Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics. Well,
Speaker 1: we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's
Speaker 1: best minds and armed maga's are camped outside drop boxes
Speaker 1: in Mesa, Arizona. What an excellent show we have today.
Speaker 1: New York Times magazine and national geographic writer Robert Draper,
Speaker 1: author of the book Weapons of Mass Illusion When the
Speaker 1: Republican Party Lost its Mind, is gonna come by and
Speaker 1: tell us all about well, exactly that. Then we'll talk
Speaker 1: to Congressman Patrick Ryan, who represents New York's nineteenth district,
Speaker 1: about his competitive race. But first we're joined by a
Speaker 1: countdown host Keith Olberman and iHeart media podcast, but you
Speaker 1: can hear Monday through Friday each week. Welcome to Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Keith Oberman on my pleasure to be here and Ted
Speaker 1: Ted Ted in the background may not be happy about this.
Speaker 1: I'm not the dog. I am usually the one with
Speaker 1: the barking dogs in the background, so this is very
Speaker 1: nice for me. I have Well, you haven't heard them
Speaker 1: bark yet, naked really bark. There's four of them. First
Speaker 1: of all, we're going to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: what's going on with many exciting things that happened this weekend,
Speaker 1: starting with the Nazis in l A. Yeah, I just
Speaker 1: I just wrote that up for the for the podcast.
Speaker 1: It's just it's not a surprise. Nobody should be surprised.
Speaker 1: It's southern California, where I lived for ten years. It's
Speaker 1: one of the hidden racist and anti Semitic enclaves, and
Speaker 1: maybe not often that that hidden in the country. But
Speaker 1: the point is that all of these groups and and
Speaker 1: Trump's fascists are moving together, I think a little bit
Speaker 1: faster than a lot of people expected. As in his
Speaker 1: re election announcement was supposed to wait till after the midterms,
Speaker 1: so was the whole the Jews run everything and we
Speaker 1: have to we have to throw them out of the country,
Speaker 1: which is basically what this messages. Those guys are from
Speaker 1: the ones who hung the banners from the four or
Speaker 1: five freeway over the past yeah four five. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: a group of about twelve guys called the Goyam Defense League,
Speaker 1: and yeah, and there, I mean these were guys who
Speaker 1: were banned from YouTube in two thousand and ten, so there,
Speaker 1: how bad you have to be banned from YouTube at all?
Speaker 1: But when they had hundred people using YouTube, they were
Speaker 1: banned from it. I come back to the one thing
Speaker 1: as as a as a gentile that I do not
Speaker 1: understand about this entire equation of anti Semitism. If you
Speaker 1: believe this, if you believe somewhere that what you are
Speaker 1: spouting about Jewish people is actually true, how is it
Speaker 1: possible that you don't expect to be thrown from that overpass?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't like it's shouldn't you guys
Speaker 1: being shouldn't Kanye West be in hiding somewhere by now?
Speaker 1: None of it follows any logical train. But that's the
Speaker 1: thing to me that disturbs me the most in terms
Speaker 1: of an offense against logic. Yeah, I mean, I have
Speaker 1: to say as a Jew myself, who's constantly getting chastised
Speaker 1: by conservative Jews for not standing up against their like
Speaker 1: obsession with anti semitism on the left, you know, and
Speaker 1: by the way, the people they think are are people
Speaker 1: like Bernie who is actually Jewish. Yeah, it's interesting to
Speaker 1: me to watch them just completely Oh, it's not the
Speaker 1: same thing. And you know, even Ben Shapiro defending Trump saying, well,
Speaker 1: he's not wrong about Jews, you know, criticizing Israel. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's so insane. These conservative Jews are on I just
Speaker 1: can't believe they can't see where this is going. That
Speaker 1: instinct is overridden by the by the other instinct that
Speaker 1: people who are of an authoritarian mind, and that's literally
Speaker 1: a different physical entity than an ordinary human mind. They
Speaker 1: believe if there are two responses to a threat, one
Speaker 1: is to fight the threat, and the other one is
Speaker 1: to collaborate with the threat as quickly and as enthusiastically
Speaker 1: as possible. In other words, this, these terrible things will
Speaker 1: happen to the fill in the blank here, whichever is
Speaker 1: the most hated group of the moment, But it won't
Speaker 1: happen to me because I helped them. You know. It's
Speaker 1: the it's the Kent Brockman joke from The Simpsons. I
Speaker 1: for one, welcome our new insect overlords. Right. So let's
Speaker 1: talk about Nancy Pelosi. The January six Committee wanted Trump
Speaker 1: to testify. They subpoenaed him. There's been I think a
Speaker 1: fair amount of anxiety about the idea of Trump testifying,
Speaker 1: because we know what happens when Trump gets a microphone,
Speaker 1: and it tends not to work out so well for anyone.
Speaker 1: But Pelosi sort of dared Trump to testify today. I mean,
Speaker 1: what's your hot take on this? Well, I think unfortunately
Speaker 1: it's going to be an academic question because that committee
Speaker 1: and those hearings are not really going to be a
Speaker 1: vibrant force after the midterms. Right. But do you think
Speaker 1: he'll testify before that? I mean before before before January fourth?
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think so. First off, why would
Speaker 1: they why would they agree to live public testimony? I
Speaker 1: mean unless they have the James Thurber cartoon where he's
Speaker 1: the lawyer is accosting the man on the stand and
Speaker 1: he's holding a giant kangaroo in his hands. The lawyer
Speaker 1: is and he goes, perhaps this will refresh your memory.
