Speaker 1: Much to talk about politically, as there always is, we
Speaker 1: thought we'd have our old friends, Sarah Westwood on. She
Speaker 1: was previously a White House reporter for the CNN. She's
Speaker 1: currently an investigative reporter with the Washington Examiner. We've been
Speaker 1: talking to her for years. Sarah west would welcome to
Speaker 1: the Armstrong and Getty Show. How are you. I'm great,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. I'm kind of interested in following
Speaker 1: how everybody is treating the economic news. It's just come
Speaker 1: out because obviously economic news becomes political news very quickly.
Speaker 1: But CNN has been a neutral to positive on it.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal was pretty positive. The New York
Speaker 1: Times I just read from, was very grim on the
Speaker 1: very same numbers that don't get excited. This still means
Speaker 1: a recession is coming. Was the New York Times version
Speaker 1: of it, which I thought was kind of interesting. But
Speaker 1: I suppose Biden will be talking to about it at
Speaker 1: some point today. You have any thoughts on the economic news, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that there's not a lot of reason for optimism.
Speaker 1: I mean, whatever boost that the bind administration would potentially
Speaker 1: be able to get out of this politically, um, I
Speaker 1: think is mitigated by people's big exerience. You know, they
Speaker 1: can't they can't afford uh, you know, the same things
Speaker 1: that they could two years ago. They're real income is
Speaker 1: therefore dropping, and the bind administration with when they have
Speaker 1: played up good economic news and when they have focused
Speaker 1: on their economic agenda, it's actually turned people off because
Speaker 1: they want to hear Democrats and Republicans, but they want
Speaker 1: to hear the president speaking to the problems that they're
Speaker 1: feeling and taking it seriously. And when he cherry picks
Speaker 1: good numbers that suggestings are better than they are, I
Speaker 1: think that that can backfire. Do know it does on
Speaker 1: me if I if I get gas and go to
Speaker 1: the grocery store, any rosie talk about the economy doesn't
Speaker 1: make me happy anyway. UM, I just brought that up
Speaker 1: because it was kind of breaking news. You called Fetterman.
Speaker 1: We played a bunch of clips, just like everybody did,
Speaker 1: of the Democratic candidate there for the Senate in Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: who had the stroke. You called Fetterman's performance a disaster.
Speaker 1: That's a strong word. I think it's inappropriate word for
Speaker 1: we saw on Tuesday. I mean, it was at times,
Speaker 1: you know, quite frankly painful to watch. John Cutterman struggled
Speaker 1: to keep up with the pace of the debate, to
Speaker 1: understand the questions, to remember his own policy positions, at
Speaker 1: least two of which he bungled. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: obviously there was a strategy behind waiting this long to
Speaker 1: have the debate with your the Sederman campaign, right, they
Speaker 1: wanted to sort of bank as many early votes as
Speaker 1: they possibly could before they had it. More than half
Speaker 1: a million Pennsylvanians have voted already, in the vast majority
Speaker 1: of those are Democrats, so you know, potentially the damage
Speaker 1: from the debate could be somewhat limited. But yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: to the extent that there were questions about his health
Speaker 1: before the debate, I think they were answered in a
Speaker 1: way that's really unflattering for the Sederman campaign. Much how
Speaker 1: much do you think it would how much do you
Speaker 1: think it would affect his ability to be a U
Speaker 1: S Senator? Um, I don't want more brain addled people
Speaker 1: in the Senate. But is he worse off than Diane
Speaker 1: finds Stein or Jesse helms Back was back in the
Speaker 1: day people like that? I mean, the problem is that
Speaker 1: part of being an effective senator is being able to,
Speaker 1: you know, speak on the Senate floor, to negotiate with
Speaker 1: your colleagues, to advocate for your state, uh in the media,
Speaker 1: and those are all things that he can't really do capable.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is fair for voters to wonder if
Speaker 1: he would be uh an effective advocate for Pennsylvania, if
Speaker 1: he would struggle so much on all of the you know,
Speaker 1: the public facing parts of the job. And you know
Speaker 1: this this attempts by the media to shield him from
Speaker 1: criticism because he's had a health problem. Obviously, everyone who
Speaker 1: watched him felt sympathy for him and had you know,
Speaker 1: empathy and could relate to their own relatives having health challenges.
Speaker 1: But elections are about determining fitness for office, and so
Speaker 1: it's a completely fair question to ask whether he's physically
Speaker 1: capable of doing the job. Yeah, that that NBC re
Speaker 1: order that said he struggled to make small talk before
Speaker 1: the interview, and you know, she got beat up for
Speaker 1: that pretty bad by the left leaning media for saying
Speaker 1: something so awful about him. But from watching c Span
Speaker 1: over the years, it looks like there's a lot of
Speaker 1: quick little conversations that happen among senators. They're like when
Speaker 1: they're voting and all that sort of stuff, and he
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to do that, right, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: that's an important part of doing the job, beyond just
Speaker 1: the facts that you have to represent the state to
Speaker 1: the public and sort of forums that he struggled with.
