Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds, and President Biden has announced his twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four run. We have the show of shows today. First,
Speaker 1: we'll be joined by Congressman Jamal Bowman, who will talk
Speaker 1: to us about how a United Democratic Party can win.
Speaker 2: Then we'll talk to the New York Times Jim.
Speaker 1: Rutenberg about Tucker Carlson's abrupt firing at Fox News.
Speaker 2: But first we have the host of On.
Speaker 1: And Pivot, the one the only Cara Switcher. So welcome back,
Speaker 1: Caro Switscher.
Speaker 3: Thank you, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: It's great to have you. Can you just give us
Speaker 1: the TLDR on what you think is happening right now
Speaker 1: with Elon Muskat Twitter.
Speaker 3: I have no idea, that's it, that's it. How would
Speaker 3: I put it? It's chaos, Phil, I don't have any idea.
Speaker 3: I think it's being run sort of by the seat
Speaker 3: of his pants and things he's deciding, and I think they're,
Speaker 3: you know, they're rolling out stuff and then they don't
Speaker 3: actually know what they're doing and they don't have any
Speaker 3: real marketing or PR or anything else that most product
Speaker 3: rollouts include for good reason most of the time, so
Speaker 3: maybe sometimes excessive. So they're just slapping up whatever they
Speaker 3: can and it's not working.
Speaker 1: The thing with the check marks, I feel like it's
Speaker 1: going to be something that business school classes are going
Speaker 1: to staty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if we can get the truth of what happened, right,
Speaker 3: That's the thing is I think the people running this thing,
Speaker 3: it feels like cousin Greg is running it, and there's
Speaker 3: a musk cousin in there. There's I'm sure he's very nice,
Speaker 3: and you know, I think one of the problems is
Speaker 3: is that they don't These people don't have any media experience.
Speaker 3: They're really good at rockets and cars, which is a
Speaker 3: very difficult and different thing, but media, this is a
Speaker 3: media business essentially, and so you can't really offer a product,
Speaker 3: take it away from your heaviest users, and then yell
Speaker 3: at them for saying I don't want to buy this.
Speaker 2: I just it's like as if.
Speaker 3: New Coke said, you know, here's new coke and you're like, no,
Speaker 3: I like the old coke, and they're like you, like,
Speaker 3: you know, you have to drink it, and you have
Speaker 3: to pay for it to drink it or you're in
Speaker 3: a fan club and they send you fan club teachers
Speaker 3: or someone you're not a fan of, So you're not
Speaker 3: a fan of Elon Musk and stuff like that. It's
Speaker 3: just sort of business Wanner one, and it's kind of fascinating.
Speaker 3: And numbers don't lie that advertising numbers are down, the
Speaker 3: usage numbers are allegedly down. He would dispute it, but
Speaker 3: many of the outside studies show that he's antagonizing its
Speaker 3: heaviest users. He's certainly engaging with them, that's good, I guess,
Speaker 3: but he's engaging by sending, you know, putting up obnoxious
Speaker 3: pictures or or or accusing them of being jerks, or
Speaker 3: saying say thank you for the free thing I gave
Speaker 3: you that I don't want. There's the implications of false
Speaker 3: endorsement because right now they took my I had mine
Speaker 3: for a million many years, and when Twitter came to me,
Speaker 3: I don't even remember it. But they did ask permission
Speaker 3: to put a blue check on my thing a long
Speaker 3: time ago, and they were doing it to one for safety,
Speaker 3: So you know who is who and the other is
Speaker 3: because it encourages people to use it. This is the
Speaker 3: real So if you want to engage with her. So
Speaker 3: it was good all around. There was nothing featury about it.
Speaker 3: It just was a safety and verification system. And you know,
Speaker 3: he was like, it's lords and ladies, it's whoever was picked,
Speaker 3: whoever bugged them, whatever, so he takes them all away,
Speaker 3: which he did. Mine went away on four twenty and haha.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was hilarious.
Speaker 3: And then it came back suddenly on the weekend and
Speaker 3: I don't know why. No one asked me permission, no
Speaker 3: one told me they were going to do it. I
Speaker 3: got no emails from them, and then I got all
Speaker 3: the Twitter Blue features, which I didn't want, like editing
Speaker 3: and delaying sending tweets and stuff like that. And I
Speaker 3: had previously bought Twitter Blue and stopped it because I
Speaker 3: didn't think it was enough stuff, right, it wasn't worth
Speaker 3: my money. And then it was back. And then if
Speaker 3: you click down, it says I bought it, but I
Speaker 3: didn't buy it. You know, it was just the whole thing.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know what's going on on.
Speaker 1: What I think is pretty interesting about this fiasco is
Speaker 1: more just here's this man who is the richest man
Speaker 1: in the world, arguably, who has really successfully started two
Speaker 1: huge companies. I mean, you can quibble with and he
Speaker 1: seems like an open wound to may.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is a bit of an open wound. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't know he's mad all the time. You know,
Speaker 3: he may be kidding part of the time, because he
Speaker 3: does like to do that. But now it's getting a
Speaker 3: trifle embarrassing, right, Like at some point it's like, how
Speaker 3: much look at me could you do? Whether it's in
Speaker 3: jest or because you're you're someone who hasn't been hugged
Speaker 3: enough as a child, So I don't know, it's not
Speaker 3: funny anymore. For sure?
Speaker 1: Does this undermine some Silicon Valley successes? Right, because here's
Speaker 1: a man who there the level of unhinged that he
Speaker 1: is on the internet. Maybe it's performative, maybe it's real,
Speaker 1: but it is like, as just a person who owns stock,
Speaker 1: like I would be anxious about this being my CEO.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think they are.
Speaker 3: I think mostly because the stocks have been going down,
Speaker 3: up and down, but mostly down at Tesla and SpaceX's
Speaker 3: privately owned, very valuable property, so that doesn't really get affected,
Speaker 3: you know, I guess I don't think any of it.
Speaker 3: He thinks he represents anybody. One of the things about
Speaker 3: Elon is he used to be somewhat funny, right, So
Speaker 3: it was funny, but it was like a tenth of it, right,
Speaker 3: a tenth of what he's doing now, and somewhat was obnoxious.
Speaker 3: And now it's all like one hundred percent. So I
Speaker 3: think a lot of people are like, yeah, oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: what did you do today? You know, I literally just
Speaker 3: was talking to my son and I go I got
Speaker 3: to go on and talk about Elon. He's like, what
Speaker 3: did you do today? He doesn't even know, like he
Speaker 3: doesn't care. He's someone who admired him right by the way,
Speaker 3: and is now he seems like an asshole mom that
Speaker 3: kind of thing.
Speaker 1: So I remember touring Tesla in twenty fifteen and thinking like,
Speaker 1: this is really cool what this guy's doing.
Speaker 3: It is really cool.
Speaker 2: It is really cool.
Speaker 3: And then he's also you know, there's other competitors coming
Speaker 3: up in that area, and that's going to change that.
Speaker 3: That landscape is still you know, the top one, but
Speaker 3: it doesn't mean you're going to stay on top. And
Speaker 3: then the second thing is government's relying on SpaceX and
Speaker 3: it's a really tough business. As you saw with one
Speaker 3: of the rockets blowing up, which happened with previous rockets.
