Speaker 1: Well as many of my listeners. Note, if I were
Speaker 1: running a newsroom, a national newsroom, and said I needed
Speaker 1: to open a bureau on the midterms and have a
Speaker 1: bureau that was just focused on how the midterms were
Speaker 1: going to go, what were the most important races, I
Speaker 1: would be in one state and one state only, and
Speaker 1: it is the state of Michigan. Whether it's the governor's race,
Speaker 1: the senate race. I think a lot of our political confrontations,
Speaker 1: whether it's left and right, progressive, centrist, a fight on
Speaker 1: the right between the right, independence, you name it. Michigan's
Speaker 1: got it all. So you know I'm going to over
Speaker 1: index on all things Michigan. Joining me today is one
Speaker 1: of the candidates in the senate race. It is a candidate.
Speaker 1: Then in my conversation with Ron Fournier, who is a
Speaker 1: Michigan native, he was screaming from the rooftops, don't overlook
Speaker 1: this candidate. The candidate's name is Abdul Lsi ed he
Speaker 1: joins me. Now, Abdul, nice to meet you virtually here
Speaker 1: and welcome to the podcast, Chuck.
Speaker 2: It is a privilege, in an honor to be with you.
Speaker 2: Grateful to you, and also if you had that Bureau
Speaker 2: in Michigan, you would experience the greatest fall that America
Speaker 2: has to offer, not just because you get to watch
Speaker 2: my Wolverines, yeah play in the Big House from time
Speaker 2: to time. But you know, y'all in Miami don't have
Speaker 2: a bad team either.
Speaker 1: No, it's the it's the you know, it's U M
Speaker 1: versus you of M. As as I've learned over the years,
Speaker 1: you've run for office before. But and look, your people
Speaker 1: may not know your background a physician, You're an epidemiologist,
Speaker 1: You've worked in public health, you've worked in academia. And
Speaker 1: I guess I'm going to say this. Look, you're you know,
Speaker 1: you're you're in your early forties. Why a career in
Speaker 1: politics now?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 1: And I say career? You know, let's let you've run twice,
Speaker 1: so the career is? Why politics? Now? Why give me
Speaker 1: your your origin story as to what got you in
Speaker 1: to this side of the arena.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I don't think of it as a
Speaker 3: career per se.
Speaker 2: I grew up wanting to be a doctor, and that's
Speaker 2: in large part because of my own experiences growing up.
Speaker 2: My folks immigrated to this country from Egypt, and I
Speaker 2: was raised by my father who's an Egyptian immigrant, and
Speaker 2: my stepmom, Jackie, who's a daughter of the American Revolution
Speaker 2: from the middle of the state of Michigan. And I
Speaker 2: would get, you know, sent off to Egypt often in
Speaker 2: the summers, where I'd hang out with my grandmother.
Speaker 3: Why is this most intelligent person I ever met, who
Speaker 3: never got to go to school.
Speaker 2: She raised six kids of eight to whom she gave
Speaker 2: birth to, having died before the age of one. I
Speaker 2: would go fifteen hours and in that time I am
Speaker 2: the language for it then, but I would travel about
Speaker 2: ten years difference in life expectancy. I grew up just
Speaker 2: outside of the city Detroit. I didn't have to go
Speaker 2: fifteen hours. I could go fifteen minutes into the city
Speaker 2: and travel the same ten year life expectancy gap. And
Speaker 2: I wanted to do something about that. Growing up, my
Speaker 2: all my mentors always told me, someday you're going to
Speaker 2: run for office. I was like, that's nuts. I don't
Speaker 2: know if you all have seen my name, Abdulah is
Speaker 2: just like a truncated version of my whole first name,
Speaker 2: which has got sounds in it that come out.
Speaker 3: Of parts of people's throats.
Speaker 2: They don't know they have so like that's off limits
Speaker 2: for me, like so much so that when I graduated
Speaker 2: from Michigan in two thousand and seven, I was the
Speaker 2: senior speaker alongside President Bill Clinton, and he comes up
Speaker 2: to me after the speech. He's like, look, you got
Speaker 2: a gift for communicating. Maybe he'll run for office a
Speaker 2: limits or president. I don't if you saw my name,
Speaker 2: but like there are eleven letters in my name, and
Speaker 2: that's just the first.
Speaker 1: Have you met Barack Ussain Obama? Yes, A lot of people,
Speaker 1: including this guy here, who thought, ooh, Hussein, is that
Speaker 1: going to be an electable I was wondering if he
Speaker 1: could get elected to the Senate. So I think he
Speaker 1: disproved this. No, So that's exactly it. This was seven
Speaker 1: in o way.
Speaker 2: I got to watch him run for and win the presidency,
Speaker 2: and so you know, I went on had my career
Speaker 2: in medicine, only to realize that the things that were
Speaker 2: making people sick had a lot to do with access
Speaker 2: to some very basic things. Do you get to drink
Speaker 2: clean water, breathe clean air, A forge your groceries, which
Speaker 2: led me to career in public health. I got to
Speaker 2: rebuild Detroit's health department, got to lead Wayne County's Department
Speaker 2: of Health Human Veterans Services. Across my work, we did
Speaker 2: everything from put glasses on tens of thousands of kids' faces,
Speaker 2: take on some of the biggest corporate ruters in our state,
Speaker 2: erase upwards of seven hundred million dollars in medical debt
Speaker 2: for three hundred thousand people, and over and over again,
Speaker 2: you start to come up against the hard issues of politics,
Speaker 2: the decisions that policymakers make that too often put the
Speaker 2: kinds of kids that I was trying to serve behind.
Speaker 2: And so for me, a lot of this work is
Speaker 2: about trying to lead in politics that centers the people
Speaker 2: that we say we care the most about, which is
Speaker 2: our children. It doesn't matter who their parents are, what
Speaker 2: they do for work, what side of the tracks they
Speaker 2: grew up on. I think we want in America where
Speaker 2: every single kid has the best shot at a dignified life,
Speaker 2: And for me, that's personal right. I got to have
Speaker 2: these amazing opportunities that kids growing up just fifteen minutes
Speaker 2: away from me did not get to have, and I
Speaker 2: think America would be a better place if every kid
Speaker 2: got those same opportunities, and that we build our government
Speaker 2: around them, And so for me, this run for office
Speaker 2: is about trying to have the conversation that I think
Speaker 2: sits at the core of politics, who are we and
Speaker 2: who do we want to be around centering those folks
Speaker 2: in the kind of public policy that would dignify them.
Speaker 1: Look, I mean, I think it's pretty clear healthcare depends
Speaker 1: on your status, right how good your healthcare is, if
Speaker 1: you've got the ability to find specialists, if you've got
Speaker 1: the and sometimes that's sometimes it's financial, sometimes it's time,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's location, it's geography, it's all of these things.
Speaker 1: So obviously to me, I now understand why you're a
Speaker 1: Medicare for All persons, right, which is that this is
Speaker 1: about You've got to rip off the class issue when
Speaker 1: it comes to healthcare, because right now, your health outcome
Speaker 1: depends on your status on the economic ladder almost more
Speaker 1: so than it does race or gender. Is that is
Speaker 1: that fair? Yeah?
Speaker 3: And Chuck, I'll just you know, take it a step further.
Speaker 2: You and I might have the same insurance and I
Speaker 2: just know enough people that I could get access to different.
Speaker 1: Right, you make the right phone call, who know the
Speaker 1: right person? Look, I experienced this firsthand. My dad was
Speaker 1: on the liver transparent list and couldn't get on the list.
Speaker 1: And it turns out and I remember that same year
Speaker 1: when he was on it, and this is way back
Speaker 1: in the late eighties early nineties, like Mickey Mannel got
Speaker 1: three livers or two livers, if I'm not mistaken, and
Speaker 1: it was like, well, you know his doctor, and then
Speaker 1: you learn it's everybody's on the same list. But does
Speaker 1: your doctor know how to word it correctly? Sometimes it's
Speaker 1: not even the right call, it's do you know how
Speaker 1: to word it in such a way that it gets
Speaker 1: you higher on the list, right?
Speaker 2: And that issue, Chuck, is exactly it, right, Like we're
Speaker 2: talking about differences at the elite opportunities of having health
Speaker 2: insurance in the first place, but the reality of it
Speaker 2: is that there are a lot of people who don't
Speaker 2: have health insurance at all, a lot of folks who
Speaker 2: have second class or third class healthcare citizenship through something
Speaker 2: like Medicaid kind.
Speaker 1: Of stuff basically, And that's it, you know, right, Yeah, And.
Speaker 2: Then even if you have private insurance, experience of that
Speaker 2: is getting worse and worse. I mean the deductible, the
Speaker 2: median and deductible, right, which is the money you pay
Speaker 2: to get access to the healthcare you already thought you
Speaker 2: paid for in the quote unquote premium every two weeks
Speaker 2: or four weeks. That median deductible for a family of
Speaker 2: four is about four thousand dollars. So you're doing the
Speaker 2: math right. That average family of four makes about eighty
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. That means they are forgoing a paycheck to
Speaker 2: get access to the health insurance that every paycheck has
Speaker 2: been garnished to pay for in the first place. That's
Speaker 2: if you have private health insurance. I mean, the system
Speaker 2: is so broken and you ask yourself why, Well, it's
Speaker 2: because everyone's got to get paid, right. The health insurance
Speaker 2: company gets paid, the hospitals get paid, the pharmaceutical or
Speaker 2: the medical device.
Speaker 3: Companies get paid.
Speaker 2: And I just think that in America, we ought to
Speaker 2: have a system where getting paid isn't the operative goal.
Speaker 3: It's that you get health care to the patient who
Speaker 3: needs it.
Speaker 2: And I trained as a doctor to practice in a
Speaker 2: system where I could take care of patients, not get
Speaker 2: huge corporations paid.
Speaker 3: And we don't have to live this way. But it's
Speaker 3: getting worse and worse and harder and harder.
