Speaker 1: Hey guys, we had some big breaking news this morning
Speaker 1: with regard to Israel that we wanted to bring you
Speaker 1: a few actually major updates for you this morning. So
Speaker 1: first and foremost, the temporary truce is over. Put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. The truce has expired. Israel has
Speaker 1: resumed their assault. International mediators said that talks were continuing
Speaker 1: in the hopes of quickly reviving the truce, but as
Speaker 1: of now you had Hamas blaming Israel for the collapse
Speaker 1: of the ceasefire, saying in a statement it had offered
Speaker 1: to release more hostages, including older people, but that Israel
Speaker 1: had made a quote prior decision to resume the criminal aggression.
Speaker 1: That is Hamas's side of the story. Israel says that
Speaker 1: Hamas violated the ceasefire agreement by firing on Israel and
Speaker 1: failing to release as many hostages as it had promised.
Speaker 1: Hamas released eight hostages on Thursday. That was too fewer
Speaker 1: than expected after releasing at least ninety four since the
Speaker 1: truce began, And Sagar, you know basically where we are
Speaker 1: at this point is the original agreement that enabled this
Speaker 1: temporary ceasefire had to do with women and children. Well, now,
Speaker 1: at this point most of the women and children have
Speaker 1: been released. So what Hamas is saying, and you know,
Speaker 1: take it for what it's worth, is that they've been
Speaker 1: trying to expand that deal to include other categories of
Speaker 1: people in Israel at this point has been relatively uninterested.
Speaker 1: We've covered on our show, of course comments from Netan
Speaker 1: Yahoo and also comments from Defense Minister Galant about how
Speaker 1: they are very committed to going back to the war,
Speaker 1: to even expanding the war and focusing on the south
Speaker 1: of the Strip. And in fact, this morning we can
Speaker 1: also report put this up on the screen flag byro
Speaker 1: and Ryan Grim. They are leafleting in Conunis, that is
Speaker 1: one of the cities in the southern part of the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip where people had fled, and they are warning
Speaker 1: them that they need to evacuate con Unis less before
Speaker 1: this next bombing campaign begins. And we already also know
Speaker 1: this morning that some of those bombs have already begun dropping,
Speaker 1: and we've had reports of dozens of people already killed
Speaker 1: in renewed hostilities.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so all of this fits basically what was telegraphed,
Speaker 2: But the big question is around how long this is
Speaker 2: going to go and there's a big dueling strategy between
Speaker 2: what the United States and really the Western allies of
Speaker 2: Israel want and then what Israel itself is planning on doing.
Speaker 2: So we can go and put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken reportedly told the
Speaker 2: Israelis behind the scenes, he said, you have weeks, not
Speaker 2: months to prosecute this campaign. The Israelis are like, no,
Speaker 2: I really don't think so. And actually Crystal just breaking
Speaker 2: this morning from the Financial Times with a leak from
Speaker 2: the Tel Aviv from Tel Aviv and the Israeli war
Speaker 2: Cabinets says quote Israel plans for a long war, aims
Speaker 2: to kill the top three Hamas leaders. They say that
Speaker 2: the intensive ground strategy in Gaza will continue into early
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. Obviously, that is one where that could
Speaker 2: mean anything. That could mean January. It also could mean
Speaker 2: March or April, depending on which way that you want
Speaker 2: to look at it. The top three Hamas leaders inclusion
Speaker 2: in that actually includes people who are currently living in Noha,
Speaker 2: so that'll be an interesting thing. But most importantly is
Speaker 2: they are basically trying to do to or telegraphing that
Speaker 2: they want to do to communists what they did in
Speaker 2: North Gaza, which puts them directly at odds with what
Speaker 2: the US and growing calls for limiting and changing Israeli
Speaker 2: tactics here in the US. They want to do the
Speaker 2: exact same thing to envelop the city of communists cut
Speaker 2: it off from the south, so we will see multiple
Speaker 2: more ground incursions, most likely from a forward operating in
Speaker 2: North Gaza. Gaza City could be a staging area and
Speaker 2: also the shared border. What they did previously to Gaza cities,
Speaker 2: they cut it off from the south in terms of
Speaker 2: fleeing both fighters and civilians, and then came in from
Speaker 2: the top and enveloped the entire thing while having air strikes.
Speaker 2: Now the air strikes have already resumed. It's difficult to
Speaker 2: pin down exactly where, but even some reported at the
Speaker 2: rough a crossing like previously that we had seen. And
Speaker 2: of course, you know what we have to always think
Speaker 2: about are the two million or so people who remain
Speaker 2: inside of Gaza, we're told are being told now to
Speaker 2: flee this effectively, while it was already one of the
Speaker 2: most densely populated places in the world, they are now
Speaker 2: fleeing the quote unquote evacuation zone in the south and
Speaker 2: trying to limit people. It's difficult to see without a map,
Speaker 2: but if you think about the first third is basically
Speaker 2: been occupied, most of the civilian infrastructure has been destroyed.