Speaker 3: It's not a fresh horror for them. It's something that
Speaker 3: they probably expected on some level. And so you know,
Speaker 3: he's still got to focus on things that are really
Speaker 3: hard like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean there are some like larger environmental
Speaker 1: anxiety too around that rocket.
Speaker 3: Yeah, environmental meaning it dropped and it makes a mess.
Speaker 3: All rockets make it us.
Speaker 1: There's some question of the particles and where they're going
Speaker 1: and where they're.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know all rockets are like that
Speaker 3: he's putting. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I'm blame that on Elon.
Speaker 1: He is particularly particles right now.
Speaker 2: It's true, it's true.
Speaker 3: No, you know, he's doing it for the US government.
Speaker 3: He's putting up satellites and things like that, right, and
Speaker 3: commercial people. But he's doing a lot of work for
Speaker 3: the US government.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the sort of like
Speaker 1: cottage industry that surrounds him, the sort of David Sachs crew.
Speaker 1: These are venture capitalists who were not famous before Elon
Speaker 1: made them famous. They are libertarians, Republicans. Will you sort
Speaker 1: of explain to our listeners.
Speaker 3: I don't know what they are. I think David sex
Speaker 3: just backed Robert Kennedy junior. Oh the best you know,
Speaker 3: and it's making a lot of sort of he's less
Speaker 3: even less funny than Elon. I'll be watching Fox News
Speaker 3: drinking a bud light, not like that's where a twelve
Speaker 3: year old not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know.
Speaker 3: Just I don't know what they are.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't think they have any ideology of real realness.
Speaker 3: It's just mad against the world or angry and aggrieved.
Speaker 3: I think the Party of Aggrievement. But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like they're very rich guys. Some
Speaker 1: are richer than others. None are as rich as as Elon,
Speaker 1: Oh not even close. No, who have a lot of
Speaker 1: people around them who have told them they're funny, and
Speaker 1: now they've decided they're fun.
Speaker 3: I guess, I don't know. It's just they're a grieved
Speaker 3: They're angry at someone, whether it's San Francisco and yelling
Speaker 3: at the cops over that terrible murder that turned out
Speaker 3: not to be what they said it was. They thought
Speaker 3: it was a crazy homeless person, it was not. He
Speaker 3: typically never is right. It usually is someone people know
Speaker 3: in those kind of situations, And of course it turned
Speaker 3: out to be different and then they doubled down. Well
Speaker 3: it could have been like okay, all right, that's enough.
Speaker 3: Boys like that kind of stuff. You know, I don't
Speaker 3: think they have any ideology whatsoever. I think they're just
Speaker 3: aggrieved and they like power, and they like to rant
Speaker 3: about what's wrong with this world. And you know it's
Speaker 3: usually liberal left people who are not allowing them to
Speaker 3: say whatever they want, while they never shut up. So
Speaker 3: it's kind of an interesting irony in that.
Speaker 1: So one of the larger issues that Ilan has been
Speaker 1: pushing is that he can sort of recreate media by
Speaker 1: you know that you don't need all of those pesky
Speaker 1: fact checkers, you just need you. I see him champion
Speaker 1: both sort of Brian Krassenstein, and you know that these
Speaker 1: sort of these uh you know, Alex Jones types can
Speaker 1: recreate the media. You don't need the New York Times.
Speaker 1: What we need is these I mean, watching this, are
Speaker 1: you just sort of in disbelief?
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, venture capitalists there's a Andrees and
Speaker 3: Horns tried to create a site called future. They close
Speaker 3: the media be hard you, I mean like I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: and it's not very lucrative, so most people just buy
Speaker 3: it like Jeff Bezos, right right, Mark Bennioff or Louren
Speaker 3: Powell jobs that kind of stuff that exists. But you
Speaker 3: know whatever, they can try to make their little media work.
Speaker 3: I suppose, I guess. I mean years ago, I didn't
Speaker 3: bury Diller and he said, I like a lot of
Speaker 3: user generated content. I've been a big champion of it,
Speaker 3: and I think it's great. But he he liken citizen
Speaker 3: journalism to citizen surgery. He's like, sometimes it works out,
Speaker 3: which I thought was funny. Let me just say, Elon
Speaker 3: very Dillar is hysterical at all times, never a bed.
Speaker 3: He's witty, and witty is what he is. And so, okay,
Speaker 3: how are you gonna make money? Okay, you're just gonna
Speaker 3: do it?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 3: Sounds good, Like.
Speaker 2: I don't know what to say, Like they're not going
Speaker 2: to beat the.
Speaker 3: New New York Times. Seems to be doing just fine. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so don't read it if you don't want to. But
Speaker 3: it actually is accurate. But if you want to get
Speaker 3: your news that way, go for it. I don't know.
Speaker 2: You know, you'll see that, you'll see Tucker.
Speaker 3: Carlson starting something on his own, maybe even back by
Speaker 3: Elon who knows it's got.
Speaker 2: To be his first call.
Speaker 3: I would bet right when you think I have no idea,
Speaker 3: but if I had to guess, sure, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like those guys really love to talk about how the
Speaker 1: media is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're obsessed.
Speaker 2: They're just grievance. It's the same.
Speaker 3: It's grievance. They're angry, angry that we don't love them
Speaker 3: as much as they love themselves.
Speaker 2: I don't know what to say.
Speaker 3: It's again, I'm like, I'm not I always a couple
Speaker 3: of them. Someone was like, you're mean to me, which
Speaker 3: I'm not, Like, it's really not true. And I was like,
Speaker 3: I'm not your mama, and I bet your mama wasn't
Speaker 3: nice to you either. That's my guess on this situation.
Speaker 3: And many of them, I'm not their mama. I'm not
Speaker 3: there to hug them. Yeah, they're just asking questions. That's
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson for Lake Tuckle Carlson.
Speaker 1: What do you see? I mean sort of like this
Speaker 1: has been this weird tack down turn. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of anxiety about the economy, but you know, still inflationist down.
Speaker 1: I mean, things are sort of chugging along, chugging along.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they'll be fine. Trust me.
Speaker 3: These people are never will never have a hard day
Speaker 3: in their lives for the rest of their lives. So
Speaker 3: you know, it's the economies. They'll come back find. This
Speaker 3: AI stuff is added a lot. You know, cyber Bitcoin
Speaker 3: didn't work out quite as well as they'd hoped, and
Speaker 3: now they're like running over to AI and I should
Speaker 3: Actually it's really important, so they'll always have the next
Speaker 3: thing they do, you know, even Elon let's do a
Speaker 3: wait and see. And of course he's starting a company, right.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about AI because I've been
Speaker 1: in so many staff meetings where people are saying like
Speaker 1: AI is going to take all our jobs? Is AI
Speaker 1: going to take all our jobs? No, okay, thank you.
Speaker 3: It's been around for a while, by the way. Just
Speaker 3: there's been really some new interesting advances and some applications
Speaker 3: that are really interesting, and you should try it.
Speaker 2: Use it.
Speaker 1: See what you use it for, Like AI bot that
Speaker 1: follows me around to my zooms.
Speaker 2: Oh really it's very bad, right.
