Speaker 1: Hello, They're happy Monday, and welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast. As I have warned you, my moods
Speaker 1: are defined many Sundays and Mondays by how the Miami
Speaker 1: Hurricanes are doing, so you can only imagine what my
Speaker 1: personal mood is in I will get to my football weekend.
Speaker 1: The only quick thing I'll say up top is my
Speaker 1: third straight weekend traveling for football, and let's just say
Speaker 1: I hit my first travel glitch. I was on a
Speaker 1: nice run there where nothing was happened. I was a
Speaker 1: little nervous that this would be glitchy. The government shut
Speaker 1: down because we have these poor TSA agents are working
Speaker 1: without knowing if they're going to get a paycheck on time,
Speaker 1: and air traffic controllers so the idea of sickouts longer lines.
Speaker 1: Although that was true, then you hit the old mechanical issue.
Speaker 1: I'm in a small airport, so you know there's not
Speaker 1: many alternatives when you run into those things. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I was pushing the travel karma luck with my three
Speaker 1: straight weekends there, so perhaps perhaps I should be lucky
Speaker 1: that it wasn't too bad and survivable. Before I get
Speaker 1: and I will share some football. Of course, Today's Monday,
Speaker 1: I got my podcast time machine. We're going to go
Speaker 1: back to October nineteen ninety one, probably the single most
Speaker 1: televised Senate hearing in my lifetime. I might argue it's
Speaker 1: an interesting debate we can have on that, which gets
Speaker 1: brings me to the government shutdown. Right, we're starting, We're
Speaker 1: getting more polling. I'm gonna it is what we've seen,
Speaker 1: and look, I wish there'd be more consistent ways of
Speaker 1: asking these questions. There's no I think on this one,
Speaker 1: there's no right way. Do you ask who's to blame
Speaker 1: for the shutdown? Do you give three punches or excuse me,
Speaker 1: four punches the Congressional Democrats, Congressional Republicans, Donald Trump, everybody?
Speaker 1: Do you do three punches Congressional Democrats, Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: Congressional Republicans both for everybody? So there's not a I
Speaker 1: could argue both sides of that case. I think for
Speaker 1: now it really feels as if, because they're politically sticking together,
Speaker 1: you have the congressional Democrats and you have President Trump
Speaker 1: and Congressional Republicans. And what you're seeing is, while there
Speaker 1: certainly is a slight a slight plurality, and most of
Speaker 1: the polling giving more blame to the Republicans and the Democrats.
Speaker 1: It's not a slam dup. And there's a good chunk
Speaker 1: of voters depending on that.
Speaker 2: You can find the poll.
Speaker 1: Anywhere from twenty five to in the low thirties who
Speaker 1: blame everybody or are not sure who to blame. But
Speaker 1: that's a pretty big chunk of voters. And so, but
Speaker 1: the question in this current situation is who are the
Speaker 1: people negotiating listening to King Jeffreyes and Chuck Schumer. Who
Speaker 1: do they care most about the voters that are blaming
Speaker 1: both sides or the thirty percent of Democrats that are
Speaker 1: happy that they're fighting. And who's Donald Trump and the
Speaker 1: congressional Republicans worried about the thirty percent that are blaming everybody.
Speaker 1: Maybe the thirty percent that are blaming them. By the way,
Speaker 1: about about twenty eight to thirty percent blame their Democrats.
Speaker 1: They're mostly Republicans, right, Are they worried about that or
Speaker 1: are they worried about the twenty eight to thirty percent
Speaker 1: that blame the Democrats? And essentially, you know their base
Speaker 1: and they want to continue to stoke the base. And
Speaker 1: my concern is right now that the incentives right, The
Speaker 1: incentives are for everybody here to be listening to their bases.
Speaker 1: There is not an incentive here to listen to the
Speaker 1: middle because I think the rock and the hard place.
Speaker 2: Here's the problem.
Speaker 1: Democrats have the ask, the supposed ask that is on
Speaker 1: the table to end this shutdown, which is some form
Speaker 1: of the continuation of subsidies for healthcare Obamacare specifically. It's
Speaker 1: basically Republicans have said, yes, we want to negotiate on this.
Speaker 1: They've not ruled out doing it. They're not agreed on
Speaker 1: you know, would it be just a full extension, would
Speaker 1: it be you know, some certain people cut out. But
Speaker 1: the point is if the Democrats wanted to say, hey,
Speaker 1: we got what we wanted, and more importantly, we've got
Speaker 1: another deadline to hold them in check, they can declare
Speaker 1: victory right now. But it wouldn't satisfy I understand why
Speaker 1: they're not doing it, though I might if they're asking
Speaker 1: my advice, I might do it, and I would do
Speaker 1: it because I think right now the weaponization that Russell
Speaker 1: Voight is doing, you know, and I do sense that
Speaker 1: some Democrats think, hey, Donald Trump and Russell void Will
Speaker 1: will go too far in their sort of targeted cuts
Speaker 1: at Democratic priorities or trying to harm Democratic voters.
Speaker 2: By the way, one of the things.
Speaker 1: I'd like to mention, I believe Donald Trump got more
Speaker 1: actual voters out of LA County than he did Idaho.
Speaker 1: So when you're punishing you know that. This is what
Speaker 1: really frustrates me about the way these folks think currently
Speaker 1: in Washington is that they want to quote unquote punish
Speaker 1: the Blue states.
Speaker 2: He's got a lot of supporters in the Blue states.
Speaker 1: Some of these blue states are to our most populous
Speaker 1: blue states, and so there's actual So he's punishing. In
Speaker 1: some cases, he's punishing his own voters because a majority
Speaker 1: of those voters live in it. Because those voters happen
Speaker 1: to live in a state that voted for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: You see why this is such frankly bad governance and
Speaker 1: why I think it's self defeating in the long run.
Speaker 2: Don't know what.
Speaker 1: They're hoping to accomplish that somehow, these Republican voters who
Speaker 1: will suffer, you know, due to what a Republican administration
Speaker 1: is doing by targeting these blue states. The is the
Speaker 1: goal to get these Republicans to leave the Blue states,
Speaker 1: right move to the Red States. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: crawl inside Russell Voyd's head or Steven Miller said, but
Speaker 1: I'm not going to say that that probably hasn't crossed
Speaker 1: either of their minds. But I do think these little
Speaker 1: targeted things, frankly, some of them are probably going to
Speaker 1: be illegal, and some of them are probably going to
Speaker 1: get not going to be able to survive a court challenge.
Speaker 2: But it is.
Speaker 1: It is where we are at the moment, and so
Speaker 1: that's the thing, you know that this is where I
Speaker 1: still think we're going. I'm on the record and my
Speaker 1: new sphere show saying I believe this this shutdown ends
Speaker 1: before the end of this week. Now am I going
Speaker 1: to stretch and say by Sunday rather than Friday? And
Speaker 1: we'll see. But we are getting to the first missed paycheck,
Speaker 1: which will be coming up basically in the middle of
Speaker 1: the month thirteen fourteen, fifteenth pay period, we'll be coming
Speaker 1: to an end. And that is that is going to be.
Speaker 1: First of all, you'll have a missed paycheck of congressional staffers.
Speaker 1: That's an issue. Yes, they're going to get back pay,
Speaker 1: but that might be a way to remind their bosses.
Speaker 1: I already told you the other day about how the
Speaker 1: last shutdown essentially ended thanks to sickouts of air traffic
Speaker 1: controllers and TSA agents who were not thrilled with the
Speaker 1: idea that they were having to work without knowing for
Speaker 1: sure when they were going to get paid next. So
Speaker 1: if you look at the actual demands that have been made,
Speaker 1: if the Democrats wanted a clear victory, they can. The
Speaker 1: problem is they don't know how to communicate this to
Speaker 1: their base. And you know, Schumer's had a tough time
Speaker 1: communicating this to the I think he's been not the
Speaker 1: best spokesperson to have on this. It's you know, if
Speaker 1: you're wondering what Mike Johnson is up to, why he
Speaker 1: decided to keep the house out they're jamming the Senate,
Speaker 1: you know in his mind is he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: have to hold another vote. It's very hard to get
Speaker 1: all of his Republicans. So he's got a cleed cr
Speaker 1: out the door. And it's like, you guys figure it
Speaker 1: out in the Senate.
Speaker 2: And so by staying out.
