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.
Speaker 2: 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 there,
Speaker 1: Happy Thursday, Happy super Bowl Thursday. Right are We are
Speaker 1: now in the ninety six hour window of Super Bowl,
Speaker 1: of the sort of the Super Bowl extravaganza. And I'm
Speaker 1: tempted to say that the Super Bowl hype feels lessish.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if I'm saying that because I'm
Speaker 1: buying into the premise that they're you know, we don't
Speaker 1: have the traditional stars in the Super Bowl right now.
Speaker 1: There's no Patrick Mahomes and there's no Tom Brady, and
Speaker 1: there's no Josh Allen. There's no Lamar Jackson, no Aaron Rodgers.
Speaker 1: So I hate to like pile on on that, but
Speaker 1: there does feel this feels less hyped or am I
Speaker 1: just accepting you know, am I putting my own bias
Speaker 1: on it?
Speaker 2: I will.
Speaker 1: I will accept the premise that I might be because
Speaker 1: the Super Bowl doesn't overly excite me, and I think
Speaker 1: out of you know, my great fears that it won't be competitive,
Speaker 1: But I certainly hope we will have a competitive more
Speaker 1: to say about the super Bowl, as I always promise,
Speaker 1: I want to keep the sports to the end. I've
Speaker 1: made a few references and had a few rants about
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, but we now know what happened, and
Speaker 1: I guess you could say, I'm this is my official
Speaker 1: obituary for the Washington Post because my frustration on this.
Speaker 1: This is not and I think different people go about
Speaker 1: this a different way. I do not believe Jeff Bezos's
Speaker 1: job was to be a to treat the Washington Post
Speaker 1: as a charity case. So I'm not you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not asking him to lose money to keep the Washington
Speaker 1: Post up and running. I'm asking him to be honest
Speaker 1: about what he's up to. I'm asking him to be
Speaker 1: more straightforward about his motivation, and I'm asking him to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that he The question is did he hire the
Speaker 1: wrong people or did he actually make a business decision
Speaker 1: that has nothing to do with the business of media
Speaker 1: and everything to do.
Speaker 2: With the business of space.
Speaker 1: Before I get to it, but I want to start
Speaker 1: off with associating myself with something Jeff Bezos said in
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. Thanks to my friend Don van Ada, one
Speaker 1: of the great sports reporters out there, does a lot
Speaker 1: of great work over at ESPN, and it's been everywhere
Speaker 1: times you name it, he re upped this. It's an
Speaker 1: important quote, and I want to quote.
Speaker 2: From Jeff Bezos.
Speaker 1: So, when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty million dollars in twenty thirteen, he did a
Speaker 1: Q and A in the newsroom with legendary Washington Post
Speaker 1: reporter Bob Woodward. And Woodward asked Bezos in front of
Speaker 1: all of his Jeff Bezos new employees at the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: a simple question, Why'd you do it?
Speaker 2: Let me read you Jeff Bezos's answer.
Speaker 1: In twenty thirteen, I finally concluded that I could provide
Speaker 1: runway financial runway because I don't think you can keep
Speaker 1: shrinking the business. You could be profitable and shrinking, and
Speaker 1: that's a survival strategy, but it ultimately leads to irrelevance
Speaker 1: at best, and at worst, it leads to extinction. In
Speaker 1: some ways, I almost want to drop the mic and
Speaker 1: leave right like, there you go, what's about to happen
Speaker 1: to the Washington Post? Exactly what Jeff Bezos said he
Speaker 1: wasn't going to do. So I wanted to start off
Speaker 1: with the Jeff Bezos quote so that as I read you,
Speaker 1: Matt Murray, and I want to say this about Matt
Speaker 1: Murray's the executive editor of the Washington Post. Matt Murray's
Speaker 1: had to be the face of all of this. It
Speaker 1: sucks that anybody has to be the face of this.
Speaker 1: But what really sucks is he didn't make these decisions.
Speaker 1: He has to execute a strategy and execute decisions that
Speaker 1: were made by two people who did not face the
Speaker 1: public or their employees. So you know, look, I do
Speaker 1: not I feel poor Matt Murray's been hung out to dry.
Speaker 1: And you could say, well, he could have resigned well,
Speaker 1: and look, everybody's got pay bills, so be very careful.
Speaker 1: It's always easy to say when you don't have that job,
Speaker 1: to say you could quit, you could do this well,
Speaker 1: you know your circumstance is your circumstance. If you have
Speaker 1: the luxury to do it, great, and you think you
Speaker 1: can make a statement, kudos, But not everybody does.
Speaker 2: Matt Murray is a.
Speaker 1: Great, capable editor, managing editor, editor of a newsroom, runs
Speaker 1: a newsroom. He is not in charge of the business strategy.
Speaker 1: He executes the strategy. So I say this because I
Speaker 1: don't I don't want to see Matt Murray demonized. You
Speaker 1: want to be angry, be angry at Jeff Bezos for
Speaker 1: hiring Will Lewis, and you don't even have to be
Speaker 1: angry at him hiring Will Lewis. What you should be
Speaker 1: angry at is that Will Lewis isn't being shoved out
Speaker 1: the door along with all these employees. Because Will Lewis's
Speaker 1: strategy has been a disaster. Every move he's made has
Speaker 1: cost the Post money, cost the Post readers, cost the
Speaker 1: Post relevance. So the idea that Lewis's job is safe,
Speaker 1: but three hundred Washington Post staffers are being shown the
Speaker 1: door because hey, this is you know, oh you know,
Speaker 1: we just no. The media business is hard. But this
Speaker 1: was a choice. But anyway, Jeff Bezos in twenty thirteen said,
Speaker 1: you do this, and you know you may go to
Speaker 1: extinct irrelevance. So let me read you today's memo that
Speaker 1: I'm sure was approved by Will Lewis and Jeff Bezos.
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to read the whole thing, but
Speaker 1: I'm going to read a few paragraphs, so this one.
Speaker 1: These moves include substantial newsroom reductions, impacting nearly all news departments.
Speaker 1: For the immediate future, we will concentrate on areas that
Speaker 1: demonstrate authority, distinctiveness, and impact and that resonate with readers. Politics,
Speaker 1: national affairs, people power and trends, national security in DC
Speaker 1: and abroad. Forces shaping the future, including science, health, medicine, technology,
Speaker 1: climate in business, journalism that empowers people to take action,
Speaker 1: from advice to wellness, revelatory investigations, and what's capturing attention
Speaker 1: in culture, online and daily life. So that's the that's
Speaker 1: the mission. Apparently let me continue, but we take these
Speaker 1: actions with clarity of purpose. The need has never been
Speaker 1: more urgent to reposition the post. A more flexible, sustainable
Speaker 1: model will help us better navigate unprecedented volatility, competition, technological change,
Speaker 1: news consumption habits, and cost pressure. As you know, we
Speaker 1: have grappled with financial challenges for some time. They have
Speaker 1: affected us multiple in multiple rounds of cost cuts and buyouts,
Speaker 1: along with peer periotic constraints on other kinds of spending.
Speaker 1: We have concluded that the company structure is to root
Speaker 1: it in a different era when we were a dominant
Speaker 1: local print product. This restructure will help to secure our
Speaker 1: future in service of our journalistic mission and provide us
Speaker 1: stability moving forward. Then he keeps going we are far
Speaker 1: from alone and reevaluate our model and rethinking how we operate.
Speaker 1: The ecosystem of news and information on and off platform
Speaker 1: is changing radically. News consumers enjoy more variety, voices, of
Speaker 1: platforms and options than ever before. In just the last
Speaker 1: five years, multiple startups, even individuals have created meaningful products
Speaker 1: that draw at tension and generate impact at low cost.
Speaker 1: And it goes on to blame search and blame all
Speaker 1: these other structural issues that were issues in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: that were issues when Marty Barron took over. So the
Speaker 1: point being there, of course there have been issues. These
Speaker 1: are issues that the New York Times confronted, and as
Speaker 1: Nate Silver, you should check out his substance he did.
Speaker 1: He noted that both you know, essentially this gets it
Speaker 1: to the real business decision that Jeff Bezos made. But
Speaker 1: he did a terrific sort of showing of that. There
Speaker 1: was this study of sort of like impact, sort of
Speaker 1: judging how much how much impact your news stories had,
Speaker 1: and the Times in the Post were essentially neck and neck,
Speaker 1: neck and neck. It's sort of you know, whether it
Speaker 1: was attention impact, how often their articles were however you
Speaker 1: wanted to measure. But there was a pretty good measurement
Speaker 1: that he was using to do this, and I wasn't
Speaker 1: familiar with the specific metric he was using, but it
Speaker 1: made the larger point that both the Times in the
Speaker 1: Post were sort of essentially in the same place late
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, even into twenty twenty, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: you know, the Times like the Post experienced you know,
Speaker 1: this this sort of softening of interest in Washington news
Speaker 1: with the incoming Biden administration, right, and Joe Biden being
Speaker 1: sort of catatonic for most of his term. Obviously meant
Speaker 1: that the attention economy when it came to Washington politics
Speaker 1: was less interested. The Times diversified, right, the Times has
Speaker 1: all had, you know, decided to use the opportunity when
Speaker 1: there was attention, and they they went big, right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they cut their sports department, but only after they bought
Speaker 1: the Athletic Okay, the leading national sports news organization in
Speaker 1: the country. So they actually went bigger on sports, not smaller, right.