Speaker 3: Well, it's probably bad, but some of them are going
Speaker 3: to get better. You can ask it for like give
Speaker 3: me a keto dinner, and it really does give you
Speaker 3: a good recipe, right, But it's like Google on steroids,
Speaker 3: but except with Google you have to search and then
Speaker 3: you get the link, and then you go to the
Speaker 3: link and you might not find what you want. This
Speaker 3: one will yield you exactly what you want. You could
Speaker 3: think of all kinds of things. Give me a summary
Speaker 3: of this book, give me you know whatever you want,
Speaker 3: give me a thank you note in the style of Shakespeare,
Speaker 3: give me a you know whatever, like whatever you want,
Speaker 3: and it can do it. I think it's just sort
Speaker 3: of like a spreadsheet for text, so way I would
Speaker 3: put it online spreadsheet for text. They're gonna abuse it.
Speaker 3: There's gonna be fakes. You've already seen a bunch of
Speaker 3: them already. There's copyright issues out the ying and the yang,
Speaker 3: so that's that's something they need to be concerned about.
Speaker 3: It's a little more closer to YouTube than it is
Speaker 3: to Google, but it's sort of in a meshing of
Speaker 3: the two. So there's copyright issues for sure.
Speaker 2: You know, there could be fakes, all.
Speaker 3: Kinds of fake stuff, like, but it's just it's just
Speaker 3: more fake than the fake Internet part. Like, so the Internet,
Speaker 3: you've already seen it, you know, on the Internet, on
Speaker 3: Facebook or whatever, and so you're just gonna see more
Speaker 3: of it, better, faster, that kind of stuff, and so
Speaker 3: you know, they could they could fake your voice, they
Speaker 3: can fake you know, you saw that Drake thing, the
Speaker 3: Dreak weekend thing that was kind of it was cool
Speaker 3: and also like oh copyright, Oh what who's this? And
Speaker 3: so there's going to be a lot of technology saying
Speaker 3: if this is the real thing too, that there's an
Speaker 3: opportunity there. So there's that kind of stuff, But in general, no,
Speaker 3: I think it could be. Really it's just an advancement
Speaker 3: of the Internet as it is today in a much
Speaker 3: easier to use and intuitive way.
Speaker 1: So what is the thing that's keeping you up at night?
Speaker 3: People using AI? You know, people are always keeping me
Speaker 3: up at night. Anyone who gets their hands on these
Speaker 3: tools and can think of a nefarious way to use it.
Speaker 3: I'm not particularly scared of the technology, but it's how
Speaker 3: people use it, and so the people who are going
Speaker 3: to use and abuse it make me worried, and especially
Speaker 3: because many of them are thoughtless, some of them are
Speaker 3: bad like bad people, and some of them don't realize
Speaker 3: what they're making, right, so they don't the implications of
Speaker 3: what they're making. So people have always bothered me, you know,
Speaker 3: not any you know, I'm not scared of a car.
Speaker 3: I'm scared of a teenager in a car, right, So
Speaker 3: that's what bothers me. The other thing is the creeping
Speaker 3: authoritarianism again people and the use of these tools to
Speaker 3: get to those places. Obviously, anyone not worried about climate
Speaker 3: change isn't hasn't got their heads screwed on, right, right, Really,
Speaker 3: it's just we're headed for some really rough times. And
Speaker 3: of course, because we're people, were will adapt to it.
Speaker 3: We're like, oh yeah, well we don't have mountains anymore.
Speaker 3: Oh well, right, they were nice that kind of thing,
Speaker 3: like whatever trees, remember trees, that kind of thing. Yeah, like,
Speaker 3: will totally adapt, totally adapt because we're cockroaches.
Speaker 1: You and I both have lots of children, and I
Speaker 1: think of you as very involved in their upbringings, and
Speaker 1: that's how I feel. I am too, And it is
Speaker 1: very hard to have children and to not be extremely
Speaker 1: concerned about where this is all Cai.
Speaker 3: Yep, I agree. At the same time, when I was
Speaker 3: remember when you were a kid, we're probably around the
Speaker 3: same age with you know, the seventies, everything was going
Speaker 3: to go off, The earth was going to collapse, and
Speaker 3: there was that commercial the Native American guy crying. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it was always Eco day, and you know, there's always something,
Speaker 3: but this We're at a very severe spot for the climate,
Speaker 3: and I think I'm really interested in climate change tech
Speaker 3: and the things we could do to mitigate what's coming
Speaker 3: for us. And it's coming for us just like it should, yeah,
Speaker 3: because of the way we've abused the planet. At the
Speaker 3: same time, I worry about people who are denying it, like, right,
Speaker 3: it's not that bad. I'm like, oh, it's going to
Speaker 3: be bad. I mean that will be real bad.
Speaker 1: The thing that's sort of shocking to me is like,
Speaker 1: you would think a pandemic would cause people to embrace science,
Speaker 1: but in fact, what's happened has there's been just a
Speaker 1: radical anti science movement?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well Robert Kennedy Junior vote for him, Please don't,
Speaker 3: please don't. What happened to that family? Oh yeah, imagine
Speaker 3: his dad would probably be like, what the fuck?
Speaker 4: What the fuck?
Speaker 2: They talk?
Speaker 3: The Boston accent.
Speaker 2: Caris Wishard.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: This is great, no problem.
Speaker 1: Jamal Bowman represents New York's sixteenth District. Welcome to you,
Speaker 1: fast Politics. Representative Bowmen, Hello, good morning, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: We're so delighted to have you.
Speaker 2: And so I want to ask you first.
Speaker 1: About this really interesting thing that happened.
Speaker 2: With you and the whether you and a bunch of New.
Speaker 1: York members of Congress and our governor, this House Democrats
Speaker 1: pressure hocal on climate built. Can you talk to us
Speaker 1: a little bit about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So we just want the governor to go as
Speaker 2: big as possible on climate legislation so that we can
Speaker 2: continue to push back aggressively against climate change. So this
Speaker 2: is about New York public power and the building public
Speaker 2: renewables at and making sure that we have strong labor
Speaker 2: protections and lead and put the people in a position
Speaker 2: to control the climate legislation and the development of climate
Speaker 2: technology as we go forward. So just wanted to give
Speaker 2: the governor a little nudge in that direction. Fossil fuel
Speaker 2: companies and the fossil fuel infrastructure that's in place has
Speaker 2: been in place for a number of years, and they're
Speaker 2: very aggressive in pushing back against our transition to clean,
Speaker 2: green renewable energy. And this is just all about putting
Speaker 2: the power of clean green renewable energy in the hands
Speaker 2: of the public. It would lower utility costs, and it
Speaker 2: would take us off out of dependency on fossil fuel.
Speaker 2: So that was the key there. We just wanted to
Speaker 2: give her a little nudge.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems really valuable. And as a New
Speaker 1: York resident myself, it does seem like our governor does
Speaker 1: not necessarily reflect the values of our bright blue state.
Speaker 2: Sometimes. Yeah, in many ways she does, but in other
Speaker 2: ways it's just tough because there are entrenched operates, fossil fuel,
Speaker 2: healthcare lobbies that are in place that have a huge
Speaker 2: print in New York State politics. Yeah, and the governor
Speaker 2: has to consistently juggle being responsive to them in comparisons
Speaker 2: to being responsive to the people of New York State.
