Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty Show. Jim Crow laws are just
Speaker 1: anothetical to who we are. This makes Jim Crow look
Speaker 1: like Jim Eagle. Most people don't know. You walk into
Speaker 1: a store and you buy a gun, you have a
Speaker 1: background check, but you go to a gun show you
Speaker 1: can buy whatever you want, no background check. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: just not true. Um, And they walked that back later
Speaker 1: in the day, which leads to a number of questions. Anyway,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us today. Yeah, the Jim Crow tweets
Speaker 1: are not only untrue, but they're utterly repugnant to say.
Speaker 1: Let's discuss that in a number of different topics with
Speaker 1: Lan he Chen. My computer has frozen, so I'm gonna
Speaker 1: try to do this from memory. Lan he is the
Speaker 1: David and Diane Stephy Research Fellow in American Public Policy
Speaker 1: and the Uver. It's it's the proud son of David
Speaker 1: and Diane Steffie. They don't leave, that's correct, and also
Speaker 1: the the director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University.
Speaker 1: How did I do, Lony? You? You know, you got
Speaker 1: about there and then and then you and then you
Speaker 1: said this thing about being the kid of thee that
Speaker 1: was Jack. Did please see what I have to deal
Speaker 1: with every day. So hey, first good, First of all,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for being here. We really look
Speaker 1: forward to these chats. So the Biden quotes whether it's
Speaker 1: the Jim Crow stuff, which again is repugnant and totally inaccurate,
Speaker 1: or or deciding in kneed your fashion to support a
Speaker 1: boycott of Atlanta, heavily black city, the stuff about the
Speaker 1: gun show, is Joe Biden confused? Is he misinformed or
Speaker 1: has he embraced really hardcore rhetoric? Be it true or not?
Speaker 1: Do you have any idea? I think it is the
Speaker 1: classic example of you do what you get away with,
Speaker 1: and there is very very little effort to hold the
Speaker 1: president accountable when he says things that are false. Now, look,
Speaker 1: the reality is we all know politicians have a tendency
Speaker 1: to try to stretch the truth a little bit. But
Speaker 1: in this case, you guys have played just a couple
Speaker 1: of examples of when he just he just says things
Speaker 1: that aren't that just flat aren't true. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: nowhere has that been more apparent than when he's talking
Speaker 1: about this Georgia elections law. You know, he keeps repeating
Speaker 1: this example that he says, look, it's people can't even
Speaker 1: get water when they're waiting in line and it's a
Speaker 1: hot day to vote. Uh you know which, multiple establishments,
Speaker 1: both left and right, have said looking, actually, that's not
Speaker 1: really true. As it turns out, if you're a poll worker,
Speaker 1: you can give someone in line water, But if you're
Speaker 1: an employee of a union, let's say, or you're a
Speaker 1: member of Q and on, you can't walk up and
Speaker 1: hand someone water when they're in line. That makes a
Speaker 1: lot of sense. We don't have electioneering in California. We
Speaker 1: don't have it. They don't have it in New York
Speaker 1: and now they don't have it enjoy So these are
Speaker 1: the kinds of things where I just think he does
Speaker 1: it because he can get away with it. You know
Speaker 1: that the the renaissance with Joe Biden has not ended,
Speaker 1: and he's gonna take advantage of that. And that's really
Speaker 1: what this is. Just to to focus on the All
Speaker 1: Star Game thing for a bit. We're talking earlier about that.
Speaker 1: There are now, i mean top to bottom Democrats in
Speaker 1: Georgia are a ghast that the All Star Game got yanked.
Speaker 1: They're piste off. Do you think that was just an
Speaker 1: in artful move or it seems to me he's just
Speaker 1: he's slowed down to the point he doesn't even have
Speaker 1: the ability to punt anymore. He just spews out an answer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't I don't think there's a lot
Speaker 1: of thought necessarily given to what he's going to say
Speaker 1: before he says it. Uh, you know, the All Star
Speaker 1: Game thing. Look, I think that is a classic example
Speaker 1: of quick trigger reaction that we see from corporate America,
Speaker 1: I include Major League Baseball and corporate America. They feel
Speaker 1: like they were under a tremendous and out of pressure
Speaker 1: and so they did something which you know, in retrospect,
Speaker 1: I think they probably I don't know that they'll regret it,
Speaker 1: but I think there's elements of it that they regret.