Speaker 2: Now we're moving on to the second third, and everybody's
Speaker 2: being trying or at least ideally compressed into this like
Speaker 2: small tiny area of the strip, which you know, raises
Speaker 2: a question of where the hell they want to go,
Speaker 2: and is I think is going to significantly increase questions
Speaker 2: and pressure and high stakes negotiations because I just also
Speaker 2: saw from the Wall Street Journal increasing calls from Israeli
Speaker 2: leaders who are pressuring the US officials. They're like, you
Speaker 2: guys need to take some of these Palestinians, or you
Speaker 2: need to pressure the Arab states to accept them. And
Speaker 2: of course, you know, the Palestinians themselves are very reluctant
Speaker 2: to take that dale simply because they don't think that
Speaker 2: they'll ever be able to come back. This goes to
Speaker 2: much more meta questions around all of this. But the
Speaker 2: I think we could say with probably good confidence that
Speaker 2: the truce is over, at least in the form that
Speaker 2: we knew it. If there is a temporary cease fire.
Speaker 2: It possibly could maybe a day or two something like that,
Speaker 2: but the willingness of the Israeli forces to restart the
Speaker 2: campaign it looks pretty ironclad. And that is a rebuke
Speaker 2: I think of the Biden administration, who very publicly was like,
Speaker 2: we don't want this to restart. So it also shows
Speaker 2: you the limits of US diplomacy.
Speaker 1: Well, especially when that diplomacy only comes with like, please
Speaker 1: listen to what we're saying, and not the actual use
Speaker 1: of any of the cards that we could very easily
Speaker 1: play if we wanted to. And let me read a
Speaker 1: little bit of the specifics of what Tony Blinkln reportedly
Speaker 1: told the Israeli war Cabinet, because it shows you just
Speaker 1: how at odds the administration at least what they're saying
Speaker 1: is from the Israeli War Cabinet and of course led
Speaker 1: by Netan Yahoo. So these reported remarks were quoted in Hebrew.
Speaker 1: This is a translation by Channel twelve News, which is
Speaker 1: part of why it's like English is a little bit choppy. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Blinken said, according to them, quote, you can't operate in
Speaker 1: southern Gaza in the way you did in the north.
Speaker 1: There are two million Palestinians there. You need to evacuate
Speaker 1: fewer people from their homes, be more accurate in the attacks,
Speaker 1: not hit un facilities, and ensure there are enough protected
Speaker 1: areas for civilians, and if not, then don't attack where
Speaker 1: there is a civilian population. He goes on to ask
Speaker 1: what is your system of operation? He told them at
Speaker 1: one point, in no uncertain words, you do not have months,
Speaker 1: you have weeks. Now again, is US influence going to
Speaker 1: be brought to bear to try to guarantee that result
Speaker 1: remains to be seen? We haven't seen any of that
Speaker 1: thus far. He also raised the question of the day
Speaker 1: after all, right after you finish your bombing campaign and
Speaker 1: your ground invasion in all of this, what then? Of course,
Speaker 1: the net Yahoo government has floated all sorts of trial balloons,
Speaker 1: which we've discussed here, one of which seems to be
Speaker 1: their ideal solution of pushing everybody out as you're talking
Speaker 1: about Sagar. They're into you know, neighboring Arab countries or
Speaker 1: some to the US, or exclusively into Egypt, but they
Speaker 1: won't actually commit to what their real goal is. And
Speaker 1: Blincoln said, you don't want the Palestinian authority on the
Speaker 1: day after we understand that that's what the Solution in
Speaker 1: the US has been pushing. The best way to kill
Speaker 1: an idea is to bring a better idea. The other
Speaker 1: states in the region need to know what you are planning,
Speaker 1: so putting pressure there as well. But again clearly, and
Speaker 1: I think with the restart of this bombing campaign, and
Speaker 1: you know, which thus far seems to be approached in
Speaker 1: exactly the same way that the Northern bombing campaign occurs.
Speaker 1: They don't care what the US says behind the scenes
Speaker 1: or leaks to the press, et cetera. There's no evidence
Speaker 1: that they care about our words and our secret displeasure
Speaker 1: with their actions to you know the point you were making, Sager.
Speaker 1: You have so many people condensed now in this very
Speaker 1: small area that the possibility of even greater civilian death
Speaker 1: is very real, very real. There's a report that came out.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you had a chance to read it.
Speaker 1: It's from this nine to seventy two magazine. I may
Speaker 1: dig it into it more on Monday, talking about the
Speaker 1: way they have approached this war and how it's actually
Speaker 1: been different than some of the tactics that they've used previously,
Speaker 1: even within Gaza, and one of the major categories of
Speaker 1: targets that they've approached are so called power targets. These
Speaker 1: are things like major buildings, high rise apartment buildings, where
Speaker 1: in previous wars, it's not that they would have put
Speaker 1: them off limits, but they would have at least tried
Speaker 1: to make sure that civilians had left before they struck
Speaker 1: these targets. This time around, they made these power targets
Speaker 1: and individual residential homes. They're primary targets. Not because this
Speaker 1: was the best way to degrade hamasa's capability, far from it.
Speaker 1: Some of these buildings have very limited relationship to Hamas whatsoever,
Speaker 1: but because they want to shock the population into putting
Speaker 1: pressure on HAMAS. So those are the sort of tactics
Speaker 1: that Blinkn is referring to here when he says you
Speaker 1: can't do in the South what you did in the North.