Speaker 1: Deal with this Look, I'm it's a straw man argument.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I ascribe to this argument. But you've
Speaker 1: been to medical school. You know the cost of medical school.
Speaker 1: That there's this belief that because it costs so much
Speaker 1: money to become a doctor, therefore doctors should expect to
Speaker 1: make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: And you know, if it was the doctor's pay that
Speaker 2: was the issue, we could have that conversation. That's not
Speaker 2: where the inflation in healthcare is. In fact, if you
Speaker 2: were to actually adjust a physician's pay for inflation between
Speaker 2: now in the nineteen nineties, it would be as if
Speaker 2: physicians took a collective thirty five percent pay cut. So
Speaker 2: it's not that physicians are getting paid so much. It's
Speaker 2: that health insurers and hospitals have colluded in a system
Speaker 2: where they can mutually gatekeep for each other to make
Speaker 2: sure that they extract more and more from us and
Speaker 2: more and more of the value in healthcare. So I
Speaker 2: don't want to Folks leave this conversation thinking, well, healthcare
Speaker 2: so expensive because those doctors get paid so much.
Speaker 3: That's just not what's happening.
Speaker 2: It's that those health insurance CEOs get paid so much.
Speaker 2: It's that those hospital CEOs get paid so much. It's
Speaker 2: that you have a system of mergers and acquisitions in
Speaker 2: healthcare that empower all of them to suppress people's wages.
Speaker 2: Just this weekend was at a nurse's strike in Flint, right,
Speaker 2: because they're not able to actually negotiate with their hospital
Speaker 2: because they're just so few players in town that if
Speaker 2: you're a nurse, you kind of got to work for
Speaker 2: one of two different corporations who collude together to suppress wages.
Speaker 2: It's the way that these really, really big players have
Speaker 2: come together.
Speaker 3: And this is the thing, Chuck is.
Speaker 2: I think people understand that, whether it's healthcare, or the
Speaker 2: price of keeping the lights on your utilities, or it's
Speaker 2: the price of a plane ticket, that you've got so
Speaker 2: few players, huge corporations that have been able to ineffect
Speaker 2: use their money to corrupt our political system to make
Speaker 2: sure that they end up getting paid more and you
Speaker 2: have to pay more for the things you buy from them,
Speaker 2: and you end up getting paid less for the work that.
Speaker 3: You have to do for them. That is the essential
Speaker 3: challenge of our lis.
Speaker 2: Some healthcare just happens to be the most obvious, most blatant,
Speaker 2: and frankly most corrupting and soddening version of all of it.
Speaker 1: Let me throw another strong man argument about the cost
Speaker 1: of healthcare with from the angle of the pharmaceutical companies
Speaker 1: that hey, it costs a lot of money to try
Speaker 1: to bring good prescription drugs to market. Therefore, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of drugs that fail and they've got to eat
Speaker 1: those costs. So when they have one that succeeds, it's
Speaker 1: got to pay for all the failures as well. What's reasonable?
Speaker 1: What should be what should be the expectation on that
Speaker 1: part of the cost of healthcare, because that's a contributor.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and Chuck, I'd say that's a fair argument.
Speaker 2: If the marketing budget at almost every fortune five hundred
Speaker 2: pharmaceutical company wasn't larger than the research and development budget,
Speaker 2: so you know, you know, fewer glossy adds on TV,
Speaker 2: more research and development, then maybe I could like squint
Speaker 2: and see the point. But the hard part is that
Speaker 2: in this country we pay exorbitantly more for pharmaceuticals than
Speaker 2: other countries, and the difference is that, frankly, our government
Speaker 2: is barred in most cases from being able to negotiate
Speaker 2: those prices downward. And if you look at how much
Speaker 2: their CEOs make, how much their c suite makes, how
Speaker 2: much they return in stock buybox. I worry right that
Speaker 2: too often the ways that these corporations work is about
Speaker 2: trying to play finance games around having to sell you
Speaker 2: pharmaceuticals that you don't have a choice about where you
Speaker 2: get them. And of course, you know, we can nerd
Speaker 2: out here a little bit, right, but we know that
Speaker 2: pharmaceuticals are right the classic, as we say, inelastic demand curve.
Speaker 2: That's a fancy economics way for saying there are things
Speaker 2: you kind of have to buy when you need them, right.
Speaker 2: So unfortunately, they've always played this game where they just
Speaker 2: raise their prices because they can, because you're going to
Speaker 2: buy those medications anyway, because it's literally life and death captive.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, it's a challenging situation that we
Speaker 2: have in this country because the fact that healthcare has
Speaker 2: become so expensive for so many people has actually undermined
Speaker 2: trust in medicine and public health or at large. It's
Speaker 2: the reason that the likes of an RFK junior can
Speaker 2: go light all of HHS on fire, because folks know
Speaker 2: that they couldn't get the medications they needed in the
Speaker 2: context of disease they knew they had, and then all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, we're inventing new vaccines for a disease
Speaker 2: that didn't.
Speaker 3: Exist a year ago, and we're saying, here, take these
Speaker 3: for free.
Speaker 2: And they're like, look, I know I need insulin, but
Speaker 2: nobody's ever come up to me and be like, here,
Speaker 2: take the insulin for free, right, And so it's kind
Speaker 2: of weird to me that you all don't give me
Speaker 2: the drugs for the diseases I know I have, when
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, you're giving me the vaccine for
Speaker 2: a disease I don't yet have that didn't exist a
Speaker 2: year ago. And it's the way that we've kept healthcare
Speaker 2: that people know they need out of their hands because
Speaker 2: the prices are so expensive. That has really undercut the
Speaker 2: knees out of the public health arguments that folks like
Speaker 2: me have been making for a very long time.
Speaker 3: And it's sad to watch a guy like RFK.
Speaker 2: Junior, who shouldn't have his hands on, frankly, anything having
Speaker 2: to do with science and health in this country now
Speaker 2: come and use that very premise to destroy so much
Speaker 2: of what's so many many.
Speaker 3: People have tried to build.
Speaker 1: Actually broaden that issue out a little bit in this respect,
Speaker 1: which is you were practicing medicine sort of at the
Speaker 1: arguably at the beginning stages of when doctor Internet would intervene. Right,
Speaker 1: your patient would come in and say, hey, I read this, doctor,
Speaker 1: what can you tell me about this? Right? And now,
Speaker 1: of course, doctor Internet is a gigantic problem, and it's
Speaker 1: so much bigger, and it's created this misinformation is sort
Speaker 1: of now it's becoming public policy and public health. But
Speaker 1: when did you first start to notice that this was
Speaker 1: that essentially, and I think you know what I mean
Speaker 1: when I say doctor Internet, right, where this was really
Speaker 1: starting to get into the way of healthcare.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I want to be clear, I took my
Speaker 2: career right as soon as I graduated med school into
Speaker 2: public health, so I didn't practice day to day. I'll
Speaker 2: tell you though, that the impact of the Internet, frankly,
Speaker 2: the impact of algorithmic amplification of of health information, I think,
Speaker 2: really started to take hold in the early twenty tents.
Speaker 3: I mean, you had the advent of Facebook.
Speaker 2: I remember being one of the first ten thousand people
Speaker 2: on Facebook when it came to my university my freshman year, right.
Speaker 2: And then that when I graduated college, went mobile on
Speaker 2: the new invention called the iPhone, and I think at
Speaker 2: that point the Internet company started to realize that they
Speaker 2: could sustain your attention on that device by feeding you
Speaker 2: things they knew would create some sort of emotional response.
Speaker 2: And health information is one of those things, because of course,
Speaker 2: you want to keep yourself super healthy, and you know,
Speaker 2: it's kind of a broken system, and all of the
Speaker 2: exorbitant ways it's broken can wow and astound, and so
Speaker 2: this was bound to go viral on the internet when
Speaker 2: I think about you know, I graduated in med school
Speaker 2: in twenty fourteen, and I remember having conversations with patients
Speaker 2: whose care I was involved in as a medical student,
Speaker 2: and already they'd say, well, I googled my symptoms and
Speaker 2: here's what I found. But when I talked to my
Speaker 2: call in practice, they tell me that the real like,
Speaker 2: the moment that all of this started to really really
Speaker 2: take off, was in the early twenty twenties during the pandemic, right,
Speaker 2: And that was a moment where folks were really paying
Speaker 2: attention to health and healthcare because it was in the news.
Speaker 2: Folks felt like they had zero control over their circumstances,
Speaker 2: and that the powers that be didn't give them the
Speaker 2: kind of confidence that they wanted to be able to
Speaker 2: have the kind of control that they needed in this
Speaker 2: really scary moment. And I think it opened Pandora's box
Speaker 2: in a way where you had a profound platforming of
Speaker 2: folks like RFK Junior in ways that they hadn't had
Speaker 2: in the past.
Speaker 1: So talk to me about some ways to look this
Speaker 1: is a this is a crisis. I think it's a crisis.
Speaker 1: I'm shocked that there aren't more people alarmed at what's
Speaker 1: happening at the CDC. When I say more people inside
Speaker 1: the Republican Party sort of whatever's left of the non
Speaker 1: Trump wing of the party, I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: national security problem. This is a risk to our economy,
Speaker 1: let alone an actual risks to both young and old.
Speaker 1: Right that the ones that are most likely to fall
Speaker 1: victim to a virus or a disease that we had
Speaker 1: once IRAQ hated are those with weaker immune systems again,
Speaker 1: children or elderly. And you've been in the space of
Speaker 1: public health, you saw the distrust grow. Do you have
Speaker 1: good best practices that you think would help restore trust
Speaker 1: if you were put in charge of the CDC tomorrow.
Speaker 1: You know, you would have to work on trying to
Speaker 1: build trust. What does that look like? What are some
Speaker 1: good what are some good ideas that you've put into
Speaker 1: practice that that has helped at least in one on
Speaker 1: one conversation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll say a couple of things. Number one. You know,
Speaker 3: it's funny.
