Speaker 1: Well, good Wednesday. We are sitting here a bit in limbo.
Speaker 1: As I take this that no other American president would
Speaker 1: have put the country in, let alone the world, then
Speaker 1: there's no other American president shares his indecisiveness as publicly
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump does, and right now on Iran he
Speaker 1: has in many You know, there's a part of me
Speaker 1: that appreciates the transparency of the indecisiveness. I mean, we
Speaker 1: get a front row seat at finding out, Oh, somebody
Speaker 1: whispered something new in his ear. Because he's now sharing this,
Speaker 1: he appears to be leaning this way. I mean, we
Speaker 1: know President Trump is notorious for buying into the last
Speaker 1: best argument that somebody makes to him on any given
Speaker 1: time when it comes to what to do here with Iran.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of competing voices that are in
Speaker 1: his head, and I think that is you know, if
Speaker 1: you want to know why, it's unclear.
Speaker 2: Where where his head is.
Speaker 1: Though, Boy, it feels like there is a drumbeat towards action,
Speaker 1: towards some sort of military action that the Americans may
Speaker 1: engage in with the Israelis. But the fact that it
Speaker 1: is not clear, I do think is a reminder that this,
Speaker 1: particularly when it comes to foreign policy and international engagement,
Speaker 1: there's a real divide. I mean, I think there's a
Speaker 1: bigger divide in the Republican Party on this stuff than
Speaker 1: there is in the Democratic Party. There's certainly a divide
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party on Israel, but I don't think
Speaker 1: there's near the amount of divide, for instance, when it
Speaker 1: comes to Ukraine or when it comes to even Iran,
Speaker 1: although there's certainly I think that the divide on Iran
Speaker 1: is whether this is all whether military action should be
Speaker 1: on the table or not. There isn't a disagreement, and frankly,
Speaker 1: there's not a disagreement on the Republican side that you know,
Speaker 1: everything needs to be done to stop or you know,
Speaker 1: Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And if Iran looks
Speaker 1: around the world, there really isn't an incentive to stop
Speaker 1: getting a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: Right, if you.
Speaker 1: Are thought of to have one, you get left alone
Speaker 1: in ways that you wouldn't get left alone if you
Speaker 1: didn't have one. Right, Ask Libya, or ask Pakistan, or
Speaker 1: ask Syria, or ask North Korea. Where am I going here?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Syria and Libya have been have had regime change, no
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. North Korea, there's a lot of people wishing
Speaker 1: there could be regime change hasn't happened Iran. Obviously, I
Speaker 1: think it's leaders know that getting you know, a nuclear
Speaker 1: weapon probably would make it that much harder for anybody.
Speaker 2: To topple that regime.
Speaker 1: So we can't sit here and not acknowledge that fact. Okay,
Speaker 1: that that it is. It's one of these we as
Speaker 1: the one of the nuclear powers of the world, certainly
Speaker 1: claim we don't want proliferation, and yet countries that have
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapons seem to have a bit more security
Speaker 1: from outside from outsiders than those that do not. So
Speaker 1: if you're one of those folks, you know this is
Speaker 1: we have not figured out an incentive not to have
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons and sort of the global order, if you will. Right,
Speaker 1: Libya is one of the great examples that Afi was
Speaker 1: convinced to stand down on any sort of ambition to
Speaker 1: go nuclear and he was out of power within how long. Right,
Speaker 1: So that is one of those uncomfortable examples that does
Speaker 1: make this an extra difficult situation, which is why diplomacy
Speaker 1: hasn't been hasn't always been the best answer, or hasn't
Speaker 1: worked yet. I don't want to say it's not the
Speaker 1: best answer I think diplomacy that works is always a
Speaker 1: better answer than some sort of military intervention. But we're
Speaker 1: in this limbo because it is because I do think
Speaker 1: you have President Trump, who frankly got traction in the
Speaker 1: Republican Party by going against the Bush doctrine, right, going
Speaker 1: against the orthodoctory. In fact, it wasn't that long ago
Speaker 1: that a President Trump went to Saudi Arabia to say
Speaker 1: that the United States was no longer going to lecture
Speaker 1: other countries on their values that you know, partnerships for partnerships.
Speaker 1: So how does then that apply to Iran? Right on
Speaker 1: that front? Are we going to be selective about it?
Speaker 1: We obviously what Donald Trump said in Saudi Arabia, which
Speaker 1: was meant for the audience and the Gulf States where
Speaker 1: you've had others, including Joe Biden and Barack Obama, who've
Speaker 1: been uncomfortable with the values that Saudi Arabia and Qatar
Speaker 1: and the UAE promote or don't promote if you will,
Speaker 1: and how much we want to be in business or
Speaker 1: in bed with them.
Speaker 2: And at the same time.
Speaker 1: So either do you use the power of America to
Speaker 1: spread American values or not? And there was basically a
Speaker 1: bipartisan consensus. You know, That's why we have things like
Speaker 1: Voice of America. That's why we have things like Radio
Speaker 1: for Europe or Radio Martis right that there was this
Speaker 1: sense that no America needs to be a beacon for freedom,
Speaker 1: a beacon for democracy, and when it's possible to spread it,
Speaker 1: and when it's possible to create relationships that encourage it,
Speaker 1: like trade relationships for instance. But on what But this
Speaker 1: is where I think that at any time anybody wants
Speaker 1: to engage in what I would call real politique, right,
Speaker 1: which is you got to sort of you deal with
Speaker 1: the countries that you have, not the countries that you want.
