 1: the glass of wine and you know after work, that's
Speaker 1: what this is. So no hangover and no excess calories
Speaker 1: like this. I'm a big fan. Bring on the good
Speaker 1: vibes and treat yourself to sold today right now, Soul
Speaker 1: is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: Go to getsoul dot com and use the word podcast.
Speaker 1: That's getsol dot com promo Code podcast for thirty percent off.
Speaker 1: And yes, I too am a customer, ask Chuck. All right,
Speaker 1: let's do a little ass Chuck. Hey. My first question
Speaker 1: is actually in response to the conversation I had with
Speaker 1: the meteorologists from Watch Duty, Pete Current, jeff Ar Wrights, Hey,
Speaker 1: great info and guests. My input from living through the
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen Thomas fire in Ventura, California. If the wind
Speaker 1: is howling, there isn't much you can do but get
Speaker 1: the heck out of the way. Eighty mile prour winds then,
Speaker 1: but I've had anything over fifty is critical too. There
Speaker 1: was a block home with a flat roof, no attict
Speaker 1: and a metal framed dual pain windows, and all that
Speaker 1: survived was the blocks. Just devastating. Also, a friend that
Speaker 1: stayed to protect his home had a stroke a few
Speaker 1: days later. Yeah, I bet the local stroke center told
Speaker 1: them that there was a significant increase in cases afterwards.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is get ready and leave. Your life
Speaker 1: is worth more than protecting property. Jeff, I know that
Speaker 1: that's just great advice. The same thing is true with hurricanes.
Speaker 1: You know, everybody thinks, you know, what are you going
Speaker 1: to do against in this case, one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: mile an hour wins. You're not going to do a thing.
Speaker 1: I remember during Hurricane Andrew, we were trying to prevent
Speaker 1: two French It was a French doors set up at
Speaker 1: the house I was staying at, and we're literally three
Speaker 1: of us for about an hour because the doors were
Speaker 1: buckling and we leaned against it. But it was kind
Speaker 1: of ridiculous that we were putting ourselves. It's sort of like,
Speaker 1: if there's an evacuation order, follow the evacuation order because
Speaker 1: mother nature is undefeated. Matt from Upstate New York rights, Hey,
Speaker 1: love the podcast. Been following you since your time at
Speaker 1: Meet the Press. Keep up the great work. Well, thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: What do you make of the pete Hegseth firing more
Speaker 1: than a dozen generals. My first thought was that the
Speaker 1: administration was getting ready for larger military action against Iran,
Speaker 1: that this was a way to purge officials who were
Speaker 1: not in line with what the administration is planning. However,
Speaker 1: grew with your recent opinion that Trump is just seeking
Speaker 1: a way out of this war with Iran for any
Speaker 1: type of offering possible. I'm not sure what to make
Speaker 1: of this purge. Keep up the good work. Look, this
Speaker 1: purge is just ideological, right. You know, at first, he's
Speaker 1: going after anybody that he thinks were somehow an affirmative
Speaker 1: action or some sort of minority driven. Right. He's gotten
Speaker 1: rid of women that were high ranking, He's purged African Americans,
Speaker 1: anybody that he in his own head has decided got
Speaker 1: it because of identity rather than merit. And even though
Speaker 1: apparently there's plenty of evidence that these people were worthy
Speaker 1: on the merit. But that's what this is. This is
Speaker 1: sort of an ideological purge. And then some of the
Speaker 1: stuff's personal, right, like the guy at the Navy secretary,
Speaker 1: and he certainly has been trying to get rid of
Speaker 1: the Army secretary. But that's almost more like political right valries,
Speaker 1: if you will. But you know, this is it's no
Speaker 1: different than what Trump and Steven Miller were trying to
Speaker 1: do at the start of the second term with those
Speaker 1: which was, you know, they believe that the civilian staff,
Speaker 1: they believe that the nonpartisan a political staff, whether it's
Speaker 1: in the Interior Department or at the Pentagon, are somehow
Speaker 1: standing in the way of their ideology, right, because these
Speaker 1: people do things like follow the Constitution. These to these folks,
Speaker 1: you know, actually try to keep politics out of their
Speaker 1: decision making. And so that's what this has been about.