Speaker 1: Of town, he accomplishes a couple of things. One, he
Speaker 1: makes sure his members aren't around where reporters can find them,
Speaker 1: and they end up saying dumb things that get them
Speaker 1: in political trouble. So he's kind of doing it to
Speaker 1: protect the messaging here. There are just fewer wild card
Speaker 1: members of Congress, so you know, strategically, I think I
Speaker 1: understand where he's coming from. But mostly this is about, hey,
Speaker 1: this is a Senate issue, and you guys have to
Speaker 1: handle this pure and simple and really there are you know,
Speaker 1: this is the thing. There are two ways this could
Speaker 1: get resolved in the Senate. The other thing is Republicans
Speaker 1: can end this tomorrow. If they really wanted to open
Speaker 1: the government, they'd have to get rid of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: But they have fifty votes to do this. That would
Speaker 1: be consequential. It is pretty clear John Thune has said
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to go there at all. For what
Speaker 1: it's worth, there's a small little growing I don't want
Speaker 1: to say it's disgruntledment among Senate Republicans with Thune, but
Speaker 1: there's a bunch of Senate Republicans that wish Thune could
Speaker 1: protect them more.
Speaker 2: The filibuster.
Speaker 1: Obviously, sticking with the filibuster is one way to protect them,
Speaker 1: But what do I mean by protect them? There are
Speaker 1: votes that they have to cast publicly in support of
Speaker 1: the MAGA movement or Donald Trump that they don't want
Speaker 1: to have to cast. Three of them, in particular, were
Speaker 1: really tough for them to cast those confirmation votes for,
Speaker 1: in particular for Pete hag Seth and Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Speaker 1: And that is something where there are some Republican centers,
Speaker 1: not all, not a majority, but a couple who think
Speaker 1: Fune could have done more to protect them from having
Speaker 1: to make that vote and could have killed it right,
Speaker 1: that he could have worked behind the scenes and done that.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure to be fair to to to to
Speaker 1: John Thune on this one. You know he was he
Speaker 1: he got the job despite mega skepticism of him. I
Speaker 1: think deep down there's a whole bunch of folks in
Speaker 1: magaworld who know he's not really one of them. And
Speaker 1: he did have Rick Scott sitting out there who was
Speaker 1: sort of waiting to pounce, And there could have easily
Speaker 1: been a sort of a Grasstops uprising on the on
Speaker 1: the in the in the sort of Internet mega movement
Speaker 1: that could have made Thune's life miserable had he held
Speaker 1: up some of these confirmations. So I'm not sure it
Speaker 1: was it's as easy said and done, but there is
Speaker 1: just you're starting to see fatigue among republic Senate Republicans.
Speaker 1: The terriff issue is really starting to take a toll,
Speaker 1: particularly in the Midwestern states, and the farm guys are
Speaker 1: really struggling with this. In fact, I've got a couple
Speaker 1: of little updates I'm gonna give you later as soon
Speaker 1: as I'm done with the with with where I think
Speaker 1: this government shutdown is going. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, that the Democratic dilemma really is, it does
Speaker 1: come down to they're gonna they're gonna have to disappoint,
Speaker 1: They're gonna they're gonna cave here at some point, right
Speaker 1: they have to.
Speaker 2: They have to. They have to sort of get to yes.
Speaker 1: And you know, if health if Obamacare subsidies, and I
Speaker 1: guess this is what they have to admit if they
Speaker 1: don't say yes to the Republicans agreement to basically saying yeah,
Speaker 1: we're willing to have a negotiation on this. Is this
Speaker 1: really why they're doing this or are they doing this
Speaker 1: because there's some pent up frustration on the left that
Speaker 1: the Democrats have shown no ability to slow Trump down. Right,
Speaker 1: the courts are not really you know, the courts have
Speaker 1: done better than most. Right we have what's going on
Speaker 1: in organ right now, that's not an insignificant moment. And
Speaker 1: Steven Miller's bizarre anti unconstitutional reaction to this, to attack
Speaker 1: a Trump appointed judge by the way, as an insurrectionist.
Speaker 2: Is just shocking.
Speaker 1: I know, we're not we never get shocked anymore by
Speaker 1: some of the language that Stephen Miller uses on social media,
Speaker 1: but it should be quite alarming to the entire judiciary,
Speaker 1: and it's not helpful, and he ought to be actually
Speaker 1: read the opinion apologizes for digressing on this. You got
Speaker 1: to read the opinion from the judge in Oregon. Essentially
Speaker 1: the judges saying Donald Trump's words are don't match what
Speaker 1: you guys are saying in your court filings and what
Speaker 1: you're claiming here, and essentially what he's saying is undermining
Speaker 1: the entire rationale that Stephen Miller was in venting to
Speaker 1: try to get the military in the National Guard in
Speaker 1: some of these cities, in Portland in particular. So I
Speaker 1: don't it sort of is amusing to me that Miller
Speaker 1: doesn't realize his own words are also making an appeal
Speaker 1: that much harder to win. Because we see what the
Speaker 1: real motivation is. I mean, they are trying to incite
Speaker 1: a confrontation. They want a violent confrontation between protesters, ICE
Speaker 1: agents and the National Guard. It appears that's what they're
Speaker 1: looking for, and they're using the ruse of you know
Speaker 1: it is really disconcerting and it's you know one. It
Speaker 1: feels like they're looking for any excuse to just ramp
Speaker 1: up enforcement, and that is something we ought to be
Speaker 1: concerned about here.
Speaker 2: We need to have peaceful protesting.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't be physically attacking ICE agents, but ICE agents
Speaker 1: ought to be acting in a constitutional method. I do
Speaker 1: think the face masks are menacing and it has created
Speaker 1: a very untenable situation. Everybody needs to ratchet things down
Speaker 1: here and we need to turn the temperature down. This
Speaker 1: Portland judge was trying to do that, but it does
Speaker 1: not seem as if that was the message that was
Speaker 1: received there. But going back to the shutdown politics here,
Speaker 1: what's happening in Oregon and what's happening there is also
Speaker 1: having an impact on the frustrated progressive base that feels
Speaker 1: as if the Democrats aren't fighting enough, and so if
Speaker 1: the government has been shut down over Obamacare subsidies. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a path here, But is this really why Democrats
Speaker 1: force this confrontation? It's it is starting to look that
Speaker 1: obviously that I think it's obvious now this was what's
Speaker 1: the best thing you could say to swing voters as
Speaker 1: to why you shut down the government? Oh, Obamacare subsidies.
Speaker 1: But that is not what the progressive base is interested.
Speaker 1: And sure they'll certainly be happy that if this is done,
Speaker 1: but it's not going to be seen as a victory.
Speaker 1: And in fact, I've seen some Democrats argue, leave it
Speaker 1: to congressional Democrats to help Republicans minimize their problems in
Speaker 1: the election year, meaning by by advance by agreeing to
Speaker 1: an extension of Obamacare subsidies, with the Republicans forcing them
Speaker 1: to do this. Now you're saying you're taking the issue
Speaker 1: off the table for twenty twenty six. But this of
Speaker 1: course gets to are you there to govern or are
Speaker 1: you there to pundicize and just politicize everything? Right, And
Speaker 1: that gets back to the same thing I was talking
Speaker 1: about the other day, which is the adult in the
Speaker 1: room vote. All right, maybe the adult in the room
Speaker 1: voter is not a base Republican voter. And it is
Speaker 1: not a base Democratic voter, but the voter that's looking
Speaker 1: for the adult party is the one that says, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: use this moment to do something that helps everybody, versus no,
Speaker 1: take advantage of this moment, exploit it so that you
Speaker 1: can gain political power.
Speaker 2: Which is what the base wants.
Speaker 1: By the way, both bases want, they want their leaders
Speaker 1: to exploit situations to.
Speaker 2: Get more power.
Speaker 1: And that is arguably the fundamental divide we're living in
Speaker 1: right now in American politics, and it goes back to
Speaker 1: the incentive structures that elected officials have with the voters
Speaker 1: that they have to deal with. There's a reason results
Speaker 1: matter more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan
Speaker 1: and Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. In the
Speaker 1: last thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars
Speaker 1: for more than half a million clients. It includes cases
Speaker 1: where insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to
Speaker 1: get away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and
Speaker 1: Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was
Speaker 1: a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company
Speaker 1: originally offered that original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country,
Speaker 1: they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
Speaker 1: you need a lawyer, You need somebody to get your back.
Speaker 1: Check out for Thepeople dot Com, Slash podcast, or dial
Speaker 1: pound Law Pound five to nine law on your cell phone.
Speaker 1: And remember all law firms are not the same.
Speaker 2: So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free.
Speaker 1: Unless they win. Let me move on to a few
Speaker 1: other items from the weekend. By the way, I had
Speaker 1: somebody right in to the my LinkedIn toodcast profile to
Speaker 1: say they thought I should. They wanted me to call
Speaker 1: my hot takes hot totty Takes, and I thought, well,
Speaker 1: my problem is is that I'm not very good at
Speaker 1: like the thirty second hot take, right, I'm not very
Speaker 1: good at giving you the stephen A. Smith bs argument
Speaker 1: of the day, right, the invented argument about the Dallas Cowboys,
Speaker 1: good or bad?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: So it is it is sort of, it is sort
Speaker 1: of not not my favorite thing. But there's there's a
Speaker 1: three headlines I want to get to before we get
Speaker 1: to the interview with David Holt. One is we are
Speaker 1: really now starting to see particularly this is the beginning
Speaker 1: of a new quarter financially right for just about any
Speaker 1: sort of business, which means this is a big period
Speaker 1: where we're going to see increased to There was an
Speaker 1: important article in the Financial Times that I didn't want
Speaker 1: people to miss. This is based on data from the
Speaker 1: Bureau of Labor Statistics in the six months going through
Speaker 1: August from August in the six months previous ending in August,
Speaker 1: so far, prices for audio equipment have risen by fourteen percent.