Speaker 1: You have the diplomacy that you have, not the diplomacy
Speaker 1: that you want, But we have this selective outrage. Like
Speaker 1: you know, for years, Republicans have treated China differently than
Speaker 1: they've treated Cuba. Right, Cuba's been punished because it's to punish,
Speaker 1: China hasn't because it's harder to punish. And yet arguably
Speaker 1: they've both committed the same some of the same crimes
Speaker 1: against you know, human rights violations that that we have
Speaker 1: frowned upon. So it I do think that candidate Donald
Speaker 1: Trump would obviously have said he is not going to
Speaker 1: go off and and and go down this road. But look,
Speaker 1: there's there is an opportunity. And I understand some that
Speaker 1: are advising him sit there and say, look, Iron's never
Speaker 1: been this week. Right, hes Belah has been nearly decapitated,
Speaker 1: Hamas is on the run, the Hutis have stood down.
Speaker 1: All of the Iranian proxies that gave Iran sort of
Speaker 1: extra strength in that region are in bad shape. Right,
Speaker 1: Israel has done since October seventh, has done a remarkable
Speaker 1: job in decapitating Hesbelah and certainly weakening Hamas, and that
Speaker 1: has had an indirect effect on Iran. Iran has always
Speaker 1: been better at the asymmetric battle field than it is
Speaker 1: in conventional warfare. And I think we're about to find out.
Speaker 1: This feels like it's not really that close to a call.
Speaker 1: Iran is definitely taking more damage than Israel is here,
Speaker 1: but Israel cannot eradicate Iran's nuclear program without the help
Speaker 1: of the United States. Now, this is where I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of things that get tricky here for
Speaker 1: the president. If he goes ahead, if he does go
Speaker 1: ahead and do this, well, if number one, you better succeed.
Speaker 1: You got to wipe out the nuclear program. Right, there's
Speaker 1: no pin prick here. You do or you not do.
Speaker 1: I don't think you can half go in. And we
Speaker 1: know Donald Trump likes to preserve every possible option, and
Speaker 1: he almost wants to know. He wants to be able,
Speaker 1: even at the last minute, be able to move from
Speaker 1: one position.
Speaker 2: To the other.
Speaker 1: Right now, he seemed to be wanting to negotiate and
Speaker 1: negotiate and negotiate. Israel's initial attack seemed to be successful.
Speaker 1: Suddenly he was jumping in front of that parade. Boy,
Speaker 1: you know, we did a great job. We really helped them.
Speaker 1: And suddenly he's talking in the Royal We But look,
Speaker 1: he does have a Congress problem. I'd say they call
Speaker 1: it a problem, not a confrontation coming because I don't
Speaker 1: think this Congress is going to confront this president on
Speaker 1: what could be an abuse of the War Powers Act
Speaker 1: if he does act this quickly.
Speaker 2: I mean it is.
Speaker 1: I don't think the current au m F, which is
Speaker 1: still active, which still sits out there, which still gives
Speaker 1: sort of some ambiguous power to the president to essentially
Speaker 1: conduct a military strike and claim it's part of the
Speaker 1: global war on terror, right, which is again go read
Speaker 1: that original AUMF, which is countryless, right, doesn't really. It
Speaker 1: was written to have maximum ambiguity, to essentially give flexibility.
Speaker 1: At the time, the thought was these terrorists could be
Speaker 1: anywhere and you couldn't you couldn't identify a single country
Speaker 1: or things like that. But obviously this the the definition
Speaker 1: of it is so widened that it does seem to
Speaker 1: make the power that Congress supposedly handed over to the
Speaker 1: executive branch on this uh, probably too much and probably
Speaker 1: something that needs to represented. But there's yet to be
Speaker 1: an agreement on how to do this. There's a couple attempts.
Speaker 1: You're going to see some people introduce some acts, you
Speaker 1: know something and congre but it's not going to go anywhere.
Speaker 1: If he wants to do this, there'll be a majority
Speaker 1: in Congress, mostly Republicans, but some Democrats that support if
Speaker 1: it's support a strike if it's limited. But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: We already have a situation that has a little bit
Speaker 1: of a little bit of rhyming with the Iraq debacle.
Speaker 1: We go into Iraq based on faulty intelligence about weapons
Speaker 1: of mass destruction. The question about how soon is Iran going,
Speaker 1: how close is Iran to a nuclear weapon is definitely
Speaker 1: up for debate. The Israeli intelligence and the American side.
Speaker 1: They have the same set of facts and they've come
Speaker 1: to different conclusions.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Israel believes Iran as much closer than the US government believes.
Speaker 1: So if Donald Trump goes down this road with Israel,
Speaker 1: he's essentially buying into the assessment of the Israeli intelligence
Speaker 1: rather than the assessment of the American intelligence agencies. Right
Speaker 1: tells the Gabbard went on Congress and said said as much.
Speaker 2: That is that is huge risk.
Speaker 1: Right, while the American intelligence communities credibility is certainly going
Speaker 1: to be called into question by many because of what
Speaker 1: happened with a rock, perhaps the same you know, how
Speaker 1: you know? Is it possible Israel's intelligence is seeing what
Speaker 1: it wants to see because they're looking for an They're
Speaker 1: trying to confirm a belief they already have. Right, how
Speaker 1: much of confirmation bias is there? So the point is
Speaker 1: is if he decides to accept the intelligence from the
Speaker 1: Israelis on this, he is that is a risk. That's
Speaker 1: how George W. Bush based is not on a Israeli intelligence,
Speaker 1: but on the intelligence of multiple countries, including our own
Speaker 1: and these were assessments that were made by our intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: and they were wrong. There's always a risk they're wrong.
Speaker 1: There's also a risk that, no matter how powerful these
Speaker 1: bunk or buster bombs are, what if it doesn't work.
Speaker 1: What if you've created a situation where you fail to
Speaker 1: eradicate the nuclear program, they kind of survive the regime
Speaker 1: and they end up regrouping, or you do complete regime change.