Speaker 2: I have two terminal degrees in health. I graduated in
Speaker 2: medical school. I did a PhD in public health. And
Speaker 2: if I walk up to people and say, well, as
Speaker 2: a double doctorate your doctor, doctor play to you, they
Speaker 2: consider and call you doctor doctor.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's actually not the play.
Speaker 2: Most often it's like, hey, look, I'm a father of
Speaker 2: a seven year old and a two year old. I
Speaker 2: also happen to have a medical degree in a PhD
Speaker 2: in public health, and I've worked as a health commissioner.
Speaker 2: But as a father, let me tell you what I
Speaker 2: was so excited to do when my kids turned one.
Speaker 3: Who's give them these vaccines? Why?
Speaker 2: Because I've seen what it looks like when somebody gets measles.
Speaker 2: I know what it looks like to see a kid
Speaker 2: struggling to breathe because they got the flu. And I
Speaker 2: don't hesitate to get my kids vaccinated. Now you do you,
Speaker 2: But let me just tell you what I did with
Speaker 2: the things that I know. I think that's Number one.
Speaker 2: We need to communicate as people before we communicate as experts,
Speaker 2: because the.
Speaker 1: Lead with doctor, doctor, They're literally not going to listen
Speaker 1: to you, Right, that's what you're concerned.
Speaker 2: Right. If I have to choose between doctor and dad,
Speaker 2: I'm going to pick dad every single time. Number Two,
Speaker 2: I think we need to recognize that there is no
Speaker 2: difference in the minds of most people between health care
Speaker 2: and public health. And I think people are really frustrated
Speaker 2: by health care, and that bleeds into whether or not
Speaker 2: they're willing to to trust public health. And I think
Speaker 2: we need to be very, very smart in public health
Speaker 2: about advocating for a health care system that gets people
Speaker 2: the medications they need when they need them, that does
Speaker 2: not cost them an arm and a leg. It is
Speaker 2: a crazy thing that in this country, if you get
Speaker 2: cancer two thirds of the time, you are going to
Speaker 2: end up in some sort of bankruptcy. That's a crazy thing.
Speaker 2: And I think that's a public health issue. And I
Speaker 2: think when people don't see us talking about the obvious
Speaker 2: things they have to deal with every single day. They're
Speaker 2: less likely to listen when we come to them in
Speaker 2: the moment of crisis and say, hey, we really need
Speaker 2: you to pay attention to us. They're going to say,
Speaker 2: where were you when I was struggling for my insulin?
Speaker 2: Where were you when my mom got sick with cancer
Speaker 2: and we lost our home over it? And I think
Speaker 2: we've got to be able to say we were right
Speaker 2: there and we were working on the problem. I think
Speaker 2: the third thing, though, is that I think we've got
Speaker 2: to really really.
Speaker 3: Get smart about the question of agency.
Speaker 2: And I think what makes the MAHA thing so exciting
Speaker 2: to people is the notion or not that you can
Speaker 2: control your health future.
Speaker 3: And their whole thing is right.
Speaker 2: I mean you've seen the videos, right, they don't want
Speaker 2: you to know, and you're like, why don't they want
Speaker 2: you to know? But like, also, what don't they want
Speaker 2: you to know? And you're always like, okay, I they
Speaker 2: don't want me to know it, like I should probably
Speaker 2: know this.
Speaker 3: And so there's this idea.
Speaker 2: That if you like you know protein max and you
Speaker 2: you fibermax and you know you take all the right peptides,
Speaker 2: even though there's no evidence for them, that you can
Speaker 2: buy yourself out of the uncertainty that comes with.
Speaker 3: Living in the world with respect to your health.
Speaker 2: And I think we need to be able to understand
Speaker 2: that instinct in this moment and recognize that what we're
Speaker 2: asking is for folks to be able to have agency
Speaker 2: through the collective effort that we put in to protect
Speaker 2: each other.
Speaker 1: Look, this is the challenge, you know, This challenge in
Speaker 1: health is similar to education.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: People want more personal choice in where they have they
Speaker 1: how to educate their kids. At the same time, they
Speaker 1: want to make sure if they choose the public schools
Speaker 1: that the public schools are amazing. Yet the more money
Speaker 1: you take out of the public schools to give people
Speaker 1: choice in their kids education ends up weakening the entire system.
Speaker 1: I think healthcare is a similar issue. This is one
Speaker 1: of those in theok this is the larger debate about
Speaker 1: you know, you know, when do you sort of act
Speaker 1: as a collective and when do you sort of act
Speaker 1: as an individual? Right? And what what is and if
Speaker 1: you can you can sell a collective if you're saving
Speaker 1: the individual right. But this is a tricky I mean,
Speaker 1: this gets it to sort of the large divide of
Speaker 1: large government small government.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: The old debates we used to have pre Trump with Trump, right,
Speaker 1: Trump wants strong, He doesn't want a small government if
Speaker 1: he you know, he wants an organization he gets to control.
Speaker 1: He wants a strong, the jackbooted government, right, and he
Speaker 1: wants to be in charge of all of it. But
Speaker 1: he doesn't want a small government. So we're not having
Speaker 1: that debate. But the remnants of that debate is why
Speaker 1: it's been so difficult to sell medicare for all politically. Right,
Speaker 1: it's the and it's the fear of losing the choice.
Speaker 1: It's not the cost. I've always I know cost is
Speaker 1: an I think cost is the excuse. I think the
Speaker 1: harder thing because you said something else really important that
Speaker 1: I think makes health care policy so hard politically, which
Speaker 1: is because we all use the system. We think we're experts, right,
Speaker 1: we are because our personal experience. We are experts at
Speaker 1: you know, my father's experience, you know your experience as
Speaker 1: a father with your kids. We're experts at those experiences.
Speaker 1: But we actually don't know anything else. But we think
Speaker 1: we know a lot, which is why politically this is
Speaker 1: such a difficult thing to sell.
Speaker 3: I'll say a couple of things on that. Right.
Speaker 2: On the education side, there actually is a zero sum
Speaker 2: invent min of money, right, like either the money goes
Speaker 2: in or it doesn't go in. But like when it
Speaker 2: comes to maximizing your own health, like I fiber Max,
Speaker 2: I protein Max, like I wear two health tractors. Right,
Speaker 2: And that's not to say that I think that I
Speaker 2: can protect myself from ever being exposed to the flu
Speaker 2: when I happen to be out and about in the world.
Speaker 3: So I value a public health care system that protects me.
Speaker 2: Out and about, while I also do the things that
Speaker 2: I can do to control my own destiny. And the
Speaker 2: reality of it is that I think one of the
Speaker 2: mistakes we make is we actually fall into this this
Speaker 2: thot this not that trap. It's not this or it's
Speaker 2: not this, not that it's this or that it's this
Speaker 2: and that. Right, you can actually do both things like yes,
Speaker 2: go work out. Yes, if you want to, you know,
Speaker 2: take so and so supplement, Like there might not be
Speaker 2: much evidence for it, but if you want to, like
Speaker 2: as long as it doesn't hurt you and you spend
Speaker 2: the money on it, go ahead. And also we can
Speaker 2: also get vaccinated to protect ourselves and others. And actually,
Speaker 2: we want to live in a world where other people
Speaker 2: are vaccinated because it decreases the probability that we're exposed.
Speaker 2: The other point I'll make just on Medicare for All
Speaker 2: what you made about choice, which I think is a
Speaker 2: really important one. I think the industry has played this
Speaker 2: radical game where they trick us about the choice we
Speaker 2: actually want. I don't think the choice we actually want
Speaker 2: is in October or November to choose between three plans
Speaker 2: that kind of look the same, that force us to
Speaker 2: play Russian roulette with the probability of getting sick based
Speaker 2: on how big or deductible is. I think the choice
Speaker 2: we want is to get to walk into whatever doctor
Speaker 2: we want to go see and to know that we're
Speaker 2: going to be able to get care.
Speaker 3: And the system that we have right now literally robs
Speaker 3: us of that choice.
Speaker 2: Right, the idea that you have in network versus out
Speaker 2: of network, or you could go and get a surgery
Speaker 2: and the anesthesiologist who is appointed to your case is
Speaker 2: now out of network, which means that you have to
Speaker 2: pay exorbitantly for a choice you didn't get to make.
Speaker 3: Right, that's not choice at all.
Speaker 2: What Medicare for All does is it's basically like healthcare citizenship.
Speaker 2: You now get to walk. It's like when you go
Speaker 2: to Disneyland, right you pay the entry price and then
Speaker 2: you get to pick which ride you want to ride.
Speaker 2: Not everybody's choice or experience of Disneyland is the same.
Speaker 2: Some of somebody rode Splash Mountain, somebody rode Thunder Mountain,
Speaker 2: somebody rode whatever else mountain there is in Disneyland nowadays.
Speaker 2: But you got to pick which one you got to
Speaker 2: go to because you got to walk in. And the
Speaker 2: problem right now is a lot of folks are locked
Speaker 2: out of that system. And it's like, depending upon what
Speaker 2: ticket you buy, you can only get to some rides
Speaker 2: but not other rides. And I just think that if
Speaker 2: the government said, hey, everybody gets a ticket, now you
Speaker 2: get to decide what experience you want. That's the choice
Speaker 2: we all want, and the system that we have right
Speaker 2: now is taking that away. And I think we need
Speaker 2: to be able to be very honest with people about
Speaker 2: what that choice is and how we actually get it.
Speaker 3: And I think Medicare for All would be critical to
Speaker 3: doing that.
Speaker 1: So would you have a semi private, hized healthcare system
Speaker 1: still under a Medicare for All insurance system?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Chuck, So under Medicare for all. Health insurance is public.
Speaker 2: Healthcare stays private, so private hospitals, private practices, private, whatever,
Speaker 2: right they're selling health care on the market. You just
Speaker 2: get to take your healthcare dollar that's given to you.
Speaker 2: Similarly like Medicare itself, right, that's given to you because
Speaker 2: because you literally paid your toxes into the system and
Speaker 2: you got access to it, you get to go and
Speaker 2: decide where you get to go. Right now, depending upon
Speaker 2: what health insurer you have, you are locked out of
Speaker 2: some providers and not others well, and therein lies the problem.