Speaker 1: And they went with a brand, and they took a brand,
Speaker 1: and they doubled down on a brand, you know. And
Speaker 1: they've done this with Wirecutter, and they've done this with
Speaker 1: their recipes, and they've done this with games. The Washington
Speaker 1: Post was perfectly positioned to potentially do something similar on
Speaker 1: a variety of fronts. This is among the wealthiest metropolitan
Speaker 1: areas in the country. You have some of the most
Speaker 1: well read people. People pay for news. Not every community
Speaker 1: is got to, is my god. They charge you for
Speaker 1: everything around here, right, people are buying newsletters from punch
Speaker 1: Bowl and buying pro political pro subscriptions and national journal
Speaker 1: and hotline passes and all sorts of things. So this
Speaker 1: is a market that is very comfortable paying for information.
Speaker 1: But Jeff Bezos had a problem. His number one competitor
Speaker 1: for space contracts is Elon Musk. Elon Musk had had
Speaker 1: all sorts of ties to the two front runners for
Speaker 1: president in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four, Ron
Speaker 1: DeSantis and Donald Trump, and Elon Musk was leveraging those
Speaker 1: relationships in any way possible. And when he realized Disantas
Speaker 1: was going nowhere, right, He's eventually.
Speaker 2: Sidled right up to Trump.
Speaker 1: If there is a competitor in the private space race,
Speaker 1: to Elon Musk, it's Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin. The
Speaker 1: only way to build a private space company is to
Speaker 1: have access to the government's resources NASA and all sorts
Speaker 1: of infrastructure. All right, we may be in the privatizing
Speaker 1: era of space, but the structure is still sort of government.
Speaker 1: You're very dependent upon government, and you need access to government.
Speaker 1: And if Donald Trump just shut the door on Jeff Bezos,
Speaker 1: Blue Origin would be just sort of stuck here, maybe
Speaker 1: have to work with another country if they wanted to
Speaker 1: get up and stuff like that. So he looked at
Speaker 1: the look I think his initial decision to purchase. Now,
Speaker 1: when you sort of everything looks obvious now in hindsight.
Speaker 1: So why did twenty thirteen Jeff Basos.
Speaker 2: By the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: We know what he said. I told you up top
Speaker 1: what he said, but he still like, why did he
Speaker 1: think it was a good idea? Well, if you recall
Speaker 1: at the time, right, I believe Amazon had just made
Speaker 1: the decision to create a basically open a second headquarters,
Speaker 1: and they made the decision to open it in Crystal
Speaker 1: City of Virginia.
Speaker 2: Why did they do that?
Speaker 1: Because the most important government contracts to AWS right, the
Speaker 1: arguably the more profitable arm of Amazon, rather than the
Speaker 1: product most of us interact with on a daily or
Speaker 1: some of you on an hourly basis, are Pentagon contracts.
Speaker 1: So Amazon made the decision it needed to be close
Speaker 1: to Washington. Look, I'll be honest, as a political anthropologists,
Speaker 1: the way I looked at it, I was I was rooting.
Speaker 1: I remember remember there was this whole campaign who was
Speaker 1: going to get the second headquarters in? Amazon did a
Speaker 1: very public, almost American Idol style RFPs right request for
Speaker 1: proposals from various cities, and they had certain things they needed.
Speaker 1: They needed easy access to public transportation, among you, affordable housing,
Speaker 1: all sorts of it, but it was public transporation was
Speaker 1: a big thing, There's no doubt. I remember I was
Speaker 1: hoping he'd picked Saint Louis. And you've probably heard me
Speaker 1: a few times. I'm obsessed with Saint Louis for a
Speaker 1: variety of reasons.
Speaker 2: You know, Saint Louis was I ate.
Speaker 1: The America all sort of chipped in to figure out, hey,
Speaker 1: we can't let Detroit spiral, and we got investment in Detroit,
Speaker 1: and we got Wall Street interested in Detroit, and Detroit
Speaker 1: is in better shape today than it's been in a while.
Speaker 1: We've not had that same you know, there was a time,
Speaker 1: right Saint Louis hosted an Olympics nineteen oh four. I
Speaker 1: believe it was because it was the gateway to the West, Right,
Speaker 1: Saint Louis was the most important, Say, before there was
Speaker 1: LA in San Francisco, there were Saint Louis. Right, it
Speaker 1: was the western frontier and it was an extraordinarily important city.
Speaker 1: And even when I was growing up, right, you know,
Speaker 1: it was a hub and had lots of corporate headquarters there, right,
Speaker 1: and isaer Bush being the most iconic, but TWA Transworld
Speaker 1: Airlines that was a huge airline that was not a
Speaker 1: small airline, it was a big airline. And it is withered,
Speaker 1: and there's a we can There's a variety of reasons.
Speaker 1: Saint Louis is one of those. When you if you
Speaker 1: ever wanted to understand how the interstate highway system really
Speaker 1: did segregate communities and destroy urban communities, go traveling downtown
Speaker 1: Saint Louis when you go, and I believe it's fifty five.
Speaker 1: If I have it wrong, I hope my friends and
Speaker 1: Saint Louis will will correct me.
Speaker 2: I've got some.
Speaker 1: I've got off and on ties to Saint Louis, and
Speaker 1: I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 2: Some of you will know what I'm referring to.
Speaker 1: But it's one of those that it's just ugly. It's terrible,
Speaker 1: like you know that. You know, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of urban planners in the twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties
Speaker 1: who essentially used African American communities, you know, just almost
Speaker 1: either bulldozed them, divided them in half. But it was
Speaker 1: you know, if you were in a if you were
Speaker 1: fighting a not in my backyard mindset, you know, the
Speaker 1: black communities lost every one of them. And this was
Speaker 1: all over. You can read the Powerbroker about Robert Moses
Speaker 1: and what he did New York and how this was done.
Speaker 1: You can just see how the interstate system was built
Speaker 1: in Saint Louis. You can see remnants of this in
Speaker 1: New Orleans and some other of these cities that this
Speaker 1: has been done. Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye
Speaker 1: to hangovers. Out of Office gives you the social buzz
Speaker 1: without the next day regret. They're best selling. Out of
Speaker 1: Office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz,
Speaker 1: boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five
Speaker 1: different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe.
Speaker 1: From a gentle one point five milligram micro doose to
Speaker 1: their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience.
Speaker 1: Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative
Speaker 1: to a glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you this, I've given up booze. I don't like
Speaker 1: the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a
Speaker 1: wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy.
Speaker 1: Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived tea see in CBD
Speaker 1: products all designed to boost your mood and simply help
Speaker 1: you unwind. So if you struggle to switch off at night,
Speaker 1: so also as a variety of products specifically designed to
Speaker 1: just simply help you get a better night's sleep, including
Speaker 1: their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for
Speaker 1: deep restorative sleep. So bring on the good vibes and
Speaker 1: treat yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering
Speaker 1: my audience thirty percent off your entire order. So go
Speaker 1: to get sold dot Com use the promo code toodcast.
Speaker 1: Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com promo code
Speaker 1: toodcast for thirty percent off. So I was really but
Speaker 1: there was a lot of reasons. So Saint Louis, I
Speaker 1: think needed a shot in the arm. But I also
Speaker 1: thought it was a Hey, this is a it still
Speaker 1: has some wealth to it. It still is a highly
Speaker 1: educated community, and more importantly, it's it's a more politically
Speaker 1: diverse community. And I would thought the tech industry needed
Speaker 1: more buy in from Red America. So, hey, don't you
Speaker 1: know you're going from Seattle? All right, why don't you
Speaker 1: you know, I thought Saint Louis so for a variety
Speaker 1: of reasons, right, I thought Saint Louis was gonna be
Speaker 1: a good spot. So but the point was they picked
Speaker 1: I remember the last thing I expected was DC. So
Speaker 1: Bezos made a business and so what did he do?
Speaker 2: Then?
Speaker 1: He buys the Washington Post. And I think he saw
Speaker 1: the Washington Post as an investment in being able to
Speaker 1: curry favor in Washington for Amazon. And it made a
Speaker 1: ton of sense. Right, you're the owner of the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: You're going to get more meetings with the lawmakers that
Speaker 1: you need to have meetings with. And you know, you
Speaker 1: could say, okay, Jeff Bezos, well we'll give him that too,
Speaker 1: But it only adds. It's only additive, right, It gives
Speaker 1: you outsized potential influence and all of it, you know,
Speaker 1: and so but but in order in order for that
Speaker 1: to stay, the Post had to be.
Speaker 2: Robust.
Speaker 1: So he did endorse a robust version of the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: I think he saw it as a trophy. He did
Speaker 1: not see it as a business in and of itself, which.
Speaker 2: Has always been my frustration. He saw it.
Speaker 1: As a trophy that could help him with his other businesses.
Speaker 1: So initially that's because he had all these government contracts
Speaker 1: with AWS moves, the second Amazon headquarters, which is all
Speaker 1: about those Pentagon contracts, and then of course there's his
Speaker 1: hobby with space all of it. Having, you know, having
Speaker 1: that kind of influence in Washington was going to be
Speaker 1: helpful all of those businesses. Well, in comes Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and the polarization of media in general and the weaponization
Speaker 1: by the right to attack any journalists, any journalistic organization
Speaker 1: that dared try to report accountability stories about anybody left
Speaker 1: or right. But you know, everything got and Donald Trump
Speaker 1: personalized everything in that first turn, and the question was
Speaker 1: how was it going to impact Bezos? And look, the
Speaker 1: conventional with the rest of official Washington was just as
Speaker 1: alarmed about Donald Trump as the Washington Post was, So
Speaker 1: in some ways, I think Bezos felt comforted that he
Speaker 1: was still on the side. Yes, he was did lose
Speaker 1: a government contract because Donald Trump essentially punished Amazon, punished
Speaker 1: Bezos because he didn't like the coverage he was getting
Speaker 1: out of the Washington Post. Passed forward to twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: Right when.