Speaker 1: Prices for dresses are up eight percent. Tools, hardware and
Speaker 1: other supplies in that under that umbrella are already have
Speaker 1: risen by five percent, because most of those goods are important.
Speaker 1: And what happened was you had a lot of small
Speaker 1: businesses and large businesses by products before the tariffs kicked in.
Speaker 1: They built up some inventories, but those inventories are now gone,
Speaker 1: and so now we're starting to see the price increases
Speaker 1: are going in starting in October. For instance, Ashley Furniture,
Speaker 1: so you've probably heard of Ashley Fern. They're the world's
Speaker 1: largest furniture manufacturer. They've already they put a notice in
Speaker 1: an industry publication called home News. Now again this is
Speaker 1: a courtesy of my friends at the Financial Times, that
Speaker 1: they plan to raise prices for a majority of their
Speaker 1: products from three and a half to twelve percent starting yesterday. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this is what I mean when in the sort
Speaker 1: of the quarter kicks in and you're going to see
Speaker 1: new decisions on pricing. And this is where the tariffs
Speaker 1: get put in. The car parts retailer AutoZone, they already
Speaker 1: have indicated to aid lists that there's probably going to
Speaker 1: be more price rises as the full impact of tariffs
Speaker 1: go in. I've told you about coffee prices. They continue
Speaker 1: to surge because of the fifty of the fifty percent
Speaker 1: tariffs that have been applied to Brazil over the president's
Speaker 1: obsession with Despite proclaiming that they're American first and they're
Speaker 1: not going to get involved in anybody else's politics. They
Speaker 1: don't get involved in anybody else's politics unless they care
Speaker 1: about everybody else's politics in this case because of the
Speaker 1: whole Bolsonnaro situation. There and here's something where there's these
Speaker 1: hidden tariff costs in everything that you have at the
Speaker 1: grocery store. Tariff's on imported tin plate steel is also
Speaker 1: driving up the price of food cans. So even if
Speaker 1: the product the progresso soup, the Goya beans, even if
Speaker 1: the food itself is produced here, the tin can, the
Speaker 1: can that is in your grocery store costs more and
Speaker 1: they've had to raise the price of that.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: And I have one other thing where we have a
Speaker 1: tariff impact, and that is the issue of soybeans. And
Speaker 1: this comes from the Lincoln Journal Star of the weekend.
Speaker 1: They have had a fifty two percent drop. This was
Speaker 1: just through June, Okay, Nebraska soybean experts, we're down fifteen percent. Overall,
Speaker 1: there's been a drop in exports to China of fifty
Speaker 1: two percent. This is why the farmers are reeling right now,
Speaker 1: particularly soybean farmers. And guess what, you grow soybeans all
Speaker 1: over the country. So this is a lot of states
Speaker 1: that are being impacted by this. This is why Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's talking about some sort of rebate. But do keep
Speaker 1: in mind as the right tries to call tries to
Speaker 1: take this the Democratic Socialist Johan Mamdani and essentially use
Speaker 1: it to define the Democratic Party as socialists. The person
Speaker 1: executing socialistic like policies right now is Donald Trump right
Speaker 1: in order, you know, he's you know, basically having to
Speaker 1: pay farmers to to for crops that are not going
Speaker 1: to get used. Right. But that is that's government support.
Speaker 1: That is a form you know, by any other name.
Speaker 1: Let's see, if it were a democratic administry doing this,
Speaker 1: you would hear some conservatives crying socialism on this. And
Speaker 1: of course I haven't gotten into Intel and some of
Speaker 1: the other stuff that we've already see that there is
Speaker 1: certainly we've heard. I mean, the Ken Griffin, the head
Speaker 1: of the large, the large private equity fund, the Citadel,
Speaker 1: he's gotten really vocal about this. He does not like
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration has been doing, how quickly they
Speaker 1: get involved in private enterprise and sort of put their
Speaker 1: finger on the scales, picking winners and losers, whether it's
Speaker 1: who gets to own TikTok intel, what Navidia is doing
Speaker 1: with chips to China and things like this. So it
Speaker 1: is again as we start name calling everybody doing the
Speaker 1: socialists and the fascists and all this left right name
Speaker 1: calling just realize on the issue of socialism, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has his own form of it that he is executing
Speaker 1: right now. Socialism for the business world, socialism for con
Speaker 1: stituency groups that he believes are important to him. On
Speaker 1: that front, two other notes out there. One, Japan is
Speaker 1: going to have its first female prime minister. I do
Speaker 1: think it's worth noting that the first woman to break
Speaker 1: through and break that glass ceiling is somebody who's more conservative,
Speaker 1: somebody who's more hawkish, somebody who's on the right, somebody
Speaker 1: who's feeling to conservatives, somebody who calls Maggie Thatcher one
Speaker 1: of her heroes. It's it's interesting when when we've seen
Speaker 1: West Western like democracies elect their you know, break the
Speaker 1: gender glass ceiling. Uh, it does seem as if because
Speaker 1: the most skeptical voters of women in executive office are
Speaker 1: usually on the right, having a woman come from the
Speaker 1: right is sometimes the fast your path of getting a
Speaker 1: woman in leadership. Again, see Maggie Thatcher on that front.
Speaker 2: Does that?
Speaker 1: Is this yet another indication that when America elects its
Speaker 1: first woman president, she's more likely to be from stage right.
Speaker 2: Than stage left.
Speaker 1: Anyway, I just throw that out there it's it's.
Speaker 2: It's my.
Speaker 1: That's my belief. I mean, certainly, it's a trajectory we're
Speaker 1: on at the moment. I'm not saying the political world
Speaker 1: couldn't change here a little bit, but in the moment
Speaker 1: that we're in, I think, uh, I think that's more likely.
Speaker 1: And I look, Japan is a much more male dominated
Speaker 1: society than our society, so it's pretty notable that they're
Speaker 1: breaking this class ceiling before we are as well. Just
Speaker 1: something to something to think about there. If it wasn't
Speaker 1: for the government shutdown, the fact that there is a
Speaker 1: very dubious claim that the president is making in order
Speaker 1: to bomb these these boats coming out of Venezuela, claiming
Speaker 1: that these are terrorists, claiming that this is self defense.
Speaker 1: There is really this. It's it's a political trap that
Speaker 1: they are trying to set right, which is, oh, you're you're, you're,
Speaker 1: you're trying to go soft on the drug cartels. But
Speaker 1: there is no due process for these folks.
Speaker 2: There is.
Speaker 1: These clearly look to be illegal, These clearly look to
Speaker 1: be unconstitutional. These definitely seem extra judicial. But here's the
Speaker 1: more important thing. Even if if the Trump administration finds
Speaker 1: a way to thread this where they can claim some
Speaker 1: legality to it because they've designated these cartels as terrorist organizations,
Speaker 1: which in and of itself is sort of a very
Speaker 1: subjective process, and that they can somehow make the rhetorical
Speaker 1: case that these drugs that are being brought in or
Speaker 1: killing our citizens. So it's certainly unpopular, right what what
Speaker 1: these cartels are doing. But the example we're setting, right
Speaker 1: we you know, when you when you see a guy
Speaker 1: like Bouque in El Salvador, when you see a guy
Speaker 1: like are Dowan, when you see Frankly, you know, when
Speaker 1: we don't have we're in the United States of America,
Speaker 1: and when we don't behave in small, d democratic ways,
Speaker 1: when we don't essentially abide by, when we don't treat
Speaker 1: everybody in the world the same way we're supposed to
Speaker 1: treat our own citizens, things like do process, search and seizure.
Speaker 1: Because I just want a simple explanation, why haven't we
Speaker 1: boarded any of these boats? Wouldn't we learn a hell
Speaker 1: of a lot more information about what these cartels are
Speaker 1: up to by actually a boarding these boats, arresting these folks,
Speaker 1: seizing the product, learning a hell of a lot more
Speaker 1: about there about how all of this works, about how
Speaker 1: the routes work, about it, how the business works, just
Speaker 1: sort of you know, showing off. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: just sort of life isn't a video game. But the
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense, Pete hag Set is out there putting
Speaker 1: on social It seems like everything is designed for some
Speaker 1: sort of social media virality moment, right, And so he
Speaker 1: goes out there as if they're like he's, you know,
Speaker 1: General Eisenhower executing D Day and he and he puts
Speaker 1: up this picture satellite video of the destruction of one
Speaker 1: of these boats, claiming that that we we have the
Speaker 1: intelligence that that that confirms these folks are cartel members
Speaker 1: and they're bringing these deadly drugs into the United States.