Speaker 1: The North is destroyed, like there is nothing left to
Speaker 1: go back to. Effectively, all of the civilian life and
Speaker 1: infrastructure in the North has been gutted. So that's where
Speaker 1: we are right now today. And this comes also as
Speaker 1: there is a stunning report from the New York Times
Speaker 1: about we were debating whether you can even call it
Speaker 1: an intelligence failure. At this point they knew put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen about the October seventh plans. More
Speaker 1: than a year in advance. Israeli officials obtain Hamas's battle
Speaker 1: plan I'm reading now for the October seventh terrorist attack,
Speaker 1: a year before it happened, documents, emails, and interviews show,
Speaker 1: but is really Military and intelligence officials dismiss the plan
Speaker 1: as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.
Speaker 1: The translated document didn't set a date for the attack,
Speaker 1: but described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications
Speaker 1: around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities, and storm
Speaker 1: key military bases, including a division headquarters. They go on
Speaker 1: to say they followed this blueprint with shocking precision. You're
Speaker 1: talking about. It called for a barrage of rockets to start,
Speaker 1: drones to knock out the security cameras, and automated machine
Speaker 1: guns along the border. Gun Men to pour into israel
Speaker 1: En mass in paragliders, on motorcycles and on foot, all
Speaker 1: of which happened on October seventh. And not only that,
Speaker 1: so they've got this document laying out the plan. They
Speaker 1: also had an intelligence unit that was monitoring activities in
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip and these analysts were saying, we're watching them
Speaker 1: prepare for these attacks. We see them training, we see
Speaker 1: what they're doing. They're serious about this, and those concerns
Speaker 1: by the higher ups from this, by the way, all
Speaker 1: female unit, we're completely dismissed in spite of the fact
Speaker 1: that they had this intelligence right in front of their
Speaker 1: face of what they were planning. It is truly astonishing
Speaker 1: that this was missed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is not an intelligence failure because it's clearly
Speaker 2: the intelligence work. This is a leadership failure through and through.
Speaker 2: There's no other way to describe it. Also, there was
Speaker 2: a lot of talk after nine to eleven, not only
Speaker 2: of the intelligence failure, but everyone's like, oh, it was
Speaker 2: a failure of imagination. I mean here, it just seems
Speaker 2: to be that they just simply did not believe that
Speaker 2: Hamas was capable of a large scale military operation, despite twenties,
Speaker 2: almost twenty years now of them warning that they have
Speaker 2: military capabilities, rockets, terrorists, they have all of these weapons.
Speaker 2: And this is why, you know, you have to just
Speaker 2: be deeply skeptical here where when they say BB says
Speaker 2: we need a long war, well, the longer this thing
Speaker 2: goes on, the better off it is for him. The
Speaker 2: more he farther away he can get up from October seventh,
Speaker 2: the less questions are going to be asked about what happened.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about the failures the day after the war,
Speaker 2: but for now, we're going to continue to fight the war.
Speaker 2: And you can't help but think he's one of the
Speaker 2: least popular prime ministers now in all of Israeli history.
Speaker 2: The coalition government behind him that continues to support him
Speaker 2: is held on by a thread, largely by most of
Speaker 2: his furthest right elements, and he has a direct incentive.
Speaker 2: So this is again why I just think if he
Speaker 2: truly cared about Israel, he would resign. There's just no question.
Speaker 2: You need a leader with actual confidence to be for
Speaker 2: the Israeli public and also to negotiate in best faith
Speaker 2: for whenever you're sitting across the table from the US,
Speaker 2: from all the Western allies. So yeah, reading through it,
Speaker 2: it is just it's shocking, because what's crazy is the
Speaker 2: plan was followed almost to a tee. The blueprint of
Speaker 2: where and how to attack, not just the paragliders, their area,
Speaker 2: where to go.
Speaker 1: What they do. They wanted to overrun how they're going
Speaker 1: to distract him with the rockets. They knew that they
Speaker 1: had been distracted already in the West Bank by the
Speaker 1: extremist factions of the Net Yahoo coalition. All of it
Speaker 1: to a t. I mean, it's incredible reading these emails
Speaker 1: that this intelligence analyst was sending, trying her best to
Speaker 1: send up a warning, she said. I utterly refute that
Speaker 1: the scenario is imaginary. She wrote. In one email, The
Speaker 1: Hamas training exercise, she said, fully matched the content of
Speaker 1: Jericho Wall, which is the name of this document that
Speaker 1: they were able to obtain. It is a plan designed
Speaker 1: to start a war, she added. It is not just
Speaker 1: a raid on a village. I mean, just as direct
Speaker 1: as she possibly can, and they just dismissed it. And
Speaker 1: I think it speaks to you know, it speaks to
Speaker 1: an complete level of arrogance, right Net and Yahoo has
Speaker 1: this idea we control the height of the flames, obviously not.
Speaker 1: I think it speaks to level of contempt for Palestinians
Speaker 1: of like Ah. They're not capable of anything approaching this, so,
Speaker 1: you know, which ties into the arrogance. Also a level
Speaker 1: of overconfidence in their technology. Their technology, you know, their
Speaker 1: fancy wall with all their super top tech, super expensive,
Speaker 1: with their remote control machine guns, et cetera, which we
Speaker 1: know from what unfolded on October seventh, was mostly disabled
Speaker 1: by failure cheap off the shelf drone technology, you know,
Speaker 1: something that an ordinary citizen could easily purchase and acquire.