Speaker 1: Unless they have something like that. And even so, you
Speaker 1: know that Donald Trump is entirely successful and has been
Speaker 1: throughout his life on one skill, which is to say
Speaker 1: anything that is necessary in the moment, right, which is
Speaker 1: why I think he might testify because he knows he could,
Speaker 1: you know, just do crazy ship with it. But he
Speaker 1: will testify to be to be live and on television
Speaker 1: because like so many people he is also he has
Speaker 1: become the thing that sent him over the total edge mentally,
Speaker 1: was was being a television regular television figure, because television is,
Speaker 1: and I can tell you this from forty years of
Speaker 1: its experience with it, it is an addiction stronger than
Speaker 1: crack cocaine. And you really, if you're not aware of that,
Speaker 1: you become consumed by it. And he wants to be
Speaker 1: on television. But it's a very simple issue. I haven't
Speaker 1: seen anywhere that the January six Committee subpoenas suggests that
Speaker 1: the testimony would be live or even or even in
Speaker 1: front of an audience. So I can't imagine that he would.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're right, that's that opportunity to go and
Speaker 1: just say, well, never mind that, let's talk about how
Speaker 1: I really won the election. I really do think by
Speaker 1: the way that we should we should all say, just
Speaker 1: before the presidential election, we should all say, yes, you're right,
Speaker 1: you won the election, and you you were president all
Speaker 1: this time. Sorry, that means you can't run again tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Your votes don't count. Sorry, See you have a nice
Speaker 1: day by police. Yeah, that's that's why I realized this
Speaker 1: is not necessarily a really good last line of defense
Speaker 1: against another Trump presidency, but it's the only one I
Speaker 1: can come up with off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: But back to your point, I just I don't see
Speaker 1: it happening, because it's much better for him to again
Speaker 1: nail himself to that crucifix for the fifteen thousandth time
Speaker 1: and be you know, oh, look at them, they're trying
Speaker 1: to kill me again. That's much better for him than
Speaker 1: it is to to actually even to satisfy the ego
Speaker 1: and the addiction of being on television. Right. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know how that plays out. But do you
Speaker 1: think Nancy Pelosi sort of baiting him makes any sense?
Speaker 1: I think I don't know that it has any practical sense,
Speaker 1: not like the release of that tape of her to
Speaker 1: ce Ann saying, I'm, you know, doing a revision of
Speaker 1: the Kate Bush song. I'm gonna he's gonna come to
Speaker 1: that hill, I'm gonna punch him in the face. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna feel real good that that that it's cathartic to
Speaker 1: do that. And and I you know, this is this
Speaker 1: is a guy who cannot abide criticism, has no sense
Speaker 1: of humor about himself, and is easily tweaked. And one
Speaker 1: of the things that we have failed to do since
Speaker 1: he took over the Republican Party in late two thousand
Speaker 1: fifteen is too at every opportunity. And when I say we,
Speaker 1: I mean people who have much more prominence than either
Speaker 1: one of us. But people like Nancy Pelosi and people
Speaker 1: like Joe Biden and the others who have succeeded against
Speaker 1: him have all if you, if you look at this,
Speaker 1: they have all walked over and metaphorically slapped him in
Speaker 1: the face. And I think that's where it's a value.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's it's coming over and looking for the
Speaker 1: vulnerability and hitting him right there. And that's where it's
Speaker 1: it's value is cathartic rather than practice. Right, No, I
Speaker 1: I think that's probably right. I'm also curious as to
Speaker 1: why Pelosi is getting involved in this. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about the documents. Who have learned more about the documents.
Speaker 1: We're learning every day more about the documents that Trump has.
Speaker 1: Now we've learned that some are at least some are
Speaker 1: related to Iran and China. And we already knew that
Speaker 1: there that there were some that that outlined the nuclear
Speaker 1: capabilities of another country. And there are only like seven
Speaker 1: of those. Yeah, we only knew that from one only
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. The Times never went along with that,
Speaker 1: But clearly that's what it was. So so what's your
Speaker 1: take on that. I'm intrigued to see whether or not
Speaker 1: those two stories overlap. Are we talking about the same document, right,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of documents too, But but I
Speaker 1: do I do tend to think one. And this is true. Again,
Speaker 1: this is a generalization about Trump that is also absolutely
Speaker 1: true in the specific The volume whatever it is, the
Speaker 1: volume of stuff that he puts out, the volume of chaff,
Speaker 1: the volume of crime, the volume of grift, the volume
Speaker 1: of conspiracy theories is always so great that we do
Speaker 1: tend to overlook the significance of each one of these things.
Speaker 1: In other words, it's it's one of these, one of
Speaker 1: these documents that he stole contains the nuclear, nuclear and
Speaker 1: defense capabilities of an entire foreign nation. It's only the
Speaker 1: one document. It's a that one is a death penalty,
Speaker 1: effec It is espionage and they're going to shoot you
Speaker 1: full of poisonous drugs, and we sometimes lose track that.
Speaker 1: You know, perhaps these Iran and China documents are also
Speaker 1: on that level, and if they're not pretty close to it,
Speaker 1: these are these are perhaps the three greatest espionage crimes
Speaker 1: in American history and and we we get it gets
Speaker 1: lot while I stall hundreds of documents, and some of them,
Speaker 1: some of them were just a quick you know, the
Speaker 1: directions through the underground tunnels to the Burger King the
Speaker 1: White House. Well, okay, I'm not that worried about that. Yes,
Speaker 1: when they when the guy fired a hundred shots, like, well,
Speaker 1: he fired a hundred bullets, he only killed three people,
Speaker 1: that's the same thing to it, right, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: it's this sort of deep band and flooding the zone
Speaker 1: with strategy. But but that's it's see, I don't it's not.
Speaker 1: It's Steve Bannon may have applied it to politics and
Speaker 1: particularly the Trump campaign, but that's the Trump Uh, that's his.
Speaker 1: That's his his artistry that he has met a is
Speaker 1: flooding the zone with ship and whatever. It's been from
Speaker 1: defending himself against the racist apartment charges forty years ago
Speaker 1: or forty five years ago, to you know, whatever he's
Speaker 1: cooking up this week. It's always about doing so much
Speaker 1: material that you go, I forgot about that. That was
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago, and it turns out it
Speaker 1: was Tuesday. A hundred things. Since they're all the cliches
Speaker 1: about the latest shiny object and everything else and apply
Speaker 1: to that too. So last night Trump was doing a
Speaker 1: rally in Texas, I think it was Texas, um, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to quote for you because I feel like
Speaker 1: this is just so ironic you And by the way,
Speaker 1: every time I forgot because I haven't written about Trump's
Speaker 1: speech and so long, but every time you read a
Speaker 1: Trump quote, you have to get used to the way
Speaker 1: he English is. Uh. You know in this country they
Speaker 1: leak all over the place, even on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I don't think you leak on it. But okay, well
Speaker 1: he had somebody complained about body leaking on him, yes,
Speaker 1: last week, and I thought, I thought we could solve
Speaker 1: the pee tape thing. By the way, tape. By the way,
Speaker 1: you have to find the leaker of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Again not English, but yes, you have to find the leaker.
Speaker 1: You know how you find the leaker. And then he
Speaker 1: launched into a grand plan. But a little ironic from
Speaker 1: from him being from the guy who took all the
Speaker 1: classified documents. Well, yes, because again this is this is
Speaker 1: why you know, people were like, what an extraordinary thing
Speaker 1: in American political history. It was for a man to
Speaker 1: come in and with no previous affiliation just take over
Speaker 1: a political party. It's like no, no, no, all all
Speaker 1: of the people in that political party were have been
Speaker 1: honing skills that they hoped would someday make them as
Speaker 1: good or and or bad as Trump in this particular area.