Speaker 1: This isn't a game. And what we're doing is we're
Speaker 1: giving a moral permission slip to thugs and dictators around
Speaker 1: the world want to be thugs, want to be dictators.
Speaker 1: And we're behaving no differently than what Europe is saying
Speaker 1: the way Putin is behaving right now in Eastern Europe.
Speaker 2: So this is appalling.
Speaker 1: I am sorry that there is not more attention to this.
Speaker 1: I know, politically this isn't easy because you know, it
Speaker 1: is our constitution, all of our rights, all of laws
Speaker 1: are done to protect sometimes some morally questionable people. Okay,
Speaker 1: but that's the whole point of our constitutions, the whole
Speaker 1: point of our system, innocent until proven guilty. And when
Speaker 1: we don't behave that way around the world all the time,
Speaker 1: and we sort of invent new ways to kill people
Speaker 1: and claim claim some a different authority to do it,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's not going to help us have any
Speaker 1: sort of influence. You know, this is not what somebody
Speaker 1: who wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize. This is
Speaker 1: not how somebody who wants to win the Nobel Peace
Speaker 1: Prize behaves on that for what it's worth. So it's
Speaker 1: if what I do think, if it wasn't for the
Speaker 1: government shutdown, that this this would be a bigger deal.
Speaker 1: But you also have you know, this is what happens
Speaker 1: when the legislative branch isn't acting as a check. This
Speaker 1: is an important moment for the Congress to be acting
Speaker 1: as a check. I'm hearing all sorts of complaints from
Speaker 1: my from my sources on Capitol Hill, but none of
Speaker 1: them want to go public because none of them want
Speaker 1: to look like they're on the side of Maduro in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: are on.
Speaker 2: The side of the drug cartels.
Speaker 1: But the fact of the matter is every part of
Speaker 1: this policy, every part of this policy is arguably unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Every single thing that they've done so far is unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: and there has not been any serious attempt to do
Speaker 1: oversight on this, to check into this zero zip zilch.
Speaker 1: A really disturbing story out of the Virginia Attorney General's race,
Speaker 1: the Democratic nominee. This is just for Attorney General j Jones.
Speaker 1: Screenshots of some private text messages that he sent in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. He sent these text messages to another
Speaker 1: he was in the It was a delegate in the
Speaker 1: State Assembly at the time in Virginia, and he sent
Speaker 1: some messages to a Republican delegate named Kerry Corner. Corner
Speaker 1: spelled coy n e R. And in these texts he
Speaker 1: imagined scenarios he doesn't like the then House Assembly Speaker
Speaker 1: Todd Gilbert. And in these texts, Jones imagines comparing the
Speaker 1: speaker of the Republican Assembly Todd Gilbert, Adolf Hitler, and
Speaker 1: Paul Pott. And he said if he had two bullets
Speaker 1: and those were the three people. He said, Gilbert gets
Speaker 1: two bullets to the head, what's this in a text
Speaker 1: message to a fellow delegate, and then they go on
Speaker 1: and he says it's something else and had to do
Speaker 1: with a dispute over gun policy, and he sort of
Speaker 1: fantasized about Gilbert having to deal with a child being shot.
Speaker 1: And he also and he texted, only when people feel
Speaker 1: pain personally do they move on policy. And it came
Speaker 1: across as if he was hoping Gilbert's kids that Gilbert
Speaker 1: would experience the death of his own kids be a
Speaker 1: firearms And then he also said things like he referred
Speaker 1: to urinating on graves of deceased political figures. He said,
Speaker 1: if those guys died before me, I will go to
Speaker 1: their funerals to piss on their graves. All of this
Speaker 1: was publicized in the National Review. What was fascinating to
Speaker 1: fault Watch was at first Jones came out, never didn't
Speaker 1: confirm or deny the text, just simply said people get
Speaker 1: overheated on you know, SA say crazy, you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: say weird stuff on text. But this is being weaponized
Speaker 1: and attacking the National Review because they're right of center publication.
Speaker 1: I can just tell you. Audrey Fahlberg, who's the reporter here,
Speaker 1: is a straight up reporter. She works in National Review,
Speaker 1: but she is she is big Jay journalists. I've known her,
Speaker 1: I've had her on my panels previously. She's she's going
Speaker 1: to have her ducks in a row. Well, she had
Speaker 1: her ducks in a row.
Speaker 2: Very quickly.
Speaker 1: J Jones.
Speaker 2: Tune changed.
Speaker 1: He suddenly tried to reach out to the speaker and apologize.
Speaker 1: He was very deferential, but like in any of these things,
Speaker 1: when you see this sort of horrible behavior and horrible
Speaker 1: things and somebody apologizes, they're only apologizing after it was exposed, right,
Speaker 1: you know, he never thought to apologize to the speaker
Speaker 1: after that Republican State assembly person, she said, this is uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: What are you doing? And by the way, he like
Speaker 1: followed up with a phone call to her explaining his
Speaker 1: rationale for what he was saying at the time. So
Speaker 1: this was not this was not a heat of the
Speaker 1: moment thing it's causing It is sort of one of
Speaker 1: these This is a quintessential October surprise. In fact, the
Speaker 1: story hit on October second, so welcome to October, right,
Speaker 1: and election days in November, so it is a quintessential
Speaker 1: October surprise. In the polling in Virginia, the governor's race
Speaker 1: has been it's the dominant race. Yes, it is, it is,
Speaker 1: and most polling is at Abigail's Bamberger, the Democrat over
Speaker 1: Winston Earl Sears anywhere from seven to ten points. There's
Speaker 1: a few polls that have had Ad Spamburger further ahead.
Speaker 1: But the two races beneath the state wide race for
Speaker 1: the lieutenant governor. In the state wide race for Attorney General,
Speaker 1: where j Jones is has been, Democrats have held smaller
Speaker 1: leads anywhere from four points in the in the LG
Speaker 1: race to six points in the AG race. J Jones
Speaker 1: been winning. Now of the three nominees for office, Jason Mireis,
Speaker 1: the sitting Attorney General, is the only incumbent running for
Speaker 1: the same office. Right the incumbent lieutenant governors Winston Earl Sears,
Speaker 1: she's running for governor. So there's there's an open race
Speaker 1: for the lieutenant governorship, an open race for the governorship.
Speaker 2: But it's a.
Speaker 1: It appears what we're going to find out is are
Speaker 1: how strong is polar is in Virginia? Because I could
Speaker 1: tell you this this is to me, what Jay Jones
Speaker 1: said is disqualifying. I imagine many voters straight up, you
Speaker 1: take everything else out of the equation, this would be disqualified.
Speaker 1: I am surprised there hasn't been Democrats, a lot of
Speaker 1: Republicans calling for him to get out of the race.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised some Democrats haven't. I mean, remember it wasn't
Speaker 1: that long ago when Ralph Northam was caught doing blackface.
Speaker 1: It was Democrats that we're calling on Democrat Ralph Northam
Speaker 1: to get out. Now we're seeing and this is in
Speaker 1: many ways the Trump effect. Right Trump, there is the
Speaker 1: MAGA movement, never apologize all this stuff, and you're starting
Speaker 1: to see more on the left sort of adopt the
Speaker 1: same mindset. So there's been condemnation of what he said,
Speaker 1: but it's been this, well, he's got to try to
Speaker 1: earn the voters he's he should go out there and
Speaker 1: keep apologizing and earn voter trust. The problem is this
Speaker 1: is a somebody running to be a law ahead of
Speaker 1: a law enforcement agency, and you've got these things out there.
Speaker 1: You may he may have to prosecute somebody for a
Speaker 1: political hate crime. This is not this back This background
Speaker 1: of his is going to make it. It's going to
Speaker 1: make it a little bit harder for him to have
Speaker 1: to have. Uh.
Speaker 2: He may have legal the legal.
Speaker 1: Ground to prosecute somebody, but he's certainly going to struggle
Speaker 1: having some moral high grounds depending on what the situation is. Look,
Speaker 1: there's no doubt that there is many that want to
Speaker 1: just exploit anything they can find to prove that. You know,
Speaker 1: the other side is more violent than than our than
Speaker 1: than our side politically, whoever our side is in the
Speaker 1: in the in the back and forth on this, I'm
Speaker 1: would like to see some folks just simply say violence
Speaker 1: is bad, hard stop. Sometimes it comes too much from
Speaker 1: the right, and sometimes it comes too much from the left.