Speaker 1: They were able to, you know, and this is part
Speaker 1: of why the response also failed. For many hours, people
Speaker 1: were left on their own to fend for themselves. When
Speaker 1: you have this, you know, ragtag bunch of terrorists versus
Speaker 1: one of the pre eminent militaries in the entire world.
Speaker 1: So it is stunning to see this level of failure.
Speaker 1: And of course many people are drawing comparisons to the
Speaker 1: intelligence failure we suffered before nine to eleven, where again
Speaker 1: it wasn't that we didn't have the information, it's that
Speaker 1: people did, didn't do anything about it, and didn't take
Speaker 1: it seriously.
Speaker 2: To be honest, Crystal, this is worse because we knew
Speaker 2: been so the famous warning I think it was August
Speaker 2: two thousand and one, bin Laden determined to strike the US.
Speaker 2: We knew that two of the hijackers were in the
Speaker 2: United States. The Saudi's definitely knew it too, probably helped him,
Speaker 2: but that's just conjecture. I guess we did not know
Speaker 2: about the World Trade Center, we didn't know about the Pentagon.
Speaker 2: It was a cell of only nineteen people. That's another
Speaker 2: reason why this makes it even more stunning. You had
Speaker 2: almost twelve fifteen hundred people who participated in this attack.
Speaker 2: That's literally what one thousand times yeah, one hundred times
Speaker 2: more than the number who participated in nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: So nine to eleven is not even comparable in terms
Speaker 2: of the planning and the scale they It would be
Speaker 2: as if the CIA and the FBI literally knew they
Speaker 2: were like, awe, they were going to hit the World
Speaker 2: Trade Center with two Boeing seven thirty sevens. They're going
Speaker 2: to hijack multiple things. Are they're going to use box cutters.
Speaker 2: These are their attacks. They're going to strike in the more.
Speaker 2: That's basically the level of precision that Israel had on this,
Speaker 2: and they ignored it. So yeah, I don't think you can.
Speaker 2: And this is where the most normy critique of Netrognal
Speaker 2: was just so obvious. There's two options. Either he ignored
Speaker 2: it and so did the Israeli leadership, or his bullshit
Speaker 2: and call to personality where he centered all Israeli politics
Speaker 2: around him, distracted the entire populace and top leadership away
Speaker 2: from what should have been focused on security, and in
Speaker 2: that vacuum, Hamas perfect storm they were able to pull
Speaker 2: off this attack. So I think it's ten times worse
Speaker 2: than nine eleven.
Speaker 1: Well, and let's not forget that, you know, Netanyahu's long
Speaker 1: time plan in order to thwart a Palestinian state that
Speaker 1: he has stated multiple times is we need to bolster
Speaker 1: Hamas because then we can use them as an excuse
Speaker 1: for not being able to pursue a piece and keep
Speaker 1: the West Bank and the Gaza strip separated with again
Speaker 1: this idea, this arrogant idea that we'll control the height
Speaker 1: of the flames, and you know, so I can control
Speaker 1: what's going on here on mister security. So it really is,
Speaker 1: I mean, it really is quite sunning. It will also
Speaker 1: feed the conspiracy that this was effectively like a false flag,
Speaker 1: like they let it happen intentionally, which I don't buy.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you why. But I'm curious your thoughts
Speaker 1: because this is such a political disaster for a net
Speaker 1: And yah, yes, that's why I don't like he is ideological.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt about it, right that he's very ideological person.
Speaker 1: But his number one ideology is to himself and his
Speaker 1: own grip on power. And you would have to be
Speaker 1: a complete fool, which I do not think that he is,
Speaker 1: to think this was going to be somehow good for
Speaker 1: you politically. So that's why I don't buy that. I
Speaker 1: think it's just sheer in competence. But that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that as many nefarious leaders do when a crisis hits,
Speaker 1: that they don't then try to use that crisis to
Speaker 1: effectuate whatever their personal political and ideological goals are. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what we're seeing unfold right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, agreed, Okay, we're going to have another update for
Speaker 2: you now on Gavin Newsome and the Ron DeSantis debate.
Speaker 2: Let's get to it, okay, And now turning to the
Speaker 2: hottest event in American politics, not really the Gavin Newsome
Speaker 2: rumble in Fox News shosted by Sean Hannity versus Ron
Speaker 2: Desanti's debate, the two different ideologies and the governors facing off,
Speaker 2: and it was certainly something and we've pulled what we
Speaker 2: think are some of the best moments from that, we
Speaker 2: should note to the way that we pulled these is
Speaker 2: I think, very different than how a lot of others
Speaker 2: are digesting in terms of what actually matters electorally, what
Speaker 2: is really going to hit home according to the priorities
Speaker 2: of Americans. First and foremost was a pretty strong opening
Speaker 2: from Governor Gavin Newsom where he played off the initial
Speaker 2: attacks from Governor Ron DeSantis, but more importantly, he actually
Speaker 2: hit DeSantis for his underperformance so far in the GOP
Speaker 2: primary while parrying some of his attacks. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen to that.