Speaker 1: Who's rebuilding Iran? Is America going to be at the
Speaker 1: forefront of rebuilding Iran? Are we in the nation building business?
Speaker 1: If you follow through on regime change, which clearly the
Speaker 1: president is. He's it's almost like he's toying with it
Speaker 1: with his with his tweets of saying, we know where
Speaker 1: you are, Kamani, but we're not going to go after
Speaker 1: you yet, right, so certainly wants to a public threat there. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this is no way to conduct international form policy.
Speaker 2: This is no way.
Speaker 1: I mean, it comes across like a reality TV show,
Speaker 1: But that's probably the best way to understand.
Speaker 2: Understand what Donald Trump is up to.
Speaker 1: He may end up zagging because he you know, he
Speaker 1: doesn't want the Taco meme to take hold on foreign policy.
Speaker 1: You know, he's talking up this tough talk against Iran.
Speaker 1: Is he doing it for negotiating purposes or is he
Speaker 1: doing it in the run up to actually be a part.
Speaker 2: Of this attack.
Speaker 1: If he doesn't do it, does he develop this reputation
Speaker 1: for being all bark and no bite. We know that
Speaker 1: he's very sensitive to sort of simplistic narratives like that.
Speaker 1: So I'm almost fearful of bringing up the simplistic narrative
Speaker 1: because no one wants to see a decision made by
Speaker 1: a president simply because he fears a narrative that will
Speaker 1: develop if he doesn't go a certain way. But look,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to I'm very hesitant to predict too
Speaker 1: much here because of because it's Donald Trump number one,
Speaker 1: number two. I do think there are enough people who
Speaker 1: are at least warning him that, hey, this stuff is
Speaker 1: never it's never as easy as you think.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I almost think that too many people, you know, I
Speaker 1: think about what I grew up, you know. I remember
Speaker 1: watching Ronald Reagan address the nation after war planes went
Speaker 1: to Libya and it was a pretty clean strike. And
Speaker 1: we did the Grenada thing and it seemed pretty easy, right,
Speaker 1: and even the first Iraq war, and I do think
Speaker 1: there was a sort of a generation of national security
Speaker 1: folks who thought, hey this, you know, these little surgical
Speaker 1: strikes can work. That sort of a police force type
Speaker 1: military can work. That all worked until it didn't with Iraq, right,
Speaker 1: That all worked until it didn't with Afghanistan. Iran is
Speaker 1: not Grenada, Iran is not Libya, and it.
Speaker 2: Is it is.
Speaker 1: There's every chance this is a bigger can of worms
Speaker 1: if we engage. But of course, you know, leaving Israel
Speaker 1: on its own could also create problems here. So look,
Speaker 1: there's no easy answers. I will I don't think we
Speaker 1: know the backstory fully. How much did Netanyahu jam Trump here,
Speaker 1: you know? Or was Trump really going along the whole
Speaker 1: time with with maximum pressure and using playing good cop
Speaker 1: bad cop with Babie. But it does feel as if
Speaker 1: Trump's been being he is backed into a corner here.
Speaker 1: Israel has had initial success. There's a window of opportunity
Speaker 1: if you do believe it's doable. There is a window
Speaker 1: of opportunity, and there's risk of him not taking advantage
Speaker 1: of this window opportunity. And there's risk if they go
Speaker 1: about it the wrong way, And there's risk even if
Speaker 1: they succeed So look, this is not an easy decision.
Speaker 1: Presidential decisions no matter who's behind that desk. If they
Speaker 1: were easy, they wouldn't I remember hearing this from plenty
Speaker 1: of previous presidents. If the decisions were easy, they would
Speaker 1: have been decided upon before they got to the president's desk.
Speaker 1: You do get a sense that everybody around him is
Speaker 1: sort of has their own opinion but is afraid of
Speaker 1: owning it, and so they're all just sort of whispering
Speaker 1: in his ear. And he does, in this case, have
Speaker 1: a team of rivals articulating different positions. So, however you
Speaker 1: view President Trump and his leadership style here, I think
Speaker 1: is atrocious. You should it should make you feel better
Speaker 1: that they're at least diverse voices in that room, in
Speaker 1: that in the situation room, so that all possibilities are
Speaker 1: being laid out for him. In that sense, right, that
Speaker 1: is much better than having group. So look, it is
Speaker 1: I can't believe this is how we're all watching, waiting
Speaker 1: for the tweet that either announces or pulls back, which
Speaker 1: is kind of ridiculous. This is no way to run
Speaker 1: a globe. This is no way the leader of the
Speaker 1: free world should behave. But I'm trying to find a
Speaker 1: few green shoots here, and the tallest green shoot is
Speaker 1: the fact that at least there's a diversity of voices
Speaker 1: in that room articulating different different ways to go about
Speaker 1: this problem. So we shall see as the President might
Speaker 1: tweet himself. Stay tuned.
Speaker 2: But it's a it.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you can't believe, you know, I can't tell you
Speaker 1: how many times jokes were cracked, you know, before he
Speaker 1: actually became president. Boy, you know, he'll make war decisions
Speaker 1: on a tweet and he'll do this, and it all
Speaker 1: is actually happening, and it's become weirdly normalized that we
Speaker 1: all now kind of expect and we're waiting here, and sadly,
Speaker 1: I think Donald Trump loves this nothing more than any
Speaker 1: that we're all have no choice but to wait to
Speaker 1: see what the former host of The Apprentice is going
Speaker 1: to decide who gets voted off who doesn't. And in
Speaker 1: that sense, that's kind of an absurd way that America
Speaker 1: is representing.
Speaker 2: Itself around the world.
Speaker 1: But elections have consequences, and.