Speaker 2: And of course, in my opinion, she should first and
Speaker 2: foremost be responsive to the people of New York State
Speaker 2: and be a leader in transitioning off of this corporate driven,
Speaker 2: fossil fuel dependent infrastructure that's in place. So we just
Speaker 2: want to help her do that and support her in
Speaker 2: doing that.
Speaker 1: I mean, that seems really important. And one of those
Speaker 1: things that was particularly frustrating to me as a constituent
Speaker 1: was really Democrats lost the House because of Clomo's redistricting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was a big part of it. Many have argued,
Speaker 2: and I I'm in that camp. It's never one answer, right,
Speaker 2: It's a complicated question. So Clomo's redistricting decisions ten years ago, well,
Speaker 2: excuse me, his decsions regarding Judge Is many years ago,
Speaker 2: impacted the redistricting process this year. But in addition to that,
Speaker 2: you know, we didn't run a strong, comprehensive United Democratic
Speaker 2: campaign in New York State. You know, you had you know,
Speaker 2: the governor over here, Jjobs over here, and then everybody
Speaker 2: else sort of running individual campaigns when thereas Lee Selden
Speaker 2: ran a strong campaign for a Republican state wide. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So he and the party, supported by the mainstream news media,
Speaker 2: you know, continuing to push out prime crime, prime prime
Speaker 2: crime and falsely blaming it on bail reform. That narrative
Speaker 2: caught hold. And so we were weakened by our disunity.
Speaker 2: And I hope we learned from that experience going into
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Why do you think J. Jacobs hasn't resigned.
Speaker 2: Because he's too proud and he has too much of
Speaker 2: an ego, and he's been a privileged white man from
Speaker 2: a large part of his life, and so you know,
Speaker 2: when you move from a place of privilege to a
Speaker 2: place of equity and equality, you know that's going to
Speaker 2: be a tough transition for many people. And plus because
Speaker 2: of his pride, and I would argue his hubrists. You know,
Speaker 2: whatever he's asked about the struggles in New York State,
Speaker 2: he doesn't take any accountability. He always blames progressives and
Speaker 2: the Party to the left and all of that. And
Speaker 2: I'm like, listen, the Party can't move to the left
Speaker 2: unless the people move us to the left. You can't
Speaker 2: just arbitrarily move somewhere without the people. You need the
Speaker 2: people to support you in that move. So if the
Speaker 2: Party has moved to the left, it's because the people
Speaker 2: have moved to the left, and the people want more
Speaker 2: than a big money in politics and poverty that persists,
Speaker 2: and underfunded schools and lack of job. People want more
Speaker 2: than that. And so it's on Jay Jacobs to either
Speaker 2: move to the left if you want to use that language,
Speaker 2: or move on into another career.
Speaker 1: But the thing about Jay Jacobs is, and this is
Speaker 1: a larger problem in establishment politics more generally, is they
Speaker 1: desperately want to punch left. But the reality is what
Speaker 1: happened in the twenty twenty two election was a failure
Speaker 1: on the most sort of micro level of just like
Speaker 1: them not campaigning and him not doing his job. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can blame whoever you want, but you know he
Speaker 1: had the job.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean he he the cham's the state
Speaker 2: Democratic Party, Yeah, and a state that is blue, we
Speaker 2: are a democratic state, lost four congressional seats and as
Speaker 2: a result, we lost the House. That's the bottom line
Speaker 2: of it. And so whether it's Governor Hulkell letting him
Speaker 2: go or him resigning, I believe that chain needs to
Speaker 2: be made because now as we as grassroots organizers that
Speaker 2: we on the progressive side, as we try to do
Speaker 2: the work that we need to do for twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: someone like him being in that position makes it more
Speaker 2: difficult as he continues to push back against what we're
Speaker 2: trying to do or not work with us. If he
Speaker 2: were to work with us and we were to work together,
Speaker 2: we can do something transformational. But again it's the it's
Speaker 2: the arrogance and istic shibris where you think, I mean,
Speaker 2: how can you be in any leadership position and think
Speaker 2: that you are always correct, that you are the one
Speaker 2: that has all the answers, and you, you know it
Speaker 2: must have been someone else, It wasn't you. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's not leadership. That's actually the weakest form of leadership.
Speaker 2: And as a party, we don't have we don't have
Speaker 2: the luxury to be weak right now. The country needs
Speaker 2: us to be smarter, more strategic, more unified, and obviously stronger.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about the guns.
Speaker 1: Because the polling is their millennial generations. These people, they
Speaker 1: don't want to live like this anymore. They want change.
Speaker 1: One of the moments that really went viral was Thomas Massey.
Speaker 1: I would argue, the worst member of Congress. If your
Speaker 1: entire platform is trying to destroy the federal government, perhaps
Speaker 1: you are not a great person to serve in the
Speaker 1: federal government.
Speaker 2: Talk to me about that.
Speaker 1: Republicans love to answer Democrats with this smug we should
Speaker 1: just arm teachers, right, I mean, it's completely it's obvious
Speaker 1: they want they don't trust teachers to pick up books,
Speaker 1: but they want to arm them discuss.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's maddening actually, And you know, I haven't traveled
Speaker 2: to every corner of this country. I hope to do
Speaker 2: that one day, but I cannot think that the majority
Speaker 2: of the country wants us to arm teachers. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's just not nice, right, I mean, no polling supports this,
Speaker 2: common sense doesn't support it. And for him to say
Speaker 2: that is clearly, you know, a talking point for the NRA,
Speaker 2: Just get more guns into circulation. And what's dangerous about that?
Speaker 2: In his position? In the Republican position by and large
Speaker 2: on this issue is it seems like they're okay with
Speaker 2: collateral damage related to the proliferation of guns, even if
Speaker 2: that collateral damage is six year olds and seven year
Speaker 2: olds and eight year olds and nine year olds. I
Speaker 2: know they don't care if that collateral damage is disproportionately
Speaker 2: Black and Latino. I know, because they've allowed gun trafficking
Speaker 2: to continue to proliferate throughout the country. But they're sacrificing
Speaker 2: now our children for the Second Amendment and for the
Speaker 2: NRA and so and this is why that moment went viral.
Speaker 2: But it's it's less about Massy and more about us.
Speaker 2: We have to organize and knock on doors in every corner,
Speaker 2: in every crevice of this country so that we can
Speaker 2: get people like Massy out of office, so that we
Speaker 2: can win the seats we need in the Senate and
Speaker 2: hopefully win back to presidency so that we can build
Speaker 2: a magnificent nation for everyone, and right now we don't
Speaker 2: have that. Guns are part of it, and another part
Speaker 2: of it that's not too far removed from guns is
Speaker 2: the issue of poverty and inequality, which is something we
Speaker 2: absolutely have to respond to because we can't reach the
Speaker 2: deals of our country unless we do unless we do so.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about poverty and inequality, because it does
Speaker 1: seem like this younger generation is done with trickle down
Speaker 1: economics and really wants to see real change.
Speaker 2: What do you think that looks like? That looks like
Speaker 2: corporations paying their fair share, which they don't. That looks
Speaker 2: like the wealthy paying their fair share, which they don't.