Speaker 4: There are profound differences tonight, and I look forward to
Speaker 4: engage them. But there's one thing in closing that we
Speaker 4: have in common is neither of us will be the
Speaker 4: nominee for our party in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: The reason that we pulled that one crystal, I think
Speaker 2: is that a it shows the political adeptness that was
Speaker 2: displayed throughout the entire debate by Newsom anytime, I think
Speaker 2: DeSantis landed several legitimate critiques against Newsom. Newsom, though, is
Speaker 2: a politician, and this is the magic of television. He
Speaker 2: in a greasy fashion, moves himself all the way around.
Speaker 2: It turns it actually into an attack and a parry
Speaker 2: and then gets underneath DeSantis's skin, who has that artificial
Speaker 2: smile on his face for the entire time. And I
Speaker 2: actually thought it was a very effective way for Newsom
Speaker 2: to constantly needle DeSantis throughout the entire thing, because if
Speaker 2: this were just a debate on its face between if
Speaker 2: neither of them were presidential aspirts or any of that,
Speaker 2: I think it would have been totally different. But DeSantis
Speaker 2: has to both manage his presidential campaign of trying to
Speaker 2: differ himself from Trump and all that, and Newsom then
Speaker 2: can use the polling position to constantly undercut DeSantis by
Speaker 2: borrowing and we're going to show you this in a
Speaker 2: little bit, borrowing talking points from the Trump campaign to
Speaker 2: hit DeSantis, which was very effective to parry him from
Speaker 2: a lot of these. Overall, that's what I thought his
Speaker 2: best political strength throughout the entire night.
Speaker 1: Was Newsome is a slippery MP. And it's not easy,
Speaker 1: right because you're going up against the Santis, and you're
Speaker 1: going up against Sean Hannity and Fox News. I mean,
Speaker 1: every single question was and the stats they put up
Speaker 1: were designed to be like California bad, Florida good, yeah,
Speaker 1: these are the facts exactly, exactly and so and it
Speaker 1: was I mean literally every single question right. So he
Speaker 1: is very good at just being like a classic politician.
Speaker 1: Anything they would hit him with, like they hit him
Speaker 1: with crime stats that you look at and you're like,
Speaker 1: I don't know how he's going to handle this one.
Speaker 1: But he was ready for it. He was like, all right,
Speaker 1: let's focus in on these cities. Let's focus in on
Speaker 1: the murder rate and how you have a worse murder
Speaker 1: rate than we do. Let's talk about Parkland and use
Speaker 1: that very emotional event to Land blows as well. I
Speaker 1: mean partly the topic choice was very predictable. You know,
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about homelesses, we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about crime, We're going to talk about like cost of
Speaker 1: living and taxes. So he was able to be extremely prepared.
Speaker 1: He's a talented guy. One thing that hit for me
Speaker 1: in watching it is the fact that a lot of
Speaker 1: the younger politicians like Beato and Corey Booker and Pete Boodagig,
Speaker 1: they've modeled their speaking style after Obama in a way
Speaker 1: that I don't think really works for anyone, but Obama
Speaker 1: Newsome being a little bit older, he actually seems like
Speaker 1: he models the cadence of Bill Clinton, good point, which
Speaker 1: I think is more of a sort of like universally
Speaker 1: effective speaking style. In any case, you're not going to
Speaker 1: knock that guy off of his game. He's much more
Speaker 1: comfortable on camera. That much is really clear. But maybe
Speaker 1: this will be a surprise for people. I thought DeSantis
Speaker 1: did fine. I think conservatives probably liked what he had
Speaker 1: to say. I saw a lot of takes that were like,
Speaker 1: I don't know why DeSantis even agreed to this, but
Speaker 1: I do. This guy's down in the polls. He's got
Speaker 1: nothing to lose. He needs attention, he needs some kind
Speaker 1: of something around his campaign. And so, in a weird way,
Speaker 1: if you're going to talk about winners and losers, I
Speaker 1: actually kind of thought they both won because DeSantis just
Speaker 1: needs attention and to prove he's up to the challenge
Speaker 1: and can own a lib when he needs to. And
Speaker 1: for Newsome, obviously, all he wants is to remain relevant
Speaker 1: through this period when Biden is the nominee and be
Speaker 1: able to keep himself in the conversation until next time around.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure you impressed a lot of people too
Speaker 1: in terms of his debating skills. So I actually thought
Speaker 1: this event kind of served them both pretty well.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that you said that, because that was going
Speaker 2: to be my other test dollary, Why would he do this?
Speaker 2: This was such a dis No. I thought it was
Speaker 2: actually great for DeSantis. This is also a Rorshact test.