Speaker 2: Here we are.
Speaker 1: Speaking of elections. Tuesday was one of my favorite sayings.
Speaker 1: If it's Tuesday, somebody's voting somewhere. Well, that's somewhere was
Speaker 1: where I reside, the old dominion, the Great Commonwealth of Virginia,
Speaker 1: where we do have our official nominees for governor. Although
Speaker 1: I think we already knew who the nominees were going
Speaker 1: to be. Wins Earl Sears the lieutenant governor, Republican Abigail
Speaker 1: Spanberger the Democratic nominee, former congresswoman from that swing district
Speaker 1: that sort of resides in between Richmond and the northern
Speaker 1: Virginia suburbs. Let's be honest, this is a if Democrats
Speaker 1: don't win Virginia fairly handily based on the anger of
Speaker 1: federal workers doze frankly recent history right where seven of
Speaker 1: the last eight Virginia elections went the exact opposite of
Speaker 1: the previous presidential election. All of the signs are pointing
Speaker 1: to a Democratic victory. I think the question is is
Speaker 1: it a route right? Is it a clean sweep? For
Speaker 1: the most part, it is rare for Virginia. They have
Speaker 1: three statewide held, state wide elected state offices governor, lieutenant governor,
Speaker 1: and Attorney general. It is rare for the party that
Speaker 1: wins the governorship not to be able to also win
Speaker 1: at least one, if not both of the other two
Speaker 1: down ballot statewide races we saw there has been We've
Speaker 1: had previously, we had a Republican governor with a Democratic
Speaker 1: attorney general. But for the most part, usually it's usually
Speaker 1: a clean sweep. There's barely a distinction usually between whatever
Speaker 1: the gubernatorial races. Only if there is some sort of
Speaker 1: unique set of circumstances with a lieutenant governor candidate or
Speaker 1: an AG candidate, do you see it any differently? The
Speaker 1: most interesting aspect of the Virginia gubernatorial race is that
Speaker 1: Virginia's going to elect its first woman governor, because both
Speaker 1: parties have women as their nominees. The first Virginia race
Speaker 1: I covered professionally was Virginia Governor in nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 1: The Democratic nominee was the sitting Attorney General, Mary su Terry,
Speaker 1: and she was trying to make history replacing the state's
Speaker 1: first African American governor with the state's first female governor. Well,
Speaker 1: that didn't happen. George Allen beat her in an upset,
Speaker 1: and Virginia held on to its status as sort of
Speaker 1: a bit of a zagger whenever the country zigs in
Speaker 1: the previous presidential election. So I do think the more
Speaker 1: interesting elections in this off year not going to be
Speaker 1: in Virginia this year. They're going to be in New
Speaker 1: Jersey and they're going to be in New York City.
Speaker 1: In New Jersey, Jack Conidarelli and Mikey Cheryl are the
Speaker 1: two candidates there. Mikey Cheryl the Democratic nominee of a
Speaker 1: Member of Congress, Jack Ciarelli, who was the nominee for governor.
Speaker 1: He came within a few points of knocking off the
Speaker 1: incumbent Phil Murphy four years ago. Look, they put out
Speaker 1: a poll. Carelli's campaign put out a poll that has
Speaker 1: Cinerelli only down three points forty five forty two. It's
Speaker 1: about where I expect this race. I think this is
Speaker 1: going to be a very close race. I think the
Speaker 1: atmospherics favor the Democrats generally. We know that without Trump
Speaker 1: on the ballot, Democratic turnout and non Trump non MAGA
Speaker 1: turnout seems to outperform MAGA on that front. But if
Speaker 1: the Republicans do have success this cycle, it will be
Speaker 1: in New Jersey. This is a state that Trump continues
Speaker 1: to improve his standing in every election he's done a
Speaker 1: little bit better. He did very well in this previous
Speaker 1: presidential I'm convinced, for instance, Joe Biden been the nominee
Speaker 1: on the ballot, Trump might have carried New Jersey. So
Speaker 1: it's it's I do think if Trump does campaign, and
Speaker 1: I don't know if he will be on the stump
Speaker 1: very often, but if he does campaign this calendar here,
Speaker 1: my guess is it will.
Speaker 2: Be in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: We'll see if he can get if CIDERELLI can get
Speaker 1: Trump to do an event somewhere that isn't in Bedminster.
Speaker 2: Which is of course his New Jersey golf club. But
Speaker 2: we shall see.
Speaker 1: There One other New York twenty twenty five race that
Speaker 1: I'm keeping an eye on is what's happening in New
Speaker 1: York City. We're a week away from that primary. A
Speaker 1: few little nuggets I want to update you on. One
Speaker 1: is there's a fun I say, this is an interesting ad.
Speaker 1: You know, the ranked choice voting, and as the concept
Speaker 1: of ranked choice voting in theory is great, I think
Speaker 1: in practice it's very difficult, but I it does create
Speaker 1: some unique, unique coalitions. And there's a new TV ad
Speaker 1: that two of the challengers to Andrew Cuomo who are
Speaker 1: trailing him, but they kind of need each other because Zoran,
Speaker 1: Mom Donnie and Brad Lander. They have essentially started to
Speaker 1: run jointly. Now they have a cute little ad where
Speaker 1: they're getting ready to go get a cup of coffee,
Speaker 1: and it's like you go second, you go second, because
Speaker 1: the idea is one would rank. You know, what they're
Speaker 1: doing is saying, hey, we want my supporters. You rank
Speaker 1: me one, you rank the other guy too, and then
Speaker 1: vice versa. Because they're trying to create that whichever one,
Speaker 1: it's traction that they're able to stop Cuomo. I do
Speaker 1: think that that both of them are probably too progressive,
Speaker 1: particularly on the on the issue of Israel, that is
Speaker 1: that is probably going to uh make it hard for
Speaker 1: them to topple Cuomo. And you know, I don't I'd
Speaker 1: be surprised if Mom Donnie was able to pull this off.