Speaker 1: When you really start to look at the list, you'll
Speaker 1: notice there's quite a few women that he's purged from
Speaker 1: these ranks, quite a few minorities that he's purged from
Speaker 1: these ranks. Next question, he goes, great episode. Oh, this
Speaker 1: is a question on dynastic. I probably I'll put it dynastic. Okay,
Speaker 1: we speaking of dynastic, it's a good time for me
Speaker 1: to say the latest episode is up. We do the Steelers.
Speaker 1: It is fantastic. I promise you. If you're a Steelers fan,
Speaker 1: I can't wait to hear from you because I want
Speaker 1: to know if we did you right on this. But here,
Speaker 1: let me get this question. He goes, great episode. Please
Speaker 1: pass along my thanks to Jaa as well my partner
Speaker 1: Jay Adande. As someone who watched those seventy Steelers teams,
Speaker 1: I loved hearing Bill Nunn get his due, and I'd
Speaker 1: even argue that seventy sixteen might have been their best
Speaker 1: despite not winning an all quick note that Dolphins would
Speaker 1: have been fifteen to no, not sixteen to no. Heading
Speaker 1: into that game. Also, I didn't realize that Steel Curtain
Speaker 1: was the first all black defensive front. Such a cool
Speaker 1: piece of history. Thanks for all the great content. I
Speaker 1: really enjoying it. Well, I appreciate it. And that's that's
Speaker 1: what our goal is with Jay and I with these series,
Speaker 1: and said, so, I call it sports History Podcast, but
Speaker 1: it's about It's not just sports history, it's our history, right,
Speaker 1: It's you know, especially both Jay and I are pretty
Speaker 1: close in age, and you know, the seventies and the
Speaker 1: eighties were our coming of age eras, and so yeah,
Speaker 1: we're these the seventies Steelers sort of had a different
Speaker 1: type of imprint on us. But that's how we want
Speaker 1: to deal with this with all of these franchises is
Speaker 1: to you know, let them live and breathe and the
Speaker 1: eras that they were in and you know what the
Speaker 1: cultural moments at that time meant. And you know, we're
Speaker 1: getting ready to dive in to tell you. I read
Speaker 1: the book I read for this one to prepare. The
Speaker 1: one I read the most thoroughly was Dan Rooney's memoir
Speaker 1: about his seventy five years in the NFL, and it
Speaker 1: was just amazing and in fact, it was Dan Rooney's
Speaker 1: decision to open with his perspective on the immaculate reception.
Speaker 1: That made me think, that's how we've got to open
Speaker 1: the show. So, man, this makes me feel good. Thank
Speaker 1: you for that question. Dan from Arlington, Right hey, longtime listener,
Speaker 1: also a neighbor here in Arlington, Yes you are. I
Speaker 1: was intioned your take on Israel and the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and it made me wonder how you see this evolving
Speaker 1: politically A post Trump posting at Nahu Era. Do you
Speaker 1: think Democrats return to a more neutral or traditionally supportive
Speaker 1: stance on Israel or is this shift more permanent? And relatedly,
Speaker 1: does someone like Josh Shapiro have a viable path given
Speaker 1: where the party is today? So that's a great question.
Speaker 1: I'm going to take the second part first. There's a
Speaker 1: and I don't know if I'm seeing this with clear eyes,
Speaker 1: I will confess to that. I think, you know, we
Speaker 1: all have our biases that we're born with and all
Speaker 1: of that, Right, which is I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be hard for a Jewish Democrat to win the nomination.
