Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
Speaker 1: your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
Speaker 1: nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
Speaker 1: Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
Speaker 1: variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
Speaker 1: and a new protein box. I will tell you I
Speaker 1: have done the gluten free box. I have done it
Speaker 1: a second time. I have also used the code the
Speaker 1: todcast code. You use the promo code toodcast at checkout
Speaker 1: you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as
Speaker 1: a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
Speaker 1: is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.
Speaker 1: They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
Speaker 1: There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your
Speaker 1: freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the
Speaker 1: best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade
Speaker 1: meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is
Speaker 1: worth giving Wildgrain to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering
Speaker 1: my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free
Speaker 1: croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's
Speaker 1: thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for
Speaker 1: life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or
Speaker 1: simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is
Speaker 1: a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. Hello,
Speaker 1: They're happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Chuck Podcast A little rundown on today. It is Wednesday,
Speaker 1: which means you're gonna get a't a top five list.
Speaker 1: I got a fun one for you. It involves the
Speaker 1: president and prestigious awards, so I give you a big hint.
Speaker 1: But maybe you still won't quite know where I'm headed
Speaker 1: with that. We'll do some letters, but I want to
Speaker 1: begin today with you know, one of the things that
Speaker 1: I'm mindful of is that sometimes we're so dark and
Speaker 1: negative that we sometimes can miss a big deal taken
Speaker 1: place in plain sight. Right, And to start with an
Speaker 1: issue that has not really made the rounds on cable television,
Speaker 1: you haven't seen much of it on social media, and
Speaker 1: it certainly has yet to generate a Chiron countdown clock.
Speaker 1: But it might matter a lot more than most of
Speaker 1: the headlines we've been dealing with over the last few weeks.
Speaker 1: And it's a constitutional amendment proposal that is now circulating
Speaker 1: in Congress that would allow congressional lawmakers to nullify a
Speaker 1: presidential pardon. This is not a bill that, while you
Speaker 1: may have, it's not an idea that would have gotten
Speaker 1: much traction or must interest even five years ago. But
Speaker 1: something like this seems very plausible to me, and it's
Speaker 1: plausible enough that I wanted to give it a little
Speaker 1: extra attention. And that's sometimes the role I feel like
Speaker 1: I can play best here, which is like, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: I used to run a mainstream news supposed mainstream news organization,
Speaker 1: a couple of them. Here's what I would be leaning
Speaker 1: into there, and you should be too. And that's sort
Speaker 1: of a role I like to play sometimes, but we
Speaker 1: may be seeing a major structural shift in conversation at
Speaker 1: a time that we really needed, and it may be
Speaker 1: to me. I hope it gives you a little bit
Speaker 1: of hope, because it gives me. I'm granted, I'm looking
Speaker 1: for it. So I'm looking for this, which is that
Speaker 1: maybe we have begun a new era of reform that
Speaker 1: you know, like the progressive era of the early twentieth century,
Speaker 1: which created some needed constitutional reform that we're finally starting.
Speaker 1: I've been saying, we're going to get it, We're going
Speaker 1: to get it. Well, guess what. We're finally starting to
Speaker 1: see a concrete proposal, and the fact that it starts
Speaker 1: with pardons is actually not surprising to me, because we
Speaker 1: knew something was going to trigger. Right I think you know,
Speaker 1: in reform eras happen when enough people on both sides
Speaker 1: of the aisle side, it's the rules that need to
Speaker 1: be tightened or changed that a singular president can't do.
Speaker 1: The fixes that we now know are systemic or structural.
Speaker 1: So look, why did we start with pardons? Well, I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty obvious what triggered this right pardon power,
Speaker 1: and it's how it's been abused, particularly with this president.
Speaker 1: Under Donald Trump, the pardon power has become so politically
Speaker 1: charged in ways we haven't seen ever on the presidential level.
Speaker 1: We've seen governors sell pardons for profit, we have not
Speaker 1: seen presidents do it. It is aggressively as Trump has.
Speaker 1: We've seen what appear to be potential pay to play
Speaker 1: pardons in some form or another. But it would be
Speaker 1: one controversial pardon by a president, you know, not essentially
Speaker 1: the entire process being monetized, which is what's happened here today.
Speaker 1: And so under Trump, you know, some of the most
Speaker 1: controversial ones. Right, there's the broad January sixth partons for anybody,
Speaker 1: and that is that has allowed a lot of bad
Speaker 1: people who deserve to be behind bars not to be
Speaker 1: behind bars. Some of them have committed crimes as their
Speaker 1: pardon was made official. That's been a total a disaster
Speaker 1: by doing that. But we know why he did it.
Speaker 1: It's his own personal motivation, believing that somehow January sixth
Speaker 1: was not what it was, that it was somehow a
Speaker 1: lawful protest. We know he pardons people that are represented
Speaker 1: by longtime political allies or people like Roger Stone who
Speaker 1: get paid as sort of an intermediary for the pardons.
Speaker 1: We know that's taking place. I mean, you know, you
Speaker 1: don't think the former president of Hondura's got pardoned for free,
Speaker 1: do you. So you know that sits out there. And
Speaker 1: then there's this pattern of Trump where he pardons people
Speaker 1: that are accused of doing things that he's been accused of,
Speaker 1: always in the white collar space, in particular financial crimes
Speaker 1: and things like that. So we now know it's fair
Speaker 1: to say that the perception is that pardon power is
Speaker 1: now drifted towards the personal and political. It's no longer
Speaker 1: what its original construct was about, which was constitutional mercy,
Speaker 1: if you will. Now it's about political protection. And look,
Speaker 1: it's like everything Trump does he's not the first to do,
Speaker 1: and he's not the you know, it's not as if
Speaker 1: it's not been done by members of both parties. He's
Speaker 1: just done it more aggressively and more you know, sort
Speaker 1: of like rubbing our nose and dog manure face, right,
Speaker 1: like he's grotesque about it. But what Joe Biden did
Speaker 1: at the end of his term, I've always thought was
Speaker 1: just as bad as what Trump's doing because he almost
Speaker 1: gave Trump a license to do it when he did
Speaker 1: his preemptive pardons that involved family members that had no
Speaker 1: business getting a pardon at all or certainly seemed to
Speaker 1: get pardoned for, you know, not for the thing he
Speaker 1: claimed they were getting pardoned for, but you know, and
Speaker 1: even used clemency at times that did generate some partisan backlash,
Speaker 1: and it seemed like some of his sweeping commutations were
Speaker 1: tied to some political issues that he wanted to bring
Speaker 1: to the forefront. So again, while Biden didn't do it
Speaker 1: as ham handedly as Trump is, what he did with
Speaker 1: his family at the end was grotesque. The preemptive pardons
Speaker 1: using Trump as the as the as the rationale to
Speaker 1: do it was all the more awful, I'll be honest,
Speaker 1: because it just assumed corruption in the process itself. And
Speaker 1: so I understand you assume Trump is corrupt, but then
Speaker 1: to essentially do it before Trump actually does what you fear,
Speaker 1: you know, you've suddenly committed your own slate of corruption there.
Speaker 1: So it is. And frankly, in order to get institutional change,
Speaker 1: you need bad actors on both sides. So, you know,
Speaker 1: if we want to make the Biden pardons sort of
Speaker 1: the you know, the oh, by the way, I think
Speaker 1: it's worthy, those preemptive pardons. Let's not I'm not sure
Speaker 1: this is not equal both siderisms here. Okay, what Trump
Speaker 1: has done is on an unprecedented level. But to get
Speaker 1: this structural reform, you're going to need bipartisan buy in.