Speaker 1: In many ways, the ranked choice voting method has been
Speaker 1: you know, the more conservative or the more progressive you are,
Speaker 1: the less successful they seem to be in elections that
Speaker 1: feature ranked choice voting. So I'm skeptical that Mom Donnie
Speaker 1: or Lander's going to get there. But it's a fascinating,
Speaker 1: you know end cape Lander getting arrested. Perhaps that was
Speaker 1: something he hoped for a confrontation, certainly getting him plenty
Speaker 1: of plenty of press right before the primary election. So
Speaker 1: I'm not as convinced going you know, when you're trying
Speaker 1: to win an election and you're not talking about the issue.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not saying these ice rates aren't issues
Speaker 1: for some New York City voters, but it's an indirect right.
Speaker 1: It's more of a federal issue. It's more of a
Speaker 1: national issue. Is that going to be a driver of
Speaker 1: turnout for voters in New York City? I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I'm a had skeptical whenever you're not sort of
Speaker 1: focused on bread and butter, focused on what you know,
Speaker 1: focused on housing, focused on the subway, things like that.
Speaker 1: One other notable New York update for what it's worth.
Speaker 1: Richie Torres, who of course I've had as a guest
Speaker 1: here who's planning a run for governor, says he's not
Speaker 1: going to run for governor if Zoran mom Donnie is
Speaker 1: elected mayor. Now you know, Richie Torres very pro Israel
Speaker 1: he is. I can't tell if I would call him
Speaker 1: a reluctant Cuomo supporter when he was on the podcast,
Speaker 1: but he said he's a Cuomo supporter, and it's primarily,
Speaker 1: I think because everybody else is just too progressive for him.
Speaker 1: But here's what Torres said. He is look, he goes,
Speaker 1: I'm out of the twenty twenty six race for governor
Speaker 1: if he had to deal with a socialist mayor of
Speaker 1: the nation's largest city, referring to Mam Donnie. So in
Speaker 1: some ways you do sort of as and this is
Speaker 1: what I was wondering about. As Mom Donnie has gotten
Speaker 1: more traction, right, Bertie Sanders is endorsed to me, he
Speaker 1: has endorsed him, that you might see some of the
Speaker 1: sort of moderate Democrats or centrist Democrats of New York
Speaker 1: City start to push back and push back hard.
Speaker 2: And I think that that is the fact that Mom Donnie.
Speaker 1: Is is the candidate that's being talked about more than
Speaker 1: Cuomo himself. And you know, I've written and said extensively
Speaker 1: I can't believe New York City is facing the choice
Speaker 1: that they're facing here. But I do think I'll understand
Speaker 1: if Cuomo ends up winning. I think I'll be able
Speaker 1: to explain why he won. But we shall see a
Speaker 1: few other every Wednesday. I kind of want to do
Speaker 1: as best I can a little campaign update things that
Speaker 1: have caught my eye. As you know, I've singled out
Speaker 1: Michael Bennett, the Colorado Senator, Democratic Senator for some time.
Speaker 1: In fact, I talked to a recent Democratic Senator, a
Speaker 1: current Democratic Senator who's bummed that Michael Bennett is not
Speaker 1: going to stay in the Senate and is instead going
Speaker 1: to run for governor because this person had hoped Michael
Speaker 1: Bennett would be a Schumer replacement. And in fact, if
Speaker 1: Michael Bennett had ever expressed any interest in being Senate
Speaker 1: Democratic leader, I think that he would have the votes
Speaker 1: to do it. And the fact that he's walking away
Speaker 1: right now, I think just tells you how much many
Speaker 1: Senators can't stand being in the Senate these days. The
Speaker 1: Senate isn't a fun place, and arguably the worst job
Speaker 1: in the Senate is being a Senate leader, either the
Speaker 1: set of Republican leader or the setate Democratic leader. It's
Speaker 1: not a fun place to be. You're a walking and
Speaker 1: sometimes talking punching bag, and it's not a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: But Bennett looks like he could be on a glide
Speaker 1: path to the governor's mansion. In twenty twenty six. He's
Speaker 1: in a poll that was released by his campaign matched
Speaker 1: up against the sitting Attorney general, who was seen as
Speaker 1: somebody that was going to run had Bennett decided not
Speaker 1: to feel wiser. There, Bennett leads by over thirty points,
Speaker 1: already pulling over fifty percent in the primaries, pretty high
Speaker 1: favorable ratings in the Democratic side seventy four percent. So look,
Speaker 1: I imagine that this is going to be more of
Speaker 1: a cake walk. In fact, both there's three senators seeking
Speaker 1: the governorship. You have Michael Bennett and Colorado, Marshall Blackburn
Speaker 1: and Tennessee, and Tommy Tupperville in Alabama. I'm going to
Speaker 1: make a bold prediction here that Tommy Tupperville has the
Speaker 1: closest race of the three. Not Michael Bennett and Colorado,
Speaker 1: not marxsh Blackburn in Tennessee, but Tommy Tupperville.
Speaker 2: Just something to keep on eyes, especially if Doug Jones
Speaker 2: ends up running.
