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 Donald Trump says Republicans eat their young.
Speaker 1: He actually said it twice. Cognitive decline explanation point. We
Speaker 1: have an interesting show for you today. Adam mcgurney tells
Speaker 1: us about his new book that takes us inside the
Speaker 1: New York Times entitled The Times, How the newspaper of
Speaker 1: records survives scandal, scorn, and the transformation of journalism. Then
Speaker 1: we'll talk to Kim Pope Adams, who's a candidate in
Speaker 1: a critical Virginia state election. But first we have the
Speaker 1: Washington Post columnist George Conway. Welcome back to you Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: George Conway.
Speaker 2: Which show is this?
Speaker 1: It's not a show. We're just having a conversation. No
Speaker 1: one can hear this, So just tell me everything.
Speaker 2: Let's go. Oh, you should have heard at the Starbucks
Speaker 2: this morning. What happened to me?
Speaker 1: We have very exciting lives. Yes, George, you told me
Speaker 1: something a long time ago.
Speaker 2: Absolutely deny that. It's nothing I would ever have said. Senator,
Speaker 2: I did not. I've never spoken to Molly John as
Speaker 2: far as I know she's a communist, rides in a
Speaker 2: Lorna's limousine. Senator, Yes, you don't have the Senator Kennedy
Speaker 2: in Louisiana.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. But so you said to me once Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is going to I'm sure you remember saying this
Speaker 1: to me. You said, Donald Trump is going to destroy
Speaker 1: the entire Republican Party and that's the only way this
Speaker 1: can end. And I thought, well, maybe, but maybe Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney or maybe some good guy comes in.
Speaker 2: But you know, you're starting to say huh, like almost
Speaker 2: everything else that George Conway says, it ages.
Speaker 1: Well, well listen, we're not going to get into that,
Speaker 1: but we can say.
Speaker 2: For sure the plan is progressing.
Speaker 1: It is incredible. I mean, I'm watching this Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: screaming Steve scalifs again, this is in no way an endorsement.
Speaker 2: No, no, you don't have to endorse Steve scali to
Speaker 2: decide that if you had to spend three hours on
Speaker 2: a train on the on the Northeast Regional to Louisiana
Speaker 2: from Washington, would you rather spend it with Jim Jordan
Speaker 2: Steve Scalise. You know, Steve Scale said the stupid shit
Speaker 2: about baby or whatever the fucking did right and many
Speaker 2: years ago, by all accounts, you'd rather spend the time
Speaker 2: with Steve Scalise, and you know you can talk to him.
Speaker 1: If you're a Republican donor, Are you going to write
Speaker 1: a check to Jim Jordan? And I don't think you are.
Speaker 2: You know, he's not their type. Scalice has been doing
Speaker 2: this for a long time. He knows how to deal
Speaker 2: with all these people.
Speaker 1: They people like him, right, and he's the number two Republican.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But I think part of the thing is I
Speaker 2: think all the wackadoodles realize that he's actually I mean again,
Speaker 2: I'm not an expert on Congress, but senses he's the
Speaker 2: type of guy who could cut a deal Democrats on
Speaker 2: things and actually get stuff and move legislation toward the
Speaker 2: conservative views to the extent they still have a conservative.
Speaker 3: View, which I'm not sure they really do. I think
Speaker 3: they just sort of it's all about grand standing for
Speaker 3: most of them. And I think that's why these a
Speaker 3: lot of these people won't vote for him, is because
Speaker 3: he's not the grand standing type Jordan is going to be.
Speaker 2: It's like going to be open. Jordan has to be
Speaker 2: the choice of a bobird and a green and a
Speaker 2: Gates because he's one of them. Scalis is actually he
Speaker 2: was a legislator. He is a legendarator. He may not
Speaker 2: like what he wants to legislate, but he actually is
Speaker 2: a legislator. Right when he was shot, you know, the
Speaker 2: Democrats were upset about that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, he's got a relationship with Cedric Richmond. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't think they want to see arm befall
Speaker 2: Jim Jordan. I think, but I don't think the outpouring
Speaker 2: of sympathy would be as great if the coyote dropped
Speaker 2: the anvil on Jim Jordan tomorrow.
Speaker 1: So last night, the Republicans have vote. Jim Jordan got
Speaker 1: less votes, but Steve Scullies dropped out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, how does that work?
Speaker 1: That's not how it's supposed to work. The person with
Speaker 1: more votes. I'm just going to tell you a little
Speaker 1: secret about maths.
Speaker 2: Because you don't understand the modern Republican mentality, which is,
Speaker 2: if I don't get what I want, then fuck you here.
Speaker 2: If you have more votes, you cheated. Something happened, and
Speaker 2: I'm gonna you know, I'm gonna do anything to stop you,
Speaker 2: even though you got more votes, because that's not the
Speaker 2: way things work. We don't live in a country where
Speaker 2: people who win arguments and get more votes get to
Speaker 2: carry the day and get elected. We live in a
Speaker 2: country where I get what I want, or I go
Speaker 2: on TV and yell about what I didn't get. That's
Speaker 2: the America that a large percentage of Republicans now live in.
Speaker 2: They live in this narcissistic La La land. And you know,
Speaker 2: and the exemplar of how to do that, and the
Speaker 2: permission structure to be enabled to do that was provided
Speaker 2: by one po one, one three, five eighth nine. Not
Speaker 2: that the inclinations or the design weren't there before.
Speaker 1: You're talking about Trump here. What is interesting here is
Speaker 1: so Nancy Mays. You may remember her as being the
Speaker 1: really is she seems to be auditioning for Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: vice president his girl Friday.
Speaker 2: It seems more like she's auditioning for some club in
Speaker 2: Miami or something.
Speaker 1: She wore a shirt with an A because and.
Speaker 2: Then the next day she wore a corsette.
Speaker 1: Right for adultery.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't have a problem with that, obviously
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 1: When she was on with Jake Tapper on CNN, she
Speaker 1: said that many Democrats actually trust Jim Jordan more than
Speaker 1: Steve Scalise, which is absolutely the most batshit thing I've
Speaker 1: ever heard of my life, and just a lie.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, I mean, look, I haven't talked to Democrats
Speaker 2: and conducted a focus group of Democrats.
Speaker 4: I have.