Speaker 1: There's no rules apply to him. The rules are there
Speaker 1: for us to control the rest of you. And and
Speaker 1: he's been he has been the poster boy for that
Speaker 1: since the seventies. And it's and and that's how he
Speaker 1: did it. He came in and they said, they said,
Speaker 1: we have found our role model. And that's it's simply
Speaker 1: that they were able to say, we can now drop
Speaker 1: everything else that there was where we had to pretend
Speaker 1: we were interested in governing, and we were pretending we
Speaker 1: had that we were responsible citizens. We can drop that.
Speaker 1: Now we just do what he does. That's over. I mean,
Speaker 1: basically he went in and took over the Republican Party
Speaker 1: because they were cowards and he was a little bit charismatic. Yes,
Speaker 1: and that's it right. I mean, there's no secret sauce here. No,
Speaker 1: I think there is one. And it's the only conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory I said, I agree, I agree with and and actually,
Speaker 1: I think I may have conceived this one. Do you
Speaker 1: remember the Jeff Bezos story where they were trying to
Speaker 1: blackmail him with the girlfriend one as an aside, I
Speaker 1: used to work with the girlfriend. She was a sportscast year. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's like, it's a very small world. But number two,
Speaker 1: what do you suppose the odds are that the first
Speaker 1: person that the National Inquirer tried to blackmail on behalf
Speaker 1: of Trump had the money, the stones, the audacity to say, now,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna you know, any money, any any influence, because
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't love my wife anymore, but she
Speaker 1: she was a good person and she gets my money.
Speaker 1: You don't screw you, guys, I'm not cooperating. What are
Speaker 1: the chances that the first person they blackmailed said no.
Speaker 1: I think those chances are almost infamitessable. And there had
Speaker 1: probably been dozens of people blackmailed with similar things by
Speaker 1: similar organizations on behalf of Trump. And if you sit
Speaker 1: there wondering, how did Lindsey Graham turn from a you know,
Speaker 1: blow with the strongest wind kind of fake reasonable Republican
Speaker 1: to this prostitute? How did Ted Cruz go from being
Speaker 1: you know, what we're threatening Trump with a fist fight
Speaker 1: to being his biggest supporter, Ronnie Jackson, almost everybody at
Speaker 1: Fox News. People forget people at Fox News were so
Speaker 1: anti Trump in two thousand, fifteen sixteen. How did they
Speaker 1: do this? I think we need to admit the possibility
Speaker 1: that that blackmail was involved in it, because it's you know,
Speaker 1: these are politicians, and they're being politicians. They're about a
Speaker 1: hundred times more likely to have done blackmail double stuff
Speaker 1: than the rest of us have. So I think that's
Speaker 1: the one little sort of mystery that might be explained
Speaker 1: by future historians. But I just I'm going to push
Speaker 1: back on this. I mean, we really think like Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham needs money to be a sick of fant who
Speaker 1: wants to be popular, like there are horses. I mean,
Speaker 1: these people just do whatever the crowd wants. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying that somebody may have gone on behalf of Trump
Speaker 1: and said, if you don't support Trump, everything you have
Speaker 1: will disappear because we have photographs of you and fill
Speaker 1: in the like. Could be anything, could be, could be
Speaker 1: him secretly attending a gay rights may something terrible like that. Right,
Speaker 1: But I mean, but but I just I just think
Speaker 1: that you know that that that the reversals when when
Speaker 1: this is written, if there is a future, and there
Speaker 1: are historians and they try to analyze this. One of
Speaker 1: the things that we don't really appreciate it now is
Speaker 1: the limited, how small the number of people it is
Speaker 1: who could have stopped this by pushing back. He could
Speaker 1: have stopped this with a moral stance that didn't really
Speaker 1: require an awful lot of morality to it, and none
Speaker 1: of them did it, And it took it took four
Speaker 1: years for Liz Cheney to get there. Right, No, just
Speaker 1: what there is there is there is there in a
Speaker 1: conditional components, and the biggest component of all political figures
Speaker 1: is is self interest and preservation of what they have. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I just would argue that these people all
Speaker 1: they care about is staying in power. So like you, So,
Speaker 1: I mean we saw in our my and mineighborhood the
Speaker 1: congressional race, my congresswoman who lost her seat would do
Speaker 1: anything to stay in power. I mean, I feel like,
Speaker 1: I feel like you don't even need the blackmail. And
Speaker 1: it's funny because I just want to sort of extrapolate
Speaker 1: from there. I'm friends with Michael Angelo, Senor Elli, this
Speaker 1: wonderful activist who's been doing this for a long time,
Speaker 1: and one of the things you used to do was
Speaker 1: out gay politicians. And I said, why did you stop
Speaker 1: outing the gay politicians gay? I mean the gay Republican
Speaker 1: closeted politicians who were voting for all this horrible anti
Speaker 1: LGBTQ stuff but then actually gay. And he said, because
Speaker 1: ultimately their people don't care as long as they vote
Speaker 1: for the stuff that's anti lgbt Q, they don't care
Speaker 1: if they're gay or not. And I thought, so, I
Speaker 1: just wonder how much of any of this is just this,
Speaker 1: like these people are, you know, they've sort of kidnapped
Speaker 1: themselves and are holding themselves for ransom. That's a plausible explanation.
Speaker 1: As I said when I brought this up, it's a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory, and I don't give it were weight than that,
Speaker 1: But I'm just thinking, you know, it may apply to
Speaker 1: people outside of the Republican Party. Every time I see
Speaker 1: Kirsten Cinema, who I went out with for a while,
Speaker 1: behave in the way that she has in in favorites
Speaker 1: of things that at least are favorable to Trump and Republicans,
Speaker 1: And I know what a psychotic liberal she was. I
Speaker 1: just again, it's not it's sure enough, sure enough, you're
Speaker 1: right about this. Every politician will would would kill all
Speaker 1: of their members of their families to stay in office.
Speaker 1: But you can accelerate that by by saying, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: going to put you in that position right now. Unless
Speaker 1: you do this for us, we're going to blackmail you
Speaker 1: into doing it right now. I'm just thinking, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's it would explain some of these sudden reversals.