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos decides to radically remodel the Washington Post. Yes,
Speaker 1: there was a moment that the Post was having.
Speaker 2: They couldn't.
Speaker 1: They were losing some traffic, losing and it had to
Speaker 1: have less to do with it, you know. They just
Speaker 1: they didn't do anything right with the upside that they
Speaker 1: were experiencing in twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen and investing
Speaker 1: in sort of cementing some of the growth that they have. Right,
Speaker 1: you get growth, you should want to cement it.
Speaker 2: They didn't.
Speaker 1: The New York Times did right, just the Salzburger's just
Speaker 1: but there they own the Times. For the Times to
Speaker 1: be a successful business, Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post
Speaker 1: for the success of his other businesses. He never was
Speaker 1: that interested in the success of the business of news
Speaker 1: and information itself, because if he had been, he would
Speaker 1: have made a lot more different decisions. You don't hire
Speaker 1: somebody who's just a tabloid editor from the UK who
Speaker 1: just is a clickbait, attention economy type of journalists. It's
Speaker 1: a great way to make money if you're an individual.
Speaker 1: It's not a long term sustaining business. Just go see
Speaker 1: the UK news market if you need more proof of that.
Speaker 1: And never mind that like will Lewis's journalistic credentials were
Speaker 1: pretty much shit for his connection with the with the
Speaker 1: Murdock scandals that did cost him a bit of his
Speaker 1: reputation in the UK.
Speaker 2: But Bezos makes this hire anyway.
Speaker 1: You don't hire will Lewis because you think there is
Speaker 1: more money to be made in a transformational business to
Speaker 1: be created that somehow others Fred Ryan and Marty Beron
Speaker 1: didn't figure out. You hire will Lewis because you want
Speaker 1: to change the tenor and reputation of the Washington Post itself.
Speaker 1: So again, it's twenty twenty three, Donald Trump's front runner
Speaker 1: for President Donald Trump. Jeff Bezos is watching the entire
Speaker 1: tech community just side and the crypto community are sort
Speaker 1: of both one and the same as decided they've given
Speaker 1: up on Biden, Harris and the Democrats and they're going
Speaker 1: all in with Trump. They know that any policy proposal,
Speaker 1: if you give enough money, is a policy they can
Speaker 1: get enacted. One of those pokes is Elon Musk, who's
Speaker 1: got SpaceX. So Bezos had a choice to make. Now
Speaker 1: he could have sold the Washington Post. But why wouldn't
Speaker 1: he sell the Washington Post Because whoever he sold the
Speaker 1: Washington Post to would likely have kept it a robust
Speaker 1: journalistic organization more like Marty Baron's Washington Post than the
Speaker 1: one whatever version we're going to see over the next
Speaker 1: six months. And it probably would have been heavy on
Speaker 1: accountability of this administration. Some crazy shit's happening every hour
Speaker 1: of every day, and the Washington Post this is who
Speaker 1: they are. In my entire lifetime, right, the Washington Post's
Speaker 1: been a major news look. Essentially, Watergate took the Washington
Speaker 1: Post from being one of two major papers in Washington.
Speaker 1: You had the Washington Star in the Washington Post to
Speaker 1: suddenly being, oh well, there's the New York Times in
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. They went from really good local paper
Speaker 1: to very important national paper. So just about anybody running
Speaker 1: the Post is going to have that as the North Star.
Speaker 1: But if he had sold it, Trump would have blamed
Speaker 1: Bezos still probably still punished him. Made it a little
Speaker 1: bit harder to get those space access to the space
Speaker 1: resources that the government controls lose out in just about
Speaker 1: every competitive bid with SpaceX.
Speaker 2: But if he keeps it, and he makes a few.
Speaker 1: Performative changes, again, it doesn't matter to him whether the
Speaker 1: Post succeeds or fails. We have all established, right Peter
Speaker 1: Baker did a terrific tweet. He's a former Washington poster,
Speaker 1: works at the New York Times, where he noted, And actually,
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos' wealth has been increasing right this, you know,
Speaker 1: the one hundred million dollars is literally a rounding error
Speaker 1: for Jeff Bezos' network worth. And remember it's networth. This
Speaker 1: is he had to give half of his work to
Speaker 1: his first wife and he still.
Speaker 2: Has this kind of network.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't matter if the Post succeeds or fails.
Speaker 1: What matters is does Blue Origin have access to the
Speaker 1: government space resources? Is ABS going to get all of
Speaker 1: its government contractsnewed by the Pentagon? So yes, Jeff Bezos
Speaker 1: made a business decision, but it was not about the
Speaker 1: business of The Washington Post. The Washington Post is a
Speaker 1: pawn in his gallery that is used to make sure
Speaker 1: the other businesses aren't punished by a very pugilistic president
Speaker 1: who doesn't believe that there should be a free press
Speaker 1: that's there to be critical of him as much as
Speaker 1: is a free press there that can be praiseworthy of
Speaker 1: him if that organization deems it worthy. So I do
Speaker 1: think it's important that I accept the premise that this
Speaker 1: was a business decision. But don't you tell me it's
Speaker 1: about the business of news and information, because if he
Speaker 1: was making that kind of business decision, number one he
Speaker 1: would have sold it, or number two, he would have
Speaker 1: created the Everything information store. Right now, as somebody else
Speaker 1: said to me, you know, it's possible that, you know,
Speaker 1: Jeff Beson is just not that bright, meaning he's really
Speaker 1: good at one thing, building Amazon. There's no evidence at
Speaker 1: Blue Origins any good as a private space company. Yet
Speaker 1: you know he is not you know, look whatever, Elon
Speaker 1: Musk has a lot of character flaws as a human being.
Speaker 1: But the guy's a genius. We know that, all right.
Speaker 2: He is.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're going to tell me, who do
Speaker 1: you want in charge of building a tunnel from LA
Speaker 1: to San Francisco. Yeah, I trust his math before I
Speaker 1: trust anybody else's math. I just don't want Elon Musk
Speaker 1: worrying about culture and society because I think he's a weirdo.
Speaker 1: But even weirdos are geniuses. In fact, a lot of
Speaker 1: geniuses are weirdos. So it's just possible he you know,
Speaker 1: he's just you know, net worth does not a high
Speaker 1: net worth does not always mean high IQ. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: wants to believe that, right. He wants to believe only
Speaker 1: dumb people are poor and all rich people are smart
Speaker 1: because he's rich and he knows he's not very smart,
Speaker 1: but he wants people to think he's smart. So this
Speaker 1: is sort of the paint by numbers perception that way
Speaker 1: too many people in government are practicing these days. And
Speaker 1: I watch it a lot. The deference that gets paid
Speaker 1: to wealthy people in general, but particularly by politicians and
Speaker 1: others is kind of gross when you know they were
Speaker 1: an expert at one thing either they you know a
Speaker 1: lot of times right, I would say about the super
Speaker 1: rich people I've ever been around, about half inherited their
Speaker 1: money and about half, you know, did it because they
Speaker 1: were a part of building a business. But it didn't
Speaker 1: mean they were an expert at that business. It didn't
Speaker 1: automatically mean they were any good at anything else.
Speaker 2: So that is a possibility.
Speaker 1: Because if you were to look at the what the
Speaker 1: Washington Post is deciding to do, it is about the
Speaker 1: dumbest business decision you can do. So let's go back
Speaker 1: to my Matt Murray emails. You could say, I've got
Speaker 1: a lot of strong opinions on this. For the immediate future.
Speaker 1: We're going to concentrate on areas that demonstrate authority, distinctiveness,
Speaker 1: and impact and that resonate with readers. Politics, national affairs, people,
Speaker 1: power and trends, National security of DC and abroad. Forces
Speaker 1: shaping the future, including science, health, medicine, technology, climate, and business.
Speaker 1: You know who else has that same north star? Every
Speaker 1: other news organization that cover is in Washington or covers Washington.
Speaker 1: That's Politico's north star. I could argue that's you know,
Speaker 1: punch Bowl probably covers eighty percent of that National journal
Speaker 1: or the Hotline would have said something like that, The
Speaker 1: New York Times coverage of Washington.
Speaker 2: Has that as a north star.
Speaker 1: So what the Washington Post had that none of these
Speaker 1: other news organizations had is they also were the regional
Speaker 1: and local authority, So they had a distinct You know,
Speaker 1: last time I checked, do you want to stand out
Speaker 1: from your competitors or do you want to look very
Speaker 1: similar to your competitors? The Washington Post has made a
Speaker 1: decision to go small and to become more like Politico,
Speaker 1: and the irony is it right? The founders of Political
Speaker 1: Jim Benheid and John Harris left the Post and said, hey,
Speaker 1: they basically say there needs to be you know, the Post,
Speaker 1: and you know, the Post should be focusing more on
Speaker 1: these areas and they could own this area now. Jim
Speaker 1: Benheid John Harris weren't advocating getting rid of sports and
Speaker 1: culture and all of that. What they were arguing is
Speaker 1: that the Post should be more robust, be smarter about
Speaker 1: some of its core authoritative topics, including politics in the
Speaker 1: coverage of Washington. And I've always said that the Washington
Speaker 1: Post for my adult lifetime used to what I used
Speaker 1: to say when I worked at the National Journal in
Speaker 1: the Hotline. He said, boy, the Washington Post lets a
Speaker 1: bunch of us live right, roll call, Politico, National Journal,
Speaker 1: punch Bowl. If the Washington Post chose to get involved
Speaker 1: in any of those areas and become you know, hourly
Speaker 1: authorities on what's happening on Capitol Hill like punch Bowl,
Speaker 1: you know, or daily authorities about what's happening on campaign
Speaker 1: trail like Hotline, or daily and hourly newsletters about all
Speaker 1: sorts of industries in Washington like Politico, they could do it,
Speaker 1: but it would put these others out of business, you know.