Speaker 1: I mean, I interview a gazillion Democratic Congress people all
Speaker 1: the time, and there's never, ever.
Speaker 2: Ever, no I said before, if you're going to spend
Speaker 2: three hours on a train, you'd rather spend it with
Speaker 2: Steve Scalice than.
Speaker 1: Jordan, exactly, ask his wrestlers. So I want to like
Speaker 1: just sort of go through the nuts and bolts here.
Speaker 1: There's going to be another meeting. By the way, yesterday
Speaker 1: they were talking about one of the people in the meeting,
Speaker 1: one of the Congress people, a lesser known backbencher, was
Speaker 1: saying that people should just write down their top ten choices,
Speaker 1: and I was like, so, ranked choice voting.
Speaker 2: Ranked choice voting is not something they want because it
Speaker 2: would you know, if you applied it to them, they'd all.
Speaker 1: Lose, right exactly. So this will be airing on Monday.
Speaker 1: On Monday, I'm going to bet you, we're going to
Speaker 1: you and I are going to take a ten million
Speaker 1: dollar bet. Right now, they will still not have.
Speaker 2: A speaker, and the only way they're going to have
Speaker 2: a speaker by Monday.
Speaker 1: Is oh, I want to hear this.
Speaker 2: I think through the use of violence, hostage taking. I
Speaker 2: don't know, and I don't know that this could or
Speaker 2: would happen, but you know, I mean, I think the
Speaker 2: Democrats are dangling the book. It's like, if you are
Speaker 2: really sick of these people and you want to fuck
Speaker 2: them over big time. The Gates is of the world
Speaker 2: and all these people who are pushing for Jordan, and
Speaker 2: you've just gotten so pissed off after everything that you've
Speaker 2: had to put up with and keep your mouth shut
Speaker 2: about from January sixth on, and you've just decided it's
Speaker 2: not going to be worth staying in Congress anyway. So
Speaker 2: why do I have to worry about getting thrown out?
Speaker 2: It's not primary. You figure out some kind of deal
Speaker 2: you could cut with Akeem Jefferies. It wouldn't have to
Speaker 2: be Speaker Jeffries. Jeffries could be the majority leader, but
Speaker 2: you could have some kind of a power sharing system
Speaker 2: where I don't know whether you'd have to put it
Speaker 2: into the rules or you could just have an unwritten
Speaker 2: agreement or a written agreement where you appoint the speaker
Speaker 2: that has all the powers that the speaker normally has,
Speaker 2: but the agreement with the parties between the people to
Speaker 2: this agreement that put the majority got two hundred and
Speaker 2: seventeen votes for somebody who could be Molli Jong Fast
Speaker 2: for all, you know, since those have to be a
Speaker 2: member of the House Representatives.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that seems like a good choice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you just say, okay, the Speaker will exercise his
Speaker 2: authority in the following manner with respect to think there'll
Speaker 2: be a committee of reasonable people who will discuss like, okay,
Speaker 2: the Democrats get so many things they can bring to
Speaker 2: the floor. These moderate Republicans who have cut the deal
Speaker 2: or the sense will probably get some stuff too that
Speaker 2: they get to bring to the floor. And the Speaker
Speaker 2: will be like the king, like Charles or Elizabeth that
Speaker 2: where basically she accepts the advice of her cabinet and
Speaker 2: they will be the cabinet. With that work in practice,
Speaker 2: I don't know, but it would work better than what
Speaker 2: we have now, which is nothing.
Speaker 1: The thing that would doom this and it's why Republicans
Speaker 1: are now setting themselves on fire is that the base
Speaker 1: cannot stomach the idea. Remember Kevin McCarthy was removed because
Speaker 1: he refused to crash the American economy.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying is that thirty percent of the
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know, some percentage of the publican
Speaker 2: basis significant portion enough to cause many people to fear
Speaker 2: a loss in a primary. The most motivated course is
Speaker 2: like any form of compromise with the enemy, the mortal
Speaker 2: enemy of the people, the people who want everybody to
Speaker 2: be looking at you in the bathroom, regardless of their
Speaker 2: gender or whatever. You know, the things that they're obsessed with,
Speaker 2: and to read books and stuff. You cannot compromise with
Speaker 2: those people. Those people have to be destroyed.
Speaker 1: Right, So that's a pot You can't kind of deal
Speaker 1: with the people you need to win on anything more
Speaker 1: than a Republican primary.
Speaker 2: Because it's like, if I can't get what I want,
Speaker 2: I'm going to destroy the world for everyone else. It's
Speaker 2: a very terroristic view of the world, and it's a
Speaker 2: slippery slope to the mentality of loss of democracy and violence.
Speaker 2: It is worth doing your self harm and your children
Speaker 2: harm so long as they don't get what they want.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about this studment. We have Mackaid's. He
Speaker 1: removed Kevin McCarthy. It was probably the greatest moment of
Speaker 1: his life. I cannot something give Jonah from VEEP right
Speaker 1: when he shuts down the government because he is mad
Speaker 1: about daylight savings time. Now Gates is saying he would
Speaker 1: rather have scale than McCarthy. And even though he doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily want Scalice, he definitely doesn't want McCarthy. Like, there's
Speaker 1: no way to make this look like a win.
Speaker 2: No, unless they all of a sudden agree magically on
Speaker 2: someone who commands some respect among their entire caucus and
Speaker 2: even outside the caucus. This has been a big black
Speaker 2: eye in their favor. This is just the kind of
Speaker 2: chaos that people don't really like, except for the people
Speaker 2: who want Those want chaos and they don't really care
Speaker 2: about anything, and you know they're nihilistic.
Speaker 1: You've been involved in this party for a long time.
Speaker 1: You've been involved in the legal the Federal Society Crew
Speaker 1: for a long time, had some success there with the judiciary.
Speaker 1: We're not going to talk about it, but a little
Speaker 1: bit cranky about it, But I mean, how would you
Speaker 1: walk this back?
Speaker 2: You have this party that goes back to the point
Speaker 2: that you started with, which is the party has to
Speaker 2: be completely demolished and started. We have to start from scratch.