Speaker 2: If you are a liberal, you're going to come away
Speaker 2: thinking Governor Gavin Newsom one, and if you're a conservative,
Speaker 2: you're going to come away thinking that Dysantis one. Because
Speaker 2: both played to the most emotive and important issues for
Speaker 2: their individual basis, unsurprisingly to their strength. And actually I
Speaker 2: think did a good job that said. If we're looking
Speaker 2: at it from an electoral perspective, one of the ways
Speaker 2: that again Newsome was constantly able to get under Desanta's
Speaker 2: skin was to use the Trump criticism against him, especially
Speaker 2: on COVID. And that's what we're about to show you
Speaker 2: here where DeSantis consistently made COVID lockdown school policy. I
Speaker 2: think it's a great effect to be able to hit
Speaker 2: new some but Newsom, in his showing again his political skill,
Speaker 2: it hits back and he was like, no, you were
Speaker 2: a lockdown governor, you were a mask. In September, so
Speaker 2: let's take a listen to some of that.
Speaker 4: You passed an emergency declaration before the state of California.
Speaker 4: Did you closed down your beach as, your bars, your restaurants.
Speaker 4: It's a fact you had quarantines. You had quarantines. You
Speaker 4: had checkpoints all over the state of Colgi of Florida.
Speaker 4: By the way, I didn't say that Donald Trump laid
Speaker 4: you out on this dead to right. You did that.
Speaker 4: You followed science, You followed Fauci. He followed science, He
Speaker 4: followed fout you. You were promoting one leaf hold on,
Speaker 4: you were promoting vaccines. You were promoting vaccines. You even
Speaker 4: wore a mask in September. It's if it's okay with you,
Speaker 4: we'll do Why do we do this in a way
Speaker 4: where we both can have Why were you so long
Speaker 4: you bore outside September twenty twenty. He did all of
Speaker 4: that is until he decided to fall prey to the
Speaker 4: fringe of his party. And as a consequence of that,
Speaker 4: Ron tens of thousands of people lost their lives. True,
Speaker 4: the equivalent if I've had to your policies, the equivalent
Speaker 4: of ten nine to elevens. Tens of thousands of people
Speaker 4: lost their lives and for.
Speaker 2: What Roy Clearly he's like no, no, no, no, you change
Speaker 2: your mind later on. You uh, you know, pursued some
Speaker 2: of the Fauci policy or whatever March th September because
Speaker 2: you were following along this same line. That's something that
Speaker 2: Trump himself has used against you the best, you know,
Speaker 2: possible parry on all of that. So from that perspective
Speaker 2: again with Newsom, I thought that his single best ability
Speaker 2: was to take uncomfortable moments and to either take control
Speaker 2: of the debate, laugh at Sean Hannity, immediately start questioning
Speaker 2: DeSantis himself and just ignore the criticismspect he never looked ruffle.
Speaker 2: And this is where I want to come back to this.
Speaker 2: Newsom loves the game. He is a politician who is
Speaker 2: comfortable in his own shark skin. And that is something
Speaker 2: you either have that or you don't. You know, budhaj Edge,
Speaker 2: the rest of them, they all look a little bit
Speaker 2: under the lights, not ready for primetime at a certain point.
Speaker 2: You know, Newsom's been in the game for twenty years,
Speaker 2: and more importantly, he just loves it. And you can't
Speaker 2: take away that smile for somebody who loves to be
Speaker 2: in the middle of the arena. Also the fact that
Speaker 2: he was against not only DeSantis but on Hannity and
Speaker 2: came with structure such a structural disadvantage and still came
Speaker 2: away relatively unscathed. From a optics point of view, that's
Speaker 2: really good. But I have to come back to this.
Speaker 2: I thought it was good for DeSantis net neet. He
Speaker 2: got some good U he got some good some clips.
Speaker 4: Out of it.
Speaker 2: He's going to go viral amongst the right right wing people.
Speaker 2: I bet he'll get some more. I think he's going
Speaker 2: to get some more you know, donations and things out
Speaker 2: of this. Look, let's face the guy's not going to
Speaker 2: be the GOP nominee barring unforeseen circumstances, so this was
Speaker 2: probably the best thing for him to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, listen, if you're just putting the ideology aside. And
Speaker 1: I'm not a Gavin Newsom fan whatsoever, so I think
Speaker 1: I'm able to watch it and just think about how
Speaker 1: it's probably landing and who's more politically skilled, Like, there's
Speaker 1: no question Gavin Newsom is more politically skilled than run
Speaker 1: De Santas. It's really not even close. You know. DeSantis
Speaker 1: had these couple of talking points about like people fleeing
Speaker 1: your state. And yeah, he looked more ruffled obviously his
Speaker 1: face like, let's not even talk about his face. Every
Speaker 1: time the camera's on him. It's awkward. He doesn't know
Speaker 1: what to do with it, right, It is a thing.
Speaker 1: And Newsom's up there looking supremely confident taking over as
Speaker 1: moderator at times. You know, in terms of doing the
Speaker 1: like traditional politician thing, you're not going to find someone
Speaker 1: much better than Gavin Newsom. So so in any case,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's served both of their interests
Speaker 1: pretty well. But you know, Desanti's had some some decent
Speaker 1: moments in Sager. You flagged this one which was hearkens
Speaker 1: back to what has been the biggest critique of the
Speaker 1: Newsom administration and helped to launch that recall campaign against him,
Speaker 1: which he ended up defeating pretty easily, but did gain
Speaker 1: some traction there on the ground was that he had
Speaker 1: a different set of rules for himself and his conduct
Speaker 1: during the pandemic versus all of the you know, all
Speaker 1: of the underclass and all of the rules that were
Speaker 1: applied to them. Desant has hit him pretty effectively on that.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen, they.