Speaker 1: I don't want it at all, and we should be
Speaker 1: hoping our leaders just want to turn the temperature down
Speaker 1: and hold people accountable that are calling for an exploiting violence.
Speaker 1: I'll just say politically, if the governor's race were closer,
Speaker 1: I think Spandberger probably would have called for him to
Speaker 1: get out.
Speaker 2: But I don't think she.
Speaker 1: I don't think they think they need to, And I
Speaker 1: think there's such a nervousness about upsetting the Democratic base.
Speaker 1: Who wants a bit more fight and you're gonna see
Speaker 1: in the same way. The Republican base basically used to
Speaker 1: care about character. Then Donald Trump came along, and there's
Speaker 1: no longer anybody that seems to hold you know, character
Speaker 1: doesn't count on the right anymore.
Speaker 2: And watching the left.
Speaker 1: Kind of I don't want to say, they're rallying around j. Jones,
Speaker 1: but they're not calling for him to get out. This
Speaker 1: is I've been sort of preaching about this for the
Speaker 1: last few months that one of my greater fears was
Speaker 1: was sort of the mindset if you can't beat them,
Speaker 1: to join them and whatever you think is bad on
Speaker 1: the other side. But if I think it's working, then
Speaker 1: suddenly the other side says, you know, and look, I'm
Speaker 1: coming in from a point of view that I believe
Speaker 1: it's the left responding to the right. I know there
Speaker 1: are some of my conservative friends out there, and says, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: the right was only reacting to the left. Enough. Right,
Speaker 1: that's not the point here we are, And I do
Speaker 1: worry we are over that each radicalizing moment only radicalizes
Speaker 1: the other side just as much. And this is a
Speaker 1: disturbing situation. But I'm going to be this Virginia ag race,
Speaker 1: does it have a trickle up effect. It's interesting Donald
Speaker 1: Trump could have really weaponized it and tried to harm
Speaker 1: the top of the ticket. It was interesting that he
Speaker 1: chose not to. He doesn't seem to be that interested
Speaker 1: in helping Winston Earl Sears on this front. I think
Speaker 1: they are interested in helping me RS. So he is
Speaker 1: a bit more of I think, a bit more Trump
Speaker 1: friendly than she's been. But it's going to be interesting
Speaker 1: to see, is there do you what do voters do
Speaker 1: on this one? If you were not a fan of
Speaker 1: the right, your center left, you're uncomfortable with what Jay
Speaker 1: Jones did, maybe you don't like me? RS? What do
Speaker 1: you do?
Speaker 2: Do you skip the race? It's going to be I'm
Speaker 2: going to be very coo. Will there be fall out?
Speaker 2: Fall off? Voter?
Speaker 1: Is polarization now so strong that this stuff doesn't matter?
Speaker 1: We're going to find out that answer in thirty days.
Speaker 1: But the substance of this is disturbing and it's disqualifying.
Speaker 1: And I will say I am surprised that that, And
Speaker 1: again maybe I shouldn't be surprised because we're living in
Speaker 1: such polarized times, but it's surprising to me that that
Speaker 1: no major Democrats are calling for Jones to get out. Look,
Speaker 1: it would be conceding race and just and that's what
Speaker 1: you have to just sort of realize what's happening here
Speaker 1: is that winning the race is more important than I'm
Speaker 1: more high right, that's American politics in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the time machine.
Speaker 1: It's the podcast time machine. As you know, this is
Speaker 1: my history lesson of the week. So it's all about
Speaker 1: finding important historical things that have happened in this So
Speaker 1: for this week, it was October sixth through the twelfth,
Speaker 1: and so we're going to go back in the toodcast
Speaker 1: time machine. October eleventh, nineteen ninety one. It is the
Speaker 1: day that a woman named Anita Hill testified before the
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary Committee about being sexually harassed in the workplace
Speaker 1: by the a nominee for the Supreme Court named Judge
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas. It was a packed Senate Judiciary room. She
Speaker 1: was a young law professor at the moment, Anita Hill,
Speaker 1: She's sitting before an all male Senate Judiciary committee, not
Speaker 1: a single woman senator. I think at the time you
Speaker 1: had Barbara mcculsky in the Senate. Nancy Cassabam and I
Speaker 1: think that was it at the time. But there was
Speaker 1: no women on the Judiciary committee themselves, and she was
Speaker 1: prepared to testify under oath about her former boss, Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas for three days. The country stopped. This is a
Speaker 1: you know, so this is nineteen ninety one. This is
Speaker 1: peak cap This is sort of we just got through
Speaker 1: the Gulf War, which was peak cable television, and this
Speaker 1: was sort of right there right this was you know,
Speaker 1: this was and for about a five to six year period,
Speaker 1: you know, you had you had the Gulf War one,
Speaker 1: you had the Thomas hearings, and then we got to
Speaker 1: OJ Simpson in ninety four. But it was this was
Speaker 1: the sort of the peak of cable television. But this
Speaker 1: is before social media, this is before smartphones, before the
Speaker 1: me too movement. And I might now argue, and this
Speaker 1: is something I'd like you guys to ponder and I'd
Speaker 1: love to get your reacted that this is the Anita
Speaker 1: Hill testimony. Is is is consequential culturally into society as
Speaker 1: the Billy g King Bobby Riggs tennis match in the
Speaker 1: seventies when it when it came to gender equality and
Speaker 1: to at least the fight for gender equality on this front.
Speaker 1: But let me go back through a little bit. Because
Speaker 1: of the situation, what's amazing is that we even had
Speaker 1: an open Supreme Court seat. So third good Marshal, who
Speaker 1: was the first African American nominated the Supreme Court by
Speaker 1: Lyndon Johnson, he decided to retire in June of ninety
Speaker 1: one with a Republican president. But this tells you what
Speaker 1: the political climate.
Speaker 2: Was like back then.
Speaker 1: It didn't seem like a big deal. He had a
Speaker 1: Democratic Senate. By the way, this is the last Supreme
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas is the last Supreme Court justice nominated confirmed
Speaker 1: with a where the Senate and the White House are
Speaker 1: controlled by different parties. It was a Democratic controlled Senate
Speaker 1: and a Republican White House. So Marshall says he just
Speaker 1: doesn't think he can keep going, and he decides to
Speaker 1: retire in June of ninety one. So it meant that
Speaker 1: George HW. Bush forty one, had to make a decision.
Speaker 1: This was the lone African American and the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Now Bush had already successfully nominated and confirmed David Suitor
Speaker 1: to replace Justice Brennan. Suitor was already showing signs that
Speaker 1: he wasn't the conservative that John Soon Nunu, who was
Speaker 1: Bush's chief of staff at the time. This is Johnson U,
Speaker 1: senior former governor of New Hampshire, father of Chris Snunu
Speaker 1: and Johnny sun Nunu who have frequently talked about for
Speaker 1: New Hampshire politics. David Suitor was a New Hampshire guy
Speaker 1: and Snunu vouched for him. And you know, he was
Speaker 1: quickly already seen as not conservative enough for conservatives, so
Speaker 1: they weren't going to screw this up this time. They
Speaker 1: were going to find a conservative. And there was a
Speaker 1: young African American conservative that was being groomed. He had
Speaker 1: been fast truck. Clarence Thomas was on the d C circuit,
Speaker 1: which is the place that you fast track Supreme Court nominees.
Speaker 1: Forty three years old, very young at the time. He
Speaker 1: only had one year of judicial experiences, but he had
Speaker 1: a long resume working in both the Reagan and Bush administrations.
Speaker 1: EEOC is where he was working when Anita Hill ended
Speaker 1: up testifying about her time there, and it was it
Speaker 1: was during that time. I mean, this is sort of
Speaker 1: the irony right. Thomas was serving as chair of the
Speaker 1: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC. This is the agency that
Speaker 1: investigates workplace discribination. But there he was skeptical of affirmative
Speaker 1: action and he was already he was.
Speaker 2: She was showing he was a.
Speaker 1: He was much more conservative than David Souter, that was
Speaker 1: going to be clear. But he didn't have a huge
Speaker 1: paper trail. And that was the beginning of you know,
Speaker 1: that was sort of the beginning of this idea, find
Speaker 1: judicial nominees with very little paper trail. And this is now,
Speaker 1: of course, how all Supreme Court justices are fired. It's
Speaker 1: it's fast tracking, it's et cetera. So Thomas gets through
Speaker 1: his initial confirmation hearing, the first round of the hearings.
Speaker 1: They were in September. They were pretty low key, you know,
Speaker 1: he did what most Supreme Court nominees do, said little.
Speaker 1: When asked about Roe v. Wade, he claimed he'd never
Speaker 1: really discussed it. Obviously people didn't believe that, but he
Speaker 1: was not going to answer the question. And this was
Speaker 1: sort of this became the norm for Supreme Court justice
Speaker 1: nominees going forward. But his was a This was a
Speaker 1: democratic led committee. The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: at the time was a Delaware senator named Joseph Arbiden.