Speaker 2: And I think it gets there. I think Trump has
Speaker 2: led it there. I think the nihilism that he has
Speaker 2: encouraged is eating it there. I mean, you even have
Speaker 2: all the Republican candidates now going after Trump about him
Speaker 2: talking about hezblav being smart and all that stuff, and
Speaker 2: he's losing his mind. You just have chaos in this
Speaker 2: party because you have people who are all mostly self interested,
Speaker 2: and you have a party that doesn't actually know what
Speaker 2: it wants to do of a man more points on
Speaker 2: TV and own libs and basically just cause destruction.
Speaker 1: The thing I'm so struck by. Desanta's not going to
Speaker 1: be the nominee. It seems very unlikely he's going to
Speaker 1: be the nominee because he's so bad at this. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem like the Desanta's people have decided that
Speaker 1: Trump is their guy.
Speaker 2: No, they're turning up the volume, I think partly out
Speaker 2: of desperation. But nobody likes Trump.
Speaker 1: Right, But he's going to be the nominatee.
Speaker 2: Yes, unless he drives his golf cart into some of
Speaker 2: the water hazard or something and can't float to the
Speaker 2: surface because he's too heady.
Speaker 1: You're going to get in trouble for that.
Speaker 2: I did not I didn't say I want that to happen.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying highly unlikely, saying service will fish him out, right, they.
Speaker 1: Will fish him out. But he has all of these trials,
Speaker 1: and maybe he's able to kick the can on a
Speaker 1: lot of them. But he's still going to have that
Speaker 1: DC trial with Judge Chuck in Well.
Speaker 2: I think there's a high probability that he will be
Speaker 2: a convicted felon by election day twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 2: it's quite possible he might be incarcerated by that.
Speaker 1: I don't think he'll be incarcerated, but I could see
Speaker 1: him trying.
Speaker 2: I think that there's a chance. As somebody tweeted the
Speaker 2: other day, basically, the raccoons really have chewed through all
Speaker 2: the wires, any wires that were left in his brain,
Speaker 2: I mean, just washed some of the stuff. I wish
Speaker 2: we could put him on television twenty four hours.
Speaker 5: A day now, I know, right right now, Oh no,
Speaker 5: don't you're giving him all exce No, no, no, put
Speaker 5: him on because he's so off the wall saying that
Speaker 5: Barack Obama his president, saying that does Blah was smart,
Speaker 5: calling humas hummos smart words.
Speaker 2: He is more incoherent and more wacky than ever before.
Speaker 2: I think people need to see that, and I think
Speaker 2: that's ultimately what brings him down. And I think that
Speaker 2: the more people mock him for that, the crazier you
Speaker 2: will get, which is the point I made in New
Speaker 2: York on Wednesday at the TNR summit. The only question
Speaker 2: is I mean he is going to destroy the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: I've said that. I think he's going to destroy the
Speaker 2: republic Party. The question is he goes down, which I
Speaker 2: think is likely, although I can see there's a ten
Speaker 2: or fifteen some non zero possibility that he gets elected
Speaker 2: thanks to some crazy set of events. Maybe maybe something
Speaker 2: happens to Biden, maybe there's a third party candidate catches
Speaker 2: on and unlike I think, I think Bobby Candidy will
Speaker 2: suction more votes from Trump. But you know that maybe
Speaker 2: somebody else who does the opposite and you know, no
Speaker 2: labels type and fools people into vote for them. And
Speaker 2: it's possible some screw we think could happen where Trump
Speaker 2: could win, which is a ten percent chance of armageddon,
Speaker 2: which is bad, right, so I mean discounting it. But
Speaker 2: I think the more likely scenario is he's going to
Speaker 2: blow himself up, and the only question is going to
Speaker 2: be the blast radius, and the blast radius I think
Speaker 2: will likely include the Republican Party and I think all
Speaker 2: of the things that he has done has led to
Speaker 2: the point where the party cannot function as a political party.
Speaker 2: The only question is he going to cause more damage
Speaker 2: in forms of violence, and of course if he's elected,
Speaker 2: basically he destroys the country. So it's just the question.
Speaker 2: And that's what happens with these people who you you
Speaker 2: know who we call malignant narcissists like a Hitler or
Speaker 2: all these these people. Basically when they are going down,
Speaker 2: they seek vengeance, and if they think they are going down,
Speaker 2: they want to take as many people with them as possible,
Speaker 2: which is why you definitely don't want happen and have
Speaker 2: the button once again. And that's what they do. It
Speaker 2: is they only get worse, they don't get better, and
Speaker 2: that is the situation we have. There's no way to
Speaker 2: disarm this bomb. It's the question of where is the
Speaker 2: bomb going to be? Where are all the rest of
Speaker 2: us going to be when it finally goes off for
Speaker 2: the once the final time, which I had hoped would
Speaker 2: happen long before he became the danger that he did
Speaker 2: but didn't happen. But it's got to happen because it's
Speaker 2: just there's just he's just reaching that point with all
Speaker 2: the pressure where his business is about to be taken
Speaker 2: away from him, facing ninety one felon accounts. Even the
Speaker 2: case that he will hear he has a semi favorable judge,
Speaker 2: He's got no way to win that case. It's just
Speaker 2: the question of where they are. He cannot or whether
Speaker 2: you can put it off until after the election. He's
Speaker 2: got so many problems and Malania isn't won. Actually no
Speaker 2: Malania maybe one now, maybe Lani one.
Speaker 1: And I don't thank you George Conway, the best, the
Speaker 1: apologies to jay Z, thank you, thank you all right,
Speaker 1: ninety night. Adam mcgourney covers national politics for The New
Speaker 1: York Times and is the author of the Times How
Speaker 1: the Newspaper of Records Survived, Scandal, Scorn, and the Transformation
Speaker 1: of journalism. Welcome to Fast Politics, Adam.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me, Mallya. I'm very happy to be here.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about this book. There are sort of books
Speaker 1: where everyone I know is sort of talking about it,
Speaker 1: reading it, and this is one of those books. The Times,
Speaker 1: How the newspaper of records survived, scandal, scorn, and the
Speaker 1: transformation of journalism. First, why did you write this book?
Speaker 1: Like where did you sort of decide that this was
Speaker 1: what you wanted to spend your life doing.