Speaker 1: And what Biden did was awful. What Trump does has
Speaker 1: been worse. So no matter what, whether you support the
Speaker 1: individual actions or oppose them, the structural concern has become
Speaker 1: the same that the power of pardoning presidential pardons has
Speaker 1: become a high stakes political instrument now in the last decade,
Speaker 1: and it's got to change. And now that both parties
Speaker 1: are fearing how the other might wield this power, that's
Speaker 1: when you actually start getting reform conversations, and it is
Speaker 1: incredibly important. So late last year, a Maryland Congressman by
Speaker 1: the name of Johnny Oulzuski introduced a constitutional amendment to
Speaker 1: give Congress the opportunity to nullify a pardon, and it
Speaker 1: would under certain conditions, and it would essentially it's the
Speaker 1: similar to what the power Congress has now to override vetos. Now,
Speaker 1: what made me interested in this story this last week
Speaker 1: is that this was a Democrat introducing it. So, and
Speaker 1: you sometimes can get these partisan ideas introduced and there's
Speaker 1: nobody on the other side that's interested. Well, Don Bacon,
Speaker 1: a Republican from Omaha, Nebraska who's not running for reelection,
Speaker 1: decided to sign on as an early co sponsor and
Speaker 1: it made him the first Republican to support this constitutional amendment.
Speaker 1: And it's always important. The minute you can get something
Speaker 1: by partisan it suddenly has traction and has an opportunity. Now,
Speaker 1: let me read you the proposal word for word here
Speaker 1: of this pardon amendment that Congress may, by a vote
Speaker 1: of two thirds of each House, nullify any pardon granted
Speaker 1: by the President of the United States upon petition of
Speaker 1: twenty members of the House of Representatives and five members
Speaker 1: of the Senate. A vote shall be held within a
Speaker 1: specified period to determine whether such pardon shall stand. So again,
Speaker 1: it's modeling. So this amendment specific amendment would model the
Speaker 1: process after what is the veto override structure, So they
Speaker 1: wouldn't abolish the presidential pardon. Something I might consider there's
Speaker 1: not partisan punishment, but it's a good old fashioned constitutional check.
Speaker 1: Would be something the founders would be impressed with because
Speaker 1: it's a it's a high threshold to nullify a presidential pardon.
Speaker 1: That's not easy. Two thirds of each House of Congress
Speaker 1: and to get your sort of twenty members of the House,
Speaker 1: five members of the Senate. That's probably the easy part.
Speaker 1: The hard part is getting that two thirds. I might
Speaker 1: argue that, you know, the I think the having leaving
Speaker 1: one person with any of that power is the mistake itself.
Speaker 1: And then maybe you create a pardon board that includes,
Speaker 1: you know, the two longest serving members of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: the you know, say, you know, the two longest serving
Speaker 1: members of the House and the Senate, the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: the president, and the Vice president, something like that. That
Speaker 1: would become a pardon board where no one individual could decide,
Speaker 1: but you would bring bring individual cases there. But either way,
Speaker 1: the fact that Congress has a bipartisan amendment to potentially
Speaker 1: at least put a check on the pardon power of
Speaker 1: the president is a big deal, not a small deal.
Speaker 1: And I think it signifies the start of something. So
Speaker 1: let's zoom out here. The last time Americans felt that
Speaker 1: the structure itself was compromised, we Americans amended the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't an abstract it was all scandal driven.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you the story of the Seventeenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: All Right, before nineteen thirteen, state legislatures chose US Senators.
Speaker 1: The system had been rotting for years. Deadlocks had left
Speaker 1: too many Senate seats vacant. Party bosses essentially controlled the
Speaker 1: appointment process. Wasn't the voters hadn't much say at all.
Speaker 1: Wealthy interests with lobby state house votes. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I'll be honest, I think you know, the lower down
Speaker 1: the ladder, you go the most corruptible institutions or state legislatures,
Speaker 1: then city councils, right, you keep going down. Right, The
Speaker 1: least corruptible these days has been Congress. So imagine all
Speaker 1: that power deciding a US Senate in the state level.
Speaker 1: It was a mess. But it took a big scandal
Speaker 1: to sober the public up and say, hey, enough of
Speaker 1: this shit. Let me tell you the story of a
Speaker 1: gentleman named William Lowermer in the state of Illinois. He
Speaker 1: was elected by the state legislature to the US Senate,
Speaker 1: I believe in nineteen oh nine. Well, soon after, a
Speaker 1: state legislator confessed that he was paid one thousand dollars
Speaker 1: to vote for the guy. That's roughly thirty five thousand
Speaker 1: dollars today. Investigators then uncovered and what was called a
Speaker 1: jackpot slush fund that allegedly used was used to secure
Speaker 1: enough votes in a Chicago hotel bathroom. So the Senate investigated.
Speaker 1: They cleared him once, but the public outrage exploded. New
Speaker 1: evidence emerged of just how this process worked, and so
Speaker 1: by nineteen twelve, the Senate declared his election corrupt and
Speaker 1: vacated the seat. But what America saw was a Senate
Speaker 1: seat that was effectively purchased. So guess what happened? We
Speaker 1: finally changed the constitution. It had been building for a while,
Speaker 1: but it took a scandal like that one to sober
Speaker 1: ebody up and say yeah, seventeenth Amendment suddenly moved Senate
Speaker 1: elections directly to voters. So corruption became visible and the
Speaker 1: reform followed. That's what we have here with partons. This
Speaker 1: episode of the Chuck Podcast is being brought to you
Speaker 1: by Quints. As you know, a well built wardrobe is
Speaker 1: about the pieces that work together, hold up over time,
Speaker 1: and frankly allow you to be flexible and sort of
Speaker 1: business casual to say, social casual. Quins does this really well.
Speaker 1: They have premium material, thoughtful design and some everyday staples
Speaker 1: that feel easy to wear, easy to rely on even
Speaker 1: as the weather shifts. I've got some sweaters from Quints.
Speaker 1: I love them. I can use them for here on
Speaker 1: the podcast. I can do a business meeting with them.
Speaker 1: They have every day essentials. I love the quality so far.
Speaker 1: It's lasting really well. I've had it for a while.
Speaker 1: They have organic cotton sweaters, polos for every occasion. They
Speaker 1: have some nice jackets, including you know, lighter jackets as
Speaker 1: things I hope warm up at some point down here
Speaker 1: in the mid Atlantic. The list goes on. All of
Speaker 1: it is built to hold up for you to wear
Speaker 1: this stuff all the time, right, Not just something you
Speaker 1: pull out once a quarter to look nice at work.
Speaker 1: No stuff that you might wear every week. They only
Speaker 1: partner with factories that meet some rigorous standards for crashmanship
Speaker 1: and ethical product. Bottom line, I wear it. I'm happy.
Speaker 1: It's been really good. It isn't gonna break the bank.
Speaker 1: So refresh your wardrobe with Quints. Go to quins dot
Speaker 1: com slash chuck for free shipping on your order and
Speaker 1: a three hundred and sixty five day opportunity to return it.
Speaker 1: Now available in Canada too. That's qui nc dot com
Speaker 1: slash chuck free shipping three hundred and sixty five day returns.
Speaker 1: Quints dot com slash chuck. Do you hate hangovers, We'll
Speaker 1: say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you the
Speaker 1: social buzz without the next day regret. They're best selling.
Speaker 1: Out of office Gummanies were designed to provide a mild,
Speaker 1: relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation.
Speaker 1: With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to
Speaker 1: fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram
Speaker 1: micro to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more
Speaker 1: elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
Speaker 1: mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
Speaker 1: don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul
Speaker 1: is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
Speaker 1: fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious HEMP derived THCHC
Speaker 1: and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
Speaker 1: simply help you unwine. So if you struggle to switch
Speaker 1: off at night. Sol also has a variety of products
Speaker 1: specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
Speaker 1: night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a
Speaker 1: fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on the
Speaker 1: good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now,
Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: So go to gitsold dot com use the promo code todcast.
Speaker 1: Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com promo code
Speaker 1: todcast for thirty percent off. Let me tell you the
Speaker 1: story of the sixteenth Amendment. Right, they've ability to tax income.
Speaker 1: Right that has its roots in income inequality of the
Speaker 1: early parts of the Industrial Revolution. Right right around that
Speaker 1: same period, industrial wealth was exploding. Sound familiar. Tariffs taxes
Speaker 1: on consumption were the federal government's primary revenue source. Working
Speaker 1: families paid disproportionately a larger share of tariff revenue to
Speaker 1: the government treasury than the wealthy people did. The wealthiest
Speaker 1: industrialists paid relatively little in any kind of taxation. Supreme
Speaker 1: Court even struck down an earlier attempt to create an
Speaker 1: income tax. He said it was unconstitutional. Well, so reformers
Speaker 1: amended the Constitution to make a federal income tax unquestionably legal.