Speaker 1: Aren't you still going to have Aren't you still going
Speaker 1: to be locked out anyway? Isn't there still going to
Speaker 1: be a tiered system? You know, if you raise the floor,
Speaker 1: you're still going to have some that leave the system
Speaker 1: and go fully private. Or we've seen the the the
Speaker 1: advent of the concierge doctors and all of that business.
Speaker 1: Right now, I would argue that no matter what system
Speaker 1: you have, you're always going to have right that the
Speaker 1: elite is that super wealthy or might manufacture their own
Speaker 1: system anyway, no matter what system you create, because they
Speaker 1: have the resources to do it. But I feel like
Speaker 1: we're always chasing that that that would be a semi concern.
Speaker 3: Let me say a couple of things.
Speaker 2: I'm not as concerned about theoretical questions of super elite
Speaker 2: people opting out of the system and creating on system.
Speaker 2: I'm more concerned with whether or not everybody in our
Speaker 2: society can get access to the health care they need,
Speaker 2: and that their experience of it gives them quality healthcare
Speaker 2: and does not cost them a fortune and or potentially
Speaker 2: their financial livelihood. And I'll be honest with you in
Speaker 2: my articulation to Medicare for all, if your union or
Speaker 2: your employer has a bump over Medicare or whatever, we
Speaker 2: end up calling the public health insurance system, and you
Speaker 2: want to use that and you can get health care
Speaker 2: through that, Okay, that's okay to me. But I think
Speaker 2: right now is that we're using this false idea of
Speaker 2: choice to keep us from actually having the choices that
Speaker 2: we actually want. Because the vast majority of people right
Speaker 2: are not going to opt into some kind of service.
Speaker 2: They're going to want to go and see the doctor
Speaker 2: or the clinic of their choice, and under this system,
Speaker 2: you actually can't do that. Under the private health insurance system,
Speaker 2: you are relegated to what is quote unquote in network.
Speaker 2: And I want people to understand what in network means.
Speaker 2: It means that your health insurer has negotiated, negotiated a
Speaker 2: buddy price with that particular system so that the transaction,
Speaker 2: the financial transaction that happens, is beneficial to both parties.
Speaker 3: So if you want your choices curtailed by what's.
Speaker 2: Financially beneficial to your health insurer and the hospital that
Speaker 2: you're allowed to go to, Okay, that's the system we have.
Speaker 2: But if you want to be able to say, hey, look,
Speaker 2: I think that hospital or that clinician down the street
Speaker 2: would serve me better and I could get a better
Speaker 2: experience getting a colonoscopy or a better experience because I
Speaker 2: have to have gall bladder surgery, I want to go there.
Speaker 3: Medicare for All gives you the best shot at that.
Speaker 2: Now, if you're somebody in that system who wants to say, look,
Speaker 2: I'm going to take I'm gonna pay cash and go
Speaker 2: into concier source system, fine, if that's something somebody wants
Speaker 2: to do. But that's not a concern to me that
Speaker 2: theoretically that'll happen, right because under this system, the fact
Speaker 2: that the vast, vast, vast majority of American public will
Speaker 2: have access to this medicare based system. Means that the vast, vast,
Speaker 2: vast majority of healthcare providers are going to take it,
Speaker 2: which means that now you can kind of go anywhere
Speaker 2: and you're free to choose based on what the market
Speaker 2: was supposed to do. Better service, you get more patients,
Speaker 2: and you grow. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Speaker 1: This is why I love this format so much better
Speaker 1: than the old eight to ten minute interview. You know,
Speaker 1: we went We went twenty five minutes on this one topic.
Speaker 1: Because you need twenty five minutes to talk about it,
Speaker 1: it's not easy to get the nuance I want to move.
Speaker 1: I'm going to do a little more hardcore politics with
Speaker 1: you here a little bit. Let's talk about your twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen race for governor. What did you learn from it
Speaker 1: and why did you think you were a better candidate
Speaker 1: than Gretchen Wimmer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well I learned a lot from it. It was
Speaker 3: a really intense experience getting to.
Speaker 2: My understanding of politics at the time was sort of
Speaker 2: similar to what you would have in high school civics
Speaker 2: and based a lot in the advice I'd gotten from
Speaker 2: people who knew politics better than me. Trump had just
Speaker 2: been elected. I was aghast at what that said about
Speaker 2: our country. I happened to grow up in a home
Speaker 2: where I watched two people from very different walks of
Speaker 2: life build something that was special and greater than some
Speaker 2: of its parts.
Speaker 3: And I knew I had a story to tell about
Speaker 3: who we are.
Speaker 2: And I knew that I had the capacity to lead
Speaker 2: government agencies to do good work.
Speaker 3: I'd had that experience.
Speaker 2: I didn't appreciate just how important it is that people
Speaker 2: kind of know your name, and I didn't realize how
Speaker 2: powerful a lot of the party institutions would be when
Speaker 2: I ran at the time, right I knew that Governor
Speaker 2: Whitmer was going to be running than State Representative Whimmer
Speaker 2: was going to be running, And I knew I just
Speaker 2: had a different story to tell, and I knew I
Speaker 2: had executive experience government that was different than the experience
Speaker 2: that she brought to it. I learned a lot, though,
Speaker 2: about just how important those relationships in the party could be.
Speaker 2: And ultimately we had our primary. We finished second of three.
Speaker 2: We got out spent seven to one, but earned thirty
Speaker 2: percent of the votes, and coming back at it. I'll
Speaker 2: be honest with you, I didn't quite appreciate just how
Speaker 2: big a swing I had taken. I was thirty two,
Speaker 2: had never run for office in my life. I've had
Speaker 2: maybe two years of public There.
Speaker 1: Is a little bit of who do you think you are? Really?
Speaker 1: You're showing up here at thirty two. Some of us
Speaker 1: had to wait twenty years for this shot, right, And.
Speaker 2: This time around, I'm forty years old and I was
Speaker 2: living in my in law's basement. Now I have two
Speaker 2: kids in a mortgage. I've been around in public service
Speaker 2: now for about ten years, and folks know who I am.
Speaker 2: And the thing that folks always kind of say is that,
Speaker 2: like I do, what, You've been saying the same thing
Speaker 2: for as long as we've been hearing your name, and
Speaker 2: I have. And I think that consistency really matters, particularly
Speaker 2: when it is honest about the structures of our politics
Speaker 2: that have failed us. I said something in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: I think folks weren't quite ready to hear at the time,
Speaker 2: and it's that Donald Trump himself is not the disease
Speaker 2: of our politics. He's just the worst symptom of the disease,
Speaker 2: and the disease of our politics is the system that
Speaker 2: allows huge corporations to buy and sell access to politicians
Speaker 2: to help write legislation that rigs the rules for them
Speaker 2: and against us. And you see it happening in every
Speaker 2: part of our life. Donald Trump was very good at
Speaker 2: weaponizing the pain that comes out of that system into
Speaker 2: a certain nihilism about our politics generally.
Speaker 3: And that's exactly what he did.
Speaker 2: He did twice. And like I hate to say it, right,
Speaker 2: Like that's what happens with symptoms. When you treat a symtom,
Speaker 2: you don't treat the disease, it always comes back worse.
Speaker 2: And we're dealing with the worst case of these symptoms now.
Speaker 1: Well. And I always say this about the voter, which
Speaker 1: is to go back to a sort of a healthcare
Speaker 1: metaphor I used to use, which is, you know, why
Speaker 1: was somebody willing to take a risk on Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: Because they didn't want to take care of the disease.
Speaker 1: They wanted to cure it. They either die or cure it,
Speaker 1: so they'll take something that is extreme because they'd rather
Speaker 1: have either end it or total relief. I don't want
Speaker 1: to manage it. Right, And there was a time and
Speaker 1: I think the alternative to Trump was no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we can manage the disease. And it's like, you know,
Speaker 1: I think people get frustrated with that. Maybe I'm botching it.
Speaker 1: So if you if you want to check, if you
Speaker 1: want to go for it. Yeah, no, I think, I think.
Speaker 2: I think the metaphors is a very good one because
Speaker 2: the other side of it is it tells us a
Speaker 2: lot about what people were frustrated about Democrats, particularly now,
Speaker 2: if you have a choice between one doctor who says
Speaker 2: your pain is real, I see it, and I know
Speaker 2: how frustrating it is for you. Here's some crazy ass
Speaker 2: medication you could take versus someone who just says, I
Speaker 2: don't think your pain is real. I think, look look
Speaker 2: at look at the summary statistics of the economy.
Speaker 3: Of course, the economy is doing great under my leadership.
Speaker 3: Which one do you go to?
Speaker 2: And one of the first things they teach you in medicine,
Speaker 2: And you know, folks ask me, like, I don't practice
Speaker 2: medicine day today. What is the applicability of your work
Speaker 2: in medicine to politics?
Speaker 3: Is to things?
Speaker 2: I learned how to listen to people in profound pain,
Speaker 2: and I learned how to have a conversation with people
Speaker 2: in profound pain. And I'll tell you that's the thing
Speaker 2: about pain is that it leads to, especially when it's ignored,
Speaker 2: a certain level of cynicism about the possibility of cure
Speaker 2: at all. And so we've got to be really good
Speaker 2: at meeting people about where they are and what they
Speaker 2: tell us about their pain, and being honest about what's
Speaker 2: causing it and how we work together, because that's the
Speaker 2: other thing in medicine you have to do. It is like, look,
Speaker 2: I wish I could stap my fingers and make the
Speaker 2: pain go away. But here's what we actually can do
Speaker 2: within the bounds of what we understand. Here's what we
Speaker 2: can do together. And I promise you right, we're going
Speaker 2: to do all we can to make this feel better.
Speaker 2: And I think too often Democrats have said we're not
Speaker 2: actually like, let's be clear, our donors are part of
Speaker 2: the problem, and we don't want to face them down.