Speaker 6: Just rolling back a little bit, if you had known me,
Speaker 6: like when I was in college, I always wanted to
Speaker 6: work at the Times. I always kind of found it
Speaker 6: a fascinating place. I read Gay Talicia's book about The
Speaker 6: Times in nineteen sixty nine. I toined the paper in
Speaker 6: nineteen ninety six, and you know, it's kind of I'm
Speaker 6: not quite sure how it came to be, but certainly
Speaker 6: it came to me at a certain point that this
Speaker 6: was a good story to tell. In other words, The
Speaker 6: Times was a big important institution in journalism in America, politics,
Speaker 6: in just America life. And I had always been inspired
Speaker 6: by Gay to at least about the stories inside the newsroom,
Speaker 6: and I just decided this was something.
Speaker 4: I really wanted to do.
Speaker 6: And you know, I sort of thought about it for
Speaker 6: a long time and then it spent about seven years
Speaker 6: doing it.
Speaker 1: You're still at the Times too.
Speaker 4: I'm still with the paper.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not an authorized book.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 6: When I first had the idea, I went to the
Speaker 6: publisher at the time, Arthur Sulzberger Junior, and asked if
Speaker 6: he would cooperate, if I would do a book, in
Speaker 6: other words, sit down and talk to me, because I thought, Molly,
Speaker 6: that would be pretty critical. And he thought about it
Speaker 6: for a few weeks and he came back to me
Speaker 6: and said, yes, I will do this, but I'm not
Speaker 6: going to tell anyone else what to do. What I
Speaker 6: did not realize I should have was the second that
Speaker 6: Arthur Sulzburg agreed to talk to me. Pretty much everyone
Speaker 6: else did, so I talked to I guess, every single
Speaker 6: major player, which is pretty helpful of.
Speaker 4: Putting this book together.
Speaker 1: It is a little bit scary, though, to write a
Speaker 1: book about your employer.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 6: One thing that made it a little a little bit
Speaker 6: more manageable because I really thought about do I need
Speaker 6: to leave right? Is I end the book in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 6: And there are two reasons why, Moley. The first part
Speaker 6: is I found that post twenty sixteen, when you're writing
Speaker 6: about stuff that's more contemporary.
Speaker 4: It's harder to put it into perspective.
Speaker 6: Right, I could talk to you at length about what
Speaker 6: the meaning of Judas Miller was.
Speaker 4: It's harder to get people to be candid.
Speaker 6: All the people I was interviewed were mostly out of
Speaker 6: the paper, and you can't really get access to the
Speaker 6: kind of internal documents that I think power the rest
Speaker 6: of the narrative. The other reason was I didn't want
Speaker 6: to be writing about people that I work for or with,
Speaker 6: So I think two exceptions. Ag Solzberger is now the publisher.
Speaker 6: He's a player earlier on in the book, but I
Speaker 6: don't write about him as a publisher. And Carolyn Ryan's
Speaker 6: now an assistant magic as excuse me, a magic editor,
Speaker 6: and she was abolved in writing about some of the
Speaker 6: stories that I write about.
Speaker 4: But generally that was a big factory.
Speaker 6: It maybe more comfortable in what is obviously a difficult,
Speaker 6: tricky kind of endeavor.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 1: There is a history of writing about the times. It's
Speaker 1: sort of well worn path.
Speaker 4: Right. There's been a bunch of memoirs.
Speaker 6: In my opinion, there's two main books, the to Least
Speaker 6: Book and the books that Alex Jones and Susan Tiff
Speaker 6: wrote about the Sulzburger family. I'm not in any way
Speaker 6: minimizing the other books, but those me were the two
Speaker 6: greatest books that were written. Alex and Susan focused on
Speaker 6: the Sulzburger family more than the paper. Gay focused more
Speaker 6: in the newsroom. This is the newsroom of the pre
Speaker 6: nineteen sixty nine New York Times, so they felt like
Speaker 6: there was a big opening to write about what had happened.
Speaker 4: The other thing is, and I didn't realize this.
Speaker 6: When I started the book. When I first started doing this,
Speaker 6: I did not know how the book would add. I
Speaker 6: did not know of the New York Times would even exist,
Speaker 6: or at least exist in the forum that we knew
Speaker 6: it back in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4: As it turned out, there was a.
Speaker 6: Story to tell here about the transition of the paper
Speaker 6: into a digital newspaper, both as a way of making
Speaker 6: money but also as a way of presenting the news.
Speaker 6: I didn't realize that at the time, but that turned
Speaker 6: out to me. You'll see a central kind of element
Speaker 6: or spy to the book.
Speaker 1: You said that you weren't even sure of the Times
Speaker 1: would exist, And even though the Times is now pretty
Speaker 1: much the biggest game in town. There was a time
Speaker 1: when it seemed like it might. And in fact, you know,
Speaker 1: I come from the nineties, even though I was younger
Speaker 1: than but there are a lot of newspapers and magazines
Speaker 1: that I came of age writing for and reading that
Speaker 1: no longer exist.
Speaker 6: Right, The New York pub is one of the few
Speaker 6: remaining big city newspapers there's, if I can describe it
Speaker 6: that way, that are still powerful, have a huge readership
Speaker 6: and really kind of influenced journalism. Like all these newspapers
Speaker 6: have fallen by the wayside. The you know, the you know,
Speaker 6: the Bosston Globe, God love it, they're not as great
Speaker 6: as they once were, or the Miami Herald or the
Speaker 6: Atlanta Constitution, the La Times that they get still a
Speaker 6: bit paper, very good paper, but it's not quite as
Speaker 6: good as it was when I was going to Los
Speaker 6: Angeles in the you know, nineteen nineties.
Speaker 4: To cover built with it.
Speaker 6: So the Times as the field more to itself, along
Speaker 6: with obviously the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 6: but it's become a much smaller market unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think what's really important what you talk
Speaker 1: about is this idea that what the Times did. Was
Speaker 1: it sort of smartly was able to tack Can you
Speaker 1: talk about that?
Speaker 6: I mean, it's interesting because The Times is such an
Speaker 6: institutionalist paper and resistant to change.
Speaker 4: And one thing I.
Speaker 6: Realized as I was researching this is that it was
Speaker 6: resistant to change but also open to change. It wasn't
Speaker 6: as sort of like as easy as story as like
Speaker 6: these stodgy old men, because that's what it was in
Speaker 6: the early days, saying no to anything. They were willing
Speaker 6: to change. The two main things that happened though, were
Speaker 6: actually the main thing was that the publisher, Artur Solzberger Junior,
Speaker 6: was very open to change. And you'll find these early
Speaker 6: documents and speeches that he gave back in the earliest
Speaker 6: days of his career when he talks about he's a
Speaker 6: Star Trek fan, right, so he says, I don't care
Speaker 6: if we have to beam the information into their head.