Speaker 1: And the sixteen Amendment wasn't subtle. Subtle. It was all
Speaker 1: about shifting the burden upward. And why was there traction
Speaker 1: for that at that time? Because you had these wealthy industrialists.
Speaker 1: Income inequality was massive, you know, you had an explosion
Speaker 1: in sort of abused labor, child labor. It was terrible.
Speaker 1: So this is why the public appetite for this was huge.
Speaker 1: The public believed these elites, these robber barons. That's why
Speaker 1: they got the name. We're gaming the system, We're robbing
Speaker 1: the system. So the system was changed. And let's not
Speaker 1: forget the nineteen Amendment, which also came in this same period.
Speaker 1: Half the population wasn't allowed to vote simply because of
Speaker 1: their gender. Nineteen the amendment corrected that it was an
Speaker 1: incremental reform. It was structural expansion of small d democratic
Speaker 1: power at a time when the public felt that the
Speaker 1: democracy was slipping away. So it looked like the elites
Speaker 1: were gaming the system. The wealthy were getting wealthier while
Speaker 1: the rest of us were being left behind. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, the democracy wasn't really even representing the
Speaker 1: most of the country. Because half the country couldn't couldn't
Speaker 1: vote that structural reform. That's a reform era. Question is
Speaker 1: are we about to do the same thing now. Look,
Speaker 1: not every reform from that era was a good idea.
Speaker 1: The eighteenth Amendment Prohibition was born of moral urgency, right
Speaker 1: temperance movements believed alcohol was destroying families, corrupting politics, and
Speaker 1: undermining public virtues. So basically at the same time of
Speaker 1: distrust of politicians, distrust of elites, this is why one
Speaker 1: of these this moral amendment got through, right to ban
Speaker 1: the manufacturing and sale of alcohol. Well, that ended up
Speaker 1: actually jumpstarting crime, arguably created the modern mob system that
Speaker 1: we still deal with today. Black markets, organized crime, all
Speaker 1: that mess. And so within fourteen years we're like, ooh,
Speaker 1: that was a bad idea, and so the twenty first
Speaker 1: Amendment repealed prohibition. So it's an important lesson because reform
Speaker 1: eras are powerful and they're also potentially risky. When we
Speaker 1: amend the constitution, we are playing with the architecture of
Speaker 1: the country itself. Some reforms will stabilize the democracy. Direct
Speaker 1: election of senators, did the income tax, did women the
Speaker 1: right to vote? Did others overcorrect like prohibition It's something
Speaker 1: I think about about the balance budget Amendment. I'm sort
Speaker 1: of intrigued by it. I kind of in theory agree
Speaker 1: to it. And then you're like, what would this mean?
Speaker 1: Could this create an economic catastrophe for us in ways
Speaker 1: that we have not, you know, because of the unintended consequence.
Speaker 1: So and I'm mindful. I think we're going to have
Speaker 1: an era of reform. So the question is what does
Speaker 1: that look like. I do think this that historians may
Speaker 1: one day say see the Obama and Trump presidencies as
Speaker 1: bookends of the same structural frustration. They had different ideologies,
Speaker 1: but it was the same demand. They were elected to
Speaker 1: shake things up, to change the system, fix what feels broken.
Speaker 1: At the time, the public thought, well, maybe a president
Speaker 1: could restore some balance. Turns out structural corrosion requires structural repair,
Speaker 1: and structural repair requires constitutional thinking. They alone cannot fix it,
Speaker 1: meaning a singular president Obama couldn't do it. Trump clearly
Speaker 1: cannot do it. So if this pardon conversation gains traction,
Speaker 1: expect more to follow. And this one should. This one,
Speaker 1: to me is an easy one to get traction for.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, it's one of those things
Speaker 1: that could be an interesting way for Republicans to show
Speaker 1: some independence from Trump but grounding it in the Constitution
Speaker 1: and for protection of future presidents abusing the power of
Speaker 1: the pardon. So it's also a pretty good way to
Speaker 1: sort of keep track of Huh. You know, it's almost like,
Speaker 1: you know, if I were a Republican strategist trying to
Speaker 1: mitigate the damage that's coming in this midterm year, I
Speaker 1: might want a vehicle like this pardon constitutional amendment where
Speaker 1: I can sign on as a co sponsor to show
Speaker 1: my independence, to show that I still care about some
Speaker 1: sort of I have some ethical lines that I'd like
Speaker 1: to draw here. So if this pardon thing gains traction,
Speaker 1: where else could we see some reform attempts of the
Speaker 1: constitutional sort. Well, I think we could have limits on
Speaker 1: executive emergency authority. If Congress won't do it, maybe we'll
Speaker 1: put a constitutional amendment into force Congress to realize it's
Speaker 1: authority there. Maybe there's clearly if we want to do
Speaker 1: anything in the in campaign finance, whether it's limits or transparency,
Speaker 1: basically outlawing anonymous contributions, you're going to need Since the
Speaker 1: courts have used the First Amendment as a shield on
Speaker 1: anything to reform and to reform in the campaign money
Speaker 1: era area, then you need a constitutional amendment. I think
Speaker 1: that will get traction in some form. I think transparency
Speaker 1: is the way to go, because again, when you're trying
Speaker 1: to pass the constitutional amendment two thirds support in the House,
Speaker 1: you know it's got to pass the House, in the
Speaker 1: Senate plus thirty eight states. You've got to have something
Speaker 1: that you can talk everybody into. You know, my pet
Speaker 1: issue on this run is indicates the expansion of the
Speaker 1: House representative. It's been capped at four and thirty five
Speaker 1: since their early twentieth century. It is, you know, we
Speaker 1: should not have congressional districts that are sized of major
Speaker 1: cities eight hundred thousand people. We should have congressional districts
Speaker 1: that are somewhere between three hundred and fifty and four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand. And you could put a constitutional amendment and
Speaker 1: say no congressional district can have a population more than
Speaker 1: you know, point oh three percent of the population. Basically
Speaker 1: you can. You can have it as right now, right
Speaker 1: if you base it on three hundred fifty million people
Speaker 1: you're looking at you know, I think it is I
Speaker 1: think it's point oh one point oh three would get
Speaker 1: you about three fifty four hundred. So that's the hope
Speaker 1: is that reform eras cascade. It doesn't stop at one idea,
Speaker 1: that you actually have a series of amendments. And that's
Speaker 1: that's the moment. I think we're headed to the And
Speaker 1: this this is why this symbolic decision by Bacon to
Speaker 1: become the first Republican on this particular constitutional amendment, one
Speaker 1: that I think would have broad support. If you polled
Speaker 1: it in my polling for and put it out there
Speaker 1: show that it does, you could you could see the
Speaker 1: beginning of something here. And I think it's important because
Speaker 1: an individual can at least can re establish norms, but
Speaker 1: they can't protect us from future demagogues. Constitutional amendments, though,
Speaker 1: are not easy, right they require two thirds of Congress,
Speaker 1: a ratification of thirty eight states. But guess what, It
Speaker 1: was a daunting challenge to do that when we were
Speaker 1: stripping state legislatures of Senate selection power, when we imposed
Speaker 1: an income tax on the richest people in America and
Speaker 1: the public won that argument, right, seems daunting these days
Speaker 1: to go after the tech titans doubling the electorate through
Speaker 1: women's suffrage, that was a big deal. So the point is,
Speaker 1: and that wasn't easy, and it was never going to
Speaker 1: be easy. But here's how you kind of know when
Speaker 1: reform begins. Reform begins when exhaustion becomes bipartisan and exasperation
Speaker 1: becomes by partisan. And we're starting to get there. We're
Speaker 1: approaching bipartisan exhaustion with all of this executive overreach, and
Speaker 1: there are more sort of Republicans understanding that, you know,
Speaker 1: the next time it could be a Gavin Newsom that's
Speaker 1: making their lives miserable. It's a lot easier to get
Speaker 1: bipartisan support for structural changes than it is, frankly, for
Speaker 1: policy changes. And I think we can get bipartisan support
Speaker 1: to check unchecked power, and the pardon power is one
Speaker 1: of those. So look, as we approach America's two hundred
Speaker 1: and fiftieth anniversary, the question isn't whether the Constitution is sacred,
Speaker 1: it's whether we are willing to maintain it and use
Speaker 1: the tools that we have at our disposal right now
Speaker 1: to demand a better structure for our democracy. The pardon
Speaker 1: debate may be the first crack. And I want to
Speaker 1: jump on this with enthusiasm. This is great news. You
Speaker 1: feel down about the direction in this country. The fact
Speaker 1: is you're not alone. People are very frustrated with it,
Speaker 1: and we know we've got to make some structural repairs.