Speaker 1: So now the Post wants to retreat and essentially become
Speaker 1: a Washington trade publication that covers the business.
Speaker 2: Of Washington.
Speaker 1: That's Politico, that's Role Call, that's National Journal, that's Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: That's how the New York Times covered all. You get
Speaker 1: my point. So, if this were a business decision about
Speaker 1: positioning The Washington Post in a place to be a
Speaker 1: successful standalone business on its own, this is not what
Speaker 1: you would do. So again, it's a business decision, but
Speaker 1: it had nothing to do with the business of the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Now I'm going to close on this before
Speaker 1: we get to my conversation with Danny fun about mobile
Speaker 1: gaming and whether this is a if we suddenly put
Speaker 1: a carton of cigarettes, the proverbial cartner cigarettes in the
Speaker 1: hands of every eighteen year old boy in America, I guess,
Speaker 1: twenty one year old boy in America, young man in America.
Speaker 1: I'm going to confess something I am. I am enthusiastic
Speaker 1: about the future of news and information. I'm enthusiastic about
Speaker 1: independent media because look, I think the I think Jeff
Speaker 1: Bezos here behaved like an evil rich guy stereotype, right,
Speaker 1: couldn't faith when he bought the Washington Post, he couldn't
Speaker 1: wait to be in the newsroom when he absolutely destroys
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. He's meeting with peg Pete Hegseth at
Speaker 1: Blue Origin and his wife hanging out at a Paris
Speaker 1: fashion show. Right, it is a classic, Like, I mean,
Speaker 1: you couldn't script it better, right if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: It is gilded age. Let them eat cake. You can
Speaker 1: pick your metaphor. And I'll tell you I do think
Speaker 1: the pitchforks are out. Bernie Sanders said something interesting, and
Speaker 1: you know, Bernie has a way of taking any issue
Speaker 1: and saying it's about the millionaires and the billionaires. But
Speaker 1: he made an interesting observation about the Epstein files, and
Speaker 1: he says, you know, one of the reasons he thinks
Speaker 1: that there's so much interest in the Epstein files beyond
Speaker 1: the conspiracy theorists. Right, conspiracy theorists love the Epstein files
Speaker 1: for a variety of other reasons. But there's sort of
Speaker 1: there's a next level of interest. Right, there's just a
Speaker 1: it just garneled it, and that is, these fucking rich
Speaker 1: people play by their own set of rules, and look
Speaker 1: at the shit they get away with. And so here's
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos behaving by a whole other set of rules.
Speaker 1: And I you know, look, I blame myself for assuming
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos what's more worn than Elon Musk? Right, you know,
Speaker 1: Warren Buffett bought the Omaha World Herald of years ago
Speaker 1: because he wanted a good newspaper to read as he
Speaker 1: stayed in Omaha. And I think I know what I thought.
Speaker 1: I thought, Jeff Bezos sort of raised middle class kid,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of raised in a way that a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans go through, you know, single parent for
Speaker 1: a while, stepfather all, you know, moved around a couple
Speaker 1: of times, sort of lived, had a lived, had a lived,
Speaker 1: working class, middle class ferry experience that maybe may have
Speaker 1: ground him differently than it grounds a guy like Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: who was you know, raised by a weirdo father. And
Speaker 1: you know, or some of these tech guys who are
Speaker 1: all you know, a lot of them are, you know,
Speaker 1: like Bill Gates was you know, his dad had you know,
Speaker 1: he wasn't. I think he was born in second base,
Speaker 1: not third base.
Speaker 2: But you get the drift, right, you get my drift.
Speaker 1: And so I think, you know, I was even impressed
Speaker 1: with how he handled his divorce. Right, he didn't fight
Speaker 1: it half and half, except that the premise that he
Speaker 1: couldn't have built his built Amazon without a spouse. You know,
Speaker 1: perhaps he was the guilty party and he felt like
Speaker 1: he had to just.
Speaker 2: Do it that way. I don't know, but it's interesting.
Speaker 1: It feels like there was one Jeff Bezos that we
Speaker 1: all thought we knew, and then there's the guy who's
Speaker 1: more interested in being in Hollywood, more interested in having
Speaker 1: these you know, weddings in Italy and Europe and having
Speaker 1: all sort of being flashy with his money. Right, it's
Speaker 1: his prerogative, enjoy it, Sure, go ahead, But I don't
Speaker 1: know if you know it is the amount of white
Speaker 1: collar anger that's going to be now coupled with blue
Speaker 1: collar anger. Right if blue collar Americans didn't like Mett
Speaker 1: Romney because he looked like the boss that was going
Speaker 1: to lay them off, and that's why some of these
Speaker 1: guys who may not have liked the skin color of
Speaker 1: Barack Obama but voted for him in twenty twelve, because
Speaker 1: Mett Romney looked like the guy that was going to
Speaker 1: lay him off. Well, now blue collar and white collar
Speaker 1: America are going to be pretty angry at the boss.
Speaker 1: And you know it's it is actions like this that
Speaker 1: I this this sort of moment that's coming, and I think, again,
Speaker 1: I blame myself. I thought I'd bet I've been in
Speaker 1: a few dinners with Jeff bezos side, you know, clearly
Speaker 1: not enough to truly get the measure of the man.
Speaker 1: But he seemed like a pretty smart, well read, sort
Speaker 1: of pragmatic individual. Meaning I thought he could read a room,
Speaker 1: and I don't think any of these tech guys can
Speaker 1: read a room right now. And you know, whether we
Speaker 1: call him a tech guy, he's kind of more of
Speaker 1: an old retail brick and mortar guy that used sort
Speaker 1: of technology to sort of take over the retail market.
Speaker 1: But you know, I don't think this is good politics.
Speaker 1: And the party that associates the most with the wealthiest
Speaker 1: people right now is on the right. You know, it's funny,
Speaker 1: for a period of time, all the rich people, the
Speaker 1: richest people in America seemed to be Obama supporters, right
Speaker 1: They loved Obama, the celebrity of Obama.
Speaker 2: And now they are.
Speaker 1: Whether they don't, maybe they don't like hanging with Trump,
Speaker 1: but they're all paying the price to hang with them.
Speaker 1: But like I said, the good news is the public
Speaker 1: is not going to trust corporate owned media or billionaire
Speaker 1: owned media. They're only going to trust independent media. And
Speaker 1: the good news is there is whether we call it
Speaker 1: DMV today, DMV now, But the appetite, I mean, the
Speaker 1: Anthony Davis trade for the Washington Wizards has not been
Speaker 1: covered by the Washington Post. It broke about three hours
Speaker 1: after the Matt Murray announced the end of the sports department,
Speaker 1: and so I was curious if they'd even like note like,
Speaker 1: this is the biggest trade in Washington Wizards for the
Speaker 1: Washington Wizards, at least since getting rid of Black Bradley Beal,
Speaker 1: and I think bigger than that, maybe not since Chris
Speaker 1: the acquiring Chris Weber. And there's no Washington Sports section
Speaker 1: to cover it. I went over to see if they
Speaker 1: had any updates, maybe just carry a wire story. So
Speaker 1: now in order to call it, you know, I'm going
Speaker 1: to check out. I keep, for no offense to my
Speaker 1: friends at the Washington Times. I keep forgetting that they're
Speaker 1: still doing some sports coverage there, and good for them.
Speaker 1: So I'll check that out, and I'll be checking it
Speaker 1: out more for obvious reasons. I love my local sports teams,
Speaker 1: not all of them, but if you will. But the
Speaker 1: point about sports is This is sports is the community
Speaker 1: glue that builds the trust that gets people to believe
Speaker 1: the hard news that's being reported. So don't tell me
Speaker 1: sports is not worth the investment. What that tells me
Speaker 1: is you have a bunch of newsroom leaders, particularly somebody
Speaker 1: that you're importing in where they don't have you know,
Speaker 1: they they their news organizations. You know, they've never covered
Speaker 1: sports the way our news organizations have. So it is
Speaker 1: a cultural disconnect. And I think will Lewis doesn't fully
Speaker 1: appreciate what he has just done or what he thinks
Speaker 1: he's recommended. But here's what I will say. I don't
Speaker 1: think the Post will recover from this. They may exist,
Speaker 1: just like Newsweek exists, but his newsweek, the newsweek of
Speaker 1: Howard Feinman, of Evan Thomas, we all know it's not.
Speaker 1: It's kind of newsweek in name only. Now, look, there's
Speaker 1: still some good reporters left. The congressional team at the
Speaker 1: Post was fairly untouched. But what's it going to look
Speaker 1: like in a year. And let me just tell you,
Speaker 1: it is going to be fascinating to see what the
Speaker 1: subscriber base looks like.
Speaker 2: In six months.
Speaker 1: They thought they lost a whole bunch of subscribers after
Speaker 1: the bizarre editorial page shakedown, another business decision that it
Speaker 1: was all about space and nothing about the business of
Speaker 1: the Post. They ain't say nothing yet, So rest in peace,
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Maybe the brand will come back, maybe somebody
Speaker 1: else buys it, or maybe we just build something new.
Speaker 2: It's okay. The New York Herald Tribune is no longer here.
Speaker 1: Than the world's okay. The Washington Star is no longer here.