Speaker 1: I hope I'm wrong about that, but I think it
Speaker 1: will be this cycle. I think there's always now I
Speaker 1: think if you're going to I think Josh Shapiro is
Speaker 1: addressing it better than any of the other Jewish Democrats
Speaker 1: that are thinking about running for president. It's quite a few,
Speaker 1: by the way, including Ram Emanuel J. B. Pritzker, Josh Shapiro,
Speaker 1: maybe even John Ossa, but Shapiro sort of leaned in
Speaker 1: and I think, you know it, I do think. I
Speaker 1: think his candidacy if he runs, even if he doesn't win,
Speaker 1: and let's say we all decide that's the reason, right
Speaker 1: that that's you know, there were some people that never
Speaker 1: were going to vote for him. There if he uses
Speaker 1: his candidacy to remind Democrats that you can be a
Speaker 1: defender of Israel's right to exist and be a critic
Speaker 1: of their policies, and that there is space for that,
Speaker 1: you know, I think right now unfortunately, you know, even
Speaker 1: a guy like now who's not creating space for that,
Speaker 1: but I think there is you're asking, I, look, I
Speaker 1: think this is a generational shift, and you know, it
Speaker 1: might be a generation before before this goes back to
Speaker 1: you know, when I first entered politics, the Democrats were
Speaker 1: more pro Israel. It was the Republicans had more anti
Speaker 1: Israel politicians in their coalition than pro Israel politicians. Right,
Speaker 1: Papuchannan was a loud voice on that, but he wasn't alone.
Speaker 1: Bob Novak, one of the leading conservative journalists of the
Speaker 1: seventies and eighties, was was a loud voice against military
Speaker 1: support for Israel. And so it's I'm certainly skeptical, and
Speaker 1: in twenty eight you know, I certainly think it is
Speaker 1: it is a higher hurdle for Josha bro I'm saying
Speaker 1: it should be a higher hero of course, but I'm
Speaker 1: just saying I think it's a higher hurdle. But I
Speaker 1: actually appreciate how he's been trying to lean into it
Speaker 1: and sort of deal with it rather than sort of
Speaker 1: try to avoid it. Right. I think this is one
Speaker 1: of those ripped the band aid off, and let's see
Speaker 1: if we can have the correct, nuanced conversation on this
Speaker 1: and get back to being supportive of democracies in the
Speaker 1: Middle East period, right and promoting I mean, to me,
Speaker 1: it was always I thought pretty easy to support Israel
Speaker 1: was at the time. It's only real democracy in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, and the United States should always be on
Speaker 1: the side of democracies that exist and should be supportive.
Speaker 1: But you know, you could be critical of policy, and
Speaker 1: I think that that's that's something our politics isn't mature
Speaker 1: enough to handle at the moment. Vince C. Berkeley, California. Right, hey,
Speaker 1: long time listener here. I've lived in New York for
Speaker 1: most of my life and now I'm in Berkeley, California.
Speaker 1: I wanted to revisit a question I said earlier about
Speaker 1: statehood for Puerto Rico and DC. How do you see
Speaker 1: the political path forward for either becoming states and what
Speaker 1: would the implications be for national politics. Well, Vince, I'm
Speaker 1: a believer that the only way for either to get
Speaker 1: statehood is to go together. I think I think that
Speaker 1: there is Republican support for Puerto Rican statehood. Rick Scott
Speaker 1: supports Puerto Rican statehood. I think Marco Rubio supports Puerto
Speaker 1: Rican stated and Puerto Rico has a Republican elected governor.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty bipartisan island. It's a very it's two
Speaker 1: already competitive politics on the on the in the Commonwealth
Speaker 1: of Puerto Rico. By the way, as an aside, you
Speaker 1: may have heard it in my interview with with a Teamah,
Speaker 1: but you know, if if if the right really wanted
Speaker 1: to put put a wedge in the Democratic Party. Not
Speaker 1: only do you propose giving Arlington back to d C,
Speaker 1: but then be and say, well, we'll give We're going
Speaker 1: to take Arlington back from Virginia, give it to d
Speaker 1: C and let d C be a state. Right. That's
Speaker 1: that would be if you really wanted to quote own
Speaker 1: the Libs on the right, you know that that would
Speaker 1: create a wedge issue. How badly do you want state?