Speaker 1: This is an important symbolic moment. What Don Bacon did
Speaker 1: O Losewinsky. My apologies for mangling your name there, Congressman Johnny,
Speaker 1: but this is a big deal. I think we are
Speaker 1: at the early stages of what's going to be a
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen year run of important reforms that we
Speaker 1: will Some of them will be incorrect, what we reforms
Speaker 1: with unintended consequences, perhaps just like with prohibition. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not guaranteeing every reform we make will work, but
Speaker 1: once we start, this one is a common sense one.
Speaker 1: I think everybody can agree to it. Nobody should, No
Speaker 1: president should basically sell pardons, and we need to have
Speaker 1: some mechanism to prevent when we know it's happened or
Speaker 1: it looks really awful. And I can tell you those
Speaker 1: January sixth pardons probably would not have would have been nullified.
Speaker 1: So you know, the presidential pardon power might not be,
Speaker 1: to you, the worst thing Trump does, but it is
Speaker 1: a structural change that I think can lead to other change.
Speaker 1: So in Congress finally starts debating constitutional guardrails. If we
Speaker 1: can get them there instead of partisan revenge, then we're
Speaker 1: getting somewhere that becomes durable. So look, reform eras don't
Speaker 1: start with certainty. They start with the feeling we have
Speaker 1: right now, discomfort. We know it's not working, we know
Speaker 1: something's wrong. This system doesn't work. And if you're truly
Speaker 1: honest with yourself, if you're an Obama Trump voter, you
Speaker 1: thought an individual could fix this, I hope you're now
Speaker 1: convinced no individual can fix this. We need structural change.
Speaker 1: And if this week is any indication it's possible a
Speaker 1: reform era has finally begun. Yes, I'm looking for it,
Speaker 1: but goddamn it, we need it. And there's no better
Speaker 1: place I think to start than what is staring at
Speaker 1: in the face the misuse and abuse of the presidential
Speaker 1: park pattern. This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought
Speaker 1: to you by American Financing. Let's be honest, the math
Speaker 1: just isn't adding up lately. Between the grocery store and
Speaker 1: those skyrocketing insurance premiums, even with a steady job, more
Speaker 1: families are being forced to rely on high interest credit
Speaker 1: cards to cover expenses. So if you're a homeowner caught
Speaker 1: in this cycle, carrying balances with interest rates in the twenties,
Speaker 1: frankly even the thirties, it's time to get some relief.
Speaker 1: Right now, mortgage rates are at a three year low,
Speaker 1: and my friends at American Financing are helping homeowners pay
Speaker 1: off that high interest debt at rates in the low fives.
Speaker 1: Their salary based mortgage consultants don't just push loans on you,
Speaker 1: they build exit strategies from debts. On average, they're saving
Speaker 1: their customers eight hundred dollars a month, so if you
Speaker 1: start today, you may even delay the next two mortgage payments.
Speaker 1: There are no upfront fees or obligations. To find out
Speaker 1: how much you can save. America's Home for home loan
Speaker 1: owns is American Finance eight six six eight eight five
Speaker 1: ten eighty one. That's eight six six eight eight five
Speaker 1: ten eighty one or Americanfinancing dot net slash the Chuck toodcast.
Speaker 1: Important disclaimer nm LS one A two three three four
Speaker 1: NMLS Consumer Access dot Org APR for rates in the
Speaker 1: five start at six point one ninety six percent for
Speaker 1: well qualified buyers call eight six six eight eight five
Speaker 1: one zero eight one for details about credit costs and terms,
Speaker 1: or American financing dot net slash the Chuck Toodcast. Having
Speaker 1: good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience.
Speaker 1: I was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't
Speaker 1: have any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape.
Speaker 1: My mother, single mother, now widow. Myself sixteen trying to
Speaker 1: figure out how am I going to pay for college
Speaker 1: and lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance
Speaker 1: policy that found wasn't a lot, but it was important
Speaker 1: at the time, and it's why I was able to
Speaker 1: go to college. Little did he know how important that
Speaker 1: would be in that moment. Well guess what. That's why
Speaker 1: I am here to tell you about Etho's life. They
Speaker 1: can provide you with peace of mind knowing your family
Speaker 1: is protected even if the worst comes to pass. Ethos
Speaker 1: is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast
Speaker 1: and easy, all designed to protect your family's future in minutes,
Speaker 1: not months. There's no complicated process, and it's one hundred
Speaker 1: percent online. There's no medical exam require you just answer
Speaker 1: a few health questions online. You can get a quote
Speaker 1: in as little as ten minutes, and you can get
Speaker 1: same day coverage without ever leaving your home. You can
Speaker 1: get up to three million dollars in coverage, and some
Speaker 1: policies start as low as two dollars a day that
Speaker 1: would be billed monthly. As of March twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: Business Insider named Ethos the number one no medical exam
Speaker 1: instant life insurance provider. So protect your family with life
Speaker 1: insurance from Ethos. Get your free quoted ethos dot com
Speaker 1: slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot com slash chuck.
Speaker 1: Application times may vary and the rates themselves may vary
Speaker 1: as well, but trust me, life insurance is something you
Speaker 1: should really think about it, especially if you've got a
Speaker 1: growing family. We've got to hope we get a consensus
Speaker 1: at some point when it comes to America's role in
Speaker 1: the world. As much as you know we can have
Speaker 1: healthy disagreements on a lot of domestic issues, America's role
Speaker 1: in the world is one we're gonna have to accept
Speaker 1: the premise that one's sixty percent of us agree in
Speaker 1: a direction that we ought to take it. Just a
Speaker 1: few quick observations, I've got a fun little top five
Speaker 1: list for you here, but I wanted to do a
Speaker 1: few quick observations, and I wanted to do it following
Speaker 1: Bob the Bob Blackwell interview about what we saw in
Speaker 1: Munich and the different roles. It was interesting to see
Speaker 1: Rubio and the reception he got. You know, Marco's reception
Speaker 1: by the Europeans at the Munich Security Conference reminded me
Speaker 1: of bringing thirsty people water. He didn't bring them cold water.
Speaker 1: He just brought them some hydration. It wasn't as antagonistic
Speaker 1: as Jade Vance a year earlier. It wasn't as pointed
Speaker 1: as it was a year earlier. It wasn't as personal,
Speaker 1: it wasn't as as doom and gloom. And it's sort
Speaker 1: of the role Rubio has been playing, right, And you
Speaker 1: heard the conversation that Bob and I had about sort
Speaker 1: of this interesting role Rubyo is, in some ways, I think,
Speaker 1: seize himself as a potential bridge between sort of Trump's
Speaker 1: destruction of the world order and those that would like
Speaker 1: to preserve some form of the old world order. And
Speaker 1: what does this look like. Obviously Rubya hopes to be
Speaker 1: the guy that builds it, right, he would like to
Speaker 1: be the president, or maybe this is his portfolio if
Speaker 1: he is, if there's some sort of Vance Rubio ticket
Speaker 1: that succeeds Trump on this front. But you know, make
Speaker 1: no mistake. I mean, you know, Rubio still gave it
Speaker 1: tough love, but he at least showed that he knows
Speaker 1: how to use diplomatic language. And when you're the secretary
Speaker 1: of State, you better be pretty good at using diplomatic language.