Speaker 2: So let's just ignore the pain and pretend like it
Speaker 2: doesn't exist, which is the best way never to get
Speaker 2: your patient to pay attention to you ever.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 1: Assess Governor Wetmer's governorship. Was it better than you thought
Speaker 1: it would be? Worse exactly what you thought. Is there
Speaker 1: something you would have done differently?
Speaker 2: I mean it's impossible to go back eight years and
Speaker 2: say I would have done things differently.
Speaker 3: Look, I think she did a great job leading through
Speaker 3: the pandemic.
Speaker 2: Obviously, I'm a physician, epidemiologist who ran a health department,
Speaker 2: so that probably would have been something I would have
Speaker 2: had a level of insight into that. It's unfair to
Speaker 2: ask anybody else in public service to have just given
Speaker 2: my training and experiences. But I think she was strong
Speaker 2: where she needed to be strong, she was reasonable where
Speaker 2: she needed to be reasonable, and I think that by
Speaker 2: and large, folks have been really grateful for her leadership.
Speaker 2: You know, no two people are the same. You're always
Speaker 2: going to deal with things differently. And you know, right now,
Speaker 2: to be honest in some respects, like when I look
Speaker 2: at this race and where we are in this moment,
Speaker 2: I kind of, you know, maybe this is just the
Speaker 2: person of faith in me, like it wasn't my time.
Speaker 3: It was my time for a reason.
Speaker 2: And I think about where we are today and the
Speaker 2: message that I have, and I'm bringing the same message
Speaker 2: I brought in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: I think the ability to actually govern on.
Speaker 2: The message that you bring is not just a function
Speaker 2: of that message, it's also a function of whether or
Speaker 2: not people recognize it and see the structural features as
Speaker 2: you talk about them around what needs to be done now.
Speaker 2: And so I just think that this is the right
Speaker 2: time for a candidate like me, and this is the
Speaker 2: right moment. I'll be honest with you, right, I see
Speaker 2: that everywhere I go. I've been to fifty some cities now, Chuck,
Speaker 2: I've probably done about one hundred public events, and no
Speaker 2: matter where I go, right, people are like, it just
Speaker 2: shouldn't be this hard, And they see in my candidacy
Speaker 2: both a message that is as urgent as the moment
Speaker 2: and also a consistency that demonstrates that when I tell
Speaker 2: you I'm going to show up and I'm going to
Speaker 2: take that fight on, You're going to believe that I'm
Speaker 2: going to show up and take that fight on, because
Speaker 2: you can't look at me and say, oh, that's a
Speaker 2: guy who doesn't believe what he's saying. So I think
Speaker 2: this is the right time for my leadership, and twenty
Speaker 2: eighteen just wasn't.
Speaker 1: What do you make of her governing style right now?
Speaker 1: Where she is work with Trump where she felt like
Speaker 1: it was in the best interest of Michigan. So I'll
Speaker 1: tell you this, Yeah, and and what is that line
Speaker 1: for you? Because even you get elected to the Senate,
Speaker 1: there's still going to be a Donald Trump in the
Speaker 1: White House, and that is a basic question. Do you
Speaker 1: try to work with him where you can or not.
Speaker 2: I will just say this, I've I've been around for
Speaker 2: forty years now, and I've learned that I have a
Speaker 2: bit more of an instinct for a fight than most people.
Speaker 2: So you know I am. I Am not going there
Speaker 2: to make peace. I'm going there to win the peace.
Speaker 2: And I recognize that winning the piece requires one to
Speaker 2: be actively engaged in the battle.
Speaker 1: So you're there to confront Trump, and Trump is on
Speaker 1: almost every level. So I'm let me. Let me put
Speaker 1: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but
Speaker 1: let me try and push back. If I have done this,
Speaker 1: maybe you think Governor Whitmer hasn't confronted him the way
Speaker 1: you would have in this moment.
Speaker 3: No, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've been in public service now long enough
Speaker 2: to know that you don't really know everything that's on
Speaker 2: another public servants plate.
Speaker 3: You just don't.
Speaker 2: And so dot I can't say that I understand the
Speaker 2: equities that she's trying to balance. And she's been governor
Speaker 2: long enough now that she both has the trust of
Speaker 2: the people she governs, and I believe that she's doing
Speaker 2: her best to try and manage the very difficult circumstance
Speaker 2: on her plate. I'm running for US Senate, and at
Speaker 2: the Senate it's a very different responsibility than as a governor. Right,
Speaker 2: as a governor, your responsibility is you know that you
Speaker 2: really do have to make sure budgets balance and that
Speaker 2: you're able to sustain the critical public services that your
Speaker 2: government offers.
Speaker 3: As a senator, I am one of one hundred offering
Speaker 3: critical legislative leadership and accountability to the executive branch. Accountability
Speaker 3: on Donald Trump. People in Michigan, if they elect me,
Speaker 3: they will be electing me to go and hold him
Speaker 3: accountable because he's clearly running in excess of any article
Speaker 3: to rights that the Constitution or privileges that the Constitution
Speaker 3: has given him. And so you know, I may be
Speaker 3: more purpose fit for this particular job in this particular
Speaker 3: time against this particular president, but I'm not getting sent
Speaker 3: out there to a peace I'm not getting out sent
Speaker 3: out there to tell RFK Junior he's doing a great job,
Speaker 3: because he's not. I'm not getting sent out there right
Speaker 3: to allow Donald Trump to continue to run rough shot
Speaker 3: over the Constitution. I will be sent by voters in
Speaker 3: the state of Michigan to reassert the power of the
Speaker 3: US Senate and the Congress more generally, and to hold
Speaker 3: Trump and the people he's appointed to key executive office
Speaker 3: roles accountable for their malfeasance. And I take that job
Speaker 3: really seriously.
Speaker 2: And it just may be that, like this was the
Speaker 2: right time for somebody like me, because I just don't
Speaker 2: back down on a fight. And I'll just tell you this, chuck,
Speaker 2: like you know, my name's been Abdul my whole life.
Speaker 2: You can imagine, and sure, data schools sorts of stuff.
Speaker 2: I've dealt with bullies, right, and I've learned that if
Speaker 2: you let the bully take your lunch money once, you're
Speaker 2: not going to eat lunch. So I made a hobbit
Speaker 2: right of never letting bullies take my lunch money.
Speaker 3: And so I think we need a lot more of
Speaker 3: that in DC. Right now.
Speaker 1: I find your primary opponents, the three of you. I
Speaker 1: think these are three really interesting candidates, all of you
Speaker 1: on your own are interesting, and I'm going to it
Speaker 1: almost feels like the story of the Three Bears, and
Speaker 1: it's different different porridges. Right, one's hot, one's cold, and
Speaker 1: I don't know which one of the voters are going
Speaker 1: to decide is just right. We don't know who Goldilocs
Speaker 1: is right now for the primary because you have one. Basically,
Speaker 1: you guys are making three different i'd argue more stylistic
Speaker 1: arguments versus. There's some substantive differences. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say there isn't. But my guess is that this feels
Speaker 1: more to me like a sentiment vote, you know, a
Speaker 1: fighter conciliator, right, whatever it is that you think the
Speaker 1: moment needs, is that how you see your two opponents?
Speaker 2: No, chack, I'm gonna push back on that question. Okay,
Speaker 2: I think there are some very serious substantive differences. I
Speaker 2: have never taken a dime of corporate money. I ran
Speaker 2: for governor in twenty eighteen. I didn't touch a dime
Speaker 2: of corporate money. Then you've got a candidate who is
Speaker 2: taking oodles and oodles of corporate money and another candidate
Speaker 2: who decided, you know, a couple of months ago that
Speaker 2: maybe this corporate money thing is really actually part of
Speaker 2: the problem. I think if that is not central to
Speaker 2: your assessment of what's what's at stake and what the
Speaker 2: issues are, there's a fundamentally different thesism that.
Speaker 1: For you, so that in your mind almost eliminates one
Speaker 1: candidate for you.
Speaker 2: In your head, I mean, I think in my mind,
Speaker 2: I think it highlights the difference between me and almost
Speaker 2: anybody else. Okay, if like, if you're I mean, I
Speaker 2: told you my thesis on this is that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is the symptom of a broader disease. That disease is
Speaker 2: the way that corporations and special interests can dominate our politics.
Speaker 2: If you don't see that as the disease, and we're
Speaker 2: just we're just dealing with with fundamentally different issues, We're.
Speaker 1: Way to talk is in your mind, we're just not having.
Speaker 3: The same conversation, right.
Speaker 2: And the hard part is it really comes down to
Speaker 2: do you think that Trump himself is the fundamental issue
Speaker 2: or do you believe that when Trump came down that
Speaker 2: hideous escalator back in twenty fifteen, there were structural features
Speaker 2: in our society that people were really really frustrated by
Speaker 2: that he was able to exploit to come to power.
Speaker 2: And my point is, yes, you've got to be Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I don't back down to bullies. But the second point
Speaker 2: is this, what are you for? Everybody's against Donald Trump?
Speaker 2: What are you actually for?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: I can say Medicare for all because I've never taken
Speaker 2: a dime from a corporate health insurance company or a
Speaker 2: pharmaceutical company. I can talk about taking on DTE and
Speaker 2: our local utilities because they spent two hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 2: to beat me in my last election, and I've never
Speaker 2: touched a dime of their money.
Speaker 3: So it is a substantive. It's not even substantive.
Speaker 2: It is philosophically different about what we think the issue
Speaker 2: in our public policy and our politics are. So if
Speaker 2: you want somebody who's going to stand up to Donald
Speaker 2: Trump and on the next day understand how to address
Speaker 2: someone like him ever coming to power again, then I'm
Speaker 2: probably your guy. The other thing I'll say is this,
Speaker 2: right now, they are tearing apart government as we know it,
Speaker 2: And ask yourself, what are the skill sets that you
Speaker 2: want represented.
Speaker 3: In the US Senate? Right?
Speaker 2: I am categorically different than anybody else in the US Senate,
Speaker 2: there is not, never been.