Speaker 1: Hut right? But in some ways that just shows you,
Speaker 1: right that the rights not very clever. Everything is every
Speaker 1: everything is a sledgehammer. You know, every problem is a
Speaker 1: nail and every solution is a sledgehammer. But that's you know,
Speaker 1: it sort of reveals, you know, because if you if
Speaker 1: you gave Arlington back to d C, then you really
Speaker 1: are disenfranchising a big chunk of voters. You better franchise
Speaker 1: enfranchise them and so come out and support a statehood
Speaker 1: if that's it. If that, and I am curious, I
Speaker 1: wonder if the price of statehood was Arlington, would Democrats
Speaker 1: still be in favor of it. I actually think they would.
Speaker 1: I mean, again, I'm not trying to carve up Virginia,
Speaker 1: and I you know, I'm fine with with with my
Speaker 1: tax bill right now in Virginia versus what my tax
Speaker 1: bill would be in the district. I only tease a
Speaker 1: little bit there, but in all seriousness, I think d
Speaker 1: C statehood in Puerto Rican statehood, either they both happen
Speaker 1: together or neither happens, because right now DC is just
Speaker 1: seen as more likely to be two Democratic Senate seats.
Speaker 1: And if you can convince Republicans and look, you know,
Speaker 1: we've got to enfranchise voters and your things are going
Speaker 1: to be competitive in Puerto Rico, and it will be
Speaker 1: a competitive state. You might win both. You might win one,
Speaker 1: you might win the euro right, but just certainly get
Speaker 1: you know, it won't. It won't be the dilution of
Speaker 1: advantages that you think. And I think those on the
Speaker 1: right that think Puerto Rico is just part of this
Speaker 1: grand plan by the left to quote unquote rig the Senate,
Speaker 1: well that's pretty insulting to Puerto Ricans, plenty of whom
Speaker 1: have voted Republican for decades. And I think it exposes
Speaker 1: an interesting form. You know, I think if that is
Speaker 1: your mindset, then you don't believe in a diverse Republican party.
Speaker 1: You believe in the in the in the a white,
Speaker 1: homogeneous Republican Party, because again, Puerto Rico's, like I said,
Speaker 1: pretty competitive politically. All right. Next question comes from uh
Speaker 1: Trevor in Austin, Texas, and he writes, hey been a
Speaker 1: fan since the tim Resser days and really appreciate your perspective.
Speaker 1: Always wondered why interviewers don't more often pres Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: by replaying his January six remarks distancing himself from Trump
Speaker 1: and asking what changed? Is that a matter of access,
Speaker 1: time constraints or something else? And with his reelection coming up,
Speaker 1: do you expect him to shift his posture again? Well?
Speaker 1: Part of it is how you know, how long you
Speaker 1: know the expression beating a dead horse? Right? You know
Speaker 1: it's early on a lot of those questions were asked
Speaker 1: of them, and then you know it's sort of like
Speaker 1: when and you know, you get caught up in the
Speaker 1: news of the moment versus sort of you know, like
Speaker 1: to me, if I had Lindsay Graham for for forty
Speaker 1: five minutes, I'd darn right I definitely asked that question. Frankly,
Speaker 1: if I'd had him for ten minutes, I'd still want
Speaker 1: to ask that question. He somehow was afraid of coming
Speaker 1: on Meet the Press after January sixth. I wonder why
Speaker 1: that was. But he is somebody that has always been
Speaker 1: fearful of tough interviews and because he you know, and
Speaker 1: he used to be a fairly easy guest book, right,
Speaker 1: and then as soon as as soon as sort of
Speaker 1: he made his decision. But again, you know, Lindsay Graham's
Speaker 1: got a lot of problems, right. You know, the Steele
Speaker 1: Dosier got spread around Washington thanks to Lindsey Graham. Right,
Speaker 1: he was one of the biggest proponents of the Steele Dosier.