Speaker 1: And I've said to you in the past, governor's races
Speaker 1: are more likely to defy the red blue tradition of
Speaker 1: a state than a center races, So just keep that
Speaker 1: in mind. A few other GUBERNATORI notes that I think
Speaker 1: folks ought to keep an eye on Byron Donalds, right,
Speaker 1: who's the congressman Donald Trump's already endorsed, He's running for
Speaker 1: governor in Florida, already up with an attack ad on
Speaker 1: the pot on a former Republican Member of Congress, David Jolly,
Speaker 1: who switch parties to run as a Democrat. David Jolly
Speaker 1: might not even be the Democratic nominee. Donalds might not
Speaker 1: be the Republican nominee. And Donalds is already up with
Speaker 1: an attack ad that's on digital on Jolly, using try
Speaker 1: and using a lot of issues to hit him for
Speaker 1: being supportive of the Democratic Party. But I'd noticed the
Speaker 1: transgender issue was as prominent as any in this ad.
Speaker 1: Not Donalds isn't the first. Quite a few Republicans are
Speaker 1: looking at that transgender ad that Trump used against Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris in the presidential and are looking for ways to
Speaker 1: bring that back as a way to try to define
Speaker 1: their opponent. In the case of Jolly, Jolly is trying
Speaker 1: to define himself as a reluctant Democrat who's just running
Speaker 1: there because as the Republican Party left him and there's
Speaker 1: no viable way to go. Fascinating to watch Donald's wanting
Speaker 1: to brand Jolly as a as a Democrat, believing just
Speaker 1: simply that party label will be unpopular enough in the
Speaker 1: state of Florida. Be curious to see if Jolly has
Speaker 1: the money to push back and fight back and also
Speaker 1: worth your watch time. Ohio governor is also another governor's
Speaker 1: race that I think is going to be sneaky close.
Speaker 1: And I think it doesn't matter whether Tim Ryan runs
Speaker 1: or not. In fact, I actually think Tim Ryan wouldn't
Speaker 1: be the best candidate there. There is a candidate already
Speaker 1: running named Amy Acton. Now, Amy Acton was the lead,
Speaker 1: was the doctor that Mike DeWine leaned on during COVID
Speaker 1: and proved to be one of the most one of
Speaker 1: the most effective state public health leaders there was. Now
Speaker 1: like anybody in the public health space, she became polarizing
Speaker 1: plea for articulating the best practices in the public health space. Well,
Speaker 1: she got very frustrated by the political scene. She's running
Speaker 1: for governor as a Democrat. She's got a new ad
Speaker 1: going after Vivick Ramaswami, comparing you know and going all
Speaker 1: in on Elon Musk and Vivick. And what's interesting about
Speaker 1: the ad is it closes with Mike DeWine. The term
Speaker 1: limited Republican governor not running, one would assume he will
Speaker 1: probably reluctantly endorse Vivick Ramaswami, though we know he's not
Speaker 1: a huge fan. In fact, he's been trying to recruit
Speaker 1: his new lieutenant governor, Jim Trussel, the former coach of
Speaker 1: Ohio State, to run because I know he's no fan
Speaker 1: of Ramaswami. Actin uses Diwine at a press conference praising
Speaker 1: Actin and said, you know, some superheroes wear capes. Here
Speaker 1: in Ohio, they wear a white coat, referring to Amy
Speaker 1: Actin there.
Speaker 2: So I just it's a.
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced Ramaswami is a shoe in there. I
Speaker 1: think it's a I think governor. I think voter take
Speaker 1: their gubernatory elections more seriously than they take Senate elections,
Speaker 1: and I think he is going to be he is
Speaker 1: going to have to be honest toes to win this. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's easier to win a race as a Republican than
Speaker 1: as a Democrat in Ohio these days. But Acton is
Speaker 1: sort of a non traditional politician. She's it's hard to
Speaker 1: call her some sort of longtime democrat. She's been a
Speaker 1: public health official and then she just sort of decided
Speaker 1: to jump into politics. I know COVID's not exactly something
Speaker 1: anybody wants to talk about again, and maybe that alone
Speaker 1: will make it difficult for her to win, But.
Speaker 2: Keep an eye on it.
Speaker 1: And finally, before we get to the interview with Pat McCrory,
Speaker 1: I want to give a shout out to my friends
Speaker 1: at National Journal. They have an incredible new product that
Speaker 1: they call the Listening Let me get this right.
Speaker 2: I want to get it right here.
Speaker 1: The Listening Station, which is this They basically do a
Speaker 1: roundup of what the top podcasters are saying on the
Speaker 1: right and what the top top podcasters on any given
Speaker 1: week are saying on the left, noting the various what
Speaker 1: are the big topics? So, for instance, in their newsletter
Speaker 1: this week, you can go sign up for it to
Speaker 1: a free newsletter. It's called the Listening Station. They have
Speaker 1: a newsletter that they put out Listening Station at National
Speaker 1: Journal dot com. Obviously I used to work there. This
Speaker 1: is the type of thing I would have wanted the
Speaker 1: Hotline to be doing, and I'm ecstatic that they're doing
Speaker 1: something like this. They quote from Charlie Kirk from John
Speaker 1: Solomon Reports Human Events that's on the right hand side
Speaker 1: of things. They talk about the fight for on the left,
Speaker 1: where they're looking for their new Joe Rogan, I have
Speaker 1: some quotes from the Bulwark podcast. But anyway, take a look.
Speaker 1: If you're trying, if you feel overwhelmed by not being
Speaker 1: able to keep track of this new independent podcast space,
Speaker 1: and you're wondering what topics are being discussed in the
Speaker 1: maga podcasting world, in the progressive podcasting world, and everybody
Speaker 1: in the middle between those two extremes, I think this
Speaker 1: newsletter is going to be something you find quite informative
Speaker 1: and quite helpful. They've had two editions of it so far.
Speaker 1: I think it's a home run. Kudos to my friends
Speaker 1: there at National Journal. All right, let's do a little
Speaker 1: last chuck as Chuck all right. Question comes from Mario
Speaker 1: from Mexico City. In fact, he writes, greetings from Mexico City.