Speaker 2: That looks like making it easier for those who live
Speaker 2: in poverty to access the resources that will support them.
Speaker 2: You know, I read something recently where one hundred and
Speaker 2: forty billion dollars is left on the table every year
Speaker 2: just because it's so challenging for those who live in
Speaker 2: poverty to access the resources. That also deals with those
Speaker 2: who avoid taxes. If they stop avoiding taxes at a
Speaker 2: one percent clip, that could raise another one hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy billion dollars, and so that helps to get money
Speaker 2: into people's pockets, right and helps to get them some
Speaker 2: form of self determination and self efficacy. But in addition
Speaker 2: to that, and this is probably even more important than
Speaker 2: just the cash payments in the corporate tax and all
Speaker 2: of that, we need to build a system where unemployment
Speaker 2: is unacceptable, right, where underemployment is unacceptable.
Speaker 5: And where we brain in price gouging and corporate greed
Speaker 5: and market based economics when it comes to basic needs
Speaker 5: like housing should be a human right.
Speaker 2: It shouldn't be tied to a market that is up
Speaker 2: and down and all over the place. Housing should be
Speaker 2: a human's right. Tenants need protections. Healthcare should be a
Speaker 2: human right right. The cost of utilities should be three
Speaker 2: percent of one salary, the cost of childcare should be
Speaker 2: free or more than three percent, and the cost of
Speaker 2: housing should be very very low, no more than twenty
Speaker 2: five percent. We argue, so the restructuring of our entire
Speaker 2: economy to deal with the issue of poverty in the
Speaker 2: present and long term.
Speaker 1: So I want to ask you one of the most
Speaker 1: successful experiments we saw in the last couple of years
Speaker 1: was the child tax credit, yes, it brought a lot
Speaker 1: of children out of poverty. I think even some Republicans
Speaker 1: would agree that we should not have children who go
Speaker 1: hungry in this country. And you'll notice I say some
Speaker 1: Republicans it expired. I mean, do you think there's a
Speaker 1: world in which that you guys can bring that back?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, absolutely, if we vote the right people into
Speaker 2: office and the wrong people out of office. For sure.
Speaker 2: I mean, you're so right about the child tax credit.
Speaker 2: It lifted fifty percent of the nation out of poverty
Speaker 2: for a year. That year showed us what was possible
Speaker 2: in terms of dealing with this issue of poverty. But
Speaker 2: we allowed it to expire and we didn't take to
Speaker 2: the streets to keep it going. But you're right, like absolutely,
Speaker 2: we need to end child poverty in this country. The
Speaker 2: child tax Credit is part of it. The earned income
Speaker 2: tax credit is part of it. But again, this is
Speaker 2: not about short term fixes. This is about for the
Speaker 2: long haul. And so you know, when you invest in
Speaker 2: our children, whether it's the child tax credit, universal chilcare,
Speaker 2: pre K, paid leave, all these things America doesn't have
Speaker 2: as a wealthiest stational nerve. When you addressed in our children,
Speaker 2: those children will then go on to work amazing jobs,
Speaker 2: to create amazing jobs, and to contribute and grow the
Speaker 2: economy to a place we've never been. That's the kind
Speaker 2: of vision we need for our country.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about universal pre K
Speaker 1: because I am a strong believer in the importance of
Speaker 1: community colleges to your colleges and a like, And I
Speaker 1: was hoping you could talk a little bit about that
Speaker 1: because you know, part of what I think has happened
Speaker 1: is you know, and trade schools.
Speaker 2: I mean, can you talk a little bit about that?
Speaker 2: Of course, I mean I'm a former educator. Actually I'm
Speaker 2: still an educator. I'm always an educator. So education is
Speaker 2: a pillar of any healthy society. It's a pillar, like
Speaker 2: like one of the top pillars, right, education, healthcare, safety, jobs, right,
Speaker 2: like the family. To me, like, those are pillars of
Speaker 2: any healthy society. So when we talk about education, education
Speaker 2: doesn't start in kindergarten. It starts at conception. It starts
Speaker 2: and it doesn't end by the way, right, So you
Speaker 2: and I we are educated every day based on some
Speaker 2: we based on someone we talk to. So when we
Speaker 2: talk about universal pre K, that's a program where once
Speaker 2: your child is three years old, they have access to quality,
Speaker 2: free kindergarten care and education. Right. But see I talk
Speaker 2: about childcare, I'm connecting into the pre K continuum because
Speaker 2: early child education is birth to age eight. So we
Speaker 2: need to make sure we are take care of taking
Speaker 2: care of our children during that time because you know, Molly,
Speaker 2: if we don't and our children experience trauma at that time,
Speaker 2: the brain doesn't develop properly. People don't notice the brain is.
Speaker 2: The growth of the brain is literally stunted by the
Speaker 2: trauma that babies go through between the age of birth
Speaker 2: and age three stunted. So we have to get that
Speaker 2: right now. If we get that right, you know, one
Speaker 2: can argue we can almost be on cruise control through
Speaker 2: k to twelve because they're they're hitting the ground running
Speaker 2: when hit when they hit kindergarten. But to your point
Speaker 2: about two year colleges and post secondary opportunities, you know,
Speaker 2: I was sold and my students were sold. You know,
Speaker 2: four year university. Everyone's built for college. Everyone's going to college.
Speaker 2: And the whole college movement. What the colleges do because
Speaker 2: of capitalism, they're waking crisis. They can make crazy profits.
Speaker 2: They got people in the debt and now we're looking
Speaker 2: to cancel student dead Well, we need is ongoing learning
Speaker 2: opportunities that helps communities, particularly marginalized communities, to continuously develop
Speaker 2: skills towards not just employment, employment, but lifelong skills. E
Speaker 2: Colleges are hubs for this. Whole secondary opportunities are hubs
Speaker 2: for this. And the last thing I say is we
Speaker 2: shouldn't have to pay to go to college, especially to
Speaker 2: your college. You should be paying us to go because
Speaker 2: guess what when we go, we make the economy better. Right.
Speaker 1: We pay into social security.
Speaker 2: We pay into social security, and you don't have to
Speaker 2: pay as much for jails and prisons and police, and
Speaker 2: you don't have to pay as much for healthcare because
Speaker 2: we have better health outcomes. So you know, you put
Speaker 2: a gun to my head. What's the what area you
Speaker 2: want to focus on? Jamal? I'm going to say education,
Speaker 2: but I'm going to talk about it from cradle to grave.
Speaker 1: But I do think that there should be a push
Speaker 1: in trade schools because a lot of those trades are
Speaker 1: actually you can make a ton of money.
Speaker 2: Well well, of course, and so first of all, the
Speaker 2: skills that you learn in a trade school are the
Speaker 2: twenty first century skills that you need for the current economy.
Speaker 2: But we talk about a green new deal. We need
Speaker 2: people who are fluent in the technologies of the twenty
Speaker 2: first century. That happens in the tree aid space. That
Speaker 2: happens as we come to hard when we look at
Speaker 2: hardware and when we look at software. That happens when
Speaker 2: we talk about technical skills, and when we talk about
Speaker 2: adaptive skills. And oh, by the way, creativity is a
Speaker 2: central part of this as well. And so and the
Speaker 2: last thing is learning with your hands is the best
Speaker 2: type of learning because you're learning by doing. And we
Speaker 2: have millions of kids across the country, tens of men,
Speaker 2: maybe one hundreds of men who are sitting in classrooms.