Speaker 1: He was one of the bigger contributors around town of saying, hey,
Speaker 1: this is serious. People need to take this seriously. So look,
Speaker 1: he's always done this for political survival and I think
Speaker 1: he's a survivalist. And so what does that mean you're asking,
Speaker 1: is he going to sift his posture again, whatever it
Speaker 1: takes to keep that sentency. If he has to become
Speaker 1: a liberal Democrat. Lindsey Graham's will become a liberal Democrat.
Speaker 1: I think we kind of see, right, you know, Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham was one type of Republican and then Donald Trump
Speaker 1: came around, John McCain passed away, and he became a
Speaker 1: different type of Republican so and part of that was
Speaker 1: simply his state shifted right. South Carolina Republicans were more
Speaker 1: Maga than they were McCain, and they were pro Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 1: And ultimately, Lindsay is going to go where his voters go.
Speaker 1: And if his voter suddenly shifted hard left, Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: would suddenly shift hard life. I think he wants his
Speaker 1: Senate seat that bad. This episode of the Chuck Podcast
Speaker 1: is brought to you by Ethos, And what Ethos does
Speaker 1: is it helps you find life insurance. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you why life insurance bailed me out. My father died
Speaker 1: when I was sixteen. We didn't have a lot of
Speaker 1: money when it happened, and we were in a pretty
Speaker 1: tough financial spot after it happened. I'm an only child.
Speaker 1: Suddenly my mother's single, single mother. She had a job,
Speaker 1: suddenly lost a job, looking for another job, and we
Speaker 1: were struggling. You know, my dad didn't leave us in
Speaker 1: the best financial situation, but he did make one purchase.
Speaker 1: He bought a life insurance policy. Wasn't a huge chunk
Speaker 1: of change, but it was enough when we found it.
Speaker 1: And when I say we found it, meaning we went
Speaker 1: through his desk and we found, oh, look at this,
Speaker 1: let's see if there's anything here. And it helped us
Speaker 1: out at a time that we really needed it. And
Speaker 1: that's why I think it's important that if you can,
Speaker 1: especially if you have young children, if you can get
Speaker 1: life insurance, you should get it. Life is full of
Speaker 1: unexpected emergencies, unexpected things happen. It is an extra bit
Speaker 1: of security, something you can leave and help out at
Speaker 1: a time when you're not you're not there to help.
Speaker 1: So what does Ethos do well? Ethos makes getting life
Speaker 1: insurance fast and easy and it's one hundred percent online.
Speaker 1: You can get a quote in seconds, you can apply
Speaker 1: in minutes, and you can get same day coverage. They
Speaker 1: will find you the right fit. There's no medical exam.
Speaker 1: You just answer a few simple health questions online. You
Speaker 1: can get up to three million dollars in coverage and
Speaker 1: some policies are as low as thirty dollars a month,
Speaker 1: and you'll get at your lowest rate from their network
Speaker 1: of trusted carriers. So take ten minutes to get covered
Speaker 1: today with Life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote
Speaker 1: at ethos dot com slash Chuck That is e thos
Speaker 1: dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and rates
Speaker 1: may vary. To the last question for the weekend, This
Speaker 1: one also comes from Texas. Kelly Ax from Aubrey, Texas Rights, Hey,
Speaker 1: why died to push back in your point that Democrats
Speaker 1: need to tone things down and focus on being more
Speaker 1: measured than Republicans. To me, that approach can come across
Speaker 1: as passive, especially when many voters respond to more direct
Speaker 1: and emotional messaging. Should Democrats be more willing to call
Speaker 1: out what they see as harmful rhetoric and actions more forcefully,
Speaker 1: even if that means matching some of that intensity, or
Speaker 1: does that risk doing more harm than good politically? Well, look, Kelly,
Speaker 1: I I think I've made my point clear on this.