Speaker 3: Taxed too much, They regulate too much, they have a
Speaker 3: political agenda. It's not a good climate for business. They've
Speaker 3: lost a lot of companies. A lot of companies have
Speaker 3: moved to Texas. We have had some to Florida, but
Speaker 3: they've lost a lot of companies to Texas because they're
Speaker 3: not doing a good job looking out for folks and
Speaker 3: not creating a good business environment. And you know, when
Speaker 3: I have people that come to Florida, they tell me,
Speaker 3: you know, you guys actually want us to succeed in Florida,
Speaker 3: and they feel like when they're in California, they don't
Speaker 3: want business to succeeding in the Tampa Bay Rays. Well, actually, yeah,
Speaker 3: I think that's an interesting point with Disney, because I
Speaker 3: had Disney opened during COVID and we made him a
Speaker 3: fortune and we saved a lot of jobs. You had
Speaker 3: Disney closed inexplicably for over a year. You were not
Speaker 3: following science. You were a lockdown governor. You did a
Speaker 3: lot of damage to your people. You had more kids
Speaker 3: locked out of school for a longer period of time
Speaker 3: in California than anywhere else in the country. It was
Speaker 3: the working class kids, it was the middle income kids.
Speaker 3: His kids were in private school. They were in class.
Speaker 3: The teachers union. He is owned by the teachers union.
Speaker 3: You will never cross the teachers.
Speaker 1: Soccer. What'd you think of that moment?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, it's his best talking point. He's like,
Speaker 2: I did this one way, I did this the other way.
Speaker 2: I thought his second best talking point was about people
Speaker 2: who were leaving the state.
Speaker 3: I have.
Speaker 2: This is again where I have to marvel though at Newsom.
Speaker 2: Newsom somehow jiu jitsued and was like, well, per capita,
Speaker 2: more people are leaving Florida. It's like, dude, that's no.
Speaker 1: His talking point, which is which checks out apparently, is
Speaker 1: that more people have left Florida go to California than
Speaker 1: have left California to go to Florida.
Speaker 2: I agree, but on a per capita basis, whereas Desanta's
Speaker 2: talking about the overall number. Again, in my opinion, that's bullshit, because.
Speaker 1: Muddy the water is enough, and because the other thing
Speaker 1: is the other thing is prolley. A lot of Californians.
Speaker 1: They're not going to Florida there gorn of Texas, right,
Speaker 1: or they're going to Arizona or what Nevada or whatevertly,
Speaker 1: and so he was, but he came prepared. He knew
Speaker 1: this was going to be a big talking point. All
Speaker 1: he needed to do was muddy the waters and be like, no, actually,
Speaker 1: we're getting more Florida residents. I don't know what you
Speaker 1: talk you're talking about and then the average person is like,
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: The average person's like, what what does politifacts say?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 2: Wait, per capita?
Speaker 1: What is it?
Speaker 2: I'm not entirely sure what that means? What's for breakfast?
Speaker 2: Whereas I'm watching this and I'm just like, I can't
Speaker 2: believe that he somehow did that. But it is his
Speaker 2: best talking point, no question. I mean, this is why
Speaker 2: DeSantis ultimately turned the state red is. People were very
Speaker 2: satisfied with the way that he handled the pandemic and school.
Speaker 2: That's the best single, like the best single mirror that
Speaker 2: he can hold up against Newsom. There's no question that
Speaker 2: the Newsom approach was a massive failure. Especially, and this
Speaker 2: was another important moment that he would sprinkle through, was
Speaker 2: about the literacy rates Florida versus California, in school versus
Speaker 2: not in school. Florida still though dipping below unfortunately just
Speaker 2: because school closure, just even the small amount that did
Speaker 2: occur there, it was enough to cause ramifications, but it
Speaker 2: brings it back to that point. I thought, though, that
Speaker 2: DeSantis's weakest moment, and this is the one everyone keeps
Speaker 2: his facial structure and all that. I agree it's not good,
Speaker 2: but that's ever present. I thought his weakest electoral moment
Speaker 2: was on abortion. He was DeSantis is very comfortable, school closure, COVID,
Speaker 2: culture war. I actually thought he won either or drew
Speaker 2: on every single one of those. He threw Newsom on
Speaker 2: his heels whenever it came to a lot of the
Speaker 2: culture war curriculum stuff, but he was rattle as hell
Speaker 2: whenever it came to abortion. You could really see Newsom
Speaker 2: hit his stride during that portion of the debate.
Speaker 4: Make a listen, but he respectfully, this is an important conversation.
Speaker 4: Will you or will you not support?
Speaker 3: And Sean, why didn't you?
Speaker 4: Will you not support? Why did short bans on your desk?
Speaker 4: You couldn't answer that in any other context, No, Sean,
Speaker 4: not an expert gave. But with American people should know
Speaker 4: this all answered for Roun. DeSantis can't answer it. He
Speaker 4: will sign that extreme. Okay, let me move on.