Speaker 1: But I think what you heard there, and that's, you know,
Speaker 1: the whole the open question I have about Rubio and
Speaker 1: is and his decision to to try to work with
Speaker 1: trump Ism rather than fight against it like he did
Speaker 1: for a few years when it first came aboard, was
Speaker 1: is you know at some point if he if Trump
Speaker 1: thinks Rubio is causing problems, he will throw Ruby onto
Speaker 1: the bus. If what Rubio has suggested becomes unpopular, he
Speaker 1: will throw Ruby onto the bus. Then again, the same
Speaker 1: is true with Jadie Vance as well. And that's why
Speaker 1: it's very precarious when you build a political identity based
Speaker 1: on the whims of a single individual. You know, I
Speaker 1: think the thing that you know, Rubio may not ever
Speaker 1: be able to win over a MAGA voter on his own.
Speaker 1: He may need the endorsement and the stamp of approval
Speaker 1: by Donald Trump. The question is, one, is that still
Speaker 1: a big enough constituency by twenty twenty eight. That's an
Speaker 1: open question I have in my head. And two, can
Speaker 1: Rubio be both a MAGA person and at the same
Speaker 1: time be trusted by either side to help build a
Speaker 1: new world order to engage in multilateralism, which Rubio himself
Speaker 1: I think does believe in multilateralism, even if Donald Trump
Speaker 1: does not, And so that's an open question. The other
Speaker 1: story coming out of Munich is the reception that alexandri
Speaker 1: O Cassio Cortez got. And you know, it's a classic
Speaker 1: case of if you want her to succeed, you said, oh,
Speaker 1: look she's made her debut on the foreign policy stage.
Speaker 1: If you want her to fail, you're like, oh, look
Speaker 1: at how much she flubbed on her debut on the
Speaker 1: foreign policy stage. I will just say this, look, I
Speaker 1: think that that she could have. It did look like
Speaker 1: she didn't study for the test enough, and I'm surprised she,
Speaker 1: you know, didn't have a more you know, prepared answer.
Speaker 1: At the same time, I think it's healthy to if
Speaker 1: you're thinking about running for national office too I'm glad
Speaker 1: she went to this event. Get to know some of
Speaker 1: the players make some early mistakes. If you're going to
Speaker 1: make mistakes, make them now, not in the actual campaign. Here,
Speaker 1: learn what you don't know. Learn uh those and you know,
Speaker 1: when it comes to foreign policy and political campaigns, you know,
Speaker 1: the key is not to block put yourself in a
Speaker 1: rhetorical corner that will become problematic down the road. Right.
Speaker 1: The best example of this is when Barack Obama drew
Speaker 1: a red line of chemical weapons being used by Bashar
Speaker 1: al Asad at Syria. Once he did it, he said
Speaker 1: it was a red line. Well, how are you going
Speaker 1: to enforce that red line if he crosses it? Sure enough,
Speaker 1: Asad crossed it, and we didn't enforce the red line.
Speaker 1: I don't think Obama regrets not enforcing the red line.
Speaker 1: I think he regrets ever drawing that sort of hard
Speaker 1: and fast rule on that. So I think that that's
Speaker 1: a lesson that all newcomers to presidential politics, as they dabble,
Speaker 1: as they dip their toe in the foreign policy water's
Speaker 1: got to learn that. But the second observation I have
Speaker 1: about the AOC issue is it's just amusing to me
Speaker 1: how many people on the right one and dunk on
Speaker 1: her for a small mistake. Here a flubb there but
Speaker 1: the equator in Venezuela. And you're sitting there going, really,
Speaker 1: we're going to hold her to account on a geographic
Speaker 1: mistake when we've got Donald Trump and all of the
Speaker 1: crazy and geographic nonsense that he talks about. Where he doesn't,
Speaker 1: I mean, he literally is the John Belushi character in Animiles.
Speaker 1: You know, he might as well be saying things like
Speaker 1: when the Germans on Pearl Harbor, you know, type of mindset.
Speaker 1: And I don't you know whether this is about her
Speaker 1: and there's an obsession on the right to just dunk
Speaker 1: on her whenever you get a chance, which there's something
Speaker 1: to that, or if it's a sign that maybe maybe
Speaker 1: folks are embarrassed by how ignorant Trump comes across about
Speaker 1: so many things in foreign affairs and about geography. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, do you think he can name fifteen countries
Speaker 1: in Africa? Let alone all the countries in Africa? But
Speaker 1: do you think he can name fifteen? Ten? What number
Speaker 1: would I have to lower myself to before you think
Speaker 1: he can name? You know, I think he'd struggle at ten.
Speaker 1: You know, I think many Americans would struggle at ten.
Speaker 1: But many Americans are not president of the United States.
Speaker 1: So the point is is that it is amusing to
Speaker 1: me when we want to hold our political opponents to
Speaker 1: higher standards than we will hold people that are quote
Speaker 1: unquote on our side or that we're sympathetic too. And
Speaker 1: let's just say I saw a lot of that on
Speaker 1: the right this week when it came to AOC All right, now,
Speaker 1: I want to have a little fun with my top
Speaker 1: five lists this week. As you know, sometimes it's serious
Speaker 1: and sometimes it's whacky. And I thought there was a
Speaker 1: We've had some ridiculous attempts at currying favor with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump take place over the last couple of years, and
Speaker 1: I thought it would be worth doing a top five
Speaker 1: list on the most ridiculous awards Donald Trump has received
Speaker 1: in order for in order for entities to try to
Speaker 1: curry favor, and it's usually corporations or in one case
Speaker 1: an international entity and in another case. So I'm giving
Speaker 1: you my top five most absurd awards manufactured and created
Speaker 1: to soothe Donald Trump's ego. Top So, number five on
Speaker 1: the list is one that he got in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: It's the McDonald's French Fry Certification pin. It is, you know,
Speaker 1: after his stint working the friar at a Pennsylvania McDonald's
Speaker 1: during the campaign. So as pre president, he was given
Speaker 1: a commemorative pin and a certificate for his service, and
Speaker 1: of course Donald Trump treated it with the gravity as
Speaker 1: if it was a state dinner, the ultimate everyman award.
Speaker 1: Who famously loves a quarter pounder. So his French Fry
Speaker 1: Certificate pin is number five on my list of most
Speaker 1: ridiculous awards that He's been given by companies and corporations
Speaker 1: in order to curry favor. It's this most recent award
Speaker 1: that triggered the idea for this list. This one he
Speaker 1: just received. Number four on my list is the Undisputed
Speaker 1: Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal Award. I bet you didn't
Speaker 1: know that that existed. Well, it is. The Washington Coal
Speaker 1: Club recently bestowed that actual title upon Donald Trump. So
Speaker 1: it's not just a coal award, you know, looking out
Speaker 1: for the coal. I mean it's not the first time,
Speaker 1: but this one is specific and it uses some of
Speaker 1: Trump's favorite phrases. Right, undisputed champion beautiful clean coal. Right,
Speaker 1: So this is the award the undisputed champion, a beautiful
Speaker 1: clean coal. I mean it is right out of like
Speaker 1: the old WWF and all the crazy names they used
Speaker 1: to give to their various championship belts. Right you had
Speaker 1: the you'd have the the the world champion. Then you'd
Speaker 1: have the inter continental champion. Nobody ever explained what the
Speaker 1: hell the inter continental champion was. I think my man
Speaker 1: Paul Orndorf was that. I think uh uh was the
Speaker 1: was the inter continental champion? I don't think, but that
Speaker 1: was never You know, hul Cogan was bigger than just
Speaker 1: being the intercontinental champ, if you will. So he is.
Speaker 1: Now this this feels like that that you gotta I
Speaker 1: gotta hand it to the Washington coal Club. That's that's impressive.
Speaker 1: That was impressive. Number three on the list is FIFA
Speaker 1: and the Peace Prize. Right in the middle, right deep
Speaker 1: of the arden. Last year, when Trump was campaigning and
Speaker 1: begging for the Noble l Peace Prize, our friends at
Speaker 1: FIFA who loved to curry favor with those in power,
Speaker 1: no matter how corrupting it looks to them. FIFA doesn't care.