Speaker 1: I think that and I look, I'm just going to
Speaker 1: look backwards over the last ten years. I think that
Speaker 1: Democrats have benefited by being the adult party, and I
Speaker 1: think anytime they're not behaving like the adult party, like
Speaker 1: the grown ups in the room, it may make the
Speaker 1: base feel better, like finally you're punching back. And I
Speaker 1: know that there's this mindset of what wrong and strong
Speaker 1: beats weak and right and short term that might be true,
Speaker 1: but long term, being right is going to mean something.
Speaker 1: And I just think that this goes back to and
Speaker 1: maybe this is a good place to end, because I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about the Democratic autopsy that we're not seeing,
Speaker 1: and Ken Martin and I have a few theories and
Speaker 1: they're just theories, and I want to throw them out there,
Speaker 1: but finish your question. Answering your question, I get it,
Speaker 1: and I think that there's there's sort of this fine line.
Speaker 1: I think that the Democrats need you need to be strong,
Speaker 1: but you can be strong in your rhetoric about behaving
Speaker 1: like adults, right versus deciding, oh, let's just start saying
Speaker 1: the f wort a lot more and that'll make us
Speaker 1: cool in the manisphere, right, Like, I think it's learning
Speaker 1: the wrong lessons from Trump, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: right lessons to learn from Trump's success is show up
Speaker 1: everywhere in you know. Whether I don't love this style
Speaker 1: of politics, but frankly, you know, be everywhere all the time. Now.
Speaker 1: I think you got to do it in a tad
Speaker 1: more disciplined way. But you know, whatever you think of Trump,
Speaker 1: he is who he is, right, you know, this is
Speaker 1: the authentic version of whatever he is, I always say
Speaker 1: he's authentically and authentic. But it works, right, nobody denies
Speaker 1: that that that Trump bars all these things. So, yes,
Speaker 1: be a bit more authentic, don't be so cookie cutter.
Speaker 1: But I think that there is a group of voters
Speaker 1: that gravitate towards the adult in the room, and if
Speaker 1: there's no adult in the room, they're going to look elsewhere.
Speaker 1: I just think it it is, it is. I know
Speaker 1: right now politics feels binary, but it doesn't always have
Speaker 1: to be binary. If you're not if you're if you're
Speaker 1: not careful, I mean, just you know, maybe it gets
Speaker 1: you a hollow victory like Labor got in the UK,
Speaker 1: right Labor Keir Starmer got these massive majorities, but you know,
Speaker 1: all they were was a reactionary anti Tory party. They
Speaker 1: got their big majority and they had no idea what
Speaker 1: to do with it, and they're afraid of offending different
Speaker 1: aspects of the coalition, so they don't end up doing anything.
Speaker 1: So I again, I know what I'm saying is not
Speaker 1: popular in a more partisan corners, and I guess what
Speaker 1: I'm trying to speak from is from this. You know, look,
Speaker 1: I'm I I Others will call me a centrist or
Speaker 1: a moderate. I consider myself an incrementalist, meaning you know,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm you know, I do think it should If
Speaker 1: you're going to make change for three hundred fifty million people,
Speaker 1: you got to bring as many people along as you can,
Speaker 1: and so you take incremental steps in order to get there.
Speaker 1: I think that you know, these are the voters that
Speaker 1: decide these elections. They are not a large chunk of
Speaker 1: the primary electorates. And I know this isn't what wins
Speaker 1: a primary, but like I said, I think it. I
Speaker 1: think it's I think there's a chunk of voters, which
Speaker 1: brings me to and I'm going to close with this.