Speaker 1: I followed you since your days to Meet the Press.
Speaker 1: I've listened to the vast majority of your episodes since
Speaker 1: you started podcasting. Appreciate your thoughtfulness and analysis. My question is,
Speaker 1: as follows. You have mentioned, we might not know the
Speaker 1: leader of a renewed Democratic party because he or she
Speaker 1: has yet to emerge. You've sided Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: and Barack Obama as examples. My question and challenge to
Speaker 1: that is that in this media environment, can you really
Speaker 1: emerge and compete with people who already have a brand
Speaker 1: and a following and perhaps hold prominent office. That is,
Speaker 1: don't you think the visible potential leaders would hold an
Speaker 1: insturmountable advantage over someone new Given media today, I have
Speaker 1: trouble seeing anyone other than AOC Gavin Newsom, maybe Wes Moore,
Speaker 1: maybe Andy Basheer emerging. For that reason, of course, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about to eight, but more so as a proxy
Speaker 1: for what the new Democratic Party would be about. In
Speaker 1: other words, I'm not sure. I'm not sure we should
Speaker 1: hold our breasts for a US version of New Labor.
Speaker 1: By the way, I think the same is true of
Speaker 1: the Republicans, where Trump and Trump related people take up
Speaker 1: all the oxygen, thus thwarting any other leaders or political
Speaker 1: currents inside the party. Thanks for the great work. It's
Speaker 1: an interesting observation, Mario. I sort of look at it
Speaker 1: almost though that. Let me let me put it this way.
Speaker 1: Look at how quickly people become famous now in America,
Speaker 1: in that they can go from zero to famous almost immediately.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a viral moment, right, I think the Hoktua
Speaker 1: girl is. You know, I know that that's one weird example,
Speaker 1: But the point is.
Speaker 2: Is that.
Speaker 1: I think that the ability to go from unknown to
Speaker 1: known in this sort of flattened media environment, Yes, you
Speaker 1: can have this brand, which you're also then well defined.
Speaker 1: Uh if you have a well defined brand and you're
Speaker 1: looking for something new, well you've been around a while, right,
Speaker 1: So you know I could take the exact same points
Speaker 1: you make and say, hey, all of these brands are
Speaker 1: going to feel stale by twenty eight. Look when we're
Speaker 1: talking about these folks twenty twenty five, can Newsom and
Speaker 1: AOC feel fresh three years from now in maybe the
Speaker 1: way they seem somewhat fresh today. So that's why I
Speaker 1: think it's possible. Look, Pete Bootajide, you could have made
Speaker 1: this same point in twenty sixteen, and yet Pete Bootajidge
Speaker 1: went from people but Dba bud Dabah Bibah right couldn't
Speaker 1: even pronounce his name to now everybody can figure out
Speaker 1: how to pronounce his name. In some ways, it was
Speaker 1: it actually helped him go viral. There was this whole
Speaker 1: it's Buddha Judge or Buddha jidg. However you wanted to
Speaker 1: look at it right. He had these little phonetic ways
Speaker 1: that he would tell you how to say his name.
Speaker 1: So I understand the point you're making. But I actually
Speaker 1: think in this day and age that when a unknown
Speaker 1: mayor of South Bend can become a front runner for
Speaker 1: the Democratic nomination within sort of two and a half
Speaker 1: three years of becoming relevant, I think that tells you
Speaker 1: we live in a media ecosystem that can quickly give
Speaker 1: you brand ID give you name recognition. So yes, I
Speaker 1: take your point, but I don't think it's harder. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's hard to become a name brand in
Speaker 1: this current ecosystem. I actually think it's faster and easier.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at how quickly you can launch a
Speaker 1: brand and it's suddenly. I look at some retail brands
Speaker 1: hook this. I don't feel like I ever really saw
Speaker 1: it in a store or a TV commercials. It was
Speaker 1: just sort of went viral and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: it's a mainstream brand. So yeah, I wouldn't underestimate the
Speaker 1: ease with which one can break into the media ecosystem.
Speaker 2: And become a big time brand as shock.
Speaker 1: All right, next question comes from James Wired Senators or
Speaker 1: House members impeached by their constituents or state legislators. Is
Speaker 1: that possible Michael's messaging about the shooting should be worthy
Speaker 1: of such actions. Politicians should be better than this. Thanks, well, Look,
Speaker 1: recalls are state level issues. You cannot both federally elected
Speaker 1: senators and federal elected House members. Their constitution does not
Speaker 1: provide a recall initiative. Now the chambers themselves, right, the
Speaker 1: House can kick somebody out of the House. The Senate
Speaker 1: can kick somebody out of the Senate. We've had it sometimes.
Speaker 1: You know, Bob Menendez was going to get expelled if
Speaker 1: he didn't resign. Bob Packwood was going to get expelled
Speaker 1: if he didn't resign. So we've instances of that. But
Speaker 1: I doubt look as polarized as we are, and I
Speaker 1: think that US senators would be loath to have someone
Speaker 1: ousted for rhetoric because that's a slippery slope. Whatever people
Speaker 1: think of the of remember, he's got a First Amendment
Speaker 1: right to say it. So whatever you think of the rhetoric,
Speaker 1: he does have it. But look, recalls on a state level,
Speaker 1: they can happen, and issues like this can trigger it.
Speaker 1: You know, Mike Lee is a head scratcher to me
Speaker 1: in general, the bullwork in an analysis that's been floating around.
Speaker 1: The guy seems to be way too online. You know,
Speaker 1: he needs to detox from online. Look, we know social
Speaker 1: media can be addictive. I think there's quite a few
Speaker 1: people on the left side and the right side of
Speaker 1: the spectrum that will spend way too much online time online.