Speaker 2: Their heads are buried in books, and what they want
Speaker 2: to say is just show me how to do it.
Speaker 2: Do it, and then I'll show you how to do
Speaker 2: it better after you show me how to do it
Speaker 2: it up and work with their hands, which is a
Speaker 2: beautiful thing.
Speaker 1: This idea of punching lashed that we see again and again,
Speaker 1: it's just like some kind of floy on the part
Speaker 1: of the right to keep the progressive. I mean, so
Speaker 1: you saying, what is it, Well.
Speaker 2: It's not just the right that's the problem, right right,
Speaker 2: I mean, and the center, it's the center, it's the
Speaker 2: slightly right, and it's the far right. All punching left
Speaker 2: not just ont progressive, but go on to the American people,
Speaker 2: because like when we talk about housing as a human right,
Speaker 2: universal healthcare, low cost utilities, childcare, fully funding public schools, jobs, reparations,
Speaker 2: immigration reform, these are all of the issues that the
Speaker 2: left is fighting for. And these are all issues that
Speaker 2: pull incredibly well with the American public. And when I
Speaker 2: say incredibly well, I mean well over fifty percent, it's
Speaker 2: up over sixty and over seventy. So to fight against that,
Speaker 2: you're fighting against progress, You're fighting against the American people,
Speaker 2: and it's such a waste of time and energy. You know,
Speaker 2: like you know understand that the left is simply, to
Speaker 2: quote Primelegiz Paul, we are just the first to the
Speaker 2: better ideas anyone. And so you know, IIL, I understand
Speaker 2: there's some things you want to be conservative with, right,
Speaker 2: I get that, But if you're conservative just to protect
Speaker 2: white supremacy at white patriarchy and colonial hegemony in terms
Speaker 2: of foreign policy, we're not going to be supportive of that.
Speaker 2: And when I say we I mean the majority of
Speaker 2: the American people. So it's tough for leadership that can
Speaker 2: lead a new American revolution towards the best version of ourselves.
Speaker 2: And so that's where we need to go. Twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four to twenty twenty eight. M beyond Thank you, Congressman,
Speaker 2: no problem, thank you.
Speaker 1: Jim Rutenberg is a writer at large the New York Times.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Path Politics, Jim, Helloather, We are here and
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about what is happening in American media.
Speaker 2: Yesterday was kind of shocking.
Speaker 1: Were you shocked?
Speaker 4: I was definitely shocked. I will say this, and a
Speaker 4: bag of nuts gets you nothing. I always wondered throughout
Speaker 4: the whole dominion voting saga, at some point would they
Speaker 4: cut Tucker?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 4: He was a lot of trouble his rating, He was
Speaker 4: no longer always the number one show.
Speaker 2: Right, the five right was taken over.
Speaker 4: Five was taking over. Now we did. My newspaper did
Speaker 4: report this week that his ad revenues were very good.
Speaker 1: How is that possible?
Speaker 4: I have to say that I was sort of surprised
Speaker 4: to see that because he has lost a lot of sponsors,
Speaker 4: but he creates turbulent with sponsors. It's clear that he
Speaker 4: embarrassed them in dominion. So at what point does the
Speaker 4: cost benefit analysis start changing? So I didn't think it
Speaker 4: would happen before there was a trial, and then I
Speaker 4: thought it kind of wouldn't happen. The thing I will
Speaker 4: say is that after the settlement, I thought, Okay, well,
Speaker 4: we'll see whether they really changed, make any major moves,
Speaker 4: or make any big changes. And I didn't see it.
Speaker 4: Then It's almost like I considered it more earlier than
Speaker 4: I did after this.
Speaker 1: First, I want to ask you about those text messages
Speaker 1: because so there are a number of theories out there
Speaker 1: about what was the final straw. We may never know,
Speaker 1: we may know who knows, they may never know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's an unknown as I think it's Don Rumsfeld says
Speaker 1: the known unknowns. But I want to ask you. We
Speaker 1: saw some of the Tucker calls and text messages where
Speaker 1: he was, you know, criticizing the management. But there theoretically
Speaker 1: are more right.
Speaker 4: Well, there were some redactive material in all of the material.
Speaker 4: There were concerns on the box side about keeping that
Speaker 4: stuff redacted highly sensitive, and we do know that as
Speaker 4: well that there's an upcoming on the same vein and well,
Speaker 4: let me rewind the things that weren't redacted. We saw
Speaker 4: some really nasty language about people management. Sure, Sidney Powell,
Speaker 4: a really bad word was used by Tucker and they
Speaker 4: kind of word where I think my job will be
Speaker 4: in jeopardy y if I ever used it that way.
Speaker 4: So any reasons in a normal world for this to
Speaker 4: have happened far earlier, right, But so we know that exists.
Speaker 4: We know that Tucker always used to sort of well,
Speaker 4: we hear this, We purported this. That Tucker was known
Speaker 4: to share the support he had from the Murdocks, and
Speaker 4: it had been clear over more than a course of
Speaker 4: more than a year that that support was flipping, and
Speaker 4: there was they were getting a little tired of some
Speaker 4: of his antics and his trotting their name out to
Speaker 4: justify the antics or survive the antics. So there's a
Speaker 4: lot that we can a lot that we know, no
Speaker 4: matter what is in the mix, whatever, if there was
Speaker 4: a precipitating event, we know all of this is at play.
Speaker 1: Right, And then there is another lawsuit, and the.
Speaker 4: Other lawsuit by Abby Grosberg, former chief booker for him,
Speaker 4: had been a witness in the dominion case because she
Speaker 4: had worked for Maria Bartiromo immediately after the election, when
Speaker 4: Maria was pursuing this dominion voting boat switching conspiracy. But
Speaker 4: she is more problematic than maybe some of us appreciated
Speaker 4: who were down in Delaware covering the trial, not for
Speaker 4: the obvious reasons that were coming up in Delaware there
Speaker 4: she was alleging that her earlier testimony was coerced by Fox,
Speaker 4: but more to the point of more evidence of nastiness
Speaker 4: and a toxic climate inside Tucker Carlson's offices. And this
Speaker 4: is a company that really made some major moves to
Speaker 4: try to shed the idea that you know it was
Speaker 4: this ugly locker room frat house. They lost their chief founder,
Speaker 4: Roger Ayles, because of sexual harassment allegations. They got rid
Speaker 4: of Bill O'Reilly, their biggest star before Tucker Barbier star
Speaker 4: for a far longer time. Bill O'Reilly over over actual
Speaker 4: sexual harassment. This is workplace. We don't know the full
Speaker 4: extent of what Tucker did or didn't do, but Lochla
Speaker 4: Murdoch was part of the cleanup regime and he definitely
Speaker 4: would have no tolerance for this stuff getting out for sure.
Speaker 1: What's interesting, though, is that a lot of people would
Speaker 1: use Tucker's relationship was the young Murdoch as the reason
Speaker 1: why they would not let him go, right, because it
Speaker 1: was always well, Tucker is close with Lochlan.