Speaker 1: And I just the Kirston Cinema question is a mystery
Speaker 1: wrapped in enigma. For sure. How you go from like
Speaker 1: at brought to a no labels is just baffling. I
Speaker 1: think she found that she liked having a car that
Speaker 1: took her places rather than living in a car. I
Speaker 1: think that's I think that's ultimately what it was. But
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I know her, and if
Speaker 1: there's anybody who would be a victim, who's a conceivable
Speaker 1: victim of blackmail, it's her. So she's got It's just
Speaker 1: it's it was a very strange experience. That's all I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say. Thank you so much, Keith Oberman, my pleasure.
Speaker 1: You didn't even ask about the dogs. Robert Draper is
Speaker 1: a writer for The New York Times Magazine and National
Speaker 1: Geographic and the author of Weapons of Mass Delusion. When
Speaker 1: the Republican Party Lost its Mind. Welcome to fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Robert very excited. We were talking about Steve Bannon going
Speaker 1: to jail. Yes, the judge just moments ago sentenced Ben
Speaker 1: into four months in federal prison and fine, he will
Speaker 1: not impose that sentence, however, until Bannon is given the
Speaker 1: opportunity to appeal, and if he doesn't appeal in a
Speaker 1: timely manner, that he must self surrender by November. So
Speaker 1: he's probably not going to jail. Well, I think it'll
Speaker 1: just be you know, extended out beyond an appellate stage.
Speaker 1: But I think it's very likely he'll go to jail.
Speaker 1: I think the Bannon has expected and perhaps even hoped
Speaker 1: to go to jail, you know, seeling his status is
Speaker 1: martyr once and for all, and you know the truth is, Molly,
Speaker 1: this is not. I mean, he's up on federal charges
Speaker 1: of fraud and may have greater risk and greater exposure
Speaker 1: in that case than in this one, which is a misdemeanor.
Speaker 1: Can you say a little more about that he was
Speaker 1: indicted for allegedly participate hating in a fraud scheme, relating
Speaker 1: to exactly that's right, favorite, that's exactly right. Yes, I
Speaker 1: think it's called we build the wall, We build the wall. Yes,
Speaker 1: he's it's fair to say, never been shy about publicity
Speaker 1: and uh and the opportunity to posit himself as a
Speaker 1: guy who's been martyred by what he believes as a
Speaker 1: corrupt judicial system. That's something I've never heard him say before, um,
Speaker 1: the last couple of years, but now he pervently believes
Speaker 1: it would be, you know, a fabulous opportunity for him.
Speaker 1: And I think that he's always Bannon has always regarded
Speaker 1: himself in a very outsized sense, and that this will
Speaker 1: somehow put him in a pantheon with you know, Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King and others who have languished in jail for
Speaker 1: a cause greater than themselves. Yeah. I think of Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King when I think of Steve Bannon. Yeah, Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon fights for the ability to wear multiple shirts and
Speaker 1: whatever it is he does. It has been pointed out
Speaker 1: that he probably won't be able to wear multiple shirts
Speaker 1: in prison. I don't think that garbage is allowed. I
Speaker 1: think a big question that we all have is who
Speaker 1: will take over his podcast? Well he's in prison, Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz or Marjorie Taylor Grant. I think you answered your
Speaker 1: own question with those last few syllables. She's been She's
Speaker 1: been so frequent a guest on his show and has
Speaker 1: already tweeted saying I stand with Steve Bannham that she
Speaker 1: has practically a stand in for him. It's a miraculous story.
Speaker 1: So talk to me about the book Weapons of Mass
Speaker 1: Delusion When the Republican Party Lost its Mind. The book
Speaker 1: captures an eighteen month moment in time beginning January the six,
Speaker 1: when you would have thought the Republican Party, faced with
Speaker 1: a horror of what took place and its culpability in
Speaker 1: that horror at the Capitol, would have maybe descended into
Speaker 1: a kind of penitence and sought to purge itself of
Speaker 1: the more extreme elements that gave rise to the insurrection.
Speaker 1: Of course, that's not what happened at all, And my
Speaker 1: book is essentially, you know, a repertorial journey through that
Speaker 1: very trajectory beginning with January the six, and how far
Speaker 1: from distancing itself from the maga influences. It has allowed
Speaker 1: itself to I won't say to become captive because captives
Speaker 1: suggested that it bears to no culpability, but instead the
Speaker 1: center of gravity for the Republican Party is now very
Speaker 1: much the magabase of which Marjorie Tayler Green, who we
Speaker 1: were talking about a second ago, he was one of
Speaker 1: the central protagonists. Let's talk about that. You've been doing
Speaker 1: this pretty long time, and you've seen and you've written
Speaker 1: about many Republican iterations of whatever the funk is happening now?
Speaker 1: What is happening? Like they've lost their mind? You've written
Speaker 1: about w You're not new to this now. I've been
Speaker 1: covering Republican politics for over twenty years and was raised
Speaker 1: in a very concern ovative community. My father was a
Speaker 1: lifelong Republican, but you know, the Republicanism was a different
Speaker 1: kind of thing in my father's day. I mean, he
Speaker 1: he believed the personal responsibility meant, among other things, that
Speaker 1: you don't foster all these grievances and blame everyone else
Speaker 1: for your plight. You certainly don't demonize the opposition party.
Speaker 1: If he had done that, he probably would not have
Speaker 1: stayed married to my mother a Democrat for sixty or
Speaker 1: four years. But you know, something has happened to the
Speaker 1: party over time. And while we could talk, you know,
Speaker 1: at some length about the succession of steps that led
Speaker 1: to where the party is now, my book is not
Speaker 1: a history book. It's not how the Republican Party loss
Speaker 1: it's mind. It's when it lost its mind. And so
Speaker 1: it's very much a Trump era book. And and and
Speaker 1: I say Trump era advisingly because Trump, at least in theory,
Speaker 1: there's not command center stage anymore. He's not president, and
Speaker 1: yet he certainly has a stranglehold over the party. No
Speaker 1: one knows that better than, for example, Republican House Minority
Speaker 1: Leader Kevin McCarthy, who, in his never an inquest to
Speaker 1: become Speaker of the House, he's got a plaquate the magabase.
Speaker 1: You know, that means play kating people like Marjorie Teler Green,
Speaker 1: but not even because he's just humoring her or is
Speaker 1: fond of her, but because of what she represents, so
Speaker 1: that she is the proximate warrior for Trump to the magabase.