Speaker 1: Actually I've got one sports item I want to share,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to close. I want to close my
Speaker 1: sort of political side of things. So Ken Martin went
Speaker 1: on Pods of America. It was clear that they had
Speaker 1: a strategy of finally, Okay, we're going to let the
Speaker 1: Pod save America boys beat us up over not releasing
Speaker 1: the autopsy, but we're going to make it clear we're
Speaker 1: not releasing the so called twenty twenty four autopsy. And
Speaker 1: I've talked to people who were involved in being interviewed
Speaker 1: for the autopsy, and nobody's quite sure where it comes down.
Speaker 1: And I think the question is it clearly is going
Speaker 1: to have make some recommendations. And the question I have,
Speaker 1: and I think I get what Ken Martin fears, it
Speaker 1: will start a fight, right, whatever you release, And obviously
Speaker 1: the longer you wait, the more you impact. Right, this
Speaker 1: autopsy should have been released last Thanksgiving. Let everybody sort
Speaker 1: of get their anxiety out, you know, complain about it,
Speaker 1: beat up each other, all that stuff could have been
Speaker 1: done over the holidays. You turn the page, you focus
Speaker 1: on on the midterms, and you move forward. But I've
Speaker 1: been trying to think, what is it that the autopsy discovered.
Speaker 1: Is it going to be too critical of Biden and
Speaker 1: they don't want to do that. Is it going to
Speaker 1: be too critical of the old Democratic establishishment, is going
Speaker 1: to be too critical of progressives? Is it going to
Speaker 1: be like who is it that they're afraid of picking
Speaker 1: a fight with that the autopsy is going to say, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know the big problem is this right? It's you know,
Speaker 1: is it a branding issue? Is an ideo ideological issue?
Speaker 1: Is it too much identity politics? Is it do the
Speaker 1: groups have too much power? Right? Is it too many
Speaker 1: billionaire donors. What you know, there's there's a variety of
Speaker 1: constituency groups that any individual one of those groups might
Speaker 1: have been picked on in this autopsy, and maybe that's
Speaker 1: what they're afraid of. But it's certainly not giving, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's a and I think we know why.
Speaker 1: There's just no money going to the d n C.
Speaker 1: Right Democrats are keeping up with Republicans on fundraising at
Speaker 1: every level except one the DNC. And I don't think
Speaker 1: showing this type of fear of being a party leader,
Speaker 1: which I think Ken Martin is showing here. It feels
Speaker 1: like year of his coalition being upset about something that
Speaker 1: was said in that you know autopsy, Perhaps is why
Speaker 1: he wants to keep it sealed. I don't know how
Speaker 1: it's helpful. I hope they at least share it with
Speaker 1: Democratic strategists, or they share it with candidates, or they
Speaker 1: share it with somebody, because what's the point of doing
Speaker 1: it if you're not going to try what's the point
Speaker 1: of trying to figure out how to learn lessons from
Speaker 1: a loss if you actually don't share the lessons that
Speaker 1: were learned from the loss. Right, But it's possible that
Speaker 1: this autopsy will help will help resolve the debate that
Speaker 1: Kelly X and I are having about whether Democrats ought
Speaker 1: to take the high road or not on things like this.
Speaker 1: I just want to make one comment, and I want
Speaker 1: to just make a mass one comment about because I'm
Speaker 1: going to take an unpopular opinion here on being happy
Speaker 1: that the NCAA back is expanding the men's and women's
Speaker 1: basketball tournament from sixty eight teams to seventy six teams. Look,
Speaker 1: I wanted to see it to ninety six, and I
Speaker 1: think I even outlined an idea of how easily it
Speaker 1: can be done. And yes, it means Tuesday and Wednesday
Speaker 1: become Thursday and Friday, you know, as packed of a
Speaker 1: schedule as you have on Thursdays. And yes, the more, Yes,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have more games on Tuesday and Wednesday. I
Speaker 1: don't think the two best days of the NCAA Tournament
Speaker 1: are Thursday and Friday, those first round one games right
Speaker 1: the round of sixty four? Are you telling me I
Speaker 1: could have two more days that are filled with that
Speaker 1: many games? You're gonna give me two more days of
Speaker 1: sixteen games each? Count me in. That's a good thing,
Speaker 1: isn't that what we want here more schools, rightly, more money,
Speaker 1: more everything for everybody. Right, it's one of those again.