Speaker 1: There's some great journalists looking for work. I am many
Speaker 1: of you know what I'm up to. I've been quiet
Speaker 1: lately about what I'm up to, but I'm I'm getting
Speaker 1: closer to being in a position that hopefully I can
Speaker 1: help contribute to solving this problem in the Washington market
Speaker 1: in particular. So in that sense, thank you Jeff Bezos
Speaker 1: for giving an entrepreneur like myself and a few others
Speaker 1: the opportunity to show that you can do your civic
Speaker 1: duty for your community and also make a dollar or
Speaker 1: two while you're at it. Having good life insurance is
Speaker 1: incredibly important. I know from personal experience. I was sixteen
Speaker 1: when my father passed away. We didn't have any money.
Speaker 1: He didn't leave us in the best shape. My mother,
Speaker 1: single mother, now widow, myself sixteen, trying.
Speaker 2: To 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 we found wasn't a lot, but it was
Speaker 1: important at the time, and it's why I was able
Speaker 1: to go to college. Little did he know how important
Speaker 1: that would be in that moment.
Speaker 2: Well, guess what.
Speaker 1: That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.
Speaker 1: They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
Speaker 1: family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Speaker 1: Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
Speaker 1: fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
Speaker 1: in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
Speaker 1: just answer a few health questions online. You can get
Speaker 1: a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
Speaker 1: can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
Speaker 1: You can get up to three million dollars in coverage,
Speaker 1: and some policies start as low as two dollars a
Speaker 1: day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
Speaker 1: medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family
Speaker 1: with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quot at
Speaker 1: ethos dot com slash chuck. So again that's Ethos dot
Speaker 1: com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates
Speaker 1: themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance
Speaker 1: is something you should really think about it, especially if
Speaker 1: you've got a growing family. All right with that, let
Speaker 1: me give you a few thoughts on the on the
Speaker 1: Super Bowl, Eric, I have my fear is that it's
Speaker 1: a blowout that we're having eighties nineties Super Bowl right
Speaker 1: where the NFC is so much more dominant than the AFC.
Speaker 1: And you know, it was like, you know, whatever AFC
Speaker 1: team sort of hacked their way to the Super Bowl.
Speaker 1: Remember when the San Diego Chargers with Nate Tron means business,
Speaker 1: you know, and they got there and they got kind
Speaker 1: of pummeled by Steve Young's forty nine ers. Right, all
Speaker 1: those Buffalo bill blowouts from the Jim Kelly era. I mean,
Speaker 1: the only team NFC team that didn't they would win
Speaker 1: super Bowls without blowing out the AFC were the Giants, Right.
Speaker 1: You had the Scott Norwood field goal. And then even
Speaker 1: the game against the Broncos. I think that the Giants
Speaker 1: trailed at halftime and then they ended up they ended
Speaker 1: up beating the Broncos for the first Super Bowl for Parcels.
Speaker 1: So I fear we're gonna have one of those games.
Speaker 2: I hope not.
Speaker 1: Right the borings there was, there was nothing that I
Speaker 1: don't know whether super Bowl parties right now, That's that's
Speaker 1: the That's the other question, is a super Bowl party.
Speaker 1: Is it better to be at a super Bowl party
Speaker 1: if the games will blowout? And is it better to
Speaker 1: be at home if the game is close? Right? So
Speaker 1: that's the one upside might be if this is a blowout,
Speaker 1: it makes for socializing at the super Bowl party a
Speaker 1: little bit easier. But there's nothing I hate, you know.
Speaker 1: I love me a good super Bowl party. I've got
Speaker 1: a great We've got some great friends that love to host.
Speaker 1: And but my only small peeve about it is if
Speaker 1: it's a really competitive game, It's like, I don't want
Speaker 1: to be at a party while I'm watching anyway, So
Speaker 1: my fear is that, right. I love the Sam Donald story.
Speaker 1: I still remember Freshman, the freshman at USC who was unbelievable,
Speaker 1: and I have I've not seen him be that good
Speaker 1: until he was a Viking.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: By the way, what an indictment on the Jets, right
Speaker 1: the Sam Donald redemption Tour. Basically once he left the
Speaker 1: Jets and could get anywhere else, it seemed to over
Speaker 1: time write his mental state memo to young quarterbacks, pray
Speaker 1: you don't get drafted by the New York Jets. My
Speaker 1: gut is also low scoring game because the dirty little
Speaker 1: secret about watching the Seahawks is they don't seem to
Speaker 1: want to put the game in Darnald's hands one hundred right,
Speaker 1: They've had they had a great one two punch, they
Speaker 1: only have one running back obviously that they're they one
Speaker 1: of their two stars there.
Speaker 2: But I mean, he's been a.
Speaker 1: Machine walker the way I mean, I know, I know
Speaker 1: this facing him in fantasy right, and that defense is outstanding.
Speaker 1: Here's what I think about the Patriots. A Mike Vrabel
Speaker 1: Patriots team is not going to get blown out. So
Speaker 1: I do believe that they will muck this game up
Speaker 1: a little bit. So I am I am smelling very
Speaker 1: low scoring. You know, I could see twenty to three,
Speaker 1: I could see sixteen to seven. I could see, you
Speaker 1: know that it could be Seattle's always in control, but
Speaker 1: right they don't seem to pull away.
Speaker 2: Maybe a few more.
Speaker 1: Field goals than touchdowns. The May injury concerns me a
Speaker 1: little bit, you know, nothing like having a shoulder issue there,
Speaker 1: because his great strength is to throw the ball down
Speaker 1: the field a little bit, so you have to ask
Speaker 1: yourself about that. So needless to say, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: If you're going to make me put money, I'm I
Speaker 1: would I'd feel the most comfortable with, particularly a first
Speaker 1: half under and probably the overall as well. And I'd
Speaker 1: be And I think it's Seahawks or nobody for me.
Speaker 1: And like I told you, I I you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's plenty of player props out there, but in some
Speaker 1: ways I do think player props are sort of a
Speaker 1: bigger problem.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It's sort of my own more my own small little
Speaker 1: moral line in the sand that I'm drawing on that.
Speaker 2: So enjoy the Super Bowl.
Speaker 1: And you know, I have to say, I'm as you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a huge football fan. It's going to be a
Speaker 1: long five months until the start until the Hurricanes first game,
Speaker 1: which by the way, is Labor Day Friday.
Speaker 2: Get ready so.
Speaker 1: I will not be talking about college football perhaps until
Speaker 1: at least September second or third. The one thing I'm
Speaker 1: going to watch for the advertisements is I am very
Speaker 1: curious what the AI messaging is. Not how many ads
Speaker 1: use AI, but how AI is messaged. Right, remember a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago the Super Bowl is where we
Speaker 1: found out how Crypto is going to market itself. I
Speaker 1: have a feeling right this captive eyeballs we're going to
Speaker 1: I'm very you know, to watch all the different ways
Speaker 1: the AI lean in AI companies are going to communicate.
Speaker 1: I know that's something that I'm intrigued about, curious about,
Speaker 1: and we'll be making a note up. So with that,
Speaker 1: let's do a little last check and then we'll get
Speaker 1: out of here. As Chuck, all right, I got six
Speaker 1: on the screen. I'm going to hit six. That's my goal.
Speaker 1: I'm sticking to it, all right. This question comes from James.
Speaker 1: He says, thanks again for the podcast. Listening from France
Speaker 1: right on helps me think differently about US politics and
Speaker 1: gives me hope. As an institutionalist, I am the king
Speaker 1: of the institutionalists in independent media. You've said Congress has
Speaker 1: lost its incentives to act as a check on presidential power.
Speaker 1: And I wonder if that's partly due to nationalized parties
Speaker 1: expecting members to fall in line behind the president. But
Speaker 1: states still defend their authority across party lines. What incentives
Speaker 1: allow that? And could something similar help Congress reclaim its power. Well,
Speaker 1: so this is where I believe that the fact, you know,
Speaker 1: this is where the power of the primary coupled with
Speaker 1: the power of gerrymandering, coupled with the power of too
Speaker 1: big of congressional districts. Right, So I'm on my hobby
Speaker 1: horse and about that the actual size of the US
Speaker 1: House is way too small and the shrinking, the fact
Speaker 1: that the that the representative democracy is further away from
Speaker 1: the average person. Right, we have one member of Congress
Speaker 1: now per eight hundred thousand people, when in nineteen thirty
Speaker 1: we were one member of Congress per three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand people. Eight hundred thousands is the size of
Speaker 1: a major city in this country. And you can't tell
Speaker 1: me that is a single community of interest, right. New
Speaker 1: York City is not a single community of interests. Austin,
Speaker 1: Texas is not a single community of interests. Detroit, Michigan
Speaker 1: is not a single community of interests. There are multiple
Speaker 1: communities of interests within said metro area. So this is
Speaker 1: where it's like if you were to ask me, what's
Speaker 1: one reform that could do this, Well, it's getting rid
Speaker 1: of partisan primaries, right if you could empower all voters
Speaker 1: in every congressional district to have more of a say
Speaker 1: on who the representative is. So either you're drawing districts
Speaker 1: to be competitive, which is why I'm always careful not
Speaker 1: to just trash all jerrymandering because in the way we've
Speaker 1: all self sorted as a country, we may need a
Speaker 1: gerrymander to create competition. But you know, you could mandate competition.
Speaker 1: You could mandate the size of the districts. Maybe no
Speaker 1: district can be bigger than point zero three percent of
Speaker 1: the population, which would put it in about one perform
Speaker 1: in two thousand at the moment. And if you did that,
Speaker 1: I think it would do. If we did that, and
Speaker 1: then the gerrymandering doesn't is an impactful. Partisanship gets diluted,
Speaker 1: and I think incentives become more regional and geographic rather
Speaker 1: than partisan. Right now, when you have jerrymandering and partisan primaries,
Speaker 1: it means the head of the party has all sorts
Speaker 1: of outsized influence on the individual member of Congress.