Speaker 6: We're going to get into that. And he's a former
Speaker 6: wire service guy, worked with the Associated so I don't
Speaker 6: think he was kind of wad to the old way
Speaker 6: of doing things the way his predecessors were. So I
Speaker 6: think the paper was able to change. It wasn't leading
Speaker 6: the pack at first. I think now it more or
Speaker 6: less is, but it got there. The other thing you find,
Speaker 6: you know, I spent a lot of time going through
Speaker 6: documents at the archives of personal papers. You know, you
Speaker 6: find these really big executives, guys like gab wosetal was
Speaker 6: the executive vetitor back in the seventies and eighties, saying,
Speaker 6: you know, digital seemed digital. I think they called it
Speaker 6: television screen at the time. Seems cool enough, but no
Speaker 6: one's never beginning their news off of that. And you
Speaker 6: look at that, you go, well, they didn't see the future,
Speaker 6: but other people did, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's interesting because it's like so many people
Speaker 1: did not see the future, and there, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean I was so I mean really, a lot of
Speaker 1: newspapers a magazine seeded to tech companies and let them
Speaker 1: take over, which is how we're in this mass.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, and the Times, to its credit, slow, making a
Speaker 6: lot of mistakes slow on the way, got there, and
Speaker 6: they know they didn't do it cleanly, but they got there.
Speaker 4: They sort of realized the way the world was changing.
Speaker 4: Two ways.
Speaker 6: One was the revenue model. Right now is a subscriber
Speaker 6: first newspaper. It's no longer reliant on advertisers, which obviously
Speaker 6: can't be anymore. And second of all, you pick up
Speaker 6: before every day and they just present stories in a
Speaker 6: whole different way the print newspaper. The whole paper used
Speaker 6: to be defined around the print newspaper or the front page,
Speaker 6: and the editors now have made an aggressive effort to
Speaker 6: move the culture beyond that. And I think to a
Speaker 6: large ext they have they don't think about the front page.
Speaker 6: They think about the follow up, right.
Speaker 1: But I also think this idea that they have multiple
Speaker 1: front pages now is pretty interesting.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, this is an interesting he raise an
Speaker 4: interesting question here.
Speaker 6: What thing that I always liked about The Times and
Speaker 6: the Times front page was the curation A bunch of
Speaker 6: presumably very smart for people telling me, hey, these are
Speaker 6: the seven stories you have to read, or the six stories,
Speaker 6: even though one of them might seem real, eat your pees,
Speaker 6: you know what I mean? Well, you know, there's much
Speaker 6: more churn on the homepage, like, for example, like you
Speaker 6: know today we have the turmoil in the Mideast. There's
Speaker 6: I think last time I looked six or seven stories
Speaker 6: just on that alone. It'll change a lot during the day.
Speaker 6: It's just different that way. But I think you still
Speaker 6: find the kind of stories that historically define the New
Speaker 6: York Times, that kind of hopefully exceptional journalism to define
Speaker 6: the New York Times. They are not necessarily just appealing
Speaker 6: to the explosion of what's going on right now, or
Speaker 6: even to something that readers want to read.
Speaker 4: It's just a little bit more texture.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the idea that they really did bring in
Speaker 1: podcasts too, which turned out to be a very smart move.
Speaker 4: It's funny.
Speaker 6: I saw one of the podcasters, Michael Barbara, the other night,
Speaker 6: and it reminded me that I was involved, like and
Speaker 6: years ago, fifteen years ago, I can't remember what it
Speaker 6: was called, but some kind of honestly super lame podcasts
Speaker 6: efver And you look back on it and it was
Speaker 6: so amateur hour, right, And then you look at where
Speaker 6: they end up now, and it's like pretty remarkable that
Speaker 6: sort of sophistication and how important podcasts are to the
Speaker 6: Times sort of offering.
Speaker 4: So it's really interesting the way they grew up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you don't know something is popular until
Speaker 1: it is right. You don't know's I mean, you just
Speaker 1: have to keep sort of feeling around in the dark.
Speaker 1: But I have this theory about the New York Times,
Speaker 1: which is that everybody reads it, so everybody gets mad
Speaker 1: at it, right, I mean, do you think that's true.
Speaker 1: Do you feel like you guys get more scrutiny than
Speaker 1: everybody else?
Speaker 4: I do? I do, And I am not sure that's
Speaker 4: such a bad thing.
Speaker 6: You go through ways over the decades where people love
Speaker 6: hate the New York Times, right, and the paper clearly
Speaker 6: comes under a lot of criticism for mistakes that it
Speaker 6: made Iraq right, and I guess I said that more
Speaker 6: than ever. But the upside of that is scrutiny is
Speaker 6: a good thing, right, where paper slowly itetself up to
Speaker 6: this super high standard and having outside people scrutinize stuff
Speaker 6: and say, hey, you got this wrong, whether it's using
Speaker 6: the word goo versus boom or you know, or whether
Speaker 6: it's just totally missing the importance of I should probably
Speaker 6: not even mention the bdies stuff now, But earlier stories
Speaker 6: about Iraq are about anything that the paper got wrong.
Speaker 4: Or got off, you know. And I think that's a
Speaker 4: good thing.
Speaker 6: And is you know, when you're at the front, when
Speaker 6: you're in the middle of it, when you're getting lots
Speaker 6: of emails or slag on Twitter for getting something off
Speaker 6: or wrong, is it exhausting, yet is it ultimately helpful? Yeah,
Speaker 6: you know it is right, because again we should be
Speaker 6: accountable in the same way that paper holds other people account.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an interesting phenomenon I think a lot about
Speaker 1: Like so, Elon Musk has decided he's going to recreate
Speaker 1: the mainstream media with just a few of his far
Speaker 1: right friends doing content moderation, and you really see how
Speaker 1: hard it is.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 6: I'm not going to try to guess what his ultimate
Speaker 6: goal is. But I think this sort of size of
Speaker 6: the Times always the intellectual diversity, not quite as much
Speaker 6: in terms of politics, but intellectual diversity, I think assures
Speaker 6: that there's slightly more balance at the Times, or at
Speaker 6: least tempt to be.