Speaker 1: The committee deadlock seven to seven, believe it or not.
Speaker 1: On the first round of the hearings, all six Republicans
Speaker 1: and one Democrat, Dennis Deaconcini of Arizona at the time,
Speaker 1: voted yes on the nomination. Now Deaconcini would eventually vote
Speaker 1: no on Thomas's nomination. He claimed that he voted yes
Speaker 1: simply to allow the committee to be deadlocked so that
Speaker 1: it could go to the floor of the Senate. In
Speaker 1: a deadlock, you can vote the committee after they deadlocked
Speaker 1: whether to recommend Thomas for the job, to the floor
Speaker 1: of the Senate. With the deadlock, then they vote to
Speaker 1: let the Senate decide. And then came the new story.
Speaker 1: In October sixth, two reporters, Nina Totenberg over at MPR
Speaker 1: Tim Phelps over at Newsday broke the bombshell allegations from
Speaker 1: Anita Hill. This happened on October sixth, so things move fast,
Speaker 1: these allegations. She shared her story with the FBI weeks earlier.
Speaker 1: This was not This was something that was already happening,
Speaker 1: and it finally finally sort of made it into the
Speaker 1: public record. So quickly the Senate had to reopen hearings
Speaker 1: October eleventh, nineteen ninety one. The entire worldwide, nobody was
Speaker 1: watching the Thomas hearings the first time. Everybody watched the
Speaker 1: Thomas hearings the second time. Clarence Thomas forty three, Nita Hill,
Speaker 1: thirty five years old. She was soft spoken, she was deliberate.
Speaker 1: She was pretty nervous. You could see it. She testified
Speaker 1: that when she worked for Thomas at the Department of
Speaker 1: Education and later at EEOC, she claimed he made repeated
Speaker 1: sexual remarks, graphically talked about pornography, talked about body parts,
Speaker 1: and then of course one of the there were two
Speaker 1: sort of sticky viral things said during this hearing that
Speaker 1: that sort of became in the cultural lexicon for a while.
Speaker 1: One was pubic hair on my coke can, which Orne
Speaker 1: Hatch would argue was misremembered from The Exorcist, and then
Speaker 1: a Corno film that he supposedly described in the workplace
Speaker 1: called Long Dong Silver.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Hill said she followed Thomas. I mean, one of the
Speaker 1: things that made her made her some question her allegations
Speaker 1: is that if she didn't like working for him, she
Speaker 1: was uncomfortable, why did she follow him to another job.
Speaker 1: She said she followed Thomas from one job to another
Speaker 1: out of professional obligation and fear of retaliation, and when
Speaker 1: she was asked why she didn't come forward sooner, she
Speaker 1: simply said, I had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Speaker 1: And any woman that is at that time period, and
Speaker 1: it's really important. I think people understand that there was
Speaker 1: rhetorically talk of equal treatment of women in the workplace,
Speaker 1: but that didn't mean it was really happening. You know,
Speaker 1: my mother was worked in the seventies. The stories she
Speaker 1: would tell about the way men treated her in the workplace,
Speaker 1: We've all seen it. My wife's had her share of
Speaker 1: stories that she has shared with me over the years.
Speaker 1: This has been a you know, we can claim it's
Speaker 1: our grandfather's generation that were worse than our father's generation,
Speaker 1: that are worse than our generation, and that are worse.
Speaker 2: Than my son's tory, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: But the fact is it hasn't been equal, and in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety one it is. You ask any woman, yes,
Speaker 1: you had a lot to lose because these jobs there
Speaker 1: was always a woman a woman's seat. You know, there
Speaker 1: was this perception that there was only room for one
Speaker 1: woman in a managerial position.
Speaker 2: And so they just was it just was it? So?
Speaker 1: Yes, it was not surprising to women that they'd be like,
Speaker 1: you know, hey, I had a lot to lose here,
Speaker 1: and I was afraid. I think a lot of men
Speaker 1: did not understand that. You could say they chose to
Speaker 1: not understand it, but it was clear a lot of
Speaker 1: men didn't understand that. And she was grilled relentlessly. Arlen
Speaker 1: Specter accused her of lying or in hatch like I said,
Speaker 1: suggested that the pubic hair coke can was something she
Speaker 1: was remembering from the movie The Exorcist. Alan Simpson warned
Speaker 1: her that she'd face a campaign to destroy her reputation,
Speaker 1: and women were pissed. They were galvanized by this, understandably,
Speaker 1: but it was the first time that sexual harassment was
Speaker 1: really talked about publicly right there for everybody and everybody.
Speaker 2: Husbands and wives.
Speaker 1: Had uncomfortable conversations, brothers and sisters had uncomfortable A lot
Speaker 1: of men were being educated by women in their.
Speaker 2: Lives that hey, I believe in need a hill.
Speaker 1: That became the thing that women would I believe.
Speaker 2: In need a hill.
Speaker 1: Now, Thomas saved himself because he did sort of you know,
Speaker 1: what we now know is the Kavanaugh where you know,
Speaker 1: well Kavanaugh borrowed it from somebody, right, A lot of
Speaker 1: conservatives believe Robert Bork didn't fight hard enough when he
Speaker 1: was up for when he when his confirmation with the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court failed in eighty seven. So Thomas rebutted, and
Speaker 1: he was visibly angry. He called the hearings a high
Speaker 1: tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deigned
Speaker 1: to think for themselves. And look, there weren't many. There
Speaker 1: weren't any African Americans on that set of judiciary panel
Speaker 1: either alone women. And he made he made a lot
Speaker 1: of He went up there and made it, hey, I'm
Speaker 1: being attacked because I'm a conservative black man.
Speaker 2: And so race.
Speaker 1: So here we had gender and race and ideology all
Speaker 1: in this toxic political stud And look, the public wasn't
Speaker 1: in favor of Thomas's confirmation, and then after Thomas testified,
Speaker 1: it flipped. It was effective politically. So on October fifteenth,
Speaker 1: four days after she testifies, the Senate confirms Thomas fifty
Speaker 1: two to forty eight, a bipartisan vote. And again, Republican president,
Speaker 1: Democratic Senate, you had eleven Democrats voted with the Republicans
Speaker 1: to confirm Thomas. Most of them were in the South.
Speaker 1: Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, Rick Shelby and Alabama was a Democrat,
Speaker 1: then he would switch parties in ninety four, but this
Speaker 1: was ninety one. David Bourne of Oklahoma, John Brove of Louisiana,
Speaker 1: how Efflin of Alabama, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, Sam
Speaker 1: Nunn of Georgia, Terry Sandford of North Carolina. And then
Speaker 1: you'll said Alan Dixon and Harry Reid. So they were
Speaker 1: the s votes. Now, interestingly, two Republicans voted Noah Thomas.
Speaker 1: Two Republican senators at the time, Low Wyker of Connecticut
Speaker 1: who would later leave the Republican Party and win a
Speaker 1: governorship in Connecticut as an independent, and Jim Jefferts, a
Speaker 1: Republican for Ramont who would later leave the party, switch
Speaker 1: parties and give the Democrats fifty to fifty Senate control
Speaker 1: control of the Senate during the the second Bush term.
Speaker 1: At the time you did have those Southern senators. There
Speaker 1: were sort of two theories of the cases. Why did
Speaker 1: most of the Southern Democratic senators vote to confirm Thomas.
Speaker 1: One is a lot of them a lot of them
Speaker 1: thought that some of them thought there was a political
Speaker 1: thought out there that African Americans would be upset if
Speaker 1: they voted against putting another African American on the court,
Speaker 1: even though most African Americans were actually against the Thomas
Speaker 1: nomination more on political grounds, on ideological grounds. So there
Speaker 1: was a little bit of that. But the fact is
Speaker 1: these were all conservative Democrats, and many of them today
Speaker 1: could not get nominations. There were very much this is
Speaker 1: the Southern Conservative. There's sort of the last bastion of
Speaker 1: those few other footnotes on this. Anita Hill's never forgiven
Speaker 1: Joe Biden for how she was treated look Biden. Ever,
Speaker 1: Biden obviously held the hearing, he chaired the hearing, but
Speaker 1: she always felt that he didn't protect her very well.
Speaker 1: The way the hearings were held put her in vulnerable positions.
Speaker 1: When he ran for president the third time, he called.
Speaker 2: Her to apologize. She didn't.