Speaker 2: But if you.
Speaker 1: Have if your power comes from because you're you know,
Speaker 1: the whole of your electorate, well, then the electorate itself
Speaker 1: has more influence on you than the party leader, because
Speaker 1: the party leader can only help you with one part
Speaker 1: of your of your constituency, versus having to answer to everybody.
Speaker 1: So you know, I think we need all three things right.
Speaker 1: Doubling the side of the house right now, it would
Speaker 1: I would want it should just be one perform a
Speaker 1: thousand right now. That would mean doubling the sides of
Speaker 1: the House. That in turn minimizes the impact of jerrymandering.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, I get rid of partisan
Speaker 1: primaries and essentially all party you know, everybody votes, and
Speaker 1: you know, uh for for everybody, the top two whatever
Speaker 1: it is, you do it that way. Doesn't mean parties
Speaker 1: can't endorse, doesn't mean parties won't have preferences of who
Speaker 1: the officially endorsed candidate is, and then they can give
Speaker 1: those resources in a larger in an all voter primary.
Speaker 1: But this is how we elect our mayors, and our
Speaker 1: mayors are the least partisan office holders in America and
Speaker 1: if we're tired of partisanship, that's the path to go.
Speaker 2: Thank you, James.
Speaker 1: Next question boy, another year, European question from another question
Speaker 1: from Europe. It's a sextuary insight insightful analysis that really
Speaker 1: helps me understand you as politics more clearly from a
Speaker 1: European perspective.
Speaker 2: I have two questions.
Speaker 1: How likely is it that the divide between MAGA and
Speaker 1: Liberal America becomes unbridgable and turns violent and our Americans
Speaker 1: even able to protest effectively given how comparatively limited their
Speaker 1: demonstrations seem compared to European protest kind regards Bernard from MEU.
Speaker 1: You know, Fuddy Bernard, I've heard this from some of
Speaker 1: my other European friends, going, how come more people aren't
Speaker 1: in the streets right? My counter on that is, we did,
Speaker 1: we did the streets stuff, and you know, the public
Speaker 1: was in the streets a lot in twenty seventeen. In
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, I think now it's a bit more concentrated.
Speaker 1: But one one could argue that, you know, those No
Speaker 1: Kings protests keep growing, and we're about to have another one,
Speaker 1: I think, and that's only going to keep growing. So
Speaker 1: and we've seen the demonstrations in Minneapolis have been huge.
Speaker 1: But I understand, I get what you're saying. I think
Speaker 1: what you're saying is it feels like European protests have
Speaker 1: been bigger than about Trump in America than the American.
Speaker 2: Protests about Trump in America. As for the issue of.
Speaker 1: That unbridgeable divide, I am. I'm mostly common this won't
Speaker 1: end with violence, that this era that here's what I
Speaker 1: and I say this, and I don't say it for
Speaker 1: dramatic purposes, but look, we're going to get through this.
Speaker 1: We've been through these periods before.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: A lot of people had to die before we got
Speaker 1: through it with the Civil War, a lot of people
Speaker 1: died with our horrible labor laws in the nineteen hundreds
Speaker 1: and the nineteen tens. A lot of people die during
Speaker 1: the Civil rights movement. So the question is how many
Speaker 1: people have to die before we sort of turn the corner.
Speaker 1: How violent it's already violent. We've already had violence right
Speaker 1: January six was pretty violent. We've had two assassination attempts
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump. We've had those assassinations in Minneapolis, first
Speaker 1: of the lawmakers, then.
Speaker 2: The two.
Speaker 1: The two killings by by Ice agents. The question is, so, look,
Speaker 1: we'll get through this? How how much blood has to
Speaker 1: be spilled? Can we get through this without a full
Speaker 1: fledged civil war? And you heard Tim Wilson. Now, I
Speaker 1: I think we don't want to be there, but it
Speaker 1: only takes you know, we are on it. We're in
Speaker 1: a tinder box.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you a scenario that I've been very nervous about.
Speaker 1: If things had kept escalating in Minneapolis. Now, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: chose the escalation, so did Tom Holman, right by sending
Speaker 1: Tom omen there. And they're making and some of the
Speaker 1: moves are real, and some of them might be the
Speaker 1: UH for show. But it all is in an attempt
Speaker 1: to de escalate, not escalate. And what it but things escalate?
Speaker 1: It does Tim Walls call in the National Guard? And
Speaker 1: if Tim Walls calls in the National Guard? Does Trump
Speaker 1: then try to federalize that National Guard?
Speaker 2: And who does is?
Speaker 1: Do we see the National Guard and Minneapolis PD shooting
Speaker 1: or being shot at by Ice and vice versa?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: So I almost am uncomfortable even articulating that scenario, But
Speaker 1: we have to be honest, right, it's all it's crossed,
Speaker 1: clearly crossed your mind and it's crossed my mind. But
Speaker 1: I don't think these divides are unbridgable. But I do think,
Speaker 1: and I go back to something I've said, and I
Speaker 1: think I've said it here a few times, and I
Speaker 1: certainly say to my speeches, which is, you know what,
Speaker 1: I think the biggest reason why particularly you guys, you
Speaker 1: guys in Europe are struggling. You can't figure out what
Speaker 1: you're seeing here. This looks so un American. Is the
Speaker 1: American the America you're used to was Cold War America. Well,
Speaker 1: Cold War America was an outlier in America. Cold War
Speaker 1: America was the most pragmatic version of America that we had.
Speaker 2: The rest.
Speaker 1: American politics up until nineteen forty, you know, seventeen eighty
Speaker 1: nine right for the Constitution in nineteen forty and American politics,
Speaker 1: you know, from I'm going to go ahead and say
Speaker 1: two thousand and five, two thousand and four to today
Speaker 1: has been very familiar. Our natural state is polarization. We
Speaker 1: make fifty two forty eight, fifty one forty nine decisions.
Speaker 1: We don't make seventy thirty decisions. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of people that are always going to be in the
Speaker 1: minority when we make decisions as a country. It's not
Speaker 1: lost on me that we had our biggest growth as
Speaker 1: an economic and security power in the Cold War, when
Speaker 1: we were the most pragmatic, when we both parties kept
Speaker 1: their extremes at bay, and you know, we focused on
Speaker 1: the existential threat that was the Soviets and the fear
Speaker 1: of nuclear holocaust, and that kept us sober politically. Then
Speaker 1: that fear went away. So it so, I don't so,
Speaker 1: I guess what I'm saying is the divides have always
Speaker 1: been unbridgable. But it but they but they've been tolerated. Right,
Speaker 1: We tolerate our divides. We accept that we disagree on
Speaker 1: what those divides are, and we kind of muddle through.
Speaker 1: So we'll get there.
Speaker 2: But we've done a ton of damage. And you know,
Speaker 2: I it's going to.
Speaker 1: Take decades to restore the faith of global allies to
Speaker 1: stick by the United States again. We're probably going to
Speaker 1: have to We're probably going to have to go seventy
Speaker 1: percent of the way when all of these relationships for
Speaker 1: a while, when for a long time we only had
Speaker 1: to go thirty percent of the way. And we're going
Speaker 1: to have to have leaders, people that run for president
Speaker 1: that accept the premise of what America is supposed to be.
Speaker 1: And you know, look, this is the first un American
Speaker 1: president we've ever had. He does not believe in the
Speaker 1: story of America. He does not believe that America an idea.
Speaker 1: You know, he doesn't.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing with Trump. It's not that he
Speaker 1: doesn't believe it. I don't think he's really thought about it.
Speaker 1: You know, I think about it all the time. I
Speaker 1: think of every president as a chapter in the story
Speaker 1: of America. He doesn't most of our not most every
Speaker 1: president in my lifetime, and every president for the most
Speaker 1: part that I've read about, believed that a baton was
Speaker 1: passed to them and they were going to be passing
Speaker 1: a baton, and that they were all writing another chapter
Speaker 1: in the story of America. Donald Trump doesn't want a chapter.
Speaker 1: He wants to throw away that book and only have
Speaker 1: a book, the Book of Trump. But he does not
Speaker 1: believe in the You know, I don't think he knows
Speaker 1: what a Federalist paper is. And I promise you he
Speaker 1: hasn't read it all. If he's read one, he didn't
Speaker 1: done it since grade school. Next question comes from got
Speaker 1: somebody from Chicago it's Mike, he said. Some presdident I
Speaker 1: were debating wild scenarios where Trump could serve a third term.
Speaker 1: One theory floated was that if Trump became Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House and the newly elected president and VP resigned,
Speaker 1: he could ascend to the presidency again. I know the
Speaker 1: Constitution bars him from being elected president again, but could
Speaker 1: he legally return via the line of succession. So it's funny.
Speaker 1: The Speaker of the House loophole has always been the
Speaker 1: one I've thought about too. I interviewed Steve Bannon about
Speaker 1: ten months ago and we went through this sould Trump
Speaker 1: twenty eight and he's like, oh, he's going to be
Speaker 1: unbalot And I said, I said, I know you want to.
Speaker 1: I said, constitution bars it. And he says, well, you
Speaker 1: just wait, We've got a path. It's the only one
Speaker 1: I can think of, is that one. I think that's
Speaker 1: the only one. I think it's the you know, it
Speaker 1: fits the description that my friend likes to say, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, our biggest problem with Trump is failure of imagination.
Speaker 1: You know, Donald Trump doesn't spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: thinking about what's the best way to tame the Iranians,
Speaker 1: but he does think a lot of time about all
Speaker 1: the different loopholes that he can exploit.
Speaker 2: In the Constitution.