Speaker 1: It's like expanding the House of Representatives, right, you expand
Speaker 1: the table rather than fight over a minimum number of seats.
Speaker 1: But I want to make one more. Look, and some
Speaker 1: of you may say, well, ninety six is too much,
Speaker 1: but I know the argument, well seventy six is too much.
Speaker 1: But here's where you're actually wrong. And I'm just going
Speaker 1: to just do a math equoid for everybody arguing that
Speaker 1: somehow this tournament's being diluted by making it seventy six teams.
Speaker 1: In nineteen eighty five, when the NCAA expanded to sixty
Speaker 1: four teams, there were actually only two hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: six Division one basketball programs so you had which meant
Speaker 1: the round of sixty four meant twenty three percent of
Speaker 1: all Division one programs got into the tournament. Well, now
Speaker 1: there are three hundred and sixty one Division one men's
Speaker 1: basketball programs. Okay, there are more actual programs than there
Speaker 1: were in nineteen eighty five with sixty four, So this
Speaker 1: is just twelve more in the field. And so what
Speaker 1: is the number Seventy six teams out of three hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty one means twenty one percent of all Division
Speaker 1: I programs will get into the field. It's actually a
Speaker 1: lower ratio of Division one programs making it into the
Speaker 1: into the NCAA Tournament then when they expanded it in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty five, when it was sixty four teams out
Speaker 1: of two seventy six. I know math is a problem
Speaker 1: for many people and they don't want to hear it,
Speaker 1: but nobody seems to be aware that we keep expanding
Speaker 1: the size of Division one men's basketball and women's basketball.
Speaker 1: There are more Division I basketball. We have Grand Canyon.
Speaker 1: Now we didn't have Grand Canyon. We have Florida Golf Coast.
Speaker 1: We didn't have Florida Golf Coast. Right, you can keep
Speaker 1: going and going, basically almost one hundred more NCAA programs,
Speaker 1: so of course you had to expand. The point is
Speaker 1: not only to seventy six, not dilute. And you know
Speaker 1: the biggest beneficiaries are going to be the sort of
Speaker 1: the high mid majors, the A ten. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: why I'm happy fight GW revolutionaries have a better shot
Speaker 1: in than ever before. A ten probably becomes a four
Speaker 1: or five bid league. Now should should become a maybe
Speaker 1: a three or four consistently a three to four bid league,
Speaker 1: and maybe as many as five. This should be good
Speaker 1: for the AA whatever they call the American Conference. I
Speaker 1: guess we're only supposed to be called the American on
Speaker 1: that front, and possibly the Mountain West. But this, I
Speaker 1: think the criticism is a bit misplaced, and we actually
Speaker 1: look at it by the numbers, we were overdue for
Speaker 1: expanding the NCAA tournament to where it is, and again
Speaker 1: next year with seventy six teams, fewer perk out of
Speaker 1: teams will make the NCAA tournament than when it was
Speaker 1: expanded to sixty four in nineteen eighty five. It's been
Speaker 1: a math heavy episode of the check podcast, but hey,
Speaker 1: this is what you get when you sign up from
Speaker 1: my podcast. I'm always gonna throw some data at you,
Speaker 1: throw some by the numbers at you, because sometimes arguments
Speaker 1: are just that arguments. Data trumps it all. And with that,
Speaker 1: have a great weekend, enjoy the enjoy the NBA playoffs.
Speaker 1: I still am I'd like to see a few more
Speaker 1: competitive games. It feels like we've had way too many blowouts.
Speaker 1: Hopefully that'll change. That'll change when we move from the
Speaker 1: first round to the second round. But enjoy that, Enjoy weekend,
Speaker 1: and i'll see it Monday. Hey,