Speaker 4: We're balanced.
Speaker 6: I'm not sure Elard Musk is even aspiring to that.
Speaker 6: And again the Times that it gets stuff wrong, it
Speaker 6: always has throughout the course of this history. But I
Speaker 6: do think generally their aspirations its aspirations are pretty clear,
Speaker 6: which is try to present the news that old phrase
Speaker 6: without fear of favor.
Speaker 1: Right. We do see the importance of the many layers
Speaker 1: that the Times has, and we have that vanu Fair too,
Speaker 1: fact checking and lawyers and not to get back to
Speaker 1: this Elon must thing, but Elon Musk had these decided
Speaker 1: that he was going to tweet this I feel like
Speaker 1: is really important because we're in this information situation where
Speaker 1: more more important than ever, there needs to be some
Speaker 1: ability to trust the sources that we're getting news from.
Speaker 1: So Elon Musk had tweeted out these two Twitter accounts
Speaker 1: that he felt were good source of information and turned
Speaker 1: out one had said all these anti Semitic things, which
Speaker 1: again perhaps not disqualifying to Musk, who knows, but he
Speaker 1: did eventually take that back. But you really do see
Speaker 1: that there are so many opportunities to really make terrible mistakes,
Speaker 1: especially when news is breaking like it is right now.
Speaker 6: I mean, I saw that and I was kind of
Speaker 6: shocked by that. Let's assume that he made a mistake.
Speaker 6: Who knows, there are many you know, I guess like
Speaker 6: a vanity fair or every place. There are many layers
Speaker 6: at the New York Times to prevent that kind of
Speaker 6: stuff from happening, as we both know some sides it does.
Speaker 6: But you know, there's a standards desk, and there's all
Speaker 6: kinds of editors, and like that's why I'm always a
Speaker 6: little bit dubious about how much that was a mistake
Speaker 6: on Musta's part. But it's hard to believe that something
Speaker 6: like that would happen at the Times, And I do
Speaker 6: think that if it did, they would correct it, if
Speaker 6: not involuntarily, after getting this sort of backlash that I
Speaker 6: guess we saw muscot, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The other thing that I think is pretty interesting
Speaker 1: is that we have this sort of backlash. There was
Speaker 1: a time during you know, twenty sixteen where subscribing to
Speaker 1: The New York Times was considered to be a act
Speaker 1: of resistance, right, and there were these TV commercials and
Speaker 1: there was a feeling that you know, this was and
Speaker 1: then after Trump left office there was sort of certainly
Speaker 1: like a slightly more nuanced political reporting, and there was
Speaker 1: a certain level of fury there. Do you think and discuss?
Speaker 6: Yeah, you know what I remember right after that election,
Speaker 6: there was a after Trump bought in twenty sixteen, there
Speaker 6: was a lot of anger at the Times, right because
Speaker 6: a lot of readers felt that we had not covered
Speaker 6: that election correctly. There was a threat of a reader
Speaker 6: boycott if people canceling subscribers, And that's what I was
Speaker 6: sort of any of the book I was doing some
Speaker 6: inside reporting thinking about what would be the epilogue of
Speaker 6: the book, so I was able to attend some of
Speaker 6: the meetings where it was discussed, and what they found
Speaker 6: was that, in fact, there was a surge of circulation
Speaker 6: that Trump bump, as we later came to see it.
Speaker 6: And I think what's happened over the time is as
Speaker 6: that before you know, the narrative edge of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 6: those numbers have continued. The paper has figured out a
Speaker 6: way to continue holding and increasing subscribers. But that was
Speaker 6: a big moment, And you're right, politics were the politics
Speaker 6: that were really.
Speaker 1: Important, supposely, And again, like I don't totally trust a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff because I don't feel like we
Speaker 1: have such great polling apparatuses anymore. Don't tell the many
Speaker 1: pollsters I have on this podcast, who I like a lot.
Speaker 1: But I do feel like from some of the polling
Speaker 1: I've seen, it shows that mainstream media distrust is at
Speaker 1: its highest levels. And I mean, certainly Trump was able
Speaker 1: to lay the groundwork for that, but I also think
Speaker 1: social media plays a role there too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, you.
Speaker 6: Could see over the course of this book the decline
Speaker 6: in public trust of the media and the New York Times,
Speaker 6: And I agree with you about the problems of polling
Speaker 6: these days, but let's you know, The Times deserves some
Speaker 6: laying for this. So for example, again when the paper
Speaker 6: screwed up on the coverage of the Raq War, of
Speaker 6: the lead up to the Iraq War, weapons of mass destruction,
Speaker 6: when Jason Blair was caught abricating dozens and dozens of stories,
Speaker 6: I think that led to people having doubts about a
Speaker 6: newspaper they didn't at That's about before and even before
Speaker 6: Trump came in, there was a long sort of I
Speaker 6: think I do I know, organized process by conservatives just
Speaker 6: sort of delegitimize the New York Times. And I think
Speaker 6: that in a way Trump got that and increased that.
Speaker 6: So that is part of the reality. The Times is
Speaker 6: not the admired, unchallenged moderator of what is truth and
Speaker 6: what is not. That it was at the beginning of this.
Speaker 1: Book we saw this case against CNN being made by
Speaker 1: Trump too. You know, the idea is to work the
Speaker 1: reps and undermine the trust. But this is quite important
Speaker 1: and interesting and I really appreciate you joining us.
Speaker 4: Adam, my pleasure. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Kimberly Pope Adams is a Democratic state delegate candidate for
Speaker 1: Virginia's eighty second district. Welcome to Fast Politics. Kimberly Pope Adams.
Speaker 7: Hello, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: So let's talk. You're a Democratic nominee for VIA's House
Speaker 1: District eighty two. Virginia is is the center of the action.
Speaker 1: It is a big important swing state. Talk to me
Speaker 1: about what's going on.
Speaker 7: Oh, yes, it is because this race is really the
Speaker 7: deciding factor in what happened in the South for our
Speaker 7: reproductive freedoms. Because Virginia is the last state, We're the
Speaker 7: last state haven in the South for women's reproductive access.