Speaker 1: It's always weird to me when elected officials, particularly Ted
Speaker 1: Cruise and Mike Lee, who seem to be more worried
Speaker 1: about social media communications or podcasting than they are doing
Speaker 1: the job of US senator. That's always been odd to
Speaker 1: me how much time, particularly the two of them, spend
Speaker 1: on They're they're sort of public comments. But you know,
Speaker 1: part of politics these days is communicating like this. So
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sit here and say I don't think
Speaker 1: it's the best use of their time. But they have
Speaker 1: decided it's the best use of their time. But Mike
Speaker 1: Lee's reputation, you know is really maybe he doesn't care,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure he doesn't. Right, he's got these two
Speaker 1: you know, he literally has a jeckyal and hide Twitter feed. Right,
Speaker 1: doctor Jekyl is the official office feed, right, and mister
Speaker 1: Hyde That's what it was, right, Mister Hyde was the
Speaker 1: crazy one, Doctor Jekyl was the was the doctor. I
Speaker 1: can't remember which who we decided was the crazy one
Speaker 1: and which one was the was the normal one?
Speaker 2: But based Mike Lee is.
Speaker 1: Essentially unscripted Mike Lee and the other site is his
Speaker 1: official Senate site. But ever since, you know, it's funny
Speaker 1: Mike Lee was an early never Trumper and then like
Speaker 1: you know, it's he's almost like a reform smoker. Once
Speaker 1: he flipped back to being pro Trumper. He was, you know,
Speaker 1: sitting there lecturing anybody that didn't didn't flip to his
Speaker 1: side of the aisle as well. There's look, I you know,
Speaker 1: I I'm hesitant. It's weird, you know that that people
Speaker 1: on the left, if they disagree with Fetterman, they want
Speaker 1: to say, oh, there must be something wrong with them.
Speaker 1: And I'm loath to say the same thing of the
Speaker 1: you know, is there something wrong with Mike Lee? But
Speaker 1: you do got to ask yourself if he spends way
Speaker 1: too much time online? It was something an inordinate amount
Speaker 1: of tweets on a daily basis, and you're sitting there
Speaker 1: going don't you have better things to do and better
Speaker 1: things to focus on? A shot? Finally, last one is
Speaker 1: a bit of a comment, but I thought it was.
Speaker 1: I'm going to share it because I want to give
Speaker 1: a shout out to my one of my producers, Nasa Davis,
Speaker 1: because she did she helped me with what's about to
Speaker 1: be a great compliment from one of our listeners. Not
Speaker 1: a question, but a note. I just want to share
Speaker 1: my sincere thanks for the details you provided in the
Speaker 1: June twelfth podcast, how does GOP reclaim Republican Party from Trump?
Speaker 1: Regarding how forty five million dollars could be spent instead
Speaker 1: of the boondogle military parade on June fourteenth, I just
Speaker 1: send emails to my North Carolina US representative and North
Speaker 1: Carolina senators with those examples, expressing my outrage with the
Speaker 1: waste of money. Each time I read the examples to myself,
Speaker 1: particularly the fourteen million school lunches, I got choked up.
Speaker 1: What a tragedy, heartbreaking and enraging at the same time.
Speaker 1: If more people, politicians, journalists, etc. Would provide this type
Speaker 1: of information, it would go a long way to help
Speaker 1: Americans see how their taxpayer money is not being used
Speaker 1: to help improve their lives. Thank you for continuing to
Speaker 1: keep us informed while making it interesting as well. I've
Speaker 1: been listening to you for ten years now. Thank you
Speaker 1: appreciate it. While sometimes the truth is harder to hear,
Speaker 1: I feel more prepared to handle what's going on. Warm
Speaker 1: regards and Marie l Anne, Marie, thank you for those
Speaker 1: kind words. I especially like the fact is, while sometimes
Speaker 1: the truth is hard to hear, I feel more prepared
Speaker 1: to handle.
Speaker 2: What's going on.
Speaker 1: Say I cover politics as it is, not as I
Speaker 1: wish it were. That doesn't mean I'm not going to
Speaker 1: express how I think it should be. But I also
Speaker 1: need to live in the world that we live in
Speaker 1: and respect the fact that, Hey, democracies are about compromising.
Speaker 1: We make a compromise choice. We never make the choice
Speaker 1: we all want. We make the best possible choice that
Speaker 1: three hundred and thirty million of us can come together
Speaker 1: and not overly disagree about. So it's a messy, messy process.
Speaker 1: So you have to be able to cover politics as
Speaker 1: it is. But at the same time, that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you shouldn't lay out and aspire to how politics could
Speaker 1: be or should be done. With that, I will take
Speaker 1: a twenty at least a twenty four hour break. And
Speaker 1: with that, by the way, check out my latest sub stack.
Speaker 1: We do a decade of Trump, what we've learned and
Speaker 1: what we still have to learn. When it comes to
Speaker 1: all things Donald Trump, it is whatever you think of them.
Speaker 1: We haven't had a He's probably the most consequential president
Speaker 1: we've had, at least on our culture and on the
Speaker 1: on the presidency since FDR.
Speaker 2: Take a look at my post. If you don't like
Speaker 2: what I just said, take a look at my post that.
Speaker 1: Explained to me why you why you might disagree. Happy
Speaker 1: to take on those questions as well, so please don't forget.
Speaker 2: If you want to shoot me a.
Speaker 1: Question, ask Chuck at the chucktodcast dot com, or drop
Speaker 1: a comment on our YouTube page, UH, Instagram, Twitter, wherever, LinkedIn,
Speaker 1: wherever you want UH to have a comment.
Speaker 2: And with that, until we upload it, that