Speaker 1: She didn't really consider it an apology. She said the following,
Speaker 1: I cannot be satisfied by simply saying I'm sorry for
Speaker 1: what happened to you. The harm was done to more
Speaker 1: than me, to the integrity of the process and to
Speaker 1: the confidence women could have in it. Biden went further
Speaker 1: in public when it was clear that Anita Hill hadn't
Speaker 1: really accepted his apology. He said, quote, I wish I
Speaker 1: could have done more to protect her and admitted that
Speaker 1: she paid a terrible price. But she still pretty pointed
Speaker 1: in her critique and that Biden's desire for bipartisan to
Speaker 1: Korma ninety one came at the expense she believes of
Speaker 1: justice and fairness to her. But look that those hearings,
Speaker 1: while he got confirmed, it triggered the first year of
Speaker 1: the woman In ninety two, you had women democratic nominees
Speaker 1: all over the country. More women were elected to the
Speaker 1: US Senate in that year than any year previous ever.
Speaker 1: And the slow march towards equality of gender equity in
Speaker 1: politics began after those hearings, and over time you have
Speaker 1: seen an increased number of women in politics to the
Speaker 1: point where you've had the state of Nevada had a
Speaker 1: majority of women in the legislature. More women than men
Speaker 1: were serving in the Nevada legislature.
Speaker 2: So it.
Speaker 1: Supercharged the power of Emily's List for about a fifteen
Speaker 1: year period. I mean, it really sort of got them
Speaker 1: the resources they needed to get more women to run
Speaker 1: for office. And like I said that nineteen ninety two
Speaker 1: Senate here Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer become the first
Speaker 1: two women elected to the US Senate in Californi. In
Speaker 1: the same year, there was a special election because of
Speaker 1: the Pete Wilson. Pete Wilson was a Senator and got
Speaker 1: elected governor, and there was there was a temporary Speinstein
Speaker 1: actually won a to your seat. When she won that seat.
Speaker 1: There you had Democratic women nominee who would lose. One
Speaker 1: would lose to Arlen Spector, a woman named lynn Yeakel,
Speaker 1: but a nominee in Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, Geraldine Ferraro running for
Speaker 1: the Senate in New York. So it was I remember
Speaker 1: that Democratic convention that was a huge statement. Barbara Boxer
Speaker 1: in particular would say she probably wouldn't have run for
Speaker 1: the Senate had it not been for the Anita Hill hearings.
Speaker 1: So it really did supercharge a generation of women to
Speaker 1: go into politics. It really empowered Emily's List. And it's
Speaker 1: just a consequential, just extraordinarily consequential moment, and they're still
Speaker 1: reverb today and with when it comes to gender equity,
Speaker 1: it's always two steps forward, one step back, And maybe
Speaker 1: I'm saying that from a male perspective. I think my
Speaker 1: wife would sometimes say it's three steps forward, two and
Speaker 1: a half steps back. She will acknowledge there's incremental progress,
Speaker 1: but it's it's not the leaps in the bounds that
Speaker 1: I think that that many women thought we would be
Speaker 1: be at by now considering what happened in October ninety one.
Speaker 1: But I do think the Anita Hill hearings, they're that
Speaker 1: there's still incredibly consequential. But you know, one other footnote
Speaker 1: on that. So Third Good Marshal. You know, these days,
Speaker 1: right with the there's still some there's still some frustration
Speaker 1: on the left that Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't retire while
Speaker 1: there was a Democratic president while Obama was president to
Speaker 1: guarantee that her seat. With the other way, there was
Speaker 1: none of that conversation around Thirdgod Marshal. Ironically, he would
Speaker 1: end up dying four days after Bill Clinton took the
Speaker 1: oath of office nineteen ninety three. All right, there's your podcast,
Speaker 1: time machine. Now I'm gonna do a couple of I'm
Speaker 1: gonna sneak in two questions. I've gone a long today
Speaker 1: because I'm gonna do my little football update as well,
Speaker 1: so let me get.
Speaker 2: My questions here, ask Chuck.
Speaker 1: All right, this comes from Dan. He says, Hey, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I have a simple question with Secretary of heggsas Quantico
Speaker 1: speech the first step towards a presidential campaign. Keep up
Speaker 1: the good work, you know, Dan. The answer is yes,
Speaker 1: he definitely. It is my understanding that he does think
Speaker 1: he's running for president.
Speaker 2: He has had visions of this. I just I will
Speaker 2: tell you if you're just looking for.
Speaker 1: Car crash type of campaign to watch, JD Vance, Pete
Speaker 1: haig Seth, Bobby Kennedy, Tulsea Gabbard, Rand Paul at your
Speaker 1: Republican primary right now, maybe Glenn Youngkin. But just think
Speaker 1: about that hag Seth. It's I think you're going to see.
Speaker 1: But but I, in all seriousness, I was talking with
Speaker 1: some uh, some pretty wired conservatives that are kind of
Speaker 1: MAGA adjacent, and there's definitely a growing let's just say,
Speaker 1: Vance world is looking a little side eye at Hagseeth.
Speaker 1: I you know, I kind of think that's laughable. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think hag Seth is just isn't going to go anywhere.
Speaker 1: I don't think there would even be a ton of
Speaker 1: military support for him. I really don't. I think there's
Speaker 1: I think that he's just not I mean, he's proven
Speaker 1: to be even more unqualif fight for this job, then
Speaker 1: folks anticipated. But hey, this is the Donald Trump effect, right,
Speaker 1: A lot of people now think, hey, why not me?
Speaker 1: I'm looking at you, Paul fine baumb for you a Senate.
Speaker 1: I do think this is the Trump effect where it
Speaker 1: just made everybody think, Hey, I got a closet full
Speaker 1: of skeletons. It doesn't matter, does it. I can go viral.
Speaker 1: I've got this money person or this constituency or this quirkiness,
Speaker 1: And so what if I lose, I'll make money on
Speaker 1: the speaking circuit, or I'll make money being a podcaster.
Speaker 1: By the way, I wouldn't rule out Howard Lucknick running.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think I think he's gotten the bug.
Speaker 1: I think his ego is just inflating as we go.
Speaker 1: So it could be quite this sort of maga knife fight,
Speaker 1: which maybe how Glenn Youngkin ends.
Speaker 2: Up the nominee.
Speaker 1: Anyway, Austin from Austin, I've had him before. Hey, since
Speaker 1: I like that I've been wrestling with how often we've
Speaker 1: bent the constitution or democratic principles in the name of
Speaker 1: saving the country, the idea that the ends justify the
Speaker 1: means in an emergency. It feels like each time we do,
Speaker 1: we lose legitimacy, even when it's done by good people.
Speaker 1: History may vindicate Lincoln or FDR, but it still raises
Speaker 1: a question if we can sidestep our principles, what do
Speaker 1: they really mean? I'd love your take. Are there are
Speaker 1: these ideals too rigid? Or are they the very thing
Speaker 1: holding it all together? Look, I mean you're I feel
Speaker 1: like I'm we're each preaching to each other on this right.
Speaker 1: I think when you governed by ends, justify the means.
Speaker 1: You know, there's never I was really disturbed right when
Speaker 1: it was a Senator Cynthia Lummas who says, I'm a
Speaker 1: First Amendment person, but sometimes you've got to suspend them. No,
Speaker 1: there's no sometimes, right, the Bill of Rights is the
Speaker 1: Bill of rights? You know, there is no sometimes the
Speaker 1: Constitution is there? There is no sometimes? And you know
Speaker 1: this is I continue to believe that in the next
Speaker 1: ten years we are going to see more folks, more
Speaker 1: serious reformers, left right and center, pushing for a constitutional
Speaker 1: convention realizing that we got to put we got to
Speaker 1: put more of these rules in the constitution, not less.
Speaker 1: We got to probably put some of these norms that
Speaker 1: we thought everybody was going to bide by and make
Speaker 1: them constitutional amendments. And we've if there is going to
Speaker 1: be bending, then propose an amendment. Don't bend it, right,
Speaker 1: propose an amendment, and let's see if if, if, this
Speaker 1: is the way we have it. But I think we
Speaker 1: need a good civics lesson on the Constitution, a good
Speaker 1: reminder that that's that's our rule book, and that's you know,
Speaker 1: there is no suspending or bending or any of those things.
Speaker 1: And then when you start to do it, you're you're
Speaker 1: only rationalizing your political opponents to do the same thing.
Speaker 1: And when we go about this and again it goes back,
Speaker 1: our incentives are horrible. So you know, ultimately, I do
Speaker 1: think this begins with electoral reform. If we're tired of
Speaker 1: these horrible decisions being made by ideologues, then we have
Speaker 1: to change the incentives for the electorate, change the incentives
Speaker 1: for politicians so they're not so ideologically rigid when they govern.
Speaker 1: Right now, they get away with it because they have
Speaker 1: found the voters that want them to. If we can
Speaker 1: have more voters involved in this process of who decides
Speaker 1: who's our leaders, because right now we don't. We need
Speaker 1: more voters involved in these decisions, not less. And until
Speaker 1: we get more voters involved with the decisions of electing
Speaker 1: our leaders, we're going to have more and more of
Speaker 1: this and justifies the means thwarting of the Constitution.