Speaker 1: I also think, though, and I'm curious what your hot
Speaker 1: take on this is. It reminds me of in the
Speaker 1: two thousands, when we were all sweet summer children, there
Speaker 1: was the sense that small dollar donations were going to
Speaker 1: democratize democracy. But Marjorie Taylor Green is a pretty good
Speaker 1: examplar of how actually that is not what's happening at all. Well,
Speaker 1: you're correct, Molly, that Green is one of the biggest
Speaker 1: small dollar fundraisers on Capital Hilt today. But the question
Speaker 1: is how are these donations ray They're not just you know,
Speaker 1: people over the transom waking up one morning and deciding
Speaker 1: to send Marjorie Taylor Green ten dollars. It's because that
Speaker 1: seen one of her tweets comparing Biden to Hitler or
Speaker 1: suggesting that Alexandria are explicitly saying that Alexandriacascio Cortez is
Speaker 1: a communist and um and them being sufficiently agitated to
Speaker 1: believe that civilization hangs in the balance that they'll then
Speaker 1: donate portions of their retirement to someone like margor Teeler
Speaker 1: Green in an effort to stand up in what they
Speaker 1: believe is this kind of existential book of Revelations style battles.
Speaker 1: I do still, you know, root at least in theory
Speaker 1: for the positive force that small dollar donations can be
Speaker 1: up against pac money, but it does not necessarily mean
Speaker 1: that these are being UM solicited in a good faith manner.
Speaker 1: And Green is a great case and point of that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a really good point. I think about somewhere and
Speaker 1: we were with a bunch of older people and someone
Speaker 1: was saying, well, they've all been radicalized on Facebook. What happened? Man? Yeah? Right, well,
Speaker 1: you know so the title of my book is Weapons
Speaker 1: of Mass Delusion, and the real key phrase there is
Speaker 1: mass delusion, meaning that the base of one of our
Speaker 1: two big political parties UM has UM fallen prey to
Speaker 1: delusion on moss and and that's happened through a steady,
Speaker 1: really unending marinating in disinformation. The big lie is the
Speaker 1: most obvious one, that the election was stolen, but there
Speaker 1: have come sprung up next to that all these other
Speaker 1: adjacent lives, that the January the six was a set up,
Speaker 1: or that it was you know, just tourists, or that
Speaker 1: um Antifa riled everyone up, seeing the COVID vaccines at
Speaker 1: minimum don't work and at maximum are killers or or
Speaker 1: or mind control from China, and that the mainstream media
Speaker 1: is working with liberals to engineer a great replacement for
Speaker 1: with people coming across the border. I mean, these are
Speaker 1: these are things that that are big fed two people
Speaker 1: on the right by this far right media ecosystem that
Speaker 1: really didn't exist a decade ago. But now when you
Speaker 1: go to a Trump rally, it's on the riser. You
Speaker 1: don't see CNN and ABC, instead see Real America's Voice,
Speaker 1: One American News News, Max bright Bart and those people
Speaker 1: are treated like rock stars, are like a letter day
Speaker 1: Walter Cronkite by the people in these Trump rallies. And
Speaker 1: so that's that's where they get their news from. And
Speaker 1: those those outlets are frankly nothing more, nothing less than
Speaker 1: propaganda outlets at best for Trump and at worst, uh,
Speaker 1: they are consistent spewers of lives. I was wondering if
Speaker 1: you had a thought about Megan Kelly, who has had
Speaker 1: this very mainstream career. Yesterday she tweeted this thing about
Speaker 1: how vaccines are killing our children. Does that sort of
Speaker 1: fall into this and how I think? So? Yeah, So Kelly,
Speaker 1: someone who has taken on the guys of being like
Speaker 1: a credible mainstream media person, but in my view, has
Speaker 1: been a pretty dishonest actor throughout the years, has said
Speaker 1: racially offensive things when she had her own show on
Speaker 1: Fox News, and now, in her struggle for relevancy, continues
Speaker 1: to make herself adjacent to the mega world, which she
Speaker 1: had been kind of cast out of owing to her
Speaker 1: sparring with Trump when he was a candidate in back
Speaker 1: in And yeah, I mean that's what she's saying, they're
Speaker 1: relating to vaccines sounds very similar to what you hear
Speaker 1: Arizona gubernatorial candidate carry Lap say about in Arizona. We're
Speaker 1: not going to stab, you know, these vaccines into our
Speaker 1: precious babies. We are not going to put those filthy
Speaker 1: masks on their faces. And she's just shy of saying, uh,
Speaker 1: these vaccines are well of spewing basically conspiracy theories about
Speaker 1: the vaccines and about other COVID prevention measures, and so Kelly,
Speaker 1: once thought of as legitimate I think, you know, has
Speaker 1: instead aligned herself more with conspiracy theories. Yeah. It's interesting
Speaker 1: because my second son and I went and got the
Speaker 1: booster last weekend, and very few people are getting the boosters,
Speaker 1: so clearly this messaging is working. Yeah, well, I think
Speaker 1: it's Yeah. I mean, there are some people I know
Speaker 1: progressives who are just sort of done with COVID as
Speaker 1: it were, and tired of all of this, and maybe
Speaker 1: are weighing the side effects of the vaccines against what
Speaker 1: they believe as a reduced risk of catching COVID. And
Speaker 1: but you're right, there are other people who just who
Speaker 1: who think that this is meant to be a money
Speaker 1: maker by big farmers. Yeah, yeah, right, meant or meant
Speaker 1: by big tech in collusion with the government to control
Speaker 1: our lives. And yeah, these are you know, these are
Speaker 1: originated as far right conspiracy theories but have been somewhat mainstreamed.
Speaker 1: And there's you know, in the industry, to put it crassly,
Speaker 1: of grifters who are profiting off of these notions. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a traveling road show called Reawaken America in which,
Speaker 1: if you attend one of these things and they pay
Speaker 1: me the big bucks to do that, you can hear,
Speaker 1: you know, upwards of forty or fifty speakers talking about
Speaker 1: how these vaccines were basically you know, invented along with
Speaker 1: COVID itself by the Chinese, and they're planning chips in
Speaker 1: your head and soon, you know, we'll all be subject
Speaker 1: to globalist domination because of the vaccines. Oh good, I
Speaker 1: had been hoping for globalist domination because you know who
Speaker 1: among us talk to me about where you see this going?
Speaker 1: For one thing, I mean, I'm generally kind of a
Speaker 1: glass is half empty person anyway, but yeah, yeah, but
Speaker 1: it's uh and I don't mean the town now. I
Speaker 1: think glasses have full of stryct nine. But the reality
Speaker 1: is that, you know, when you pump disinformation into tens
Speaker 1: of millions of people and they swallow it whole repeatedly
Speaker 1: to flush it out of the city them is anything
Speaker 1: but an overnight proposition. And you know when when you know? So.