Speaker 1: But but yeah, deliberating with your colleagues, being able to
Speaker 1: strike deals, being able to participate in committee hearings, uh,
Speaker 1: closed door and public. You know, those are all things
Speaker 1: that are required of a senator. That would be very
Speaker 1: difficult given his recovery. That's not to say that he
Speaker 1: could never do the job years in the future, but
Speaker 1: he's going to be expected to do it come January.
Speaker 1: And you know, again, voters who may not have been
Speaker 1: tuned into the race, but who are seeing clips of
Speaker 1: the debate and watching coverage of it, maybe cluing in
Speaker 1: on it, just how bad is health problems are for
Speaker 1: the first time they have Obviously many Pennsylvania voters not
Speaker 1: been following the whole able ism debate and the naval
Speaker 1: gazing media story about the NBC reporter who made that
Speaker 1: quick about but they're certainly tuned into his health problems now.
Speaker 1: So you have your ear to the ground there. Um.
Speaker 1: I've heard a couple of national reporters say pretty much
Speaker 1: two days after the election, So we'll have the election,
Speaker 1: will have the results the next day. Um, some of them,
Speaker 1: a lot of them, and uh, but then we're on
Speaker 1: to quickly and the conversations are going to be start
Speaker 1: to leak out about Joe Biden's ability to finish out
Speaker 1: his term, whether or not Kamala Harris should be the candidate,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. Do you think that's the case that
Speaker 1: that we're going to go? Presidential politics are really quick?
Speaker 1: I do. That's typically how it happens, right, and if,
Speaker 1: as expected, Republican take one or both chambers of Congress,
Speaker 1: then Joe Biden has sort of the ability to announce
Speaker 1: and open up the Democratic primary field that he's not
Speaker 1: going to run because it won't matter if he gives
Speaker 1: up some of his political capital by becoming a lame
Speaker 1: duck president Republicans control Congress and he can't get anything done.
Speaker 1: I do think you'll you'll see that announcement sooner rather
Speaker 1: than later, because Democrats don't have a natural next successor
Speaker 1: and they really need that time to one out. We
Speaker 1: wait a second, here, sir, you seem to be you
Speaker 1: seem to be implying that in your mind or in
Speaker 1: your world of people you talk to, that's a done deal.
Speaker 1: He's going to do that, you think. I think there's
Speaker 1: an expectation that really, okay, more likely than not. Yeah, wow,
Speaker 1: and and and so the next step would be he
Speaker 1: opens up the field. So when he makes some sort
Speaker 1: of speech races, I just think it would be good
Speaker 1: for the country to have a good, you know, vigorous
Speaker 1: debate about who should be the next president, kind of
Speaker 1: overlooking hiss president. You know, it's sort of a something
Speaker 1: that hasn't happened in a long time. So it's really
Speaker 1: hard to see exactly what would be the most politically
Speaker 1: strategic way to do that. If I was the Democratic advisor,
Speaker 1: I would say, I think that the for the good
Speaker 1: of the party and for someone who is in his
Speaker 1: twilight years in it would announced that he's not running.
Speaker 1: As the other Republican candidates start to launch their campaigns,
Speaker 1: which you'll start to see next summer, right summer three fall,
Speaker 1: you'll see these candidates who have been sort of preparing
Speaker 1: start to to formally jump into the race. That would
Speaker 1: be a time for Joe Biden to sort of step
Speaker 1: aside and let Democrats do the same thing. If he
Speaker 1: knows he's not going to run and and continues to
Speaker 1: maintain the pretense that he is, he sort of freezes
Speaker 1: the field and he lets Republicans be out there getting
Speaker 1: all the oxygen pushing their message and not allowing Democrats
Speaker 1: to do the same thing. That's really setting up a
Speaker 1: smooth trend into another Democratic president. The most bipartisan consensus
Speaker 1: we've had on anything in so many years is the
Speaker 1: war in Ukraine. Is it starting to fractory? You had
Speaker 1: thirty progressive Democrats this week send a letter to Joe
Speaker 1: Biden saying, hey, let's tap the brakes on this whole
Speaker 1: Ukraine thing. You had Kevin McCarthy last week saying no
Speaker 1: blank check. Now the Democrat progressives pulled their letter. McCarthy,
Speaker 1: according to CNN yesterday, is behind the scenes trying to
Speaker 1: reassure people that no, no, No, will continue to fund
Speaker 1: re Ukraine. How how bipartisan is the support still for
Speaker 1: Ukraine at this point? I think in the mainstream it's
Speaker 1: still relatively bipartisan, But there is, and there has been,
Speaker 1: of course, of Conservative House members who think that sending
Speaker 1: so much aid to Ukraine and seemed so little return