Speaker 2: All right, I'm going to give my quick little college
Speaker 2: football update. So I am.
Speaker 1: If I was just doing University of Miami football talk,
Speaker 1: I'd say, boy, the system really hates Miami. What more
Speaker 1: does Miami have to do to prove they're the number
Speaker 1: one team in the country? Right, They've easily now have
Speaker 1: the best resume of anybody out there. The resume is
Speaker 1: better than Oregon's, right, Penn State losing the UCLA. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the people that Miami's beaten have gone on to beat
Speaker 1: good teams. Florida beats Texas, Notre Dame as beaten Boise State.
Speaker 1: Let's see what Florida does against Texas, A and m
Speaker 1: for what it's worth. So you know, but I'm I'm
Speaker 1: personally as a fan, I don't want Miami rank number
Speaker 1: one yet.
Speaker 2: I want to be number one at the end of
Speaker 2: the season.
Speaker 1: I don't give a damn about now, I get a
Speaker 1: little The only thing I get a little nervous about
Speaker 1: with Miami is the ability to close out these games.
Speaker 1: I feel like we overthink everything gets It's like, come on,
Speaker 1: coach Crystal Ball, let's you know, let's uh, we need
Speaker 1: a better four minute offense. We need a better six
Speaker 1: minute offense. We need a few more you know. It
Speaker 1: was it was a weird set of play calls there
Speaker 1: when we were trying to not have to give the
Speaker 1: ball back to Florida State in that fourth quarter.
Speaker 2: So I am.
Speaker 1: Still slightly nervous that there is a dumb game that
Speaker 1: we're going to lose playing this game of sort of
Speaker 1: just trying to run out the clock so I might,
Speaker 1: you know, and you know, while the remainder of our
Speaker 1: schedule is not as hard as our first five games,
Speaker 1: So a.
Speaker 2: Couple of trap.
Speaker 1: Games in there that I'm nervous about. Louisville and on
Speaker 1: a Friday night, at least it's in Miami. That comes
Speaker 1: up in two weeks SMU at SMU and November first,
Speaker 1: that's a big deal to SMU. That's a home game
Speaker 1: that's a night game that could be really wild for them. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then I hate playing Pitt. You never know what
Speaker 1: you gotta get Pitt kick my button betting. This week
Speaker 1: they bench a quarterback, start a true freshmen, and they're better.
Speaker 1: So but I have to tell you, I feel pretty
Speaker 1: good about my Hurricanes, and I just hope they get
Speaker 1: it chance to prove it in the playoff and let's
Speaker 1: see what they do.
Speaker 2: They have all of the elements. Ruben Bain.
Speaker 1: When I'm watching the game live, I watch Ruben Bain.
Speaker 1: He's my favorite player to watch. The man is he.
Speaker 1: I think Rubin Bain is to these Hurricanes what Ed
Speaker 1: Reid was to the last great Marian Hurricane team and
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and one. Yes, I have to
Speaker 1: go back twenty four years to have a great Marian
Speaker 1: Hurricane team. But he is, he's he just he's relentless,
Speaker 1: He's never quitting. He he is.
Speaker 2: I may get.
Speaker 1: Nervous where for some reason, Ruben Banin's not gonna let
Speaker 1: us lose a game. He's just not gonna let it happen.
Speaker 1: And then there's just so many playmakers on offense. Beck's
Speaker 1: getting better every week. He really is I've been cautiously skeptical,
Speaker 1: optimistically skeptical. I'm losing more skepticism all the time. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe I'd be a great quarterback if I had the
Speaker 1: time he has behind that amazing offensive line. But the
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is Mini got these playmakers he's
Speaker 1: getting in their hands. A four touchdown game is afore
Speaker 1: against Florida State on the road. It's Heisman moment that
Speaker 1: I might argue ruben Bain for Heisman, and I have
Speaker 1: a feeling if Miami had.
Speaker 2: My only concern for the ruben Bain.
Speaker 1: Heisman campaign is he's not gonna be on TV enough
Speaker 1: in those primetime spots because we don't have a great
Speaker 1: end of the you know now, and the vote is
Speaker 1: before the playoff, right, but it is, it is. I
Speaker 1: sure hope he gets invited to New York. Put it
Speaker 1: that way. I think the guy's been that dominant and
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear he's going.
Speaker 2: To be a top five pick.
Speaker 1: And if no quarterback, you know, we know, the quarterbacks
Speaker 1: always end up going, you know, unless it's a team,
Speaker 1: you know, unless somehow the Giants end up with the
Speaker 1: number one overall pick and they're happy with Dart but
Speaker 1: U Ruben Bay is going to be something else. Ruben
Speaker 1: bain Is is Miles Garrett, Jared Burst, Michael Parsons. He's
Speaker 1: going to have that kind of impact when he gets
Speaker 1: to the when he gets to the NFL. Fun little idea.
Speaker 1: I think Penn State and Clemson out of trade coaches
Speaker 1: diabos were not as welcome at Clemson. James Franklin's were
Speaker 1: not as welcome at Penn State. These are two very
Speaker 1: good coaches who need a change of scenery. These are
Speaker 1: high level coaches. I don't think that they should be
Speaker 1: you know, look, Franklin just it's an unexplainable loss. It
Speaker 1: reminds me of the last six years of Miami seasons,
Speaker 1: where where when we lost one game, it immediately we
Speaker 1: lost a second game, right that that was the sort
Speaker 1: of for whatever the previous coaching staffs just couldn't seem
Speaker 1: to figure out how to get over losses, and one
Speaker 1: loss created a second and that's what this one felt.
Speaker 2: Like with there.
Speaker 1: But I get it the money people that there's going
Speaker 1: to be sort of there's only there's only so much time,
Speaker 1: But just trade, I think, you know, look, I Bower,
Speaker 1: Florida looking for a coach I go get James Franklin,
Speaker 1: I'd go look at Thabo Sweeney. I think both of
Speaker 1: them might benefit from a change of scenery. Just something
Speaker 1: to think about. But I'm thinking about that. I have
Speaker 1: a complain about bad analytics. In the Iowa State Cincinnati game,
Speaker 1: it was Cincinnati, they were up, they were up thirty
Speaker 1: one twenty two. They score a touchdown, and they decide
Speaker 1: not to go for two, but kick the extra point
Speaker 1: to go up thirty eight twenty two and go up sixteen.
Speaker 1: I was like screaming for them. Now I had Cincinnati
Speaker 1: on the money line. I just wanted them to win,
Speaker 1: but I was screaming for them, go for two, go up.
Speaker 1: If you get it, you're up seventeen. You're up three scores.
Speaker 1: If you miss it, you're still up fifteen. They still
Speaker 1: got to get at least one two point conversion. You're
Speaker 1: still up two scores. But if it's sixteen, you know
Speaker 1: it's two scores. The difference in in fifteen and sixteen
Speaker 1: at that point is nothing, but the difference between fifth,
Speaker 1: sixteen and seventeen is everything anyway. And Iowa States just
Speaker 1: the type of team that and sure enough got to
Speaker 1: thirty eight thirty and it shouldn't have been. There could
Speaker 1: have been thirty nine to thirty and it wouldn't have mattered.
Speaker 1: If they got the ball back one more time, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't have had a chance to tie the game anyway,
Speaker 1: just I was watching that game while waiting for the
Speaker 1: Ford State game, and I wanted that out there, big bummer.
Speaker 1: I want a quick, big bummer for the University of Maryland.
Speaker 1: I'm always hopeful that the DMV here will become more
Speaker 1: excited about college football. And it only happens if Maryland
Speaker 1: can be sustainably good, or if UVA or Virginia Tech
Speaker 1: gets good again. And while UVA is playing the part,
Speaker 1: and maybe there's a Miami UVA ACC title game in
Speaker 1: our future. Maryland Maryland again, they blew a twenty point lead,
Speaker 1: lose to Washington, and now they're a meme man Maryland.
Speaker 1: This is like the umpteenth time they start out undefeated
Speaker 1: in September. Literally the calendar changes to October, and like
Speaker 1: the government, they shut down. It's a bummer on Maryland
Speaker 1: because I got a lot of Maryland friends who swear
Speaker 1: Maryland could be a good college football program, if only
Speaker 1: so another fun week. I am not traveling to the
Speaker 1: next Miami game, as tempting as it might be, but
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit exhausted. I'm taking a couple of
Speaker 1: week break, but i still got a couple more on
Speaker 1: the calendar. I'm going to SMU, going to homecoming for Syracuse.
Speaker 1: Might sneak in one more. We'll see you, know, this
Speaker 1: middle aged guy and these little puddle jumpers. I'll admit
Speaker 1: I'm getting a little bit attired, So with that, I'm
Speaker 1: going to sneak in some rest. I'll see you in
Speaker 1: about forty eight hours until we upload again.