Speaker 4: That is true, but there were sort of smoke signals
Speaker 4: I would say, over the past again more than a year,
Speaker 4: that Lochlan was not pleased with Tucker trotting him out
Speaker 4: by the way his.
Speaker 2: Support out ooh.
Speaker 1: Interesting.
Speaker 4: And also we know that Lachlan, for instance, was among
Speaker 4: those of the network who were caught off guard when
Speaker 4: Tucker Crossing introduced on his show a promo for his
Speaker 4: very controversial streaming special, Patriot Perch.
Speaker 2: How did they not know?
Speaker 4: Well, I think that was a question.
Speaker 2: At the time.
Speaker 4: So it kind of went to the autonomy and the
Speaker 4: independence that Tucker had within the network, which, by the way, oddly,
Speaker 4: in very legal and technical terms, that autonomy would have
Speaker 4: helped Fox in defamation suit in Delaware, right, because the
Speaker 4: case law has it that if you know, if you
Speaker 4: have to prove control. So the Murdoch said, we don't
Speaker 4: control these shows. That management could even I imagined and
Speaker 4: was expecting this that they would have said, you know, Tucker,
Speaker 4: these guys all call their own shots. Well, now they don't.
Speaker 4: I mean, now this is a sign that they're not
Speaker 4: going to let it run that way.
Speaker 2: It's really interesting.
Speaker 1: Now we're all in suppositions, right because Tucker's not talking,
Speaker 1: the Murdochs aren't talking, so you know, we're just sort
Speaker 1: of getting information where we can get it, right.
Speaker 2: Is that right? Yeah?
Speaker 4: I mean obviously everybody's reporting a way to try to
Speaker 4: get more here, but yes, right at this moment, absolutely correct.
Speaker 1: So I want to ask you, I mean, do you
Speaker 1: think and again this is my theory, so also completely not.
Speaker 1: But I'm just wondering how much of like what happened
Speaker 1: with Tucker and also perhaps what happened with Don Lemon,
Speaker 1: is that.
Speaker 2: The these guys were really expensive.
Speaker 4: Well, definitely in both cases, but no Tucker's case as
Speaker 4: long as the investment was worth it. I mean, he
Speaker 4: was bringing in much more than his salary and ad revenue,
Speaker 4: so that becomes more of a factor if they feel
Speaker 4: like he's costing them in other ways.
Speaker 1: Right, the world of cable news is much leaner than
Speaker 1: it was at the time when these men started.
Speaker 4: And CNN even more so because box one thing a
Speaker 4: secret about Fox is or an open secret, is it
Speaker 4: it never It was never CNN in terms of what.
Speaker 2: It's meant on editorial.
Speaker 4: Right, right, right, So they've always been a bit of
Speaker 4: a leaner operation and they make they still make so
Speaker 4: much on their cable carriage fees. Right, The cable carriage
Speaker 4: fees are huge. By the way, you know, speaks to
Speaker 4: Rupert Murdoch sort of risk taking that in the beginning
Speaker 4: of all this, the way they got on cable in
Speaker 4: the first place was they paid these cable systems to
Speaker 4: carry them. Now Man reportedly they're going to try to
Speaker 4: demand war Still.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you think this will hurt them with that
Speaker 1: negotiation because they're negotiating a third of their cable company revenue.
Speaker 4: This might in the law run help them to the
Speaker 4: extent that any of those cable systems we're going to say, well,
Speaker 4: look how toxic Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: Is, right, and now we don't have them.
Speaker 4: So way, and those those deals are so shrouded and
Speaker 4: complex and fun fun up leverage. I mean, if you
Speaker 4: remember Direct TV had to stand off with Newsmax off
Speaker 4: the Direct TV and they add leverage to get so,
Speaker 4: I don't know, be pretty hard thing to do. Say
Speaker 4: for Brian Roberts, of Comcast there in Philadelphia.
Speaker 2: Right to get it Fox off.
Speaker 4: Its system, so they have that sort of leverage. But
Speaker 4: it's look, it's all matters.
Speaker 1: And Fox wants three dollars a subscriber, which is you know,
Speaker 1: I mean right now, it's the second highest after ESPN,
Speaker 1: which seems insane to me.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just the fact that we can speculate about it.
Speaker 4: Fox doesn't need that. They don't need to have to
Speaker 4: worry about an extra X factor in their cable carriage negotiations,
Speaker 4: especially we have quart cutting cableish universes breaking, so this
Speaker 4: is a bit for them to squeeze war out of
Speaker 4: what they got, and they don't. They definitely did not
Speaker 4: need any extra complications. That's just no two ways about that.
Speaker 1: I have a cock eyed optimist take, and I want
Speaker 1: you to tell me where I'm wrong or maybe I'm
Speaker 1: not wrong, though I think I really am. The five
Speaker 1: is more popular the five. While there are zelots on
Speaker 1: the five, it tends to be more back and forth
Speaker 1: and less like terrifying monologue about how like you know,
Speaker 1: white nationalist talking points. I'm asking you this question with
Speaker 1: every caveat you can add. Could this possibly be a
Speaker 1: sign that the Maga movement is not getting the same
Speaker 1: kind of juice of Fox News.
Speaker 2: That used to.
Speaker 4: It's a hard one because, look, I struggled with this.
Speaker 4: I wrote about this last night, and I struggled with
Speaker 4: it because no matter what, Okay, Tucker Carlson being off
Speaker 4: their prime time is a walk back and is a
Speaker 4: sort of a pulling back from the edge.
Speaker 2: Whether it's intensional, whether they want to.
Speaker 4: Nobody had pushed boundaries really ever ugly and false boundaries
Speaker 4: the way that Tucker Carlson did often. So that's no
Speaker 4: matter what they have pulled back from that. Now, if
Speaker 4: they had like new Cooke, Newtucker right, which could happen,
Speaker 4: could do the same thing but not walk into defamation suits.
Speaker 4: There's a history of that in conservative media all the
Speaker 4: way back to the old Russia Limbaugh days. He got
Speaker 4: his start and away because other conservative new conservative radio
Speaker 4: hosts imploded, so went too far in the old Fairness
Speaker 4: Doctor days. So whatever gets ratings, as we've been writing,
Speaker 4: and as we saw in this dominion case, that is
Speaker 4: always going to win. The day where it loses a
Speaker 4: day is once it becomes it's no longer worth it.
Speaker 4: I don't want to be predictive, but right, this is
Speaker 4: what it is. You can't downplay this is a gigantic change.
Speaker 4: And yes, the five is they're hot at show right now,
Speaker 4: and it has some semblance of balance.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean for Fox, they were debating screaming
Speaker 1: at Jessica.
Speaker 4: Right and you know data Burrito will bring the hammer down. Yeah,
Speaker 4: they would have debates during the post election period that
Speaker 4: we've been talking so much about ever since it happened
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty. They would debate whether the election was
Speaker 4: stolen sometime it's not a topic or.
Speaker 1: Debate, right, good, Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's a very
Speaker 1: good point. So let me ask you another question about
Speaker 1: this weirdness. I mean, so we don't know who replaces him,
Speaker 1: and we don't know if it becomes someone who's worse.