Speaker 1: You're not a lawyer state, so that automatically makes you
Speaker 1: a minority of when it comes to Democratic candidates. That
Speaker 1: I mean. There was a great little stat over the
Speaker 1: weekend about just how many Democrat elected members of Congress
Speaker 1: or lawyers versus the other side, which is a lot
Speaker 1: more diverse backgrounds at least, and I will say.
Speaker 3: Neither of it. And I want to be clear.
Speaker 2: I have a lot of respect for both of my opponents,
Speaker 2: and I think anybody running for office right now takes
Speaker 2: a lot of courage and a lot of effort, and
Speaker 2: I commend them and anyone running for office right now.
Speaker 2: But I also say that it's not just that neither
Speaker 2: of them are lawyers. It's that we are watching the
Speaker 2: desecration of health and human services, the destruction of a
Speaker 2: critical piece of notional security infrastructure in health and human
Speaker 2: services get destroyed. So ask yourself, what don't we have
Speaker 2: at the US Senate and what will we need to
Speaker 2: be able to build our government back to what we
Speaker 2: should have had right I just want to be clear
Speaker 2: about this. I don't think that CDC, FDA and IH
Speaker 2: were serving the best of what they could have been.
Speaker 3: I think there was a lot of reform that was possible.
Speaker 2: So ask yourself, like, who do you want in the
Speaker 2: room to build what we should have moving forward for
Speaker 2: the twenty first century, And I think I offer a
Speaker 2: very different set of skills. And the third point I'll
Speaker 2: just make here is this, I don't I'm not a
Speaker 2: career politician, right, It's not something that I grew up
Speaker 2: saying I really want to do this.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, let me push back. Someone's going to say, well,
Speaker 1: you ran for office at thirty two and all this,
Speaker 1: So I take your point, but somebody might dispute that
Speaker 1: what I would say.
Speaker 2: I also rebuilt a health department. I led a different one.
Speaker 2: I wrote the book on Medicare for All. I trained
Speaker 2: as a physician and an epidemiologist. And so if you
Speaker 2: ask yourself what makes people sick, at some point you're
Speaker 2: probably going to get to that question of maybe it's
Speaker 2: our politics. So for me, this is like a logical
Speaker 2: continuation of what I set out to do when I
Speaker 2: decided I wanted to make my life about improving people's health.
Speaker 1: You know, it'd be really interesting if you and Amy
Speaker 1: acting over in the state next door, end up overperforming
Speaker 1: there both sort of she you know, she was not
Speaker 1: a politician, and then saw what happened and decided to
Speaker 1: jump into It's interesting to get see more people with
Speaker 1: public health experience decide, Okay, you know, maybe maybe we
Speaker 1: had to cut out the middleman here.
Speaker 2: And it's not a you know, it's not a coincidence, jrue.
Speaker 2: I think I think enough of us see what's happened.
Speaker 2: You get into these rules where you're like, oh, I
Speaker 2: can really improve the health and well being of my community,
Speaker 2: and you start to see how.
Speaker 1: Political it all is. Then you realize how hard it
Speaker 1: really is, and you're like, really, why is it so difficult?
Speaker 3: Right? Right?
Speaker 2: And I just think that like all of this kind
Speaker 2: it goes together. If you're serious about building the kind
Speaker 2: of America that dignifies the well being of its children,
Speaker 2: you do things very differently. And that's you know, when
Speaker 2: people ask like how come you how come you buck
Speaker 2: these trends, I'm like, look, if I never get into
Speaker 2: public office, that's okay. But I swore an oath and
Speaker 2: I've tried to do the work that is that that
Speaker 2: oath implies, and so I would rather not get elected
Speaker 2: than get elected and hamstring myself to do the work
Speaker 2: that I got elected to do. So you know, I'm
Speaker 2: going to run the campaign the way that I think
Speaker 2: it ought to be run. The last thing that hasn't
Speaker 2: come up here, Chuck, is is just this our values.
Speaker 2: When we talk about values should apply in all places
Speaker 2: in all times.
Speaker 3: There shouldn't be on your values.
Speaker 1: You're transitioning to the topic I was about to get to.
Speaker 1: But go ahead, Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't steal your thunder.
Speaker 1: You're welcome. No, no, no, no, I'm just saying that.
Speaker 2: You know, there's the difference between a political position and
Speaker 2: a principle, and the difference is this, if your principles
Speaker 2: are get kept by space and time, they're not principles,
Speaker 2: they're just political positions. So, you know, when I think
Speaker 2: about our responsibility abroad, and maybe part of this is
Speaker 2: the fact that I actually have experiences being abroad and
Speaker 2: seeing how people see America because of the things that
Speaker 2: too often our policymakers do in very wayward ways. It's
Speaker 2: a crazy thing to me that we in an era
Speaker 2: where our kids schools are crumbling, we can barely afford
Speaker 2: healthcare for our kids, and they're trying to rip it
Speaker 2: away we send blank checks to foreign militaries to drop
Speaker 2: bombs on other people's kids and their schools and their infrastructure.
Speaker 2: And to me, like, you can't say that because you're
Speaker 2: too afraid of what that might mean for some special
Speaker 2: interest coming and spending against you.
Speaker 3: Then it's just you are playing politics.
Speaker 2: I don't play politics, and that is a huge difference
Speaker 2: between me and Frankly, Unfortunately, too many people running for
Speaker 2: USN anywhere, particularly here in Michigan.
Speaker 1: You know, look in some ways, I know a lot
Speaker 1: of national reporters are going to parachute into this race
Speaker 1: and do the democratic primary story through the prism of Gaza.
Speaker 1: That that's going to be how this is done, pure
Speaker 1: and simple. I think the conversation we've had, it's obvious
Speaker 1: that if you pay attention to this campaign, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's well, let me ask you this, how much has
Speaker 1: got what percentage of this campaign in your mind is
Speaker 1: about Gaza in the primary? How much do voters care
Speaker 1: and how much of it do you think it should
Speaker 1: be a voting issue.
Speaker 3: In this primary?
Speaker 2: Let me I'm going to push back on the premise
Speaker 2: of the question for a second, Okay, And because we're
Speaker 2: in a long form here let me just let me
Speaker 2: just nerd out for a second here inepidy miology. Oftentimes,
Speaker 2: what you do is you fit a graph to a
Speaker 2: set of data, and then you ask about the impact
Speaker 2: of anyone variable in a particular outcome, as if those
Speaker 2: variables don't architect on top of each other. And so
Speaker 2: we end up being implicitly reductive with any lens that
Speaker 2: we apply to analyze the situation. So the question that
Speaker 2: is asked is off and how much of a vote
Speaker 2: share does Gaza control because of what people think about Gaza?
Speaker 2: And I think in Michigan quite a lot to answer
Speaker 2: that question. But I actually think that the operational rule
Speaker 2: of the question of calling a genocide when you see
Speaker 2: it is as a values rarshock test. It is foundational
Speaker 2: to whether or not I can believe that you're serious
Speaker 2: when you tell me that you're going to stand up
Speaker 2: to a corporate CEO or you're going to stand up
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump, because if you can't call what is
Speaker 2: happening when they kill eighteen thy, five hundred kids, sixty
Speaker 2: thousand people total, render their entire homes unlivable, kill journalists,
Speaker 2: destroy hospitals, and then try and push them into a
Speaker 2: different country because they happen to speak the same language.
Speaker 2: If you can't call that a genocide, then I question
Speaker 2: your moral judgment generally or your understanding of the English language.
Speaker 2: So I just think that at some point it tells
Speaker 2: you whether or not people are actually serious about the
Speaker 2: values that they purport to have. So how can I
Speaker 2: trust you when you can't even push against the enforced
Speaker 2: language of your own party being enforced by maga billionaires,
Speaker 2: by the way, to actually show up and fight against
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, or to show up and fight against the
Speaker 2: pharmaceutical lobby, or to show up and fight against the
Speaker 2: corporate insurance CEOs. It undercuts all of those things. So
Speaker 2: as a direct issue, yeah, it is profound. This is
Speaker 2: a genocide that's paid for by our tax dollars that
Speaker 2: are not being used to spend on our kids. But
Speaker 2: as an indirect issue, it is become such a moral
Speaker 2: lens to see the world, because if you can't see
Speaker 2: the obvious thing in front of you, how can I
Speaker 2: trust you to see the other things as well? How
Speaker 2: can I trust you when you tell me you're going
Speaker 2: to fight for me?
Speaker 1: Do you believe Israel was justified to go after Hamas
Speaker 1: after October.
Speaker 2: So I think I think the question is I mean,
Speaker 2: let me step back. When we talk about justified, right,
Speaker 2: I don't know what that means in the context of
Speaker 2: all of this, because you know, I condemned Hamass on
Speaker 2: day one, and I condemned ham Ass because they killed
Speaker 2: innocent people. They kidnapped children. Anybody who kidnaps innocent people
Speaker 2: or kill's children is wrong. That's wrong, right, But then
Speaker 2: the question of how many then people, right, twelve hundred
Speaker 2: people were killed innocent people?
Speaker 3: That is wrong.
Speaker 2: It is condemnable, and that's why I condemned it. But
Speaker 2: then the question then becomes Okay, so what then becomes
Speaker 2: justified in the context of that awful atrocity. I think
Speaker 2: it's really really difficult to answer what a line would
Speaker 2: have been because I think a lot of us who've
Speaker 2: been watching that situation for a very long time would say,
Speaker 2: we all knew where this was going, and we all
Speaker 2: knew that there were people like Smotrich and ben Gevier
Speaker 2: and Netanyahu who were going to see in that in
Speaker 2: opportunity to answer to a base that sees this as
Speaker 2: a messianic issue, not just one around protecting innocent people.
Speaker 1: Look, I would argue the streams want each other, right,
Speaker 1: Hamas would love a further to the right Israeli government
Speaker 1: and vice versa. It's sick to say it that way,
Speaker 1: but in some way the extremes strengthen each other, which
Speaker 1: is part of the problem.