Speaker 1: And also, by the way, the folks in Georgia, Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans, they realize that when the All Star Game goes,
Speaker 1: that means a lot of revenue for local businesses and
Speaker 1: the local economy. They mean the tension for Atlanta and
Speaker 1: for for the ballpark they've got there. So you know,
Speaker 1: the people in Georgia have reason to be upset. Is
Speaker 1: there any chance he's playing three dimensional chess like the
Speaker 1: people are always talking about with Trump in that he's thinking,
Speaker 1: you know, if people are talking about the All Star Game,
Speaker 1: if people are talking about, you know, what I said
Speaker 1: or didn't say about guns, but they aren't discussing this
Speaker 1: couple trillion dollar change in the way we structure society.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with that. Call me stupid on guns all
Speaker 1: day long. Will pass the two trillion dollar completely change
Speaker 1: America into France thing, and then I'll be happy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not sure if it's three dimensional chess,
Speaker 1: but I do think it's clever in the sense that
Speaker 1: he recognizes he is going to get about as as
Speaker 1: long as a leash from the media as any president
Speaker 1: ever has in history of this country. And so he's
Speaker 1: gonna take advantage of that. He's going to do everything
Speaker 1: he can to make sure that, you know, he tells
Speaker 1: his story and he gets his point of view out there,
Speaker 1: and if there is something that's potentially a bad story,
Speaker 1: he's going to figure out how he can distract people
Speaker 1: from it. And he has that, and he has that opportunity,
Speaker 1: uh and and he takes advantage of it. So in
Speaker 1: that sense, I don't know about three dimensional chess. I
Speaker 1: just think he knows what he has, and he's using
Speaker 1: the assets that he has. Let's have pivot just a
Speaker 1: little bit, although it has a great deal to do
Speaker 1: with the giant Restructuring America plan. Uh. Joe Manchin with
Speaker 1: some strong statements about never ending or altering the filibuster. Uh.
Speaker 1: There are more and more noises that well Democrats are
Speaker 1: willing to compromise on some of the aspects of this plan.
Speaker 1: How does this Senate feel to you right now? The
Speaker 1: Senate feels to me to be completely bogged out oun Uh.
Speaker 1: And I think one of the things, and one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why Joe Mansion made the statement he did,
Speaker 1: is because he's trying to figure out how can we
Speaker 1: make things more functional? Now. He's not some you know,
Speaker 1: patron saint of policymaking. He's just doing this because he
Speaker 1: realizes that for West Virginia, for his home constituency, he's
Speaker 1: elected by a relatively conservative state and he's a Democrat,
Speaker 1: and if he's going to get re elected, he needs
Speaker 1: to show that he's going to get something done. He
Speaker 1: needs to be able to bring something back to the
Speaker 1: people of West Virginia the show that he's been productive,
Speaker 1: and he cannot do that with the Senate being the
Speaker 1: way that it is now, which is completely partisan, completely
Speaker 1: uh in apt, and unable to really move legislation unless
Speaker 1: it's done on a party line basis. And he's saying, look,
Speaker 1: that's not good for the Senate, and frankly, it's not
Speaker 1: good for him. So I'm glad Mansion said it because
Speaker 1: he actually has some sway in terms of how these
Speaker 1: things are going to go. But look, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, it's very difficult for me to envision
Speaker 1: the Senate getting anything done at all in a productive fashion.
Speaker 1: And some of that is because of the Senate, but
Speaker 1: some of that, frankly, is because Biden's made the decision, Hey, look,
Speaker 1: if I don't have to work with Republicans, why would I.