Speaker 1: The New York Times did a survey recently and concluded
Speaker 1: that three seventy major Republican candidates for office for this
Speaker 1: November mid term has said the election was stolen. So
Speaker 1: they're saying it over and over. They're saying it, of course,
Speaker 1: because that's what their voters wanted to hear, because they
Speaker 1: believe it. And where then does this end? A doesn't
Speaker 1: end immediately, and be probably only ends after the people
Speaker 1: who are elevated to office on the heels of these
Speaker 1: you know, um conspiracy theories. After there, they then performed
Speaker 1: miserably and or are trouts to the polls and a
Speaker 1: couple of election cycles, after which the Republican parties, you know,
Speaker 1: sen or individuals say, you know what, we've we've had
Speaker 1: enough of this, and even at the risk of getting
Speaker 1: primary to the right, our party can no longer forward electorally,
Speaker 1: you know, in general election races to be run by
Speaker 1: people who are in the swell a of these crazy notions.
Speaker 1: Do you think that happens? That doesn't sound so glass
Speaker 1: half empty? I feel like glass half empty is like
Speaker 1: Eric's third term in office. Well, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: what it means is that it ain't gonna happen right away,
Speaker 1: and it will take something negative to happen, whether it's
Speaker 1: far right people coming to power and utterly bungling it,
Speaker 1: causing some kind of national crisis and or paying heavily
Speaker 1: for it at the polls. Such at the Republican parties,
Speaker 1: you know, wiser individuals say, you know, we can't let
Speaker 1: these guys be in charge anymore. But that's we're talking
Speaker 1: about a period of years. You know, when I interview
Speaker 1: so called establishment Republican summer a lot more sanguine than
Speaker 1: than I've just expressed it, But most of them basically
Speaker 1: saying that's gonna We're just gonna have to lose for
Speaker 1: a while. You know, we don't want to lose. But realistically,
Speaker 1: when i'm you know, look down into my soul and see,
Speaker 1: you know what it will take to exercise ourselves of
Speaker 1: this particular demon. We'll have to learn the hard way,
Speaker 1: and that's from being defeated. I still think that's in
Speaker 1: some ways weirdly comforting. Yeah, although I'll say Molly that
Speaker 1: one party rule is not good no matter what the
Speaker 1: one party is no agreed, agreed, And I don't think
Speaker 1: we're gonna have one party rule. I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: have one normal party and one crazy party. But I
Speaker 1: do think you're right, and the whole system is set
Speaker 1: up to be two parties. I'm curious to know Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House. If the Republicans are able to use
Speaker 1: their jerrymandering to take the House, uh will be the
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House. Remember you have to tell me this,
Speaker 1: and I will then torture you years from now if
Speaker 1: you get this wrong. No pressure all the House Freedom
Speaker 1: Caucus types like Matt Gates and Martin Tayler Green and
Speaker 1: all that, for all of their weariness towards Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: they have, they don't have a person of their own.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be McCarthy, who's a very smart inside player,
Speaker 1: and he's already gotten the requisite votes. So it will
Speaker 1: be McCarthy. But for McCarthy to be able to hold
Speaker 1: the gabble, he'll have to degrade himself and debase himself.
Speaker 1: Concessions will be extracted from him. I mean, already Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green has said she wants to be on Judiciary
Speaker 1: and oversight. He's gonna let her do them. The Chairman
Speaker 1: of Judiciary that will be Jim Jordan's in exchange for
Speaker 1: his support. And so I don't see that he'll be
Speaker 1: either a strong or an effective speaker, but I do
Speaker 1: think that he'll be a speaker. You want my hotake? Yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: at least Deponic Oh, I think you you you're onto something.
Speaker 1: I mean, I you know, and I've also heard that
Speaker 1: school Ease, who hasn't made any kind of machiavellian move
Speaker 1: as the as the number two person. Nonetheless, will be
Speaker 1: their standing if McCarthy goes down in flames. The Conservatives
Speaker 1: still don't really trust Dephonic. You know, there's uh, you know,
Speaker 1: they know that she is not crazy enough well, and
Speaker 1: also a new entry to their world. I mean she was.
Speaker 1: She was a moderate, mainstream, gult Way Republican until two
Speaker 1: thousand nineteen. So there actually are some Republicans, some conservatives
Speaker 1: on the Hill who have memories that extend beyond three years.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Will you please come back. I
Speaker 1: would love to come back, Molly, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Congressman Patrick Bryan represents New York's nineteen district. Welcome too
Speaker 1: fast politics, Patrick Ryan, thank you for having me. So
Speaker 1: you are the now congressman from the great state of
Speaker 1: New York. You won Antonio Delgado seat in the nineteen district,
Speaker 1: a very swingy district. How did you do it? We
Speaker 1: certainly surprised a lot of the supposed experts, if there
Speaker 1: are any of those left in politics these days. We
Speaker 1: really ran the campaign more from the gut and the
Speaker 1: heart than from the typical polling and triangulation and watering down,
Speaker 1: because it was just such a moment of intense feeling
Speaker 1: in response to the jobs decision, in response to other
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions, in response to the January six hearings,
Speaker 1: just sort of this crisis of democracy moment, and we
Speaker 1: really centered that and and specifically centered on equivocally fighting
Speaker 1: for reproductive rights and abortion rights in the campaign, and uh,
Speaker 1: we pulled off this what was certainly seen by outside
Speaker 1: folks as an upset victory, and I think it says
Speaker 1: a lot about where the country is and also what
Speaker 1: November is gonna look like. Despite again some of the
Speaker 1: you know what we're hearing in press and media right now,
Speaker 1: I want to dig down on that you're saying, and
Speaker 1: you're saying this from your own experience, pretty recent experience,
Speaker 1: that voters care about choice and not falling into an
Speaker 1: authoritarian state more than they care about gas prices or
Speaker 1: the same. I think actually the framing that it's a
Speaker 1: choice really doesn't give people nearly enough credit because it's
Speaker 1: like in all of our daily lives, we can hold
Speaker 1: multiple things at the same time, right um, and particularly
Speaker 1: to force people, which is basically what the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: at least the extreme right which is most of it
Speaker 1: these days of the Republican Party wants to do. Is
Speaker 1: basically they're saying, Okay, either you can pick putting food
Speaker 1: on the table or you can pick having access to
Speaker 1: reproductive care, but you can't have both. That's not who
Speaker 1: we are as a country, and we actually really centered
Speaker 1: both fighting for reproductive rights and other fundamental freedoms and
Speaker 1: rights and also delivering on relief, and both are necessary
Speaker 1: and neither alone is sufficient to meet the moment. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think fundamentally the fallacy here is that Republicans will
Speaker 1: somehow do something to stop inflation that Democrats wouldn't do.