Speaker 2: So again news from taking control questioning DeSantis, DeSantis not
Speaker 2: confident at all in a six week ban, doesn't know
Speaker 2: what to do. Most of the Republicans pro lifers have
Speaker 2: been trying to pivot this about late term abortion. But
Speaker 2: the truth is is that late term abortion is just
Speaker 2: not you know, electorally salient. So for me, that was
Speaker 2: the most electoral problem for DeSantis in that entire debate.
Speaker 2: And it just shows you the you know, the albatross
Speaker 2: around their neck where they don't know how to handle
Speaker 2: this issue, and that that showed me again Newsism's political
Speaker 2: skill where look, you know, I would like for some
Speaker 2: of these cultural issues to be more say, but the
Speaker 2: truth is it's like they're not at all as we
Speaker 2: have seen when you're put up against abortion, and he
Speaker 2: he used the knife that he had very very effectively
Speaker 2: and going after DeSantis an abortion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's also just you see his level of confidence
Speaker 1: up there, even being two to one against him being
Speaker 1: on Fox News, he is taking control of the whole situation.
Speaker 1: And the other thing I would point out about that
Speaker 1: moment is I'm pretty sure that was the only even
Speaker 1: slightly adversarial question that Sean Hannity asked of Rond DeSantis,
Speaker 1: which is like, why did you switch from fifteen week
Speaker 1: band to six week ban. That was as harsh as
Speaker 1: it got for him. And even that little bit of
Speaker 1: adversarial questioning he sort of crumbles under. And it's one
Speaker 1: of these things that it's like, you know you're going
Speaker 1: to get that question, like you know this is going
Speaker 1: to be Maybe he didn't expect to get it from
Speaker 1: Fox News, I don't know, but he should certainly expect
Speaker 1: that he's got to have an answer for this on
Speaker 1: the campaign trill, whether it's on Fox News or elsewhere.
Speaker 1: And you could just see that Newsom much steadier on
Speaker 1: his feet there. I mean, that is a clear place
Speaker 1: of strength for the Democratic Party at this point. But
Speaker 1: what was impressive to me about Newsom Hogun I'm not
Speaker 1: a fan of I think he's slippery. I think he's
Speaker 1: done some horrible things with regard to labor. I think
Speaker 1: he's completely beholden to the donor class in California. Anytime
Speaker 1: labor priorities come up against Hollywood or Silicon Valley, he's
Speaker 1: back in Hollywood. He's back in Silicon Valley. So it's
Speaker 1: not like I like this guy, but you got to
Speaker 1: admire the game he was able to take even the
Speaker 1: most difficult things about crime in California, or about people
Speaker 1: leaving California, or about the tax rate in cal whatever,
Speaker 1: in front of a conservative audience and at the very
Speaker 1: least muddy the waters and do it very confidently and
Speaker 1: actually win on a number of these points in very
Speaker 1: very difficult circumstances. So I think he handled himself well.
Speaker 1: You know, I couldn't help but be impressed. And again, DeSantis,
Speaker 1: he didn't embarrass himself. I think he did fine. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of conservatives in enjoyed what he had
Speaker 1: to say. His campaign right now, Sager, we got to
Speaker 1: admit it's like on the ropes. I mean, not only
Speaker 1: because he's still so far down from Trump and it
Speaker 1: continues to kind of like be a wider and wider gap,
Speaker 1: but Nikki Haley just got the Coke endorsement and all
Speaker 1: of the villions that come with that, and all of
Speaker 1: the donor class sort of consolidation that comes with that,
Speaker 1: and so he's really in kind of a corner desperate
Speaker 1: situation right now. He's got to do whatever he can
Speaker 1: to try to get some attention, try to have some moments,
Speaker 1: and try to rescue himself from a permanent political irrelevancy.
Speaker 2: Honestly, absolutely right. It was a right call on his part.
Speaker 2: I think he'll come out better. This might be one
Speaker 2: of the high water marks for him, certainly whenever we're
Speaker 2: looking back on all of that. But it was interesting.
Speaker 2: I would like to see more of it. I actually would.
Speaker 1: I kind of enjoyed it, to be honest with you.
Speaker 2: The one thing I wish, Crystal was that DeSantis wasn't
Speaker 2: running for president. It would have changed the stakes and
Speaker 2: it actually would have made it more policy focused, and
Speaker 2: I would have enjoyed that more so. But at the
Speaker 2: same time, who's going to agree to be doing this
Speaker 2: if they're not presidential aspirants.
Speaker 1: So Kyle made the comment, which I think is it
Speaker 1: kind of felt like a throwback, like back to like
Speaker 1: an Obama Romney debate or you know, something like that,
Speaker 1: like before Trump just scrambled all the circuitry and like
Speaker 1: injected this whole other chaotic force into politics. It was like,
Speaker 1: you know, you can imagine a parallel universe where these
Speaker 1: are the two nominees and you're having this sort of
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, it's partisan, and it's silly at times,
Speaker 1: and parts of it are disgusting. Et cetera. But it's
Speaker 1: this sort of like quote unquote normal political debate that
Speaker 1: is what it felt like. It felt like kind of
Speaker 1: a throwback.
Speaker 2: I agree. Okay, guys, we will see you all later.
Speaker 2: I hope you enjoyed this Friday morning update, and we
Speaker 2: will see you on Monday.