Speaker 1: is not worth it. And in a Republican Congress, you know,
Speaker 1: a group like the House Freedom Caucus, for example, of
Speaker 1: a voting block of conservative member would wield a lot
Speaker 1: of influence on that issue. They could put pressure on
Speaker 1: a on a then speaker, Kevin McCarthy not to continue
Speaker 1: the funding. Um, it's it's certainly a populist position right
Speaker 1: to say that that funding should be directed within the
Speaker 1: United States when people are struggling, instead of being sent
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. So I do think in a Republican House
Speaker 1: you would see pressure on a speaker not to proceed
Speaker 1: with more aid. How certain is it? Everybody, including me,
Speaker 1: talks about Kevin McCarthy being the speakers If it's a
Speaker 1: done deal? Is it pretty much a done deal? We
Speaker 1: actually have known Kevin McCarthy since he was an assemblyman
Speaker 1: from the Baker's Field area when we were all much
Speaker 1: much younger. He'll be the most powerful person I've ever
Speaker 1: actually known if he become a speaker. But is he
Speaker 1: a pretty much a done deal? You know? It seems
Speaker 1: that way there's no natural challenger. The Freedom Cocus would
Speaker 1: be you know, has historically been the only real threat
Speaker 1: to the ascendant speaker, you know, Majority Leader and um
Speaker 1: and they have not threatened to withhold support. They threw
Speaker 1: vaguely said if some of their demands about process and
Speaker 1: committee assignments aren't met, they would consider it. But then
Speaker 1: who would they back. Right, There's no one right now
Speaker 1: in the conference who has as broad of an appeal
Speaker 1: as Kevin McCarthy. So yeah, I think it's it's pretty
Speaker 1: much a lock, but anything can happen, right. Sarah Westwood
Speaker 1: is the investigative reporter for the Washington Examiner Era reporter,
Speaker 1: Do you make predictions or is that something uncool for
Speaker 1: for reporters? You know, I've been horrifically burned by making
Speaker 1: I said, and what do you know what year I
Speaker 1: said that about eating my truck, Michael, It was a
Speaker 1: long long time ago. I think it was like two
Speaker 1: thousand twelve. Yeah, I think so. For some reason, But
Speaker 1: so Mitt Romney went to Trump Tower to basically get
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's approval to, you know, be the nominee or
Speaker 1: something like that, and I just I thought it was ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Why why do people care what Donald Trump thinks? Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is never going to be anything in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah blah. I said, I'll eat my truck
Speaker 1: if he's ever the nominee of the Republican Party. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if you follow the newspapers, but how
Speaker 1: that turned out anyway, So yeah, that's a pretty bad
Speaker 1: burning people regularly, almost every day somebody says, hey, to
Speaker 1: eat your truck yet, you know, like in the grocery store,
Speaker 1: parking lot or something. So yeah, I understand making predictions
Speaker 1: like act burn. But it's Trump again. Trump gonna announce
Speaker 1: he's running or not. Do you think that is the
Speaker 1: hardest question to answer. I think most Republicans, pretty much
Speaker 1: all of them in Washington are really hoping he does not.
Speaker 1: I think his base is so eroded by the way
Speaker 1: he's behaved since that, you know, I I don't know
Speaker 1: if that path to the nomination would still be there,
Speaker 1: especially when there's some really exciting populist alternatives for conservatives
Speaker 1: like um A, Rhonda Santists. And keep in mind, we're
Speaker 1: going to have another crop of Republican stars come out
Speaker 1: of this election. I mean, Obama ran for president successfully,
Speaker 1: her winning, and you know, the mid terms right before,
Speaker 1: so you're gonna have a good point all over the country.
Speaker 1: Who could who could emerge. I'm amazed that that that
Speaker 1: that Trump won't pivot away from the election being stolen.
Speaker 1: Carry Lake, who was seen as a Trump protegee, she's
Speaker 1: she gets asked that on a debate stage, she immediately
Speaker 1: pivots the economy or CRT in schools. If Trump did
Speaker 1: the same thing, I think he'd get elected president. But
Speaker 1: he wants to stay with the election. That's right, And
Speaker 1: I think that's frustrating for a lot of Republicans. And
Speaker 1: you've seen that there's a path forward, uh, for for
Speaker 1: people who sort of distanced themselves from Trump and rejects
Speaker 1: the election language, like Brian Kemp in Georgia for example,
Speaker 1: And so you know, I don't know that that is
Speaker 1: the future of the party anymore. UM like talking to
Speaker 1: you about politics, Sarah Westwood, thanks for coming on, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me