Speaker 1: They manufactured a peace Prize because why not. They knew
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump wanted a Peace Prize. So FIFA gave
Speaker 1: him the Peace Prize. So they did it during at
Speaker 1: the Trump Kennedy Center, right, and the final draw for
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty six World Cup, and they decided to
Speaker 1: create this brand new accolade just in time for Trump's
Speaker 1: return to office. Right. You know, it's you know, it's
Speaker 1: like getting an award from your barber that says you're
Speaker 1: the you're the best haircut customer this week, you know.
Speaker 1: But good old FIFA, you can count on that number
Speaker 1: two on the list. This one is the Tim Cook Special. Right.
Speaker 1: I'm sure some of you were thinking, well, you got
Speaker 1: to include the Tim Cook thing. So and this is
Speaker 1: not the first time Tim Cook has actually given him
Speaker 1: a couple of awards over the year. And the first term,
Speaker 1: Cook gave him a commemorative plaque, right, it was a
Speaker 1: circular piece of mac pro glass. But you know, for
Speaker 1: the second one, he had to really up the stakes,
Speaker 1: so he gave the twenty four carrot golden glass statue
Speaker 1: featuring a circular piece of gorilla glass on a gold base.
Speaker 1: What it really was was a physical manifestation of the
Speaker 1: trade deal Apple needed. It was less an award and
Speaker 1: more of a please don't tax our iPhones trophy at
Speaker 1: the time that it was given, but it was you know,
Speaker 1: the gold played gold carrot, all that business. It was
Speaker 1: just it was just awful. But number one on the
Speaker 1: list matters because of how much it mainstream Donald Trump
Speaker 1: back into the Republican Party post January sixth. And it
Speaker 1: was when the NRSC, when it was chaired by Rick Scott,
Speaker 1: he created the Champion for Freedom Bowl as an award
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one for Donald Trump. And this is
Speaker 1: April of twenty twenty one. He gets this award. This
Speaker 1: is three months after January sixth. He's supposed to be
Speaker 1: persona non grata, but neither Kevin McCarthy, who stood next
Speaker 1: to him, and then Rick Scott. They were the two
Speaker 1: people who greased the skids the most for bringing Trump
Speaker 1: back into the mainstream and this award. So Scott presents
Speaker 1: Trump with the inaugural NRSC Champion for Freedom Award. And
Speaker 1: it was a bowl. It was a large engraved silver
Speaker 1: serving bowl. There were some people that joked that Scott
Speaker 1: didn't know what to give him, so he grabbed the
Speaker 1: first punch bowl he could find from the office kitchen
Speaker 1: at the NRSC. Had it engraved, and it was all
Speaker 1: about making sure Trump knew, or that Trump's supporters knew
Speaker 1: Rick Scott was on his side. But it was that
Speaker 1: award that moment. It was not just the award itself.
Speaker 1: And so while I'm having a little bit of fun
Speaker 1: here and how all of these people right, you know,
Speaker 1: we'd think Trump looks ridiculous for taking these awards seriously,
Speaker 1: but the people given these awards really it's not a
Speaker 1: good look. Rick Scott doing what he did post January
Speaker 1: six just a bad look. You know, maybe it held
Speaker 1: party unity, but really we're gonna pick party unity over
Speaker 1: the disaster of January sixth, or Tim Cook and his
Speaker 1: gold statue, or FIFA and the absurdity of their Peace Prize.
Speaker 1: You know, in some ways the most honest is the
Speaker 1: Cole folks man. You know what they know what they want,
Speaker 1: they know what they're focused on, and they know they
Speaker 1: have a guy, and so in that sense it's an
Speaker 1: honest one. And you know, the French Fried French fry
Speaker 1: pen is just sort of amusing. Notice what I didn't
Speaker 1: put on here was the actual peace Nobel Peace Prize
Speaker 1: that Machado that the winner of last year's Peace Prize
Speaker 1: gave to Trump, and she like took it to a
Speaker 1: frame store and had it like put together. Like it
Speaker 1: was like a like you were featured in a newspaper
Speaker 1: article for the first time, and you get these companies
Speaker 1: that want to sell you a framed version of it
Speaker 1: so you can display it in your office with a plaque.
Speaker 1: She basically did that, took it and then gave him
Speaker 1: her Peace Prize. So but I didn't think it belonged
Speaker 1: in the top five because it was the prize itself
Speaker 1: is not it was not awarded to him, And I
Speaker 1: don't know what to call it. I guess you would
Speaker 1: call it the Machado Peace Prize, but it's its own
Speaker 1: category and it's the But I'll tell you we're you know,
Speaker 1: we complained my generation links to complain that we gave
Speaker 1: away too many trophies to millennials, right they where that
Speaker 1: everybody gets a trophy. Generation. Please let's not keep doing
Speaker 1: this to our presidents. I mean, I know that Trump
Speaker 1: is arrested development and he's desperate for accolades, and if
Speaker 1: he can't get accolades that have historic meaning, then make
Speaker 1: them up and it makes him happy. Apparently, I get it.
Speaker 1: A lot of these people have business in front of
Speaker 1: the government, and if this is what it takes, and
Speaker 1: sadly we know how easy you know this, you know,
Speaker 1: and a few bucks. It was a long way to
Speaker 1: persuading this president. This is why we had to do
Speaker 1: something about about this unilateral This is why you always
Speaker 1: need to check on the executive all right, now it's
Speaker 1: time for a little ask, Chuck, Ask Chuck. Matt ah
Speaker 1: trom Manchester, Tennessee. All right, Manchester, Tennessee. I wonder how
Speaker 1: many Manchesters there are around the country, right, Manchester, New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: Of course it's the Manchester I spend the most time in.
Speaker 1: But Manchester, Tennessee, all right, didn't know that one, Matt
Speaker 1: h And Hey, I've been a fan since your rested
Speaker 1: days and your show is now my go to for
Speaker 1: BLAE Insight. And enjoyed your interview with doctor and Andrews,
Speaker 1: which got me thinking, as a center left voter in
Speaker 1: deep red Tennessee, do you think I'll live to see
Speaker 1: a Democrat win state white here again? I missed the
Speaker 1: days of Phil Bredison and Al Gore, but they feel along,
Speaker 1: they feel long gone. You know, it's interesting, Matt, you know,
Speaker 1: when I was in the eighties, the South was splitting
Speaker 1: up between sort of new South, old South, right, and
Speaker 1: there was in the new South states were Florida, Georgia,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee. And then supposedly the old
Speaker 1: South states here you're Alabama's or Mississippi, or South Carolina
Speaker 1: you're Arkansas. You get where I'm going. And you've seen, right,
Speaker 1: the new South states have swung either or swing swinging,
Speaker 1: have been or competitive or you know, in the case
Speaker 1: of Virginia a little more blue, case of Florida a
Speaker 1: little more red. But you've seen that. The head scratcher
Speaker 1: to me has been Tennessee. That the fact that Tennessee
Speaker 1: hasn't moved in the directionally the same way that both
Speaker 1: Virginia and North Carolina have moved has always been mildly
Speaker 1: surprising to me because it particularly with the growth of Nashville, right,
Speaker 1: Nashville is now like this artist's hub, particularly for on
Speaker 1: the on the music side of things. And you know,
Speaker 1: look what Austin did to to you know, became bluer,
Speaker 1: and obviously you know, Hollywood itself and being a has
Speaker 1: certainly given a very you know, darker blue tint to
Speaker 1: southern California than it used to have in itself. So
Speaker 1: I think there was I think I certainly I thought
Speaker 1: nash the growth of Nashville would naturally create more competition
Speaker 1: in the state that all of that, and we haven't
Speaker 1: seen that. Now. There's a few things. My friend Brad Todd,
Speaker 1: a Republican consultant from Tennessee. He says, you know, the
Speaker 1: growth of Nashville has been different than say the Research
Speaker 1: Triangle or Atlanta, Atlanta, or northern Virginia. And I thought
Speaker 1: Nashville would sort of behave the same way has And
Speaker 1: he said, part of it is you've had a lot
Speaker 1: of Midwesterners moved to particularly the sort of the larger
Speaker 1: Nashville ex scerbs right Franklin County in particular, but the
Speaker 1: excerbs of Nashville. And he says, like on a Saturday,
Speaker 1: you can go to some of these subdivisions and you
Speaker 1: don't see it falls. You don't see any Tennessee Vall's
Speaker 1: flag in the fall, but you do see Michigan, Indiana,
Speaker 1: Ohio State, Wisconsin. And he said there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of sort of Republicans have left those states and moved
Speaker 1: to a lower tech state like Tennessee and the expanding
Speaker 1: excurbs of Nashville, and that that is that the migration
Speaker 1: has not been as as swing voter or as liberal
Speaker 1: as the migration you saw in northern Virginia Research Triangle
Speaker 1: or Austin or the Atlanta suburbs. But look, we've seen
Speaker 1: some signs at Nashville itself gets competitive. So look, I
Speaker 1: think the biggest problem that Tennessee Democrats have in general's Memphis.