Speaker 1: I have yet to see Republicans do anything but tax
Speaker 1: cuts for rich people. So there go exactly, and the
Speaker 1: oldest trick in the book obviously talk about the problem
Speaker 1: over and over and over. Of course, that's the first step,
Speaker 1: is identifying the problem. But then what are you going
Speaker 1: to do? And actually, I think even more importantly than
Speaker 1: what are you going to do, what have you done
Speaker 1: in your life, in your career as a human, as
Speaker 1: an elected official to make people trust that you're with them,
Speaker 1: Like I think, distrust in a lot of institutions, certainly
Speaker 1: in politics right now is so high. I really talked
Speaker 1: a lot about what I've tangibly done to help provide relief.
Speaker 1: In my last job, I was a local elected official
Speaker 1: up here in the Hudson Valley north of New York City.
Speaker 1: I talked about cutting our gas tacks and half at
Speaker 1: the local level, which provided a lot of immediate visceral
Speaker 1: relief for people. I talked about this really serious fight
Speaker 1: we're in with our local utility that's been price gouging
Speaker 1: people above and beyond the already high increases and utility
Speaker 1: costs and those kinds of very tangible I get where
Speaker 1: you're at. I am fighting for you. I'm fighting also
Speaker 1: for myself because I'm experiencing the same in my family pressure.
Speaker 1: Like that values level connection before going right to policy,
Speaker 1: I think is is so important to really authentically connect
Speaker 1: with people. So you were losing in the polls by
Speaker 1: as much as ten points, he explained to me. This
Speaker 1: is it's kind of incredible, right the first poll in
Speaker 1: our race, so this was a really quick race to
Speaker 1: it all started in May and then the election happened
Speaker 1: in August, so it was like a very rapid pace
Speaker 1: of everything. The first poll that came out, we were down,
Speaker 1: and all the all the conventional wisdom was, you know,
Speaker 1: don't invest a lot of energy and resources in the
Speaker 1: special election, focus on because I we knew I was
Speaker 1: gonna have to run again in November, which were now
Speaker 1: eighteen days out from but who's counting, but who's you know,
Speaker 1: for a whole bunch of reasons, both sort of political
Speaker 1: strategy wise, but also just morally. I think we're at
Speaker 1: a moment in the country where like, if there's an
Speaker 1: opportunity to stand and fight for democracy, for reproductive freedom,
Speaker 1: for preventing more kids from getting killed by the same
Speaker 1: weapon as I carried in combat, we have to take
Speaker 1: every single opportunity. Whether it's a special election, whether it's
Speaker 1: a local election, whether it's a presidential election. We've got
Speaker 1: a fight. And that is what I think actually really
Speaker 1: rallied people to our cause and gave us the boost
Speaker 1: to win was we just showed the willingness to get
Speaker 1: that this is existential and that we're going to fight
Speaker 1: in an existential moment. Let's talk about power companies, because
Speaker 1: this is actually more and more becoming really important issue.
Speaker 1: It's something that has devastated Texas, largely because Republicans have
Speaker 1: led it, and we're seeing it in California. It's a
Speaker 1: real problem. How is the government going to negotiate with
Speaker 1: the company is to avoid price gouging, to keep you know,
Speaker 1: the lights on now that climate change has you know,
Speaker 1: created these temperatures that are I mean, what are you
Speaker 1: seeing and what is your plan? No pressure. Also, we
Speaker 1: need a really good answer for this, even though it's
Speaker 1: a very complicated question. Go I mean, I think we
Speaker 1: what we've lost sight of in the country and certainly
Speaker 1: in our area here. These are public goods, right and
Speaker 1: in New York their public utilities. But yet our local utility,
Speaker 1: which in this are is called Central Huts and is
Speaker 1: owned by a foreign owned private equity firm, so their
Speaker 1: motives are like so far disaligned with the motives and
Speaker 1: interests of their customers and even our broader community, where
Speaker 1: rather than putting earnings back into you know, preparing the
Speaker 1: power grid for resiliency, they instead do shareholder buy backs
Speaker 1: or pay out dividends. These are public goods, just like
Speaker 1: health and public safety and everything else, and I think
Speaker 1: we need to figure out how to pretty fundamentally relook
Speaker 1: how we provide oversight to these utilities. In my last job,
Speaker 1: I was able to call for a formal investigation by
Speaker 1: our state Public Service Commission into this price gouging. And
Speaker 1: it's been dragging on for months and months and months,
Speaker 1: and people are increasingly losing faith not just in the utility,
Speaker 1: who they've totally lost trust and but also our own
Speaker 1: state government to hold the utility accountable. So when that's happening,
Speaker 1: we need to figure out pretty significant reforms, which is
Speaker 1: something I want to work on at the federal level
Speaker 1: to try how to address this. Yeah, so now you
Speaker 1: have to run again. You're running in a new district.
Speaker 1: Is it better as it worse? So yeah, I'm running
Speaker 1: in it's a different numbered district, and it's a different
Speaker 1: district by like about fift new turf, you know, about
Speaker 1: percent overlap, and we've only had a few months to
Speaker 1: sort of you know, get on ground and get out
Speaker 1: there with folks. So that's certainly a challenge. The good
Speaker 1: news is in terms of on paper, we're going from
Speaker 1: what was a Biden plus one and a half seat
Speaker 1: in the one that we want in August to a
Speaker 1: Biden plus eight and a half, So certainly we start
Speaker 1: with some kind of structural advantages there. But that being said,
Speaker 1: I think this is going to be a tight race.