Speaker 1: When you look at the language of the twenty second Amendment,
Speaker 1: it keeps using the word elected. Right, So that's loophole
Speaker 1: that you've found very well, and I think that that's
Speaker 1: a fair loophole. But the twelfth Amendment is fascinating because
Speaker 1: the wording doesn't have elected in there. It just simply says,
Speaker 1: no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall
Speaker 1: be eligible to that a vice president of the United States,
Speaker 1: and you're ineligible, no person. Let's read the word, no
Speaker 1: person shall be elected to the office of president more
Speaker 1: than twice. And no person who has held the office
Speaker 1: of president or acted as president for more than two
Speaker 1: years of a term to which some other person was
Speaker 1: elected president shall be elected to the office of the
Speaker 1: president more than once.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That's if a vice president takes over and serves less
Speaker 1: than two years of the previous president's term, they can
Speaker 1: still run for two full terms of their own, potentially
Speaker 1: serving ten years. So you know, the word elected matters
Speaker 1: a lot there. Right. You have to assume that Republicans
Speaker 1: win a House majority for this to happen. You have
Speaker 1: to assume that Donald Trump can get all the votes
Speaker 1: he needs to be speaker, so he would still have
Speaker 1: to go through a process right to become speaker. And
Speaker 1: I just, you know, so I think you've identified the
Speaker 1: one loophole where you could claim a fig leaf of
Speaker 1: constitutional legitimacy. But in some ways it reminds me of
Speaker 1: Putin and Medvedev. So Putin decided to become prime minister
Speaker 1: to abide by what was a two term limit in Russia,
Speaker 1: right for president.
Speaker 2: So what does he do?
Speaker 1: He makes the prime minister slot of the more powerful slot.
Speaker 1: He slides in and becomes prime minister. Medvedev becomes the president. Right,
Speaker 1: he's the head of state. But that's really it. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like he weakened the presidency for that period
Speaker 1: of time to sort of how Israel's presidency works. Right,
Speaker 1: the prime minister has all the power, the presidency is
Speaker 1: head of state, a little more ceremonial, a few pieces
Speaker 1: of power, but not a ton. That's what this would
Speaker 1: feel like, right, And I you know, I think you've
Speaker 1: identified the loophole, and I all so believe that attempting
Speaker 1: it it would be impossible. I still think if there's
Speaker 1: going to be a Trump on the ballot, and that's
Speaker 1: the thing, right, Like Republicans would rather have a Trump
Speaker 1: on a ballot than Trumps president, right because they it's
Speaker 1: Trump's voters that they need to get their majorities in Congress,
Speaker 1: and they don't necessarily want to actually work with Trump
Speaker 1: the situation you're outlining, you know, and do they just
Speaker 1: campaign that Trump's going to run for speaker and then
Speaker 1: you make it a referendum on that? Right? But I
Speaker 1: do think you've found the loophole that it in theory
Speaker 1: could be it. I will just say I just don't
Speaker 1: think it could. I don't think he could pull it off.
Speaker 1: And then you know, the actuary tables are going to
Speaker 1: catch up to Donald Trump sooner.
Speaker 2: Than you think.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from Branden and Charlotte. Hey, I really
Speaker 1: enjoy the podcast. Appreciate how you keep us in FUM
Speaker 1: without leaning into full doom and gloom. What are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on the DJ Collecting voter roles and seizing ballot
Speaker 1: boxes in Fulton County, Georgia feels like voter suppression or worse,
Speaker 1: a way to track and target people who didn't vote
Speaker 1: for Trump. Why isn't this getting more attention and how concerned.
Speaker 2: Should we be?
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's getting a decent amount of tension.
Speaker 1: What I don't understand is what they want to do
Speaker 1: with all these voter roles. I think some of this
Speaker 1: has to do with just simply purging roles voter roles,
Speaker 1: and just trying to make it harder. You know, people
Speaker 1: are going to have to reregister.
Speaker 2: I know what I would do.
Speaker 1: If you're concerned that they're messing with your voter registration,
Speaker 1: just go register to vote again. You know it cancels
Speaker 1: out the old registration and just do it again. That
Speaker 1: would be the number one way I'd protect myself on
Speaker 1: this if if I had, if I were a registered
Speaker 1: voter in a state that has agreed to letting the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice have the voter roles. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a part of me that says, call their bluff and say,
Speaker 1: you know, yes, let's let's let's do an audit of
Speaker 1: all the voter roles. Let's set up a special committee,
Speaker 1: and let's explain how it works and explain how each
Speaker 1: state does it. Ultimately, what I think Trump's up to
Speaker 1: is that he just he just wants to keep feeding
Speaker 1: the conspiracy that he's somehow won in twenty twenty, and
Speaker 1: it's he is just so committed to it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess it's amazing that he's committed to the bit
Speaker 1: this long, right, but it is sort of I find
Speaker 1: it laughable, except it's so serious, right, what he's trying
Speaker 1: to do in the manipulation of it all. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think what you're I think the realistic fear we should
Speaker 1: have is is a form of voter suppression, which is
Speaker 1: just purging of voter rolls or using it to you know,
Speaker 1: perhaps the information is given to some nefarious political direct
Speaker 1: mail company to scare those voters from voting. But there
Speaker 1: are other ways to get those voter roles too. But
Speaker 1: that's what that's why, you know. I think the fail
Speaker 1: safe is if you're in one of these states that
Speaker 1: is decided to not care about their Tenth Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: I'm very curious to see what happens with this lawsuit
Speaker 1: from Fulton County with it and see if they get
Speaker 1: their ballots back. If federalism is still in existence, they'll
Speaker 1: get their ballots back.
Speaker 2: But I would.
Speaker 1: I would advocate for, you know, just go run story again,
Speaker 1: give them more voter roles to go through. Next question
Speaker 1: comes from Brian. Hey, I've been a fan works since
Speaker 1: twenty oh seven. All right, thanks for everything you do.
Speaker 1: Maybe I need a refreshment. Our politics usually works what
Speaker 1: as usual anymore? But anyway, but isn't it unusual for
Speaker 1: the out party to get a bill through? How much
Speaker 1: influence should we expect in a situation like this? Best bride?
Speaker 1: One hundred percent? Now, I'll say this. Traditionally, when a
Speaker 1: president gets shellacked in a midterm George W. Bush oh six,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama twenty ten and twenty fourteen, Bill Clinton nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety four, they've wanted to prove that, particularly Obama twenty
Speaker 1: ten and Clinton ninety four, because they had their own
Speaker 1: real storry about that. Hey, all right, we can go
Speaker 1: I can govern with the other side. Let me show
Speaker 1: you how I can govern with the other side.
Speaker 2: And there's you.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the new majority. Usually it's in
Speaker 1: their interest to prove because a lot of them won
Speaker 1: by saying, look, I'll work with Trump where I can,
Speaker 1: or you know, I'll work with Obama where I can,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. So so bad, there might be
Speaker 1: a few a few things here or there. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: on healthcare subsidies. I mean, Trump's such a political chameleon, right,
Speaker 1: he has no ideology, and if you know, it all
Speaker 1: depends on how much the Democrats want to want to
Speaker 1: allow Trump to come along for the ride, you know,
Speaker 1: or do they want instead to prepare for twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight in twenty twenty nine, right, and you and you
Speaker 1: actually pass bills that are designed to be vetoed.
Speaker 2: So I think there are two ways.
Speaker 1: If Democrats get control of Congress, of what you know,
Speaker 1: you find a few things you can work on, particularly affordability,
Speaker 1: maybe something on electricity. You know, there's going to be
Speaker 1: things that you should You got your budgets and things
Speaker 1: like that. But I might argue that if you're if
Speaker 1: you're trying, you know that you pass some bills and
Speaker 1: you dare him to veto it. Now, the question is
Speaker 1: what if he doesn't. And this is Trump, you never know.
Speaker 1: How much do you attempt to work with him? I
Speaker 1: think it depends on how you got elected. I think
Speaker 1: some people got elected to say we've got to eradicate
Speaker 1: Trump from politics, and some people will get elected by
Speaker 1: promising those swing voters, look, they're you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to throw out every idea just because Trump came
Speaker 1: up with it. But I do think when you look
Speaker 1: at you know, there was some affordability bills, that some
Speaker 1: economic stimulus that the Democrats passed in O seven that
Speaker 1: George W. Bush signed. There was certainly welfare reform that
Speaker 1: Republicans passed that bill Clinton signed. So and we like,
Speaker 1: I go back to there's no greater political chameleon than
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. And you know, there's always this one instinct
Speaker 1: of his like, look at what he did, was how
Speaker 1: he was with mom Donnie. Oh, Mom Donnie won by you.
Speaker 1: You know, he likes to be associated with winners, and
Speaker 1: he may deem especially if it's a blowout. He may
Speaker 1: want to show that there are some things he's because
Speaker 1: that means some of his voters voted for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't don't I wouldn't assume. I wouldn't assume
Speaker 1: it's that it's going to be nothing but messaging bills
Speaker 1: if Democrats win full control of Congress in working with Trump.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm going to have two more questions here
Speaker 1: and this will be I will empty my my cue
Speaker 1: four this week, Hey, Chuck, Anthony from La here, long time,
Speaker 1: first time quick question. If the Senate ends up split,
Speaker 1: say forty eight Republicans, forty eight Democrats and four independents,
Speaker 1: who are the independence By the way, how is majority
Speaker 1: controlled determined? Do Independence have to declare caucus and can
Speaker 1: they switch at any time? Could that lead to the
Speaker 1: majority leadership changing hands? Thanks for turning me into a
Speaker 1: college football fan last year, Anthony right on. Perhaps the
Speaker 1: the conferences ESPN or Fox can give me a kickback
Speaker 1: for for bringing bringing another fan into the full well.