Speaker 2: And I think that you are exactly you are exactly correct,
Speaker 2: and then I think about what how do we get
Speaker 2: to a place where we can imagine an ultimate piece.
Speaker 2: And that's the worry that I have is that every
Speaker 2: president before this guy, who's ever been president in the
Speaker 2: United States since the existence of the State of Israel,
Speaker 2: has said that they believe in a two state solution.
Speaker 2: And then the problem with it is that we aid
Speaker 2: arm in a bed the very people who then want
Speaker 2: to foreclose on the possibility of a Palestinian state. And
Speaker 2: yet we're sitting here saying we believe in a two
Speaker 2: state solution, and then our money goes in a different place.
Speaker 2: And so to me, I find some of these questions
Speaker 2: kind of incoherent because they are decontextualized from the circumstance.
Speaker 3: On the ground.
Speaker 2: Right, what Hamas did is awful, it's terrible, it's wrong,
Speaker 2: it's condemnable, and what the Israeli government has been doing
Speaker 2: is wrong, awful, contemptible and should be condemned. And the
Speaker 2: problem is that you know I'm running for senator from Michigan, right,
Speaker 2: I'm not running for senator from anywhere else. My responsibility
Speaker 2: is to where we spend our tax dollars. And my
Speaker 2: point is, it's not my job. There's too much hubrius,
Speaker 2: frankly among American policy makers to get to think that
Speaker 2: they get to dictate what the ultimate piece looks like.
Speaker 3: It's not my job. My job is to.
Speaker 2: Make sure that American taxpayers gets what's best for the taxes.
Speaker 3: That they pay.
Speaker 2: And I think sending blank checks to foreign militaries and
Speaker 2: by the way, not just Israel, but Egypt and Jordan
Speaker 2: and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, right, all of whom have
Speaker 2: sustained military dictatorships over their own people. I just don't
Speaker 2: think that's a good value for pay for Michigan taxpayers,
Speaker 2: which is where I sit. And I don't want my
Speaker 2: tax dollars going to fund a genocide. I want my
Speaker 2: tax dollars funding my kids' school. I want them funding
Speaker 2: my healthcare. I want them funding my roads and bridges,
Speaker 2: and that shouldn't be so difficult to communicate while also saying, hey, look,
Speaker 2: this thing of killing this many people is an obvious genocide.
Speaker 2: They said they were going to do it, and then
Speaker 2: they did it. So what else do we want.
Speaker 1: To speak to the issue? And I think this is
Speaker 1: where a lot of it has been very difficult for
Speaker 1: Jewish Americans, frankly, no different than it was for Muslim
Speaker 1: Americans after nine to eleven, which is, you get thrown
Speaker 1: into one bucket, and every Jewish American feels like they're
Speaker 1: being there, you know. And I always say, you know what,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of Jewish Americans who condemned bb but are
Speaker 1: pro Israel, and you can have this nuanced position. Except
Speaker 1: it doesn't look like you can, right. It feels like
Speaker 1: in our politics today it's very difficult to have that position.
Speaker 2: I hope that folks can find space. Right, what is
Speaker 2: it we all want? We all want everybody to have
Speaker 2: peace and dignity and the right to self determination. And
Speaker 2: I think here what we want is not to be
Speaker 2: assumed to believe anything based on the color of our skin,
Speaker 2: or our faith, or our ethnic background. And so I've
Speaker 2: been very very clear to say that the government of
Speaker 2: Israel does not speak for the Jewish people or for Judaism,
Speaker 2: and I think we have to always differentiate between the
Speaker 2: Jewish people and Judaism and the government of Israel, and
Speaker 2: any effort to try and muddle those two things up
Speaker 2: I think verges on the risk of anti Semitism. And
Speaker 2: so I think we have to be very, very very
Speaker 2: honest about sustaining the space where people can have a
Speaker 2: multiplicity of opinions, and also that we can engage in peaceful,
Speaker 2: in honest, in direct, in vulnerable conversation with each other
Speaker 2: about what we think the best course of American action
Speaker 2: ought to be to beget the outcomes that we want,
Speaker 2: which is peace, dignity, and the right of self determination
Speaker 2: for Palestinians and its Israelis alike. And I just think
Speaker 2: that if you start with those principles, it becomes a
Speaker 2: lot easier from there to step forward and say, okay,
Speaker 2: then what ought to be done? How do we actually
Speaker 2: do this thing? Moving from this really difficult situation in Chuckov,
Speaker 2: just go back to the point you made, which is
Speaker 2: you've got extremes that have dominated the conversation because they
Speaker 2: can always hijack that conversation and force people to respond
Speaker 2: to the most extreme thing they just did. And I
Speaker 2: hate to say it, but like you've got those extremes
Speaker 2: winning the day. And I don't know where we go
Speaker 2: from here, but I do hope that more of us,
Speaker 2: regardless of our ethnic or our faith backgrounds, can have
Speaker 2: the courage to both differentiate between groups of people and
Speaker 2: principle and the courage to have an honest, vulnerable, and
Speaker 2: direct conversation about what the best course of action for
Speaker 2: the American public is now. Look, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: money spent in our politics, mainly by maga billionaires with
Speaker 2: very particular opinions, to try and keep us from having
Speaker 2: a direct and honest conversation. Like I told you, I've
Speaker 2: been all over my state and wherever I go, like
Speaker 2: I'll be an Escanaba in the up when I talk
Speaker 2: about the obvious trade off around our tax dollars. It's
Speaker 2: one of the biggest applause lines I get. I've had
Speaker 2: people come up to me like, how come I've never
Speaker 2: heard a politician say the things that you say? And
Speaker 2: I'll say, well, because you know that point I always make.
Speaker 2: I'm running on three things, getting money out of politics,
Speaker 2: putting more money in your pocket and passing Medicare for
Speaker 2: all that first one right, makes it really really difficult
Speaker 2: to have a direct conversation about where our tax dollars
Speaker 2: go because people are too worried that maga billionaire money
Speaker 2: is going to flow into a Democratic primary and dictate
Speaker 2: who gets to win and who gets to lose.
Speaker 1: Let me ask one question on a word you use.
Speaker 1: Some people hear the word genocide and they think, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be able to have a nuanced
Speaker 1: conversation with that person. Why are they wrong?
Speaker 3: I had a really meaningful experience.
Speaker 2: I was invited to speak with the Jewish caucus of
Speaker 2: the Michigan Democratic Party, and there were a lot of
Speaker 2: questions about whether or not I would show And of
Speaker 2: course I was going to show up because I love
Speaker 2: and revere the Jewish people. I care a lot about
Speaker 2: my ability to make sure I understand their perspective and
Speaker 2: that I can serve them, because wants to be clear, like,
Speaker 2: the fight against Islamophobia is the same as the fight
Speaker 2: against anti Semitism. Those those those those very.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: And by the way, and.
Speaker 2: I had a really well meaning gentleman, you know, he
Speaker 2: kind of came up to me afterwards, he said, first,
Speaker 2: I want to tell you you've got some fiz but
Speaker 2: for having showed up. I said, well, thank you. I
Speaker 2: appreciate that. He's like, you know, you're real much. I
Speaker 2: was like, you're really in there we go, I was like,
Speaker 2: and he was like, but I disagree with you. I
Speaker 2: was like, that's not surprising to me. But can you
Speaker 2: share where you disagree? He said, you use the word genocide?
Speaker 3: I said, I do. He said why. I was like, well,
Speaker 3: because the word.
Speaker 2: Has a technical meaning and I was trained as a
Speaker 2: scientist to use the word for the thing that I
Speaker 2: am seeing. And he said, but how can you call
Speaker 2: this a genocide in the face of something like the Holocaust?
Speaker 2: And I said, I can understand the lived experience, or
Speaker 2: the shared familial, intergenerational experience of the Holocaust and the insane, profound,
Speaker 2: almost incalculable degree of pain that was inflicted upon the
Speaker 2: Jewish people by a madman, dictator, genocidal, maniac and Hitler.
Speaker 2: I can understand why the pain of that my echo
Speaker 2: in ways where my use of that word could be painful.
Speaker 2: I understand that, and I appreciate you sharing it. And
Speaker 2: at the same time, if the only historical moment to
Speaker 2: which we can use the word genocide is the Holocaust,
Speaker 2: then we're setting an extraordinary high bar which basically renders
Speaker 2: the word how genocide unusable in any other situation.
Speaker 3: And so I.
Speaker 2: Don't know how to both talk about this and say
Speaker 2: that this is not the Holocaust. Let's be clear, right,
Speaker 2: six million people did not were not killed or exterminated
Speaker 2: in gas chambers, and yet the word was meant to
Speaker 2: protect innocent people from being rendered subjects of war so
Speaker 2: profound that it targeted them based on ethnicity in a
Speaker 2: particular place and intended specifically to bring about their particular demise.
Speaker 2: I think, in the memory of the Holocaust is our
Speaker 2: responsibility to make sure that nothing like that, even to
Speaker 2: a far, far lesser degree, happens again. And so I
Speaker 2: just think that we have to be willing to use
Speaker 2: it when we believe that it meets those technical criteria,
Speaker 2: and that is to me, the best way to dignify,
Speaker 2: right that awful, terrible memory in a way that renders
Speaker 2: it meaningful and protects other people from ever having to
Speaker 2: befall something like that again. But I honestly understand that
Speaker 2: this is a painful, challenging scenario. So I hope that
Speaker 2: folks who are listening and folks who hear me use
Speaker 2: that word understand that I do not in any way
Speaker 2: undermine or demean the incredible crime against humanity that the
Speaker 2: genocide of the Holocaust was. But we don't have the
Speaker 2: past to control. We have the future to control. And
Speaker 2: the question of the way we use words to move
Speaker 2: the future, I think that's that's the way we ought
Speaker 2: to be all think human.
Speaker 1: So should we be saying more directly that China is
Speaker 1: committing genocide on the leakers?
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, we should.