Speaker 1: Memphis is just it's a city that has fallen behind. Right,
Speaker 1: there was a time that Memphis was a growing city
Speaker 1: FedEx being headquarters. There was I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 1: I've traveling and out of Memphis a lot always have
Speaker 1: gone back thirty years now and you know, just just
Speaker 1: in the in the areas in and you know, I
Speaker 1: think about the area in and around of Graceland now,
Speaker 1: the airport hotels, you know, the crime issues pretty pretty
Speaker 1: bad these days. All the airport hotels are like behind
Speaker 1: these like huge, you know, ten foot iron fences, black
Speaker 1: you know, sort of those black iron you know fences,
Speaker 1: and it screams like not welcoming all around that part
Speaker 1: of Memphis. And so you know, it is it is
Speaker 1: sort of stagnanted. You know whether this Look, Tennessee Republicans
Speaker 1: have made a living running against Memphis forever, and Memphis
Speaker 1: was racial code words. You know, it was the largest
Speaker 1: African American population in Tennessee concentrated wise, was in Memphis.
Speaker 1: But it is stalled growth wise. I wish I had
Speaker 1: a better explanation. I haven't studied it enough, but you know,
Speaker 1: Memphis feels like it's headed in the wrong direction in
Speaker 1: you know, there was a time both in Memphis and
Speaker 1: Nashville felt like where they were both growing. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, better democratic governance of Memphis and more success
Speaker 1: in Memphis might I think raise the prospects of of
Speaker 1: more credibility for Democratic candidate statewide. Look, I think that
Speaker 1: there is just and there's no pipeline anymore. Right when
Speaker 1: they carved up the Nashville seat so that they did
Speaker 1: it as a hub and spoke where they just took
Speaker 1: pieces of Nashville to try to make it so that essentially,
Speaker 1: I think the only Democrat you really are going to
Speaker 1: end up with is the is the congressman from Memphis.
Speaker 1: You don't have somebody that wins in swing districts that
Speaker 1: then become that become like a Phil Bretison that knows
Speaker 1: how to run stay wide. And you've also had that
Speaker 1: scandal with the Nashville mayor. So when you think about
Speaker 1: the places where the benches would develop, where there could
Speaker 1: be benches for candidates to develop, mayor of Nashville is
Speaker 1: a big one. The congressional you haven't had that. So
Speaker 1: let's just say it's a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1: If I were advising Tennessee Democrats, I'd be like, go
Speaker 1: get your Memphis house in order and then get started
Speaker 1: at sort of change, you know, improving your brand in
Speaker 1: the Nashville area. Next question comes from Ann and should
Speaker 1: I say love listening to your time machine message today.
Speaker 1: I'm a high school US history and US government teacher.
Speaker 1: I've always argued that some years in history require a
Speaker 1: book addressing events in just that year. You hit one
Speaker 1: of those years today, eighteen forty eight. You are so right.
Speaker 1: I'm not bright enough to write it and to just
Speaker 1: diletantese to focus my attention. I'm passing the baton to
Speaker 1: you get writing. If eighteen forty eight is it your
Speaker 1: cup of tea, maybe nineteen sixty eight would be more
Speaker 1: to your taste, and no, you're right. I mean it
Speaker 1: was a time of disruption. There was. It was sort
Speaker 1: of peak fear of the industrial age, and it was
Speaker 1: more in Europe. It was you know, brewing in this country,
Speaker 1: but it was definitely something hit in London more, which
Speaker 1: is hence why that came. You're absolute right, there is
Speaker 1: more to eighteen forty eight as a touchdowne in history.
Speaker 1: Just to put some meat on the eighteen forty eight
Speaker 1: bones there, and I do expect you to grade me
Speaker 1: and tell me. I just want to give folks a
Speaker 1: quick run through. Why do you put that way? So
Speaker 1: what makes eighteen forty eight unique is that it wasn't
Speaker 1: one single war. There were spontaneous, contagious irruption of over
Speaker 1: fifty different revolts across Europe, and all of it was
Speaker 1: without our modern communications of the moment. Right, This wasn't
Speaker 1: the Internet. This didn't get contagious that way. You know.
Speaker 1: You had the fire started arguably in Sicily in January.
Speaker 1: Then there was Paris in February, where the monarchy went away,
Speaker 1: the revolutionary spirit kept going. You had you had the
Speaker 1: Austrian Empire, the prince fleeing to London, you had the
Speaker 1: Prussians agreeing to a promise of a constitution and a parliament.
Speaker 1: You had Italian reunification. One could argue there was a
Speaker 1: collision of isms liberalism, the middle class wanting constitutions, free speech,
Speaker 1: the right to vote, that was happening over Europe. You
Speaker 1: had nationalism. You had ethnic groups Hungarians, Germans, Italians, checks
Speaker 1: they wanted their own independent countries. Right, we still had
Speaker 1: a Prussia at that time, No Germany. Socialism was on
Speaker 1: the rise with obviously with what I pointed out, with
Speaker 1: Marx and all of that. So she was saying, yes,
Speaker 1: there needs to be a book. Well. The historian GM
Speaker 1: Trevellion called eighteen forty eight the turning point at rich
Speaker 1: modern history failed to turn. Its a great turn of
Speaker 1: phrase that he had. Everything seemed to collapse that year,
Speaker 1: and then by eighteen forty nine there was a conservative snapback.
Speaker 1: Monarchs regained their nerve, the Russian czars three hundred thousand
Speaker 1: troops to help Austria across the Hungarian revolt. The French
Speaker 1: Republic ended when Napoleon's nephew declared himself the emperor. So
Speaker 1: it was sort of but eighteen forty eight served as
Speaker 1: a bit of a precursor to what was to come, right,
Speaker 1: and we ended up with the Russian Revolution about fifty
Speaker 1: years later, and you know, the fall of the Ottoman
Speaker 1: Empire and all of that, so sort of it was
Speaker 1: it was sort of like the first tremors of the
Speaker 1: big breakup that would eventually take place in the late
Speaker 1: nineteenth thirty twentieth century. But you're right, eighteen forty eight
Speaker 1: worthy of its own book. It's a really good podcast
Speaker 1: serial idea too. Sort of you know some years, you
Speaker 1: know years where you know where, years where decades happened,
Speaker 1: and decades where years happened. Right, So thank you for
Speaker 1: that suggestion, Anne, And I don't know if I did
Speaker 1: did the answer to your question a service? Hopefully I
Speaker 1: got more people interested in eighteen forty eight, which is
Speaker 1: the real goal. All Right, I'm just gonna sneak in
Speaker 1: two more questions here because I am. As soon as
Speaker 1: I'm done with this taping, I'm going to go celebrate
Speaker 1: my grandmother's ninety ninth birthday. She turns ninety nine this week.
Speaker 1: How about that? Ninety nine? And she is well aware
Speaker 1: of everything that's going around around the world. She can't
Speaker 1: read the way she used to do anymore because of
Speaker 1: her eyesight. But she listens probably to like two books
Speaker 1: a day. I mean, she's a book on tape connoisseur.