Speaker 1: The independents also vote on who which who which party
Speaker 1: should organize. Now some of that stuff's usually negotiated, you know,
Speaker 1: behind the scenes. Now, who are your four independents? Right?
Speaker 1: I think Lisa Murkowski is up for grabs?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I think Lisa Murkowski if if if her vote is
Speaker 1: the difference between the Democrats having full control of Congress
Speaker 1: and organizing with them, right, if they are a seat short,
Speaker 1: does Murkowski become you know, and do Democrats offer her,
Speaker 1: say energy and natural resources in exchange for coming over?
Speaker 1: So the Independence in theory have some leverage here if
Speaker 1: they choose to use it. Right, you know, I've always
Speaker 1: had this dream that the four to six of them
Speaker 1: in there would be independence and they would always vote
Speaker 1: in a block right each time and maybe maybe they
Speaker 1: would agree, okay, for calendar year twenty twenty seven, Democrats
Speaker 1: are in charge for calendar year twenty twenty eight, Republicans.
Speaker 2: Or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: But ultimately it's it's you know, if it's one of
Speaker 1: those where you know, we had it when we had
Speaker 1: a fifty to fifty Senate with Dick Cheney as the tiebreaker,
Speaker 1: when George W. Bush came into office, and then Jim
Speaker 1: Jefferts decided to leave the Republican Party become an independent
Speaker 1: and caucus with the Democrats, and the minute he did that,
Speaker 1: it went from a fifty to fifty Senate to a
Speaker 1: fifty one to forty nine Senate and the Democrats had control.
Speaker 1: So that's how works, right, And yes, it can be
Speaker 1: that fickle.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Jefferts just said, ask screw it, I'm out now. I
Speaker 1: think there was a lobbying campaign by Dashel that Harry
Speaker 1: Reid and all of that stuff that was taking place.
Speaker 1: You know, Jeffers was the most liberal Republican in the
Speaker 1: Senate at the time, right, Barack Obama got on inspector
Speaker 1: to flip to become the sixtieth Democrat for a small
Speaker 1: period of time until the Scott Brown election. So yeah,
Speaker 1: in theory, majority can change hands mid term. Wheat, Like
Speaker 1: I said, it happened in my lifetime in twenty oh
Speaker 1: one with Vermont Senator Jim Jeffers. Last question comes from
Speaker 1: Nelson H and New Orleans, Louisiana. I love the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm calling my shot. If James Talerico wins the Democratic
Speaker 1: primary upsets John Cornyn, I'm getting the vibe that his
Speaker 1: timing could be perfect to catch fire, just like Barack
Speaker 1: Obama did in twenty eight. Sure it probably won't happen,
Speaker 1: but think about it. As we all say, history doesn't
Speaker 1: repeat itself, but it sure does. Rhyme all the best
Speaker 1: and ghost saints spelled of course with the French do.
Speaker 1: I am a believer of the following that the most
Speaker 1: likely Democratic nominee in twenty eight is somebody we're not
Speaker 1: talking about today. I have floated Tall Rico as that idea.
Speaker 1: Now I will say this, I think he's This was
Speaker 1: a bad week for tall Rico's politics, right this story
Speaker 1: about how he referred according to an influencer, Tall Rico
Speaker 1: referred to Colin Allred as a mediocre black man versus
Speaker 1: Jasmine Crockett, a talented black woman, and that phrase really
Speaker 1: took off on social media. Colin Allred certainly took offense
Speaker 1: to it, understandably, So now there was no recording, it
Speaker 1: wasn't clear what was what I found interesting to pick
Speaker 1: a word was tall. Rico never did I'd saying it
Speaker 1: and basically confessed to saying something like it. And then
Speaker 1: because when you're doing the that isn't what I meant
Speaker 1: to say, that's code for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I probably was a little loose.
Speaker 1: Now you've thought he was off the record, but hey,
Speaker 1: if you're not assuming, you know I do. The only
Speaker 1: time I assume I'm not being quoted is when I'm
Speaker 1: in a private home with my close friends or in
Speaker 1: my house. I am very careful in public. I assume
Speaker 1: when people say anything to me that it's very possible
Speaker 1: they're recording that they could be used, you know, in
Speaker 1: social media, for better or for worse. Right, So I
Speaker 1: am a big milk toaster. When you come and see
Speaker 1: me in public. It's sort of in sort of you know,
Speaker 1: unofficial venues. So so I think it's he's I think
Speaker 1: it's done some damage. And you know, I'm not one
Speaker 1: hundred percent convinced. Colin all Redwood have Endorseddasman Crockett, but
Speaker 1: he is now and he's all in now. So but
Speaker 1: where your head is at is where my head's at.
Speaker 1: So another name I throw out there, Molly McMorrow, Right,
Speaker 1: I think she's somebody who are already went viral once
Speaker 1: when she was a state legislator. She's now decided to
Speaker 1: run for US Senate. She's I think she's going to
Speaker 1: be the goldilocks candidate that Democratic primary, right, Hanley Stevens
Speaker 1: is going to seem to establishment Abdul say it, it
Speaker 1: might seem too progressive. She's going to be the one
Speaker 1: that seems to bridge. That's certainly the race she's trying
Speaker 1: to run. And it's probably going to work just because
Speaker 1: of how defined I think Stevens and I'll say it
Speaker 1: are becoming maybe Rob saying getting elected governor of Iowa
Speaker 1: if some Democrat pulls a statewide upset in the Deep South,
Speaker 1: in any race. Right, the point is is that I
Speaker 1: think it's just as likely. I'm with you, remember better
Speaker 1: O'Rourke was considered a major presidential candidate. He didn't even
Speaker 1: win in twenty eighteen, and within six months of losing,
Speaker 1: he's considered one of the front runners for the nomination
Speaker 1: because of how close he came to defeating Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen. So the Democratic Party's history is they're
Speaker 1: likely more likely to go with the new, freshest face
Speaker 1: they can find Pete Bootage. Look, without the intervention of
Speaker 1: Jim Clyburn and COVID, I will go to my grave,
Speaker 1: believe in bodhajj and Sanders have a fight to the convention,
Speaker 1: and I think Pete wins the convention fight, but it's close.
Speaker 2: But you know, and that's a.
Speaker 1: World without COVID essentially, and in a world that Iowa
Speaker 1: the Caucuses correctly and gave Pete his correct victory there
Speaker 1: in Iowa. But either way, the point was this former
Speaker 1: mayor of South Bend, who lost a race for d
Speaker 1: n C chair suddenly is one of the front runners
Speaker 1: for the Democratic nomination. Right the Democratic Party, an unknown
Speaker 1: governor from Georgia ends up the Democratic nominee. A lesser
Speaker 1: known governor of Arkansas ends up the Democratic A guy
Speaker 1: who was state senator in six years before he ever
Speaker 1: ran for president ends up the nominee in Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: The history of the Democratic Party is when they and
Speaker 1: here's another fact in this recent era, when they go
Speaker 1: with first time candidates, the new candidate, they're more likely
Speaker 1: to win. When they go with people that have been
Speaker 1: around a while, they're more likely to lose. Al Gore,
Speaker 1: John Kerry, Joe Hillary Clinton, sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: Right, Biden was an.
Speaker 1: Outline, an unusual you know, in a normal primary process,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden never wins that primary. Right, it was a
Speaker 1: he was an accidental primary winner because of the circumstances
Speaker 1: of of Covid and Clyburn, and that nomination was looking
Speaker 1: a lot more like seventy six with beat Boodaget's Jimmy
Speaker 1: Carter parallels, or even a bit ninety two with Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: you know, having to go all the way to the
Speaker 1: convention and keep beating back Jerry Brown. So I don't
Speaker 1: think you're off kilter here. I like I said, let's
Speaker 1: see how taal Rico manages this first crisis of his
Speaker 1: political career. And I'll tell you this. I you know,
Speaker 1: I was I was more pro tol Rico as a
Speaker 1: potential dark horse if he'd run for governor then running
Speaker 1: for Senate.
Speaker 2: I do think that.
Speaker 1: He's going to I think he'd have made it more
Speaker 1: because I think he could have run and lost for
Speaker 1: governor but kept it close and still preserved sort of
Speaker 1: a future. I think this Senate seat right, especially if
Speaker 1: Kakeet past the primary. But I just think it's the
Speaker 1: wrong position. I think he had a serving in Austin
Speaker 1: in the Texas State legislature. I just thought his issues
Speaker 1: that he was that Abbott would have been a better
Speaker 1: foil for him, and it would have been a It
Speaker 1: would have been better for the party, better for the
Speaker 1: future of Texas Democrats. But he's trying to take a
Speaker 1: short cut. He has too many consultants, I think whispering
Speaker 1: sweet presidential nothing's in his ear and saying, hey, senate's
Speaker 1: an easier road.
Speaker 2: Okay, good luck with that.
Speaker 1: But I like your thinking, Nelson, because history backs up
Speaker 1: your prediction whether it's him. The point is, if you're
Speaker 1: going to close this off into gambling terms, go find
Speaker 1: the twelve to fifteen to twenty to one shot. Right
Speaker 1: now in the Democratic primary, they're more likely to be
Speaker 1: the nominee than one somebody who's run before, and two
Speaker 1: somebody who had national name recognition ten years earlier.
Speaker 2: How are that? Enjoy your weekend.
Speaker 1: I hope nothing crazy happens that I see you before Monday,
Speaker 1: but if not, hey, that's the beauty of being in
Speaker 1: this world.
Speaker 2: We can pop in and quickly jump on something. But
Speaker 2: if not, for that, I'll see it Monday. Joy the
Speaker 2: super Bowl