Speaker 7: So it is so very important that our people get
Speaker 7: out to vote and make sure our voices are heard.
Speaker 1: So you are running in the House, the VA House.
Speaker 1: The situation right now in Virginia is you have Young
Speaker 1: Cain is the governor. You have a Republican House of
Speaker 1: Delegates and a Democratic state House. If Democrats lose the
Speaker 1: state House, Young Cain can turn Virginia into Florida. Okay,
Speaker 1: So yes, we have a Republican governor. We currently have
Speaker 1: a Republican majority in the House of Delegates, but we do.
Speaker 1: Democrats do have a slim majority in the States Senate.
Speaker 1: So what Governor Yuckett wants to do, he wants to
Speaker 1: hold the House and flip the Senate.
Speaker 7: But we obviously will not allow that to happen because
Speaker 7: if Republicans were to get the trifect it would just
Speaker 7: reverse all of the progress that we've made over the years.
Speaker 7: So clearly cannot allow that to happen.
Speaker 1: And one of the things we were just talking about
Speaker 1: before we started recording is that in Virginia, because Democrats
Speaker 1: were for a time had the governorship and the House
Speaker 1: of Delegates and the state Senate, you guys started a
Speaker 1: forty five day early voting window, which is incredible, and
Speaker 1: it's incredible for working people for whom a Tuesday is not.
Speaker 1: Taking a Tuesday off to wait online is not an
Speaker 1: option exactly.
Speaker 7: And that's so important because personally, I'm the daughter of
Speaker 7: a union worker, so I grew up in a very
Speaker 7: middle class, blue collar household. And you're right, Tuesdays from
Speaker 7: six am to seven pm for some people is their
Speaker 7: entire work day. So we were so fortunate in Virginia
Speaker 7: when we did have the trifecta, Democrats were able to
Speaker 7: impose forty five days of early voting. So it's about,
Speaker 7: you know, access, and that's really what democracy is about.
Speaker 7: It's about making sure people's voices can be heard, and
Speaker 7: this forty five days does that.
Speaker 1: That said, there is early voting right now and it
Speaker 1: has been going on.
Speaker 7: Yes, Early voting in Virginia started on September twenty second.
Speaker 1: Do you think that people understand just how dangerous not
Speaker 1: even dangerous, but dangerous Glenn Youngkin is. And I was
Speaker 1: hoping you could talk a little bit about what's happening
Speaker 1: with the voter roles.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much for asking, because what is happening
Speaker 7: currently in Virginia is that our governor of Republican Governor
Speaker 7: Glenn Youngkin and his administration, they have begun removing names
Speaker 7: from the voter rule. And it's no secret to Democrats
Speaker 7: why they're doing this, because Republicans know that their agenda
Speaker 7: is so extreme and so unpopular that the only thing
Speaker 7: they can do is to keep people from making their
Speaker 7: voices heard. And they do that by trying to keep
Speaker 7: us from the ballot box. But let me tell you
Speaker 7: this November, we are going to hold these extremists accountable.
Speaker 7: Extremists like my opponent, and we're going to make sure
Speaker 7: we send a message that by people like my opponent.
Speaker 7: You know, she doesn't get to take away funding from
Speaker 7: our public schools, she doesn't get to in ritunal business,
Speaker 7: she doesn't get to take away our rights. She can't
Speaker 7: do that without consequences. And for us, the consequence is
Speaker 7: to vote our out.
Speaker 1: Right and explain to me she is the incumbent.
Speaker 7: Yes, she is the incumbent. Two years ago we lost
Speaker 7: this seat narrowly five hundred twelve votes, so we know
Speaker 7: that this seat is historically blue, even though the incumbent
Speaker 7: is not.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this is like what's happened in New York
Speaker 1: State where we've had Republicans win in six seats that
Speaker 1: should be Biden seeds. Like this is a This is
Speaker 1: one of these situations where it's clearly it's a blue
Speaker 1: seat or it should be a blue seat.
Speaker 7: Exactly, this is absolutely a blue seat, and we'll be
Speaker 7: this November.
Speaker 1: Do Democrats just take their eye off the ball, like
Speaker 1: what happened? And do you think that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: now is getting its shit together when it comes to this.
Speaker 7: Well, and I'll tell you, like I said before in
Speaker 7: twenty nineteen, Democrats had the trifecta. We had both chambers
Speaker 7: of the General Assembly along with the governor's mansion. And
Speaker 7: admittedly we perhaps were a bit comfortable going into twenty
Speaker 7: one and by losing this seat and others in the
Speaker 7: State House, what that taught us is that we can
Speaker 7: never take our foot off the gas. So to your point,
Speaker 7: are we getting our shit together? Yes, we have our
Speaker 7: shit together, and we are and we are very much
Speaker 7: committed to making sure that we revived voters. There is
Speaker 7: an off year election in Virginia because the way our
Speaker 7: statewide offices fall, we have an election in Virginia every year.
Speaker 7: So we are now operating to make sure voters know
Speaker 7: every year there's something on the ballot, and every year
Speaker 7: you have to make your voice heard, because if we
Speaker 7: set out even one cycle, we allow these extrememists to
Speaker 7: come in and we get to take.
Speaker 3: Away our rights.
Speaker 7: We can't let that happen.
Speaker 1: Exactly, do you feel like Democrats are getting out to vote?
Speaker 1: Do you feel like there's a groundswell. Do you think
Speaker 1: that voters understand what's at stake here?
Speaker 7: Oh? Absolutely, and listen, I'm not doors every single day,
Speaker 7: and when I'm not doors, people are telling me that
Speaker 7: they're scared, And the reason they're scared is because they
Speaker 7: know when it comes to women's reproductive freedom, when it
Speaker 7: comes to abortion rights in Virginia, they know if they
Speaker 7: allow Republicans to take away this right, then what's next.
Speaker 7: You know what's next? Is it LGBTQ plus rights? Is
Speaker 7: it voting rights? So people in my district understand that
Speaker 7: this is a flippery slope, and they understand that they
Speaker 7: have to make sure that their voice is heard this
Speaker 7: election and every election so that we don't run the
Speaker 7: risk of moving backwards.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that Democrats have this tendency to
Speaker 1: kind of get passionate and then back off and then
Speaker 1: get back This is something I as a Democrats struggle with.