Speaker 1: I'll just do whatever I need to do and and
Speaker 1: toward my agenda, as I see said, And and that's
Speaker 1: basically the decision he's made. To some states politics. The
Speaker 1: biggest state in the country, California, gonna have the first
Speaker 1: ever trans governor in Caitlyn Jenner. Well, you know, it's
Speaker 1: funny that a lot of Republicans have been saying, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: you know what, what what what Republicans need to win
Speaker 1: in this recall race is like another Arnold. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure Caitlyn Jenner is another Arnold, but I think it
Speaker 1: responds to the reality that this recall race it's such
Speaker 1: a jump ball guys that I think you've got a
Speaker 1: bunch of people who think, why don't I just get in?
Speaker 1: You never know what's going to happen, and I think
Speaker 1: that's one of the things that's driving you know, whether
Speaker 1: it's Caitlin Jenner or anybody else is thinking about this race.
Speaker 1: So I think the first interesting moment, of course, will
Speaker 1: be when a Democrat decides to get in. That will
Speaker 1: be the moment to pay attention to. And that moment
Speaker 1: may never come, but if it does, that's when the
Speaker 1: race really gets interesting. Well, if a Democrat gets in,
Speaker 1: they better sleep with one eye open, I mean, because
Speaker 1: the knives are going to be out for him. Literally, really, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, it's it's yeah, it's And that's
Speaker 1: why all the Democrats so far have been, you know,
Speaker 1: very nicely nodding and saying we support Gave and Jessom,
Speaker 1: we support Gave Jes. But look, the reality is they
Speaker 1: can wead Poles as well as anybody else can. If
Speaker 1: they see that Gavin Newsom for some reason begins to
Speaker 1: sink and his numbers, you know, continue to fall, then
Speaker 1: the natural political marketplace will take over, and you know,
Speaker 1: folks with decide all of a sudden they have an
Speaker 1: interest in it. I think interesting. So we'll finish up
Speaker 1: with a little fill in the blank, lony, with your indulgence,
Speaker 1: with all the respect of the to the tragedy and
Speaker 1: sadness of the couple of recent shooting incidents. Uh fulfill
Speaker 1: in the finished the sentence. The current discussion about gun
Speaker 1: laws will uh not lead to any significant changes anytime soon. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's you know, I mean, it's just there's
Speaker 1: both both sides of the argument try to posture in
Speaker 1: their own way, and it really prohibits us from having
Speaker 1: a bigger conversation about what we need to do. Well,
Speaker 1: do you what do you think we need to do? What?
Speaker 1: Because when when there are shootings, I'm horrified. I wish
Speaker 1: there were less of them. Um, But then I hear
Speaker 1: people propose gun laws that I don't think either they're
Speaker 1: either not constitutional or they wouldn't help. Do you have
Speaker 1: an idea of anything that could bring us to less
Speaker 1: of these shootings. Well, what I would say is, you know,
Speaker 1: I do think that there is targeted legislation to your
Speaker 1: point that is constitutional, that you know, things that need
Speaker 1: to be looked at that Congress has talked about. Even
Speaker 1: President Trump talked about some of these things when he
Speaker 1: was in office. But beyond that, one thing I'll say is,
Speaker 1: I do think we need to address some of the
Speaker 1: mental health issues that we have in this country. And
Speaker 1: we don't do nearly enough to fund mental health. We
Speaker 1: don't do nearly enough to identify situations before they get
Speaker 1: to the point where people are unfortunately doing things because
Speaker 1: they're they're not in their right mind. I'm not proposing,
Speaker 1: by the way that all of these situations are described
Speaker 1: by people not in their right mind, but I will
Speaker 1: tell you I believe there's a significant correlation between those
Speaker 1: who have mental health issues and those who are, you know,
Speaker 1: unfortunately engaging in some of these kinds of crimes. And
Speaker 1: I do think it's important for us to take a
Speaker 1: good hard look at how we can improve and better
Speaker 1: address mental health issues in this country. There's no doubt.
Speaker 1: Lani Chen David and Diane Stiffy, fellow in American Public
Speaker 1: Policy Studies at the Over Institution, Director Domestic Policy Studies
Speaker 1: at Stanford Lani. Great to talk to you, Thanks a million,
Speaker 1: thanks guys. All right, you got it.