Speaker 1: All right. This one comes from Max w Out of Alexandria.
Speaker 1: Here use of historical precedent to help analyze kurtent political
Speaker 1: actions leads me to ask about the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 1: Trump administration is assaulted the first, the fourth, fifth, and
Speaker 1: the six amendments numerous times, and it has recently gone
Speaker 1: after the second Amendment when it justified the alex Pretty
Speaker 1: shooting because he brought a gun to the protest. So
Speaker 1: what's left is the third Amendment quartering soldiers the only
Speaker 1: one in the Bill of Rights left unmolested by this administration?
Speaker 1: Maybe the eighth, maybe the ninth. And where's the libertarian
Speaker 1: outrage at the demolition of their personal rights? I'll hang
Speaker 1: up and listen. Let's seez a remax w Actually, I
Speaker 1: think this is where you're starting to see some libertarians
Speaker 1: get cranky about it. I follow a whole bunch of libertarians.
Speaker 1: I'm going to have the editor in chief of Reason
Speaker 1: magazine on soon to actually talk about this very issue.
Speaker 1: I know. This is Here's how I view these tests
Speaker 1: of liberties that are challenged by Trump. You know, the
Speaker 1: Republicans that are exhausted from defending Trump when they're willing
Speaker 1: to speak out on these things, and so they're they're
Speaker 1: kind of MRIs for who's got any principles left? So
Speaker 1: I find these moments useful in figuring out which one
Speaker 1: of these guys in cos will put the country before
Speaker 1: the party if the chips are truly down, and which
Speaker 1: ones won't. It's moments like this they give us this.
Speaker 1: You're right about this, I mean, I would argue that
Speaker 1: you know, in any given day, I mean it is
Speaker 1: it does feel like half the Bill of Rights get
Speaker 1: violated on any given day by this administration. But you know,
Speaker 1: does anybody believe do you think Donald Trump's read one
Speaker 1: federalist paper in the last twenty years. Maybe he read
Speaker 1: one in high school? Maybe? All right, last question for
Speaker 1: this episode comes from Dennis Dennis Rights. Why isn't anybody
Speaker 1: talking about the real possibility that potentially two conservative Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices could resign Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, especially
Speaker 1: if the Democrats are likely to win the Senate to
Speaker 1: allow Trump to nominate one, possibly two young, mega friendly
Speaker 1: justices to the Supreme Court, extending his legacy forward for decades.
Speaker 1: Even if the Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate
Speaker 1: following the twenty twenty sixth election, the real possibility still
Speaker 1: remain that either one or two of the justices would
Speaker 1: resign prior to Trump leaving office in twenty twenty nine,
Speaker 1: allowing him to have nominated five Supreme Court justices during
Speaker 1: his time as president. Thank you, Dennis. Look, you know,
Speaker 1: I think you will know when the White House finally
Speaker 1: fears losing the Senate in twenty twenty six when you
Speaker 1: start to hear those whispers grow louder about Alito and
Speaker 1: or Thomas. My friend Bruce Melman, you should check out
Speaker 1: his sub stack. Every Sunday he puts out these terrific
Speaker 1: PowerPoint slides, and he didn't want to basically anticipating the
Speaker 1: potential for a Supreme Court opening, and he said, look,
Speaker 1: Trump loves to try to try to set records or
Speaker 1: to surpass or be and he would love to nominate,
Speaker 1: you know, to get up to five. I think in
Speaker 1: Bruce's telling, let me get the Bruce charts out here
Speaker 1: a minute, because they were terrific on this topic. He
Speaker 1: pointed out that right now, Trump has, as you point out,
Speaker 1: has had three. He's right now he's in a seven
Speaker 1: way tie for the thirteenth most Supreme Court justices appointed.
Speaker 1: But if he gets two more, he's then tied with
Speaker 1: Lincoln for the fourth most all time. In case you
Speaker 1: keep it score, George Washington is appointed the most members
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court eleven, followed by FDR. Took him
Speaker 1: three terms plus a month to do nine. Andrew Jackson
Speaker 1: did six. And then you have three guys at five. Taft, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Grant, Nixon, Cleveland, Harding, Truman,
Speaker 1: Harrison all had four, and then Reagan got three, and
Speaker 1: he's the most, and Trump has three. No, there's no
Speaker 1: other modern era with three. You have to go back
Speaker 1: to before then you have to go back to It
Speaker 1: appears Hoover got three, and then before that Woodrow Wilson,
Speaker 1: before that Teddy Roosevelt. So look, I think Alitos seemed
Speaker 1: to give hints that he sort of exhausted from doing this.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of assumptions that Thomas is ready to
Speaker 1: take the RV on the road and just do more
Speaker 1: trips on his RV. He loves to do that, and
Speaker 1: I think they're both true believers right there. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a tough decision for Trump because the
Speaker 1: two oldest are also the two most supportive right They
Speaker 1: vote with Trump more than any other two members of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, So, you know, and you look at
Speaker 1: his appointments. Do you know that Amy Coney Barrett voted
Speaker 1: gave him fifty three percent of the time voted in
Speaker 1: favor of the Biden administration when she was you know,
Speaker 1: so did Roberts, but she voted more with Roberts than
Speaker 1: she did. You know, Alito and Gorsage ninety five percent
Speaker 1: of the time do they vote with Trump, and only
Speaker 1: Gorse it's twenty nine percent of the time voted with
Speaker 1: with Biden. But both Thomas and Alito voted only eighteen
Speaker 1: percent of the time with the Biden administration whenever they
Speaker 1: were in front of the Supreme Court. So they're Trump's
Speaker 1: most support you know, two of their most supportive justices.
Speaker 1: So you push them out. You know, Kavanaugh Barrett have
Speaker 1: both been you know, a little you know, more center
Speaker 1: right than right wing. Gorsas has been more right wing,
Speaker 1: but he's been unpredictable in a couple of different issues,
Speaker 1: So you know, nothing always goes to plan. And the
Speaker 1: irony is that he would be getting rid of his
Speaker 1: two most supportive justices if he pushed them out. But
Speaker 1: I think this is coming. I think there are going
Speaker 1: to be Republicans whispering in Trump's ear that, hey, nothing
Speaker 1: will help rally the base more than a Supreme Court opening.
Speaker 1: This is what worked in twenty eighteen. It kept you know,
Speaker 1: it helped Republicans win a couple of Senate seats even
Speaker 1: in a bad midterm year. Maybe this does the same.
Speaker 1: Now here's a question that I have that was in
Speaker 1: a pre Dobbs environment, who gets more fired up now
Speaker 1: for open Supreme Court justices? But when it was Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade that the right way was fired up about, it
Speaker 1: was clear that anytime the Supreme Court was an issue,
Speaker 1: it motivated the right more than the left. Does that
Speaker 1: change in the era of Dobbs that you know will
Speaker 1: will a Supreme Court opening motivate the left more than
Speaker 1: the right? This time? We haven't had that in a while.
Speaker 1: But usually, when you know, it's whoever feels the side
Speaker 1: that feels as if the courts are the most against them,
Speaker 1: And right now I think the left feels like the
Speaker 1: courts are more rigged against them than the right feels
Speaker 1: like the courts are rigged against them. Right, there's not
Speaker 1: as many liberal judges are doing this to us type
Speaker 1: of victimhood these days on the right, because Trump's had
Speaker 1: quite a few you know, they've they've gotten quite a
Speaker 1: few wins. So that's you know, Do I think that
Speaker 1: Republican strategists will believe this will help them? I do?
Speaker 1: Are they right? I'm not one hundred percent convinced. And
Speaker 1: with that, I'm going to go figure out what. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you one thing about my I got a
Speaker 1: great anecdote about my great my mother. She's made in
Speaker 1: ninety nine years. You know, the single thing she hates
Speaker 1: eating the most fresh vegetables, So there you go, all right,
Speaker 1: but she eats the most of anything chocolate or sweet,
Speaker 1: and she's still going strong. I'm not saying so hey,
Speaker 1: mister Pross, you know the healthy food guy doesn't always
Speaker 1: worked that way. All right, with that, I'll see you in
Speaker 1: twenty four hours.