Speaker 7: Well, I wouldn't say that we become passionate and then
Speaker 7: back off. Sometimes our focus may shift. But what I've
Speaker 7: discovered in my district especially, is that the issues that
Speaker 7: are important to us have always been important to us
Speaker 7: in all fays will be so while the DOMS decision
Speaker 7: has allowed us to reprioritize, the main issues are the same.
Speaker 4: Core issues are the same.
Speaker 7: We are still fighting for reproductive freedom, we are still
Speaker 7: fighting for our public schools. We are still fighting for
Speaker 7: faith communities, you know, communities free of gun violence. So,
Speaker 7: like I said, while while Democrats may have reprioritized, which
Speaker 7: they see as our outward effort, trust me, the priorities
Speaker 7: are still me.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think like if young kin and Republicans
Speaker 1: are able to take over Virginia, it will mean women
Speaker 1: will not be able to get abortions in Virginia, and
Speaker 1: so the abortion desert will grow.
Speaker 7: Yes, because like I said, we are the last safe
Speaker 7: haven in the South. We are the last state in
Speaker 7: the South that has not imposed for restrictions since the
Speaker 7: overturning of Roe. So you're right, if Republicans were to
Speaker 7: win this trifecta, it would be detrimental not just to Virginia,
Speaker 7: but to all of those bordering states. I mean, we
Speaker 7: have women driving up Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina driving
Speaker 7: over for Kentucky, Tennessee because of the fact that we
Speaker 7: can still provide that access. Well again if they if
Speaker 7: Republicans were to win, it would it would be detrimental
Speaker 7: to the entire region, not just to Virginia.
Speaker 1: I think about how how important these state elections really are.
Speaker 1: We've seen over the last you know, since Trump came
Speaker 1: to power, how much these small conservative state houses have
Speaker 1: created bills and changed Roe would not have been overturned
Speaker 1: had it not been for SBA and conservative activists have
Speaker 1: really been able to kind of permeate these state houses.
Speaker 7: Yes, you're right, it shows us how important, as you said,
Speaker 7: how important these state elections are. Like I said, in Virginia,
Speaker 7: there is no all year, and I believe the overturning
Speaker 7: of Row really showed us, you know, glaringly that we
Speaker 7: cannot ignore our local elections. I mean all the way
Speaker 7: down to school board. Okay, we need to make sure
Speaker 7: that every time something is on the ballot that we
Speaker 7: make our boys heard.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just such an important point. So tell me
Speaker 1: what your race looks like and sort of what your
Speaker 1: plan is for the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 7: The sword answer is not doors, not doors, not doors,
Speaker 7: because there is no better way to learn the needs
Speaker 7: and concerns of the district than by asking. I mean,
Speaker 7: I can't go to Richmond and fight for you if
Speaker 7: I don't know what you need. So for the next weeks,
Speaker 7: my emphasis is on knocking doors. And actually I mean
Speaker 7: anyone who wants to come down and.
Speaker 1: Help with that.
Speaker 7: They are more than welcome to because if you visit
Speaker 7: my website Keim Adams for VA dot com, but it's
Speaker 7: all letters, no numbers. Hey, I am A D, A M.
Speaker 7: S F O r VA dot com. You could sign
Speaker 7: up to camp list, you could sign up to postcard
Speaker 7: to letter write, and you can also make donations on
Speaker 7: that site because at this point, voter outreach and voter
Speaker 7: contact is crucial because we need to make sure that
Speaker 7: we show up, we show up in big numbers, and
Speaker 7: we send on that message that extremists in Virginia will
Speaker 7: not win.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that is really important. And you're knocking
Speaker 1: on doors, you're still raising money and raising runners for
Speaker 1: this race.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. Fundraising is a critical component of any election, especially
Speaker 7: this one because Governor Glenn Youngin has made it clear
Speaker 7: that he is bearing no expense on this racing. He
Speaker 7: very much meets this seat in order in order to
Speaker 7: boost his own political aspirations perhaps in the future. But again,
Speaker 7: like I said, fundraising is important. My opponent it's spending
Speaker 7: at this point over a million dollars on TV ads.
Speaker 7: So again my website, him Adams four VA dot com
Speaker 7: is how you can help us in this fight.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Kimberly. I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 7: Oh, thank you so much for having me. Please let
Speaker 7: me know when you want me back, and I'll be here.
Speaker 2: A moment.
Speaker 8: Jessie Cannon Boni, John Fast, I am so upset. We
Speaker 8: have to talk about Jim Jordan all the time because,
Speaker 8: as Rick Wilson said on the podcast, well man has rabies.
Speaker 1: And looks like he has rabies. He doesn't have them rabies.
Speaker 1: This is how we don't get soon. Jim Jordan does
Speaker 1: not technically have rabies. Sure he looks like he has it,
Speaker 1: but he doesn't actually have it. Ladies and gentlemen discuss.
Speaker 8: He's forcing a floor vote for speakership on Tuesday. What
Speaker 8: do you see happening here?
Speaker 1: So, Jim Jordan. One of my favorite moments in Republican
Speaker 1: math is they don't have the votes, They never have
Speaker 1: the votes, and yet they decide to make the votes anyway.
Speaker 1: So here we had Nancy Pelosi never lost a vote, right,
Speaker 1: never lost a vote. She never lost a rules vote,
Speaker 1: she never lost a floor vote because she whipped the votes.
Speaker 1: Because vote whipping is actually a job. It's a congressional
Speaker 1: job to be the whip all right, Republicans don't whip
Speaker 1: votes because math is you know, math is a woke construct.
Speaker 1: So they just go in there without the right numbers.
Speaker 1: And so we are going to see Jim Jordan, everyone's
Speaker 1: favorite crime ignorer, except what he's trying to overturn the election.
Speaker 1: That guy does not have the votes he needs to
Speaker 1: turn fifty five votes, fifty five votes in order to
Speaker 1: win speakership. And that is why that bit of stupid,
Speaker 1: that inability to math, that is our moment of fuckery.
Speaker 8: I'm really looking forward to Chris Ruffo putting everywhere a
Speaker 8: quote from you that said math is a quoke construct.
Speaker 1: Matth is a woke construct. Bitches. That's it for this
Speaker 1: episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and
Speaker 1: Friday to hear the best minds in politics makes sense
Speaker 1: of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.