Speaker 1: But do we think that Tucker goes off and streams,
Speaker 1: you know, and becomes the sort of next Russell Lombard?
Speaker 2: Now maybe?
Speaker 4: I mean, first of all, there it's a question of
Speaker 4: does he have a noncompete right second, there's a question
Speaker 4: would he try to go to Spotify and via Joe Rogan?
Speaker 4: Would Spotify have him with a musical acts flip out?
Speaker 4: If they did try to have him. Could he do
Speaker 4: what Glenn Beck did? There's actually there's an interesting series
Speaker 4: of messages between some of the hosts of Fox complaining
Speaker 4: about their news side colleagues BacT checking election fraud conspiracies,
Speaker 4: and they're sort of daydreaming, and they talk about Glenn Beck,
Speaker 4: who we all think about, right, is he lost his
Speaker 4: giant Fox perch. But they're talking about what he has
Speaker 4: done is he's built his own subscription based business. They
Speaker 4: may not get the numbers that Glen Beck got on
Speaker 4: Fox News, but still enough for him to make a
Speaker 4: lot of money. So does Tucker start his own thing,
Speaker 4: the subscription based.
Speaker 1: Because he did start the Daily Caller.
Speaker 4: He did start the Daily Caller. So I highly doubt
Speaker 4: we've heard the last of Tucker Carlson. But we also know, okay,
Speaker 4: so Glenn Beck's making money. Is Glen Beck the weights
Speaker 4: in American politics that he was.
Speaker 2: In that first of a term. I don't think so,
Speaker 2: certainly not so.
Speaker 1: Tuckerlson has been fired from PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and Netfox right, yep.
Speaker 1: One of the things I read was that he has
Speaker 1: that much of his career is based on revenge. Right,
Speaker 1: I mean, do you see like a world in which
Speaker 1: that ends up being the sort of mo I mean again,
Speaker 1: we're just speculating here, of course, sure.
Speaker 4: I mean look at what got Box into the most
Speaker 4: trouble in the fall of twenty twenty was the anger
Speaker 4: that its core viewers had at the network for calling
Speaker 4: the state of Arizona for Joe Biden, thus undermining Trump's
Speaker 4: attempts to claim he wanted no matter what the outcome was,
Speaker 4: and that anger was really it was very real. It
Speaker 4: clearly panicked key people at the network, if not everyone there,
Speaker 4: And so that's that's something for Tucker Carls to work
Speaker 4: with because those they're still a part of their audience
Speaker 4: or former audience. It's angry because I recently did a
Speaker 4: piece for the magazine here that was about Rupert Murdoch's
Speaker 4: model of giving the people what they want. And the
Speaker 4: problem they add in twenty twenty is what the people
Speaker 4: wanted was something Fox was ambivalent about giving them. Ultimately
Speaker 4: gave them enough to get them into this crazy lawsuit,
Speaker 4: but some people were very angry that they wouldn't give
Speaker 4: them everything they wanted, the full fantasy version of the world.
Speaker 4: So Tucker could go there and He's so perfectly comfortable, right,
Speaker 4: operating in that environment.
Speaker 1: Right. I mean, it's just it is just it's such
Speaker 1: a strange and incredible kind of weirdness.
Speaker 2: Now I want to ask you.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of other media sort of stories yesterday,
Speaker 1: so there was Don Lemon, did that seem like a surprise?
Speaker 4: The timing was surprising to me because I thought to
Speaker 4: Don Lemon, if you recall made these awful comments about
Speaker 4: Nikki Haley, like just so offensive that well, she's not
Speaker 4: a prime women to be in the prime you know,
Speaker 4: camp be or whatever, I don't evenre so ridiculous and
Speaker 4: that's it. And I thought, well, you know, traditionally and
Speaker 4: the world is changing, but I grew up covering television
Speaker 4: as a reporter that the morning television audience is women
Speaker 4: in the age group that you offended. So I was like,
Speaker 4: how could they on earth Hold on day and we've
Speaker 4: seen people brings more?
Speaker 2: But they did.
Speaker 4: But I cast it in today's paper as you know, look,
Speaker 4: he's very different than Tucker Carlson, but there was that was, Uh,
Speaker 4: you can't even compare them. It's just there's no equivalents.
Speaker 4: But CNN was making a move away from what its
Speaker 4: current leadership under its new president, Chris Lick thought was
Speaker 4: a part of rank partisanship up the previous era, the
Speaker 4: Trump era, and Don Lemmon was the base of that
Speaker 4: more bative anti Trump nighttime thing. And Don Lemon was
Speaker 4: moved to the morning because specifically in part because Chris
Speaker 4: licked c andm president wanted to move him out of
Speaker 4: that role, and then the morning wasn't clearly not a
Speaker 4: great fit, and here we are. So it's sort of
Speaker 4: a n and version of pulling back. And that's more
Speaker 4: openly what CNN says it's doing. CNN says he might
Speaker 4: disagree with what they're doing and whether they really were
Speaker 4: partisan or calling balls strikes. You know, some people argued that,
Speaker 4: but either way, that's what they see themselves as doing.
Speaker 4: In Don Lennon's career in some regard was victim to that.
Speaker 1: There was also Nate Silver is out at ABC. Can
Speaker 1: you talk about that for two seconds?
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, I guess five point thirty eight is now
Speaker 4: owned by Disney ABC, so its founder is out. We're
Speaker 4: on his way out apparently, and that's sort of stunning.
Speaker 4: I mean, Nate Silver separated from the brand he created,
Speaker 4: but you know, he's He's argued he had a great,
Speaker 4: perfectly fine midterms. They did have some of their individuals
Speaker 4: sort of tracking polls and states. Some have argued, help
Speaker 4: help say it, say it. What do you want me
Speaker 4: to say?
Speaker 1: I want you to say what we're all thinking about polling.
Speaker 4: Well, we've had our debates over the years, Jim.
Speaker 2: I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 4: I wish him well, and I do appearing No, I
Speaker 4: really do, of course, why not. I wish everyone well,
Speaker 4: of course, but thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: No moment, Jesse Cannon, I drunk fast.
Speaker 5: I hear somebody's got a little file on somebody.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely the most Fox thing ever, right from the
Speaker 1: network that brought you Roger al and Bill O'Reilly, two
Speaker 1: of the worst we hit men media history. There is
Speaker 1: a story today from our friends at Rolling Stone with
Speaker 1: eight sources eight that's more than two, three, four, five,
Speaker 1: six or seven eight sources that says that Arena Braganti,
Speaker 1: who is a very famous, very famous, very terrifying publicist
Speaker 1: of Fox News, is probably gonna call me and yell
Speaker 1: at me after using her name on air. It's like Rumpelstiltskin.
Speaker 1: She has compiled. This is the reporting and APPO file
Speaker 1: of Tucker's misdeeds so that she can use it if
Speaker 1: Tucker tries.
Speaker 2: To hurt the network.
Speaker 1: I just want to enter this in to the record
Speaker 1: as our moment of fuckery. That's it for this episode
Speaker 1: of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Speaker 1: to hear the best minds in politics makes sense of
Speaker 1: all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please
Speaker 1: send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.