Speaker 2: And the thing the reason that we don't is because
Speaker 2: China is massively powerful, correct, and they swing their weight
Speaker 2: around to make sure that we don't use that word,
Speaker 2: which is exactly why we should. I mean, like, this
Speaker 2: is the word that is used by definition among people
Speaker 2: with some modicum of power to protect the powerless. If
Speaker 2: you're a powerful people, you don't.
Speaker 3: Have genocide inflicted on you.
Speaker 2: By definition, you are powerless when you have genocide inflicted
Speaker 2: on you.
Speaker 3: So it is all responsibility as people with some modicum
Speaker 3: of power to have the courage to use it.
Speaker 2: Now, the reason that a lot of people don't is
Speaker 2: because you often are talking about far more powerful actors.
Speaker 1: And well and reason, Well, there's another reason sometimes not
Speaker 1: to use it is that it suddenly the person turns
Speaker 1: off the head right, they turn you off. I'm not
Speaker 1: listening to you if you're going to use that right
Speaker 1: some words. That's why I ask. I mean, and I
Speaker 1: think you gave it. Look, if every voter gets an
Speaker 1: opportunity to hear your explanation, then I think you're you're, you're, you're,
Speaker 1: You're going to have a leg up. But there are
Speaker 1: some people there's the use of a word right. You
Speaker 1: know sometimes what do they call him? What is it
Speaker 1: Godwin's law on the internet about Hitler?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: And you know when it when an argument certain words.
Speaker 1: That's why I ask, because that word can just somebody
Speaker 1: may just literally turn it off. Up, I'm not listening
Speaker 1: to him anymore. What do you say to that night?
Speaker 2: I understand that that is an instinct that's there. I
Speaker 2: think my job is to if I do my job well,
Speaker 2: it is to create the space in our public conversation
Speaker 2: and our civic debate that enables us to do the
Speaker 2: things we need to do to create the kind of
Speaker 2: future we all want to live in.
Speaker 3: That's the work.
Speaker 2: That's what at its best, that's what politicians are supposed
Speaker 2: to do. And I think if we shy away from
Speaker 2: using the words as they're defined, I don't know that
Speaker 2: we are doing the thing we need to do, to
Speaker 2: do and to beget that future.
Speaker 3: In the right way.
Speaker 2: And I understand that there's a trade off there, and
Speaker 2: I think that there is this ability that we all
Speaker 2: have to also master, which is to be able to
Speaker 2: use words responsibly, but use words correctly and always always
Speaker 2: use them lovingly, which is to say, it's out of
Speaker 2: my love for Palestinian people and my love for Jewish
Speaker 2: Israeli people that when I see people hurting other people,
Speaker 2: that I stop that thing from happening.
Speaker 1: Look, I don't believe Israel safe until Palestinians are safe.
Speaker 3: There's a tradition, a word in our tradition.
Speaker 2: It's a saying of the prophet hummad piece me upon
Speaker 2: him where he said, give victory to your brother, meaning
Speaker 2: you're like companion the person you're with, whether they're right
Speaker 2: or they're wrong. And they said, wait, what do you
Speaker 2: mean by like they're right or they're wrong? He said,
Speaker 2: if they're wrong, protect them, And I'm sorry if they're right,
Speaker 2: protect them right. But if they're wrong, then correct them.
Speaker 2: That's how you give somebody who's wrong victory. And I
Speaker 2: just think that we would do well. It's not out
Speaker 2: of a you know, obviously, I'm Arab, I know that,
Speaker 2: and so when it comes from my mouth with my name,
Speaker 2: people assume that it's a tribal thing. It really is not.
Speaker 2: And this is why, like you know, I have taken
Speaker 2: it on the chin. When I condemned Hamas on day one,
Speaker 2: folks are like, well, you're not contextualizing it within the
Speaker 2: broader occupation, et cetera, et cetera. I was like, look,
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, if you hurt kids,
Speaker 2: there's no context needed, and folks will be like, well,
Speaker 2: like you must you must be a self hating Arab, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 2: Like no, I am just a human loving Arab. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm a human loving person. And when I think innocent
Speaker 2: people are hurt, I'm going to show up and I'm
Speaker 2: going to say the thing I think needs to be said.
Speaker 2: And so I hope folks can understand that sometimes your
Speaker 2: experience set may give you an insight that's a little
Speaker 2: bit different. But ask people where their principles are and
Speaker 2: then ask them to apply their principles in all situations.
Speaker 2: And when folks asked me, they're like, well, what about Egypt.
Speaker 2: Then that's the first question I was get. Don't you
Speaker 2: do you think we should stop sending money to Egypt.
Speaker 2: I'm like, absolutely, we should, right, absolutely we should. And
Speaker 2: folks are like, wait, so so explain that. I'm like,
Speaker 2: they're like Egyptian people like you. I'm like, yes, you
Speaker 2: think I'm coming at this as a tribalist, I'm not like.
Speaker 2: I spent childhood summers in Egypt. I watched as that
Speaker 2: that tax money made Egyptians less free and less safe
Speaker 2: from their own government.
Speaker 1: It's correct government.
Speaker 2: I don't think us sending our money abroad is helping
Speaker 2: us or helping them. And I think it's the same
Speaker 2: story when it comes to Israel. And I just think
Speaker 2: that we should apply our principle everyone.
Speaker 1: I could keep going on. You're the exact kind of
Speaker 1: candidate that I love seeing out there, which is you're
Speaker 1: unafraid to have a straightforward conversation, you explain yourself, and
Speaker 1: you know, I always say this politics is not about
Speaker 1: finding somebody you agree with one hundred percent. Of the time.
Speaker 1: It's finding someone who you think is willing to hear
Speaker 1: you out here and simple, right, I say, civilization invented
Speaker 1: politics so that we would resolve conflicts without death and
Speaker 1: without violence. You know, that is why we have politics,
Speaker 1: That is why we created it. We were tired of
Speaker 1: making every dispute resolve, resolving every dispute with violence. So look,
Speaker 1: I see why my friend Ron Fortyer was putting up
Speaker 1: the putting up the neon sign to saying, pay attention
Speaker 1: to this guy. He may get some traction. This has
Speaker 1: been a pleasure. It's good to get to know you.
Speaker 1: And you know, that's why I love this long form
Speaker 1: medium because we can have the nuance which I think
Speaker 1: we just did both on healthcare and Israel, which was
Speaker 1: it's needed more and more in our politics, and unfortunately
Speaker 1: our media environment doesn't always reward that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I appreciate you creating the space for it.
Speaker 2: Appreciate Ron, I mean Ron, Ron has been. Ron told
Speaker 2: me something when I in twenty eighteen, which I'll never forget.
Speaker 2: You know, I was out there kind of like doing
Speaker 2: my thing. I was thirty two, and like you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know if you remember feeling thirty two, but
Speaker 2: you feel your emotions a lot more intensely.
Speaker 1: And when I had my first kid, Yeah, and then
Speaker 1: I know you, Jay have all sorts of stuff going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you feel it right. He pulled me aside to
Speaker 2: a dou I want you to know something. I was like,
Speaker 2: we say. He's like, look, I watched I watched Black
Speaker 2: with Obama when he was young and coming up. I
Speaker 2: watched Bill Clinton when he was young and coming up.
Speaker 2: He's like, you're not gonna win this race. I was like,
Speaker 2: And of course my response was.
Speaker 3: Like, how do you know they have for you?
Speaker 1: Man? They run the race the first time they ran.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, And he's like, you're not going to win
Speaker 2: this race, but you need to keep going at this
Speaker 2: because you got something to share and I'm looking forward
Speaker 2: to watching what you do next. And it was fascinating
Speaker 2: because I didn't win the race. And I've stay close
Speaker 2: to Ron because he's the kind of person who is
Speaker 2: both extremely astute at sort of reading the tea leaves
Speaker 2: and has got more experience and forgotten more about politics
Speaker 2: than I've ever known. But he's also someone who has
Speaker 2: that rare gift for mentorship. And I've just been really
Speaker 2: grateful to him for you know, beingb to share some
Speaker 2: of that with me. So and I know there's been
Speaker 2: many many journalists that he's helped mentor so I'm grateful.
Speaker 2: And you know, anything Ron said nice about me is
Speaker 2: more because honest nice than it is because me.
Speaker 3: But I'm grateful that he introduced me to you.
Speaker 2: We've got to share some time, and I've seen really
Speaker 2: good conversations about things that you know, I wish we
Speaker 2: had more space and time to have conversations as a community.
Speaker 1: And we'll do it again. And when Miami and Michigan
Speaker 1: meet in the playoff, maybe I'll see it in one
Speaker 1: of those games.
Speaker 2: Hey, well that'll be a lot of fun. That'll be
Speaker 2: a lot of fun. And I'm sorry for the outcome.
Speaker 2: But here's I will say this. Just on the college
Speaker 2: football front, Like I told you, I rooted for the Hurricanes.
Speaker 3: Back when I was a kid. Well we would the
Speaker 3: Michigan was always my team.
Speaker 2: But like but but but but but Miami was number two,
Speaker 2: and you know Miami very much at that at that time,
Speaker 2: and you remember this, they were like the bad.
Speaker 3: Boys of college football, were the rebels.
Speaker 2: And like I keep watching all the fallout of you
Speaker 2: know the controversy of machine.
Speaker 3: I'm like, are we bad boys of college football? Now?
Speaker 2: Like it's not something I understand Michigan to be, but
Speaker 2: like I know, well, you know.
Speaker 1: It's look look at look at our perverted way. How
Speaker 1: often we root for the person wearing the black hat
Speaker 1: and the movies? Right, we love Darth Vaders. We know,
Speaker 1: we know Darth Vader's name. More people know Darth Vader's
Speaker 1: name than Luke Skywalker's name. Think about that.
Speaker 2: More people know Donald Trump's name than almost anybody else
Speaker 2: in American politics.
Speaker 1: So there you go. That's to drop the mic, all right,
Speaker 1: to be safe on the trap.
Speaker 3: You to appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, m