Speaker 1: We're you know, on the kind of top ten or
Speaker 1: twenty most competitive house seat list of all the different
Speaker 1: ratings groups. So we are just you know, working hard
Speaker 1: in every dimension of the campaign. But I think most
Speaker 1: importantly like our message and the focus hasn't changed. We've
Speaker 1: seen the Republicans, or at least their leadership and most
Speaker 1: members dub will and triple down, for example, on a
Speaker 1: national abortion ban at the same time that it's been
Speaker 1: roundly rejected from Kansas to New York to Alaska. So
Speaker 1: the fights even more existential, I think, and we just
Speaker 1: have to do the work to help remind people of
Speaker 1: the stakes. The big takeaway from me from our special
Speaker 1: was certainly it was about fighting for abortion rights, but
Speaker 1: people got that it was much broader than that. People
Speaker 1: got that if you could come for those rights for
Speaker 1: tens or hundreds of millions of women and people in
Speaker 1: the country, it's pretty easy to then see where we
Speaker 1: go next. And it was even telegraphed and some of
Speaker 1: the decisions. No question, I mean the big question that
Speaker 1: all of us in the media industrial complex, and obviously
Speaker 1: there is no media industrial complex, but has the mood
Speaker 1: shifted from August when you won your special two? Now
Speaker 1: we can all agree that no one trusts polls, right,
Speaker 1: So do you think the mood has shifted or do
Speaker 1: you think this is sort of a media creation. I
Speaker 1: don't think the mood has shifted. I think that people
Speaker 1: are still really feel a visceral like struck, a nerve
Speaker 1: response to the job's decision in particular, and what that
Speaker 1: represents about threats to freedoms. I think continuing to hear
Speaker 1: what's coming out of January six hearing is resonating much
Speaker 1: more deeply and broadly than people maybe are like processing
Speaker 1: and understanding and pulling. But certainly people are still feeling
Speaker 1: tremendous economic pressure. So again, I just think we have
Speaker 1: to make clear that there's one party that's both delivered
Speaker 1: tangible economic relief at the federal level and most state
Speaker 1: and local levels too, and is also fighting for your
Speaker 1: rights and freedoms. The other one is pointing out problems
Speaker 1: and has no solution on the economy other than to
Speaker 1: give more, as you said, big big corporations tax cuts,
Speaker 1: and also not only not pro tecting your rights, but
Speaker 1: it's actively taking them away. And I think as long
Speaker 1: as we explain it with that clarity, people will rise
Speaker 1: to the moment, just like they did in August. For
Speaker 1: us here, I hope, so tell us about your opponent.
Speaker 1: He represents like everything that's wrong with where the Republican
Speaker 1: Party much of the Republican Party is going. He's a
Speaker 1: relatively you know, young guys in the state legislature here,
Speaker 1: going back to like two thousand twelve, he was calling
Speaker 1: for Trump to be the Republican candidate for president. He's extreme,
Speaker 1: sort of maga type candidate cheered on insurrectionists on January six,
Speaker 1: is aggressively anti choice. We had a debate earlier this
Speaker 1: week where he straight up and follow up questions from
Speaker 1: the moderator said, even if a doctor says a woman's
Speaker 1: life is at risk, I don't think that she should
Speaker 1: be able to have an abortion. Yeah, and increasingly this
Speaker 1: is not the exception anymore in the party and increasingly
Speaker 1: in the country. So we have to send a decisive
Speaker 1: message in these mid terms that we roundly reject this
Speaker 1: kind of extremism. I think it's an existential fight here
Speaker 1: and I know in a lot of other districts too.
Speaker 1: What happens if Democrats hold the House. When they hold House.
Speaker 1: When they hold the House, well, then I think we
Speaker 1: can continue the momentum we've shown. I mean, I was
Speaker 1: really encouraged earlier this week that President Biden made clear
Speaker 1: he would introduce legislation to really defend and codify, defend
Speaker 1: reproductive rights, and cootify row right out of the gate.
Speaker 1: We need to keep pushing there. We have to keep
Speaker 1: delivering on economic relief. We actually had a visit from
Speaker 1: President Biden to our district, to the Hudson Valley a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago where because of the Chips Act that
Speaker 1: was passed, you know, to to help bring back semiconductor
Speaker 1: and quantum computing here, to to the US twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollar investment from IBM and the Hudson Valley based on
Speaker 1: the fact that this legislation changes the game and encourages
Speaker 1: companies to bring those jobs back here to the country
Speaker 1: and specifically to our region. Um. I mean that is
Speaker 1: a big, big deal. That's that's like going to change
Speaker 1: my two young kids lives. We need to continue to
Speaker 1: deliver on those big pieces and then also just figure
Speaker 1: out how to get back to the place where there's
Speaker 1: some agreement on even things like infrastructure and treating veterans
Speaker 1: exposed to toxic burn pits and re earning back trust
Speaker 1: that government can actually deliver for folks. Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Patrick Ryan, thank you for having me. Molly John Fast
Speaker 1: Jesse Cannon, you know, one of the great mysteries is
Speaker 1: why anyone would vote Republican. That's old since they're always
Speaker 1: about to cut Social Security and Medicare. And we have
Speaker 1: some thoughts from some one minute Nancy Mace on the subject.
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy suggested that if your party wins back the House, uh,
Speaker 1: he would refuse to lift the debt limit unless Democrats
Speaker 1: in the White House agree to spending cuts. Are you
Speaker 1: on board with that plan? Are you willing to risk
Speaker 1: the US defaulting on its debt as leverage to impose
Speaker 1: these spending cuts. I support that strategy because look, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, when COVID nineteen happened, you
Speaker 1: had the federal government and state governments to literally shut
Speaker 1: companies down. Businesses had to make tough decisions about how
Speaker 1: they were going to keep their doors open. And the
Speaker 1: federal government just kept getting record revenue year over year
Speaker 1: and hasn't had to make those tough decisions. And I
Speaker 1: can tell you I sit on the oversight community where
Speaker 1: we look at waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal
Speaker 1: agency level. Yeah, they're going to try to cut Social
Speaker 1: Security and Medicare. That's like the worst kept secret of
Speaker 1: this middrum elections. It just astounds me that this isn't
Speaker 1: the thing that Democrats just push and push and push,
Speaker 1: where his Republicans try to find every wedge issue possible. Well,
Speaker 1: this is a real thing as opposed to all this
Speaker 1: stuff Republicans are talking about in the mid terms. I
Speaker 1: think that if Republicans went back the House, besides the
Speaker 1: fact that it will be the greatest three way three
Speaker 1: ring circus since Barnum and Bailey, it will also be
Speaker 1: that they're likely We're gonna see Republicans go after all
Speaker 1: the social programs they have and always will be here
Speaker 1: for tax cuts for billionaires and not much else. Republicans
Speaker 1: plan to undo the Social Safety Net? Is Today's a
Speaker 1: moment of funk Ray. That's it for this episode of
Speaker 1: Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to
Speaker 1: hear the best minds in politics makes sense of all
Speaker 1: this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send
Speaker 1: it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening.