Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. And by the time you hear this,
Speaker 1: hopefully herschel Walker will have lost his Senate race. We
Speaker 1: have a wild, wild show for you today. The Washington
Speaker 1: Post Philip Bump talks to us about Trump's troubled relationship
Speaker 1: with the Constitution. Then we'll talk to the Center for
Speaker 1: Reproductive Rights Nancy north Up about the effect reproductive rights
Speaker 1: had on the midterms. But first we have Doug Balloon,
Speaker 1: not his real name, who you might know of as
Speaker 1: Twitter's funniest barely parody account, The New York Times pitch Pot.
Speaker 1: Welcome too, Fast Politics, New York Times Pitchpot, thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you for having me here. We're very excited. I
Speaker 1: told Mac Greenfield my long Sufferings Fast that we were
Speaker 1: going to have you on the podcast, and he was like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, The New York Times pitch pot is
Speaker 1: going to be on the podcast. We'll do my best
Speaker 1: to live up to expectations. I guess tell us a
Speaker 1: little bit about your story, because you weren't always the
Speaker 1: New York Times pitch Bond. No, so I was Doug
Speaker 1: j on Balloon Boos for a long time, and then
Speaker 1: I sort of started to get interested in Twitter. I
Speaker 1: don't know, like maybe not that not not very early on,
Speaker 1: maybe two thousand fifteen or so, And uh, I didn't
Speaker 1: like it that much at first, and then I started
Speaker 1: to really like some of these humor accounts, like, um,
Speaker 1: what's the guy that? The Jeff Jarvis guy, what's this? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Real Jeff Jarvis. By the way, can we just I
Speaker 1: want to stop for a minute and explain to people
Speaker 1: what balloon juices. Oh yeah, so Balloon Juices that. It
Speaker 1: was a really interesting blog. I think it really is
Speaker 1: kind of more comment er driven than anything else. This
Speaker 1: guy John Cole started it, I don't know, two thousand
Speaker 1: to two thousand three, and he was originally conservative and
Speaker 1: a big supporter of the Iraq war. Well, someone has
Speaker 1: to be hard to find someone who was a big
Speaker 1: supporter of the Iraq war. Yes, continue sorry. Around the
Speaker 1: time of the Terry Schiavo stuff, he started to feel
Speaker 1: really tortured sort of about continuing to support Bush because
Speaker 1: he thought that the Terry Skiava thing was so ridiculous,
Speaker 1: and so he was always very good with commenters he
Speaker 1: was a very good sense of humor, so even though
Speaker 1: he was a conservative, he had a really mixed kind
Speaker 1: of bag of comment or it's probably most of them
Speaker 1: liberal actually, and a lot of them. A lot of
Speaker 1: the you know, give and take of the blog was
Speaker 1: people in the comments just ripping him, and I thought
Speaker 1: it was really funny to watch, and so I came in.
Speaker 1: I decided that what might really annoy him was if
Speaker 1: someone just took like the dumbest writing arguments they could
Speaker 1: and just started hrenting them, parenting them this completely since
Speaker 1: you're away. So I did that for a while. It
Speaker 1: became sort of a popular feature of the blog, and
Speaker 1: then eventually I told him it was just a joke,
Speaker 1: after he had done his full conversion to being level.
Speaker 1: Then I was like, I don't really, there's no point
Speaker 1: in me doing this anymore, because you know, my my work,
Speaker 1: my work is done here. And then a little later
Speaker 1: he asked me to join him on the blog, and
Speaker 1: then more people joined, and it's sort of a I
Speaker 1: guess it's a blog that is, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: normy liberal in general and kind of you know, tough
Speaker 1: on people and sort of really most famous for having
Speaker 1: really brutal comments, you know, like I would write things
Speaker 1: that I thought were okay and then the people shredd
Speaker 1: me in the I think that's all writing. Unfortunately, the
Speaker 1: spectually these are sort of especially it's funny because I
Speaker 1: see people, like with a lot of Twitter followers, you know,
Speaker 1: something fun of and people will offer a pretty mild
Speaker 1: criticism and the replies and they'll just get so mad
Speaker 1: about you, like that for example, oh really, you don't say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't get it, because I would write things that
Speaker 1: people even more or less agreet with what I was saying,
Speaker 1: and they still would just destroy me for how I
Speaker 1: how I said it and then like the meanest possible way.
Speaker 1: And so it was good preparation, I think for for Twitter.
Speaker 1: And then on Twitter, I kind of I really like
Speaker 1: these humor accounts and I really liked I really like
Speaker 1: the Jeff Jarvis guy. Although I like Jeff Jarvis too,
Speaker 1: I don't think the account was especially targeting him. And
Speaker 1: I happened to have that name, and I got to
Speaker 1: really like this account called Federalist Pitchpot, and then there
Speaker 1: was a Reason Pitchpot, which in some ways I liked
Speaker 1: even that or they were different. Federalist pitchpot was hard
Speaker 1: because most of what Federalist pitch Bot was doing was taking,
Speaker 1: which this is a valuable lesson for me I learned later,
Speaker 1: was taking stuff, but the federal is actually sad and
Speaker 1: kind of making it a little bit less offensive, like
Speaker 1: Tony also making it funny, you know, and he would
Speaker 1: have these contests like which is the real head just
Speaker 1: a fake headline, which it would always be, which everyone
Speaker 1: wasn't really quite as a threatening or as offensive as
Speaker 1: the other one. And Reason Pitchbot was I thought, a
Speaker 1: really funny take on Reason because it was again actually
Speaker 1: not really quite as crazy as Reason is. It was
Speaker 1: Reason as written by the idea libertarian, who is a kid,
Speaker 1: like anineteen year old kid living in his parents basement
Speaker 1: all day. Yeah. I just really liked them. And then
Speaker 1: I was like, well, I always have this thing where like,
Speaker 1: if someone does something I really like, I think maybe
Speaker 1: maybe I could do this too, and then other people
Speaker 1: would enjoy it. And so I've always had this fixation
Speaker 1: with The New York Times, you and everyone else, right, well,
Speaker 1: just the particular style of it always sticks in my head,
Speaker 1: you know, I remember I don't know why I remember
Speaker 1: this so well, but I think like my sophomore year
Speaker 1: of college, they had an article about n w A.
Speaker 1: I remember saying things like Mr Cubes, you know, gretty
Speaker 1: lyrics and stuff like my roommate and I just thought
Speaker 1: it was the funniest thing. The whole way was written
Speaker 1: with Mr Cube and Mr Dre and the gritty lyrics
Speaker 1: and all, you know, all these sort of New York
Speaker 1: Times tropes. And I don't know why, just after that
Speaker 1: I got into this thing of trying to talk like
Speaker 1: the New York Times all the time with with my
Speaker 1: roommate who also also did it, and uh yeah. So
Speaker 1: then I was like, what could I do that would
Speaker 1: be kind of funny, like a pitchpot. And then I thought,
Speaker 1: I know what I'll do. I'll do New York Times
Speaker 1: pitch bot. And I started doing it and it wasn't
Speaker 1: very you know, people didn't get like a great reception
Speaker 1: at first. But then a conservative journalist that I keep
Speaker 1: in touch with were both really big Rolling Stones fans,
Speaker 1: and we kind of bonded over that was thing saying
Speaker 1: this is a great bit. You were born to do this,
Speaker 1: you gotta keep doing this. So I was like, all right,
Speaker 1: maybe I'll try to actually devote a little bit of
Speaker 1: energy to this. Then I did a tweet about this
Speaker 1: is like March maybe, I did a tweet about you know,
Speaker 1: those sources close to Jared and Ivanka kind of tweets, right,
Speaker 1: and it blew up and I got a lot of followers,
Speaker 1: and I was like, oh, this is great. That's and
Speaker 1: that's when I started to really good into it. And
Speaker 1: also I was very lucky in that I got I
Speaker 1: have really good repliers, right, right, replies were great, and
Speaker 1: that's what kind of keeps it going. Well, that's what
Speaker 1: why the internet is great, right, is because you meet
Speaker 1: great people who are really smart, and then that's really interesting. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So you're born of the time of the Iraq War, right,
Speaker 1: that's when you got into this, which was in many
Speaker 1: ways a simpler time, right and a less deranged Republican Party.
Speaker 1: I mean, have you been surprised to watch the change there?
Speaker 1: You mean becoming more deranged? Yes, more deranged? Not really, No,
Speaker 1: it's about what really I think that's the thing is
Speaker 1: that for people like me who were well, I mean
Speaker 1: not just that I didn't actually spend that much time
Speaker 1: reading crazy right wing stuff myself on the internet, but
Speaker 1: I follow a couple of guys I followed. Steve am
Speaker 1: Is one of them, not particularly popular blog. I think
Speaker 1: Oliver Willis is another one, and maybe and there was
Speaker 1: a couple of others too, mostly smaller blogs. They're like
Speaker 1: would really spend time watching Fox News, and not even
Speaker 1: just watching Fox News. I think Fox News wasn't really
Speaker 1: it was a little bit behind the curve, I think
Speaker 1: in terms of being totally crazy. But um, these sort
Speaker 1: of reading crazy right wing blogs and stuff, and uh
Speaker 1: I read their stuff, and I started to realize there
Speaker 1: really is this thing going on in the party where
Speaker 1: you know, you have the leaders like Mitt and McCain
Speaker 1: and Buscheur's to all to some extent terrible, maybe Romney
Speaker 1: less than the others. A lot of what they're actually
Speaker 1: doing is trying to keep the really you know, the
Speaker 1: really loony stuff, trying to kind of tamp it down,
Speaker 1: you know, either to win elections or because I just
Speaker 1: disagree with it, I don't know. And uh, reading this
Speaker 1: these blogs, I started realized that's really the dynamic and
Speaker 1: eventually the lid is probably gonna blow, you know. So
Speaker 1: I didn't think that Trump was gonna win the primary,
Speaker 1: but I wasn't that surprised that he did, you know, um,
Speaker 1: and I really think that a lot of the media,
Speaker 1: almost all the mainstream media, they really had their head
Speaker 1: in the sand about what was going on the Republican Party, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, look at you know, all these people that
Speaker 1: you probably know from being a Polard who were former Republicans.
Speaker 1: They all say that about themselves, right, they all say,
Speaker 1: I really had except the once they didn't. They did
Speaker 1: see it coming. I didn't really know. I didn't really
Speaker 1: know what was going on, right, They didn't realize that
Speaker 1: it could get so much worse than it did. But
Speaker 1: I know, I'm not I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised
Speaker 1: at all. Right, all right, so let me ask you
Speaker 1: right now, what's happening? I mean, what do you think
Speaker 1: it feels like there's a readjustment in the Republican Party
Speaker 1: right now? I'm not saying it's better. Does it feel
Speaker 1: to you like there's something happening now? Trump is sort
Speaker 1: of going against Trump? Yeah? I think so. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: I think that it's really hard to say because at
Speaker 1: the elite level, definitely, Yeah, But I don't really know
Speaker 1: what's going to go on with the rank and file.
Speaker 1: So I'll tell you what I think is that there
Speaker 1: is a little bit of a movement against him right now.
Speaker 1: But he's not campaigning, he's not on Twitter, he's not
Speaker 1: doing all the stuff that he's good at. Number one,
Speaker 1: number two. I think their plan, right, I think the
Speaker 1: plan to have him not be the nominee in four
Speaker 1: involves getting behind someone who's a lot like him, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, if it was like, we're gonna rally behind
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney and or or even Marc Arubia, who I like,
Speaker 1: but he's not like Trump, it would be different. They're not.
Speaker 1: They're rallying behind the Santis, who is really a lot
Speaker 1: like Trump. I think so in that sense, I don't
Speaker 1: think there really is that much of a change. Now
Speaker 1: do people at the times? Do they find you adorable
Speaker 1: or do they find you annoying? So I think it varies.
Speaker 1: It's interesting. So what's his name? Jonathan Martin one time
Speaker 1: showed up. This is a really phn of them, but
Speaker 1: this was the highlight William like career. I had this
Speaker 1: bit I did where a guy from I had this
Speaker 1: thing once when I asked people to tell me good
Speaker 1: local stuff, you know, to help me with the diner
Speaker 1: Safari tweets, and one brought this really great thing about
Speaker 1: in this Indiana diner, everyone has three questions, and how's
Speaker 1: the bread of tender loin? Second is house is the
Speaker 1: quarry hiring? And the third is like, do you really
Speaker 1: think that Don McNeil was the victim of the Wolke
Speaker 1: mob or something? And so I started to do this
Speaker 1: one all the time, and I don't do it that often.
Speaker 1: It's not quite as easy as some of the other templates,
Speaker 1: but I do it. And I did one, and Jonathan Martin,
Speaker 1: clearly must have hated my account for years, showed up
Speaker 1: and blocked quoted me and said, I guarantee they don't
Speaker 1: call it bread a tender loin, and try harder. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was a highlight for me because they do call
Speaker 1: it bread a tenderline. Is the whole thing was based
Speaker 1: on a guy who lives in Indiana, you know. And
Speaker 1: then million people showed up in their replies and said, yeah,
Speaker 1: they do actually call it creddit enderline in parts of Indiana.
Speaker 1: And so clearly he hated the account. Yeah, clearly it
Speaker 1: clearly it got under his But he was really one
Speaker 1: of the ones. I'm really aiming it at too. I
Speaker 1: really don't like his reporting, and I really don't like
Speaker 1: the New York Times political reporting in general. I heard
Speaker 1: though that I have a reader who has a friend
Speaker 1: who's on the who's on the editorial board, and he
Speaker 1: said his friend loves the account and actually want wanted me.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna tell you the guy's name, I obviously,
Speaker 1: but he wanted me to to start to do a
Speaker 1: couple where I made fun of him by name, but
Speaker 1: actually I liked all his writings, so I couldn't figure
Speaker 1: out a way to do it. That's amazing. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the thing that I think is interesting about the
Speaker 1: New York Times pitch pot is it struck me that
Speaker 1: you started going for the editorial writers, but you moved
Speaker 1: to the political car and that that actually, ultimately that
Speaker 1: the editorial pieces were not in your mind, is problematic
Speaker 1: as the straight political coverage. Is that true? Right? While
Speaker 1: there's two things right, One is that I think they're
Speaker 1: political coverage is worse. I think that they're I started
Speaker 1: to read their editorials and they're not that bad and
Speaker 1: to me in a lot of ways, yeah, relative to
Speaker 1: political reporting. Also, though, I will say, part of it
Speaker 1: is that his opinion writing goes. I started to find
Speaker 1: all these ridiculous sub stack people to be so much worse. Well,
Speaker 1: now I sort of felt like, which would I'd rather do?
Speaker 1: Make fun of Tom Friedman for some kind of stupid
Speaker 1: but probably not that wrong pro free trade piece, you know,
Speaker 1: the fun of Glenn Greenwald for some insane thing about
Speaker 1: Ukrainian Nazis with bio all this whole thing, I don't
Speaker 1: know why this drugs me so much, This whole thing
Speaker 1: of all these people with no training of medical traine
Speaker 1: any of any kind, talking about why they think the
Speaker 1: lab leak is real, Like it's just so ridiculous to me,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's much more I mean, who do
Speaker 1: I really I really don't like saying Nick Christoph or
Speaker 1: Brett Stevens, but but they don't do things that are
Speaker 1: quite that stupid to me, you know. And so I
Speaker 1: sort of lost interest a little bit in the editorial
Speaker 1: board when the when I was confronted with this, the
Speaker 1: insanity of the substract bros. Is the problem with normal,
Speaker 1: normal political reporting. And I don't want to call anyone
Speaker 1: out because this is a problem. I think it's more
Speaker 1: of a mainstream media problem and less of a New
Speaker 1: York Times problem. But because the New York Times is
Speaker 1: the most famous, they get most of the gruff. Do
Speaker 1: you think that part of it is that there is
Speaker 1: this inherent bias against appearing liberal, which helps elevate the
Speaker 1: far right in a way. Yeah, I think definitely. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think they're obsessed with not appearing and I think
Speaker 1: it has I think it it works in various ways, right,
Speaker 1: One is that they elevate conservative voices. I think the
Speaker 1: other is that they do believe that the things they
Speaker 1: conservatives saying are stupid and they can't really relate to
Speaker 1: them at all, and so they don't hold conservative arguments
Speaker 1: to a high standard, you know. I mean like if
Speaker 1: some liberals, like if some liberal happened to be saying
Speaker 1: crazy stuff about the border, not that the liberal would
Speaker 1: they'd say, well, actually, statistically blah blah blah. Also, they're
Speaker 1: only coming here for jobs, so if you just had
Speaker 1: to stop the employee, you know, they pick it that,
Speaker 1: they pick at the argument. They don't do that with
Speaker 1: conservative arguments. They're just like they just they just sort
Speaker 1: of repeat them, you know. Right. Part of it is
Speaker 1: because they don't even they think that they're probably so
Speaker 1: stupid that there's no point in trying to pick at them,
Speaker 1: and so they don't take conservative arguments seriously, and that
Speaker 1: actually leads in a weird way to them just repeating them. No, No,
Speaker 1: I think that's right. I mean, is it's weirdly a
Speaker 1: function of being liberal causes these straight reporters to come
Speaker 1: off as more conservative. Yeah. Yeah, And I also don't
Speaker 1: think that they're that. I mean, I think that they're
Speaker 1: very culturally liberal, you know, like they watch white Lotus
Speaker 1: and they like to eat proving food and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: you know, but they're not exactly but I don't think
Speaker 1: we care that much about about working people, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean necessarily, and so I think they're very conscious
Speaker 1: of being culturally liberal people, you know, from the Selachord
Speaker 1: or blah blah blah, And so that makes them take
Speaker 1: a funny attitude I think towards towards sort of what
Speaker 1: they think of as heartly and conservatives, right right. I
Speaker 1: mean fundamentally, what you're discussing is a kind of fatis
Speaker 1: ization of the heartland. Yeah, it can go in different directions.
Speaker 1: I think, like I don't really mind the ones where
Speaker 1: they go I don't really mind them if they sort
Speaker 1: of treat that people with some kind of respect, Like
Speaker 1: if they go and they go around and they eat
Speaker 1: the local specialties and say they're good or something like that.
Speaker 1: I like that kind of thing. But what I don't
Speaker 1: like is a lot of it just sounds like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, these idiots in this healthscape, the stupid things
Speaker 1: that they're saying, you know, and yet somehow the fact
Speaker 1: that these idiots in this healthscape are saying stupid things
Speaker 1: really reflects a failure of democrats to get to them.
Speaker 1: That's sort of the vibe that I get from a
Speaker 1: lot of it, and I think it's it's very bad,
Speaker 1: I think in a lot of different ways. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: very interesting. I think that this idea of like this
Speaker 1: kind of inability to connect with the with the fantasy
Speaker 1: because it's not even real, right, with the fantasy of
Speaker 1: quote unquote regular Joe's is um super interesting and problematic
Speaker 1: for probably all of us. Right, I mean, you're a
Speaker 1: math professor, right, Yeah, But I lived in fly Over Country.
Speaker 1: I live in I mean, you know, I grew up
Speaker 1: in a very rayal area. I wouldn't say that I
Speaker 1: totally you know, I mean, I I am an upper
Speaker 1: middle class person living in a very liberal neighborhood and
Speaker 1: so on. But I don't think that people who live
Speaker 1: in areas outside of outside of the coasts really do
Speaker 1: have quite a strange disconnect with people in fly Over
Speaker 1: Country because we live there ourselves and probviously were economically
Speaker 1: and culturally different than some of the people that live nearbias.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we drive through their neighborhood sometimes we you know,
Speaker 1: see see I see, I see the kind of people
Speaker 1: that in our time seems to you know, mock or
Speaker 1: or elevate depending how you look at it, all the
Speaker 1: time in my regular life. And so I think there's
Speaker 1: a geographic It's not just a cultural class issue. It's
Speaker 1: a geographic And this is something, by the way, I
Speaker 1: know a lot of local reporters, not just here, but
Speaker 1: actually various ones, like from Ohio told me they like
Speaker 1: the account stuff, and I talked to them, and I
Speaker 1: think they they're journalists too, very good journalists, honestly, and
Speaker 1: I think that if they wrote these articles instead, they
Speaker 1: would be much better articles. Thank you so much, New
Speaker 1: York Times, pitch Pot. I hope you'll come back. I'd
Speaker 1: love to. Philip Bump is a national columnist for The
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Welcome to Fast Politics, Philip Bump, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. So I wanted to talk to you about
Speaker 1: the Constitution. Sure, great McCarthy decides he's going to start
Speaker 1: Congress when and if he becomes speaker with the reading
Speaker 1: of the Constitution, then this weekend, Donald Trump, there were
Speaker 1: a lot of crazy truth this weekend, but one of
Speaker 1: them called for a set aside of the Constitution. Can
Speaker 1: we talk about that? Yeah, no, absolutely, And he then
Speaker 1: tried to sort of backtrack and say, well, I mean
Speaker 1: the whole constant, you know, I mean the way that
Speaker 1: he does things, but yes, just the parts he doesn't like.
Speaker 1: He called the termination of all rules, regulations, the articles,
Speaker 1: even though it is found in this Constitution. There is
Speaker 1: no world in which Trump has ever sort of held
Speaker 1: responsible for what he says. Yeah, I mean that's I mean.
Speaker 1: I was actually, uh, something that I'm sort of working
Speaker 1: on today is all the times that people said, okay,
Speaker 1: this is it that Donald Trump's gone too far? I
Speaker 1: mean the point that we've had two in the past
Speaker 1: three weeks, right, I mean, like, yeah, I mean this
Speaker 1: is someone who obviously, since July, the Republican Party has
Speaker 1: been hoping he'll just sort of go away, uh, and
Speaker 1: not really interested in sort of tackling the problem themselves.
Speaker 1: I I at one point in time analogized it to
Speaker 1: the TV show Holders, in which the Republican Party just
Speaker 1: sort of let their house fill up with garbage and
Speaker 1: someone had to come in and be like, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: your house is full of garbage, and you're like, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but we just, you know, we sort of make do
Speaker 1: and we just sort of live with this household of
Speaker 1: the garbage. But you know, it seems very clear that
Speaker 1: they're not going to actually tackle the problem themselves. So
Speaker 1: let's go further with this, because it's strange. I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems to me like there was a scandal which
Speaker 1: was Trump having dinner with Kanye and a white nationalist right,
Speaker 1: so that the scandal was like, oh my god, Trump
Speaker 1: had dinner with Nick quinte Is while Kanye was in
Speaker 1: the middle of an anti Semitic tear which has continued
Speaker 1: un debated. And then that scandal was interrupted by another scandal,
Speaker 1: which was this weekend Trump saying that whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: throwing with the constitution. I mean, do you find this
Speaker 1: to be I mean, this reminds me of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration a little bit. Yeah, No, I think that's right
Speaker 1: where you sort of had them sort of stacking on
Speaker 1: top of each other. I do think that one of
Speaker 1: the things we've been seeing, and I think Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is is very attuned to this. One of the things
Speaker 1: we're seeing is we are actually getting I think, people
Speaker 1: being more willing to more quickly step up and say
Speaker 1: things that are critical of Trump. Again, it's often kind
Speaker 1: of passive or want and you know, it's not necessarily
Speaker 1: the sort of, you know, vociferous denunciation that you would
Speaker 1: hope for if you have a former president who's saying
Speaker 1: that the Constitution should be set aside so that he
Speaker 1: can be reinstalled into into the presidency. But you are
Speaker 1: seeing it, and I think that Republican Party is slowly
Speaker 1: coming to terms with the fact that maybe they're actually
Speaker 1: getting to the point where Donald Trump might be fitted
Speaker 1: from the scene where you know, we're starting to see
Speaker 1: polling where Donald Trump isn't really doing that well against
Speaker 1: potential other candidates. He still got a path to the nomination, certainly,
Speaker 1: but I think the Republicans and Trump are very aware
Speaker 1: that this is not what it was, and it may
Speaker 1: not even be what it was, right, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the big question part of his the way he sort
Speaker 1: of was able to win the nomination was to be
Speaker 1: a kind of joke, right, and to ride that free
Speaker 1: media into the White House. I mean, don't you think
Speaker 1: there was a sense of that? Yeah, I mean I
Speaker 1: think that there certainly was. It was the case that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump attracted a lot of attention because he was
Speaker 1: a novelty. But I really think that the the way
Speaker 1: in which Donald Trump won the presidency or won the
Speaker 1: nomination was that he basically just parroted back the nonsense
Speaker 1: that he heard in conservative media to a base to
Speaker 1: consume that media. You know, mainstream Republicans weren't saying the
Speaker 1: things that that you saw him right bark, because there
Speaker 1: were nonsense and lies, you know, and and dishonest you know,
Speaker 1: and you are things that that were mentioned by Shawan
Speaker 1: Handyon Fox News. Mainstream Republicans were happy to have those
Speaker 1: people be their allies, but they weren't necessarily saying that
Speaker 1: things about immigration that you would see in the far
Speaker 1: right conservative media. Donald Trump said it, and so that's
Speaker 1: how he got the reputation among Republicans as being a
Speaker 1: truth teller, because he just said the nonsense that was
Speaker 1: be he himself was picking up out a conservative media
Speaker 1: and feeding and back to Republicans. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I do think that obviously he benefited from this sort
Speaker 1: of novelty status in sixteen, but I really think his
Speaker 1: success originated, and people forget this to some extent, it
Speaker 1: started with the blowback from his speech, his announcement speech
Speaker 1: in June, when he got into that giant fight with Univision,
Speaker 1: he got into giant fight with Macy's, and that drew
Speaker 1: a ton of attention to his rhetoric on immigration, and
Speaker 1: a lot of Republican parts are like, oh, yeah, this
Speaker 1: guy is finally saying the things in immigration that I
Speaker 1: want people to say because they've been seeing the Fox
Speaker 1: News And I think I think that was the primary
Speaker 1: thing that that sort of gave him the momentum that
Speaker 1: he needed to win. Yeah, No, I think that's that's right.
Speaker 1: So this time around, he doesn't have that advantage. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think that's true or now he does not
Speaker 1: have the distinct advantage of being the only guy who's
Speaker 1: going to say the nonsense and far right media since
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans say that nonsense, including Rohanda santiss.
Speaker 1: He does, however, have the advantage of having a much
Speaker 1: more robust constituency that he did at the outset, and
Speaker 1: so he ends up sort of in the same place
Speaker 1: where in he had this core base of people who
Speaker 1: really supported him, largely because of the factor that I
Speaker 1: was just describing. Now he still has that base. It's
Speaker 1: not a majority of the party necessarily, and you know,
Speaker 1: obviously a majority of the party views him positively, but
Speaker 1: I think that it is not necessarily a majority of
Speaker 1: the party that wants to see him win again in
Speaker 1: four based on polling. But again, depending what field looks like,
Speaker 1: he may not need a majority disupport him at this
Speaker 1: point and work again, win the nomination right because of
Speaker 1: the electoral college, No, just the nomination because of the
Speaker 1: way that the primary process works, and then just wait
Speaker 1: until everyone else has sort of winnowed out, and then
Speaker 1: he becomes sort of a you know, he wins enough
Speaker 1: when you take all the states for delegates and he's
Speaker 1: back in the back in the driversy. That sounds just great.
Speaker 1: So I want to talk to you now about if
Speaker 1: you were online this weekend, or maybe you had a life.
Speaker 1: I was online this weekend, So I was able to
Speaker 1: absorb the Twitter files, which was this weird, which was
Speaker 1: this weird I don't even know what it was. It
Speaker 1: was Elon Musk, you know, giving us the real truth
Speaker 1: through mad to hee be. But basically the net net
Speaker 1: of it, which is the story you just wrote, was
Speaker 1: that Hunter Biden's that the suppression of this New York
Speaker 1: Post story about Hunter Biden's lap top may have cost
Speaker 1: Donald Trump the election discuss. Yeah, so I think there's
Speaker 1: two components here. There is the component that Elon Musk
Speaker 1: is focused on, which is this idea that Twitter behaved
Speaker 1: with a heavy hand that sort of reveals the way
Speaker 1: that tech is out to get the right right. You know.
Speaker 1: I think it's certainly is clear that there is cause
Speaker 1: to have a debate over whether or not Twitter acted
Speaker 1: properly when it when it, you know, muffled this New
Speaker 1: York Post story. But I don't think that what is
Speaker 1: revealed by the Twitter files supports Musk's argument that the
Speaker 1: right is being unfairly censored. But then, because this is
Speaker 1: inherently not something that's terribly important, you know, I mean
Speaker 1: the idea that Twitter, which you know, a small fraction
Speaker 1: of Americans use for a brief period of time kept
Speaker 1: people from sharing the story that's not hugely consequential in
Speaker 1: the grand scheme of things. It doesn't have First Amendment implications,
Speaker 1: as a lot of people sort of insist that it does,
Speaker 1: and so it has become this sort of mantra on
Speaker 1: the right that this was a thing that kept from winning,
Speaker 1: which by itself is just nonsensical based on everything we
Speaker 1: know about about why Donald Trump lost in But this
Speaker 1: is elevated of the course of the past two days
Speaker 1: because it is a way of making it seem as
Speaker 1: though the Twitter files are more important than they are.
Speaker 1: I liked the the Elon tweet where he said this
Speaker 1: is a violation of the First Amendment, and then the
Speaker 1: sort of like his Internet support system. You know, all
Speaker 1: of the Twitter people who are like Elon fans uh
Speaker 1: said yes, and violation of the First Amendment is you know,
Speaker 1: akin to treason, and I think you can violate people's amendments.
Speaker 1: It's okay. The dialogue here has been pretty deranged, right.
Speaker 1: It's sort of fascinating because all the people, all the
Speaker 1: people who are now saying, yeah, this doesn't really tell
Speaker 1: us anything new, are the exact same people who two
Speaker 1: months ago were like, Yeah, your new verification scheme is
Speaker 1: going to backfire and blow up in your face, right, Like,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people who know how Twitter
Speaker 1: works and what it does and what it's done in
Speaker 1: the past, and who understand it way better than does
Speaker 1: Elon Musk. Elon Musk has been very effective at building
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things that Twitter is good
Speaker 1: at is allowing people to exist within echo chambers. And
Speaker 1: what Elon Musk has done since he took ownership of
Speaker 1: Twitter as he's really he has both pushed away people
Speaker 1: who are you know, skeptical of him, and he has
Speaker 1: embraced people who adore him. And so he's just sort
Speaker 1: of increased the volume of people who can participate in
Speaker 1: these echo chambers. And so I think, you know, the
Speaker 1: response to these Twitter files as being way over the top,
Speaker 1: just really really way over the top and insisting that
Speaker 1: there was some massive discovery here. I think that that's
Speaker 1: particularly noxious on Twitter simply because Elon Musk is involved,
Speaker 1: and he has done such a good job of inflating
Speaker 1: the universe of people who agree with him on the
Speaker 1: social media platform. Yeah, I mean that is what's so incredible. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it does seem like the discourse has gotten stupider, which
Speaker 1: I never thought possible. Sure, it's an achievement in its
Speaker 1: own right. Absolutely, Yeah. Do you think there'll be another
Speaker 1: Twitter file? But because we were promised more Twitter files?
Speaker 1: Yeah we were. I mean, I I would love to
Speaker 1: have been inside Matt Taieb's brain as he is reading
Speaker 1: this stuff, because I like to think that he still
Speaker 1: recognizes when nonsense is nonsense. You know, maybe that's just
Speaker 1: me being overly optimistic. I like to think that he
Speaker 1: sort of read this stuff. I was like, well, there's
Speaker 1: not a lot here, but I'll do my best, right,
Speaker 1: And so I'm curious. I don't know who is responsible
Speaker 1: for the second cash of Twitter files, and maybe Bari Weiss,
Speaker 1: and I like to think that she's currently you know,
Speaker 1: if she is the person who's sort of doing the
Speaker 1: second review, that she is currently in the same position
Speaker 1: just being like, Okay, how do I milk this and
Speaker 1: the attention that it's going to give me? Well, at
Speaker 1: the same time recognizing me there's probably not a lot here.
Speaker 1: Who knows. I may be proven wrong, maybe there's some
Speaker 1: bombshell in there. I'm sort of skepticled there will I
Speaker 1: thought it was sort of interesting that it was like
Speaker 1: people were so agitated about it and so excited, and
Speaker 1: it was like a conviction that there was something in there.
Speaker 1: But if you read it, you're like, and especially when
Speaker 1: you if you look at the tweets and you see
Speaker 1: where they matched to their you know, these inappropriate pictures
Speaker 1: of hundre Biden, which in themselves, I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: it doesn't really you know, yeah, I mean it's it
Speaker 1: very much is in keeping with this recent pattern we've
Speaker 1: seen in which, you know, it used to be the
Speaker 1: right will get worked up over when they managed to
Speaker 1: own the Libs, and then it's sort of evolved, and
Speaker 1: I think it's sort of a turning point here was
Speaker 1: that the Santists Martha has been here in Nantucketria, which
Speaker 1: island it was when he sent the immigrants there. Martha's
Speaker 1: when you're not nntectic because a lot of Republican donors
Speaker 1: live on Nantucket. Very good, okay, but the response from
Speaker 1: the island was sort of like, Okay, you're welcome, and
Speaker 1: you know, we'll deal with you. And but it was
Speaker 1: still treated like this massive own on the Libs. And
Speaker 1: I think that we're sort of in the same territory
Speaker 1: here where it this is just because it has been
Speaker 1: presented as being a known on the libs by people
Speaker 1: who wanted to be known on the libs. Then everyone's saying,
Speaker 1: how we in the libs, even though the libs are like,
Speaker 1: well not really, yeah, not very own. Do you think
Speaker 1: it's true that there's this idea that Elan is sort
Speaker 1: of rediscovering all the things that Twitter has discovered, So like,
Speaker 1: he had this verification system and then there were all
Speaker 1: these fakes, so now he has this new verification which
Speaker 1: is like different color badges, or maybe he's not going
Speaker 1: to do it at all, and then you know, he
Speaker 1: had this you know, he didn't want to have content moderation,
Speaker 1: but then you know, he brought Kanye back, but then
Speaker 1: he had to ban Kanye again. I mean, do you
Speaker 1: think he's sort of relearning everything that they have learned
Speaker 1: in the early days of Twitter? Well, I hope he is, honestly,
Speaker 1: you know, there definitely is sort of an ontogeny recapitulates
Speaker 1: bylogeny vibe to this whole thing in which he's sort
Speaker 1: of re going through all these evolutionary steps that already existed.
Speaker 1: I think fundamentally Elon Musk is a person who has
Speaker 1: taught himself that he knows better than everyone, and so
Speaker 1: he came in to Twitter and had this sense that
Speaker 1: they must be doing everything wrong and stupidly and he
Speaker 1: could fix it. And now he's just sort of very
Speaker 1: gradually coming back to where they were. You know, I mean, honestly,
Speaker 1: it's the world's most suspensive done and grew experiment. Right.
Speaker 1: He got to the top of that first hill and
Speaker 1: was very confident, knew everything about it, and now he's
Speaker 1: heading backed down and you know, maybe eventually he'll he'll
Speaker 1: rise back up and expertise, but you know, he just
Speaker 1: he just he just fundamentally didn't understand what the platform
Speaker 1: was for and about. And he really really believed this
Speaker 1: nonsense about conservative voices being shut out on fairly and
Speaker 1: so on and so forth, and that's driven a lot
Speaker 1: of his decisions since. Yeah, it's amazing stuff. So you
Speaker 1: talked about this Georgia runoff and the idea that early
Speaker 1: voting isn't as diagnostic as perhaps many in politics treated
Speaker 1: to be. Can you talk about that, because it's like
Speaker 1: early voting isn't diagnostic and pulling isn't right. So basically,
Speaker 1: we have nothing to go on. Well, pulling is a
Speaker 1: little more so, because at least you're you know, you're
Speaker 1: you're able to wait things appropriately and you know how
Speaker 1: people are saying they're going to vote. The challenge with
Speaker 1: early voting is that in Georgia in particular, one of
Speaker 1: the things that we've seen in the past couple of
Speaker 1: cycles is absolutely was the case in Georgia and elsewhere
Speaker 1: that if you looked at the mail ballot, if mail
Speaker 1: ballot was really really big, that was really really good
Speaker 1: for Democrats, because Democrats are voting big by mail, especially
Speaker 1: at the height of the pandemic in twenty. But what
Speaker 1: we also learned in twenty is that it was hard
Speaker 1: then to engage what election is will look like. And
Speaker 1: of course early voting tells us one thing, election day
Speaker 1: tells us something else, and we don't know anything about
Speaker 1: election day tell election day. And so when I went
Speaker 1: back and looked at the numbers from the run off
Speaker 1: in one involving our fail Warnock, and then the numbers
Speaker 1: from last month's general election in Georgia, and really what
Speaker 1: we see is, yeah, I mean, we should expect Warnock
Speaker 1: to win the early vote by double digits and we
Speaker 1: should expect hershell Walker to win election day by double digits.
Speaker 1: And the question is, just you know what happens when
Speaker 1: he subtracted one number from the other. And so saying
Speaker 1: that Warnock is doing well in early voting, yeah, he
Speaker 1: better read right, and there's no evation he's not. But
Speaker 1: that doesn't tell us that he's gonna win lose, right, Interesting,
Speaker 1: But then at least the midterms will be over, thank god. Indeed,
Speaker 1: Philip talk to us about you are baby boomer buck? Sure?
Speaker 1: So I have book coming out in January called The Aftermath,
Speaker 1: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future
Speaker 1: of Powered American. Essentially, what it does is it looks
Speaker 1: at both the scale of the Baby Boom, which I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people sort of under recognized, just
Speaker 1: this massive, massive shift to the American economy and American
Speaker 1: politics that last this day. But what it means as
Speaker 1: the baby boom starts to fade, as baby Boomers dying
Speaker 1: as millennials and gen Z sort of assents I'm gen
Speaker 1: x or I always leave us out intentionally because no
Speaker 1: one cares about us. A good pluses. But so the
Speaker 1: book is sort of an exploration what happens with politics,
Speaker 1: what happens with the economy, what happens with culture, and
Speaker 1: what can we not foresee happening? And of course it's
Speaker 1: got a lot of data, lot of data analysis and
Speaker 1: and hopefully helps shed some light on this very weird moment,
Speaker 1: which I think is really heavily driven by generational shift
Speaker 1: that overlaps with racial shifts and all sorts of other factors.
Speaker 1: So interesting. Thank you so much for joining us. I
Speaker 1: hope you'll come back in January. Anytime you want me.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to Nancy Northup is the president of the
Speaker 1: Center for Reproductive Rights. Welcome too fast politics, Nancy Northup,
Speaker 1: it's great to be here. Molly, We're so excited to
Speaker 1: have you. You are the head of the Center for
Speaker 1: Reproductive Rights. Can you give us just a quick sort
Speaker 1: of TikTok of what is happening right now and reproductive rights? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and let me just start by saying that the Center
Speaker 1: Reproductive Rights, you know, we're lawyers, were human rights advocates.
Speaker 1: We work here in the United States but also around
Speaker 1: the world to ensure the reproductive rights are protected in
Speaker 1: laws fundamental human rights. We argued the Jobs case in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. It's been a harrowing several months, but
Speaker 1: you know, we haven't missed a beat. We have been
Speaker 1: back at it, filing cases in state court, pivoting from
Speaker 1: federal court to state court against the trigger bands and
Speaker 1: the attempts to resurrect long enjoined meaning blocked cree row
Speaker 1: abortion bands, as well as you know, moving forward on
Speaker 1: the whole new era of states protecting this right in
Speaker 1: their state constitutions, which is an exciting, exciting frontier. So,
Speaker 1: you know, my bottom line and thinking about the Dobs cases,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and all the folks that were behind
Speaker 1: having Rover verse are going to rue the day that
Speaker 1: they did, because we're going to make sure that we
Speaker 1: end up with stronger protections for access to abortion care
Speaker 1: and the whole range of reproductive healthcare that we had
Speaker 1: under the crumbling regime of Rowe freed up. This is
Speaker 1: great to hear, and I love your attitude. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about what the mid terms look like for choice. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that you know was
Speaker 1: so important was to see how these ballot initiatives played out,
Speaker 1: which you know got some but not a ton of
Speaker 1: attention before the mid terms, but abortion was literally on
Speaker 1: the ballot in five states, with Vermont and Michigan and
Speaker 1: California asking the voters to put protection for reproductive rights
Speaker 1: into their state constitutions. And then in Kentucky fighting a
Speaker 1: ballot initiative that was designed to make sure that their
Speaker 1: constitution did not protect abortion rights, and a Montana initiative
Speaker 1: it was all about stigmatizing abortion, kind of a trial
Speaker 1: balloon to see if they could go for banning it
Speaker 1: in their state constitution. Everything of one of those the
Speaker 1: attempts to restrict abortion rights defeated in Kentucky and Montana
Speaker 1: and Michigan, California, Vermont enshrined in their state constitutions and
Speaker 1: maybe not surprising in California and Vermont, but a big,
Speaker 1: big deal in the state of Michigan. And before that
Speaker 1: even you had the state of Kansas. Absolutely and there
Speaker 1: were so many doubters about the state of Kansas before
Speaker 1: the vote, thinking there was no path to victory. Kansas
Speaker 1: voters proved otherwise. And you know what people often don't
Speaker 1: focus on. They focus on the politics of like did
Speaker 1: these prevailer get defeated? And again we're now six referendum
Speaker 1: since Dubbs, and everything of one of them has broken
Speaker 1: four abortion rights. The setup Reprotective Rights one the case
Speaker 1: that established the constitutional right to abortion in the state
Speaker 1: of Kansas several years ago. And it's really strong protection.
Speaker 1: I mean, even when it came down, it protected the
Speaker 1: right to abortion Kansas, stronger than the federal constitutional right
Speaker 1: at the time and so stronger today. It's a very
Speaker 1: strong right. And the people in Kansas said, hell, no,
Speaker 1: we don't want our rights taken away. So you're a
Speaker 1: fancy lawyer who did law review and who rights and things.
Speaker 1: And I'm curious to know, besides leading this organization, I'm
Speaker 1: curious to know, is there a world in which we
Speaker 1: American women can have a protection that protects us now
Speaker 1: nationally our choice? I mean, is that possible? Or is
Speaker 1: the end of jobs really the end of national abortion rights? Oh?
Speaker 1: It absolutely is not. I Mean one of the things
Speaker 1: that people are waking up to is the fact that
Speaker 1: Congress has the power to address the abortion access crisis.
Speaker 1: And the Women's Health Protection Act was introduced a decade
Speaker 1: ago in the US Congress because we could see even
Speaker 1: during President Obama's administration, and Ginsburg is still on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, Kennedy still in Supreme Court. We could see
Speaker 1: what was happening at the state level. I mean at
Speaker 1: the time, it felt a lot like you know, crying
Speaker 1: in the wilderness right to get people to listen a
Speaker 1: decade ago, but it was clear. So the Women's Health
Speaker 1: Protection Act introduced a decade ago and building support, and
Speaker 1: what it does is guarantee our right to receive abortion
Speaker 1: services and a right to provide abortion services free from
Speaker 1: bans and you know, medically unnecessary restrictions and all the
Speaker 1: things that have been piling on and piling on for
Speaker 1: years even before the Court reverse jobs. So the Whim's
Speaker 1: Health Protection Act would re establish the right to abortion
Speaker 1: in every state. And it passed the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: twice in the past year, and it got to forty
Speaker 1: nine votes in the Senate when the Senate voted on
Speaker 1: it right after the leaked opinion came down. So you know,
Speaker 1: it is going to be important for even as we
Speaker 1: fight these state battles, and it's important that these state
Speaker 1: constitutional rights get developed in court and through ballid initiatives,
Speaker 1: but ultimately, ultimately there's got to be federal legislation to
Speaker 1: ensure this right across the country. Do you think not
Speaker 1: having passed the E r A was a mistake that
Speaker 1: sort of opened the door to some of this or
Speaker 1: do you think it didn't have anything to do with us.
Speaker 1: Are you talking about the r A back in the
Speaker 1: early eighties, the failure of that campaign. Yes, I'm the
Speaker 1: daughter of a feminist, so I always think about, like
Speaker 1: our failure to pass that after bro and if that
Speaker 1: might have compounded some of our troubles. Of course, I
Speaker 1: mean there was a whole crescendo towards you know, gender
Speaker 1: equality that was coming up in the nineteen seventies, and
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things I did, you know,
Speaker 1: in my early years, was work on the what's called
Speaker 1: the r A countdown campaign when time was running out.
Speaker 1: And uh, it would have been a huge difference the
Speaker 1: ARRA to pass. But you cannot blame that as a
Speaker 1: failure of the women's movement. You have to remember what
Speaker 1: the composition of state legislatures were right in the early
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties. They were predominantly male. You know, women were
Speaker 1: not being elected to office then in the numbers they
Speaker 1: are today and even now, I mean there's nowhere near
Speaker 1: gender pair in any legislative house, and certainly not in
Speaker 1: the Congress. So you know, not for lack of trying,
Speaker 1: not for lack of trying. You know, it is tough
Speaker 1: to amend the Constitution. And the reality is the Republican
Speaker 1: parties which did its stance on the e r A.
Speaker 1: Can you say a little more about that. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean the whole story of how you know, women's rights
Speaker 1: and reproductive rights was politicized. I mean people forget that.
Speaker 1: You know, when Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford were running
Speaker 1: against each other for president in ninety six, you know,
Speaker 1: Gerald Ford was the pro choice candidate, and and you
Speaker 1: know Carter was personally opposed to abortion, and so you know,
Speaker 1: this had been a very strong bipartisan issue and it
Speaker 1: still was. But the decision by the Republican Party to
Speaker 1: politicize the issue of abortion rights and push back against
Speaker 1: the e r A began, you know, with President Reagan
Speaker 1: to be turning the tide. And one of the things
Speaker 1: just to go back to the you know, ballot initiatives
Speaker 1: that we've seen since the Job's case, but they make clear,
Speaker 1: i mean, we know that the majority of the American
Speaker 1: public supports abortion rights, and what these balot initiatives making clear,
Speaker 1: states including you know, Kansas and Kentucky and Montana is
Speaker 1: that when voters can vote on the policy preference, write
Speaker 1: their policy preference, it's you know, we want to keep
Speaker 1: our rights right. When it's confused with you know, candidate
Speaker 1: preferences and party affiliations and so forth, because the issue
Speaker 1: has been so politicized over the years, you know, you
Speaker 1: see different outcomes in terms of who may be in
Speaker 1: the legislatures, even though the policy preference of the voters
Speaker 1: is give us. This is to us as a clean
Speaker 1: policy issue, we want our rights. And I think that's
Speaker 1: quite an interesting place to be right now. So let's
Speaker 1: just talk for another second about the mid terms. It
Speaker 1: seems like there's a lot of sort of Monday morning
Speaker 1: quarterbacking saying that actually Dobbs really helped Democrats. Do you
Speaker 1: think that's true. There is no question that abortion rights
Speaker 1: was a resounding issue with Democratic voters and independence right.
Speaker 1: It was a really, really important issue. And I know
Speaker 1: it was frustrating to you because you were clear about
Speaker 1: it leading into the elections, and it was certainly you know,
Speaker 1: we don't get involved in electoral politics. We're a nonprofit
Speaker 1: organization that works on this from a policy and human
Speaker 1: rights perspective. But it was certainly frustrating to me as
Speaker 1: somebody who knew how important this issue is and how
Speaker 1: it resonates with the American public. To hear like Dobbs,
Speaker 1: you know, was nobody really cares? That was amazing exactly,
Speaker 1: And certainly the voters came back and said, heck, yeah
Speaker 1: we care. So I think it's really really important. And
Speaker 1: again I was in Michigan the night of the election
Speaker 1: because of the ballot initiative there, and but we saw
Speaker 1: in Michigan right reversal of the majority in the Democrats
Speaker 1: took the the Senate and the House in Michigan. Of
Speaker 1: course the statewide offices um were won by the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and you know that was huge. And I'm sure the
Speaker 1: fact that the voting on the policy preference for abortion rights,
Speaker 1: which was on the ballot, you know, made a big difference.
Speaker 1: And then just to you know, conquetize what it means
Speaker 1: for you know people, I was with our longtime client,
Speaker 1: Renee Chilean, who runs three clinics in Michigan, the Northland
Speaker 1: Family Planning Centers, and you know, we all had tears
Speaker 1: in our eyes when the ballot initiative passed amending the
Speaker 1: Constitution because we have represented Renee for thirty years in
Speaker 1: ten cases in Michigan, fighting against the restrictions upon restrictions
Speaker 1: upon restrictions, and all of a sudden, now the words
Speaker 1: reproductive freedom are in the language of the Michigan Constitution,
Speaker 1: and it is really clear how strongly it is going
Speaker 1: to protect that right because the only thing that can
Speaker 1: be considered in legislation is the woman or pregnant person's health,
Speaker 1: not these other concerns that the Supreme Court had allowed
Speaker 1: it its jurisprudence to allow restriction upon restriction, and that's
Speaker 1: a big difference. I mean, those tears were in Renee's
Speaker 1: eyes because it means that she can provide the healthcare
Speaker 1: free of these restrictions going forward. Obviously we stell have
Speaker 1: to implement the provisions in the Michigan you know, constitution,
Speaker 1: but with the legislative change, that really should be a
Speaker 1: path forward. I just want to get back to the
Speaker 1: Stabs decision for a minute. Trump had said he was
Speaker 1: putting these three Supreme Court justices on the court to
Speaker 1: overturn Row. We almost sort of saw this coming. But
Speaker 1: when the case, when the Job's case was argued, were
Speaker 1: you surprised at just how zealotous. They were. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: December one last year, when Julie Recommen and our litigation
Speaker 1: director argued the case, I was stunned by the questions
Speaker 1: that were coming. I mean, we knew when they took
Speaker 1: the case that the writing was on the wall, because
Speaker 1: there was no reason to take a case that's so
Speaker 1: clearly Mississippi's fifteen week band clearly violated O versus Wait
Speaker 1: and even the ultra conservative US Court of Appeals for
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit had struck it down. So the law was blocked.
Speaker 1: So the Supreme Court taking it meant that it was
Speaker 1: of a mind to do something about that. And so
Speaker 1: but the questions that came during the hearing, you know,
Speaker 1: shouldn't we just be neutral? And what about the fact
Speaker 1: that you can drop off your babies at firehouses? Doesn't
Speaker 1: that alleviate the you know, the burden of parenthood. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was an incredible, incredible question. It was an incredible question.
Speaker 1: So it was clear that the die was was cast
Speaker 1: during that December one argument. So we were prepared for it,
Speaker 1: although we still didn't know whether the court would uphold
Speaker 1: the Mississippi ban, but say they weren't reversing row versus way,
Speaker 1: which it wasn't an intellectually, you know, honest possibility, but
Speaker 1: it was one that we were frankly concerned about because
Speaker 1: the worst of all worlds as they actually overturned Roversus
Speaker 1: way and the public doesn't realize it. Yeah, it's so
Speaker 1: interesting because it's like, that's what John Roberts want exactly.
Speaker 1: That was his opinion, which is, I'm going to uphold
Speaker 1: the fifteen week ban, but I'm not reversing Roversus way.
Speaker 1: And there's no way to do that because in all
Speaker 1: the cases for fifty years from Row on, the Court
Speaker 1: was clear that ultimately a state can't ban abortion pre viability,
Speaker 1: and fifteen weeks is way before viability. So it was
Speaker 1: over turning Row and there would have been no there
Speaker 1: would have been no you know, guard rails. Everything would
Speaker 1: have just build anyway. It would have been slightly slower,
Speaker 1: but not too much slower because as you well know,
Speaker 1: and uh, your listeners probably know, you know, Texas had
Speaker 1: already banned abortion. In another case we argued in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court last year, spid Spight, after six weeks, Oklahoma
Speaker 1: had banned abortion altogether because they took the vigilante law
Speaker 1: of Texas at six weeks and they said, let's just
Speaker 1: make a total band in Oklahoma. So you know, already
Speaker 1: the writing was on the wall, but it would have
Speaker 1: been more confusing, you know, for the voters. And I
Speaker 1: think the fact that it's just what the Court's done
Speaker 1: with Dobbs is clear. And I think it's also very
Speaker 1: very important that we not let anyone forget how outrageous
Speaker 1: and wrong the DBS decision is. And so people should
Speaker 1: just walk around with the following things in their brain
Speaker 1: at all times, which is that what the Jobs Court
Speaker 1: said is if you didn't have rights in eighteen sixty eight,
Speaker 1: you can't have them today. And the other thing is
Speaker 1: that it completely erased women and pregnant people's experiences. The
Speaker 1: decision mentions legislative bodies six times, it mentions women's bodies
Speaker 1: zero times. So those are the two things. Everybody wherever
Speaker 1: you go needs to talk about those two things because
Speaker 1: it's absolutely outrageous. I just want to get back to
Speaker 1: this idea for a minute. One of the reasons my
Speaker 1: row was decided so unilaterally was because of the high
Speaker 1: level of women who were dying a sceptive uterus is
Speaker 1: and you know, the doctors who refused to treat miscarriages.
Speaker 1: We're seeing that come back, right, Will you talk about that? Yes,
Speaker 1: I would say where we're seeing it the most now
Speaker 1: is women who are miscaring, so they are not getting
Speaker 1: the standard of care in hospitals, which is to complete
Speaker 1: a pregnancy termination if a miscarriage means that the pregnancy
Speaker 1: is not viable and you do not want the patient
Speaker 1: to go into the risk of you know, sepsis and
Speaker 1: infection and dying. What's different from the pre row era,
Speaker 1: which is what is making this entire post offs thing different,
Speaker 1: is the availability of medication abortion right, so people are
Speaker 1: not going to back alleys and having coat hanger abortions.
Speaker 1: You know, you can selfly safely manage an abortion getting
Speaker 1: from a reputable provider, pills on the internet, terminating a pregnancy,
Speaker 1: and so it is actually masking how many people are
Speaker 1: getting abortions in states where abortion is not legal, which
Speaker 1: is great, it's hugely important, although no one should have
Speaker 1: to be in this gray area of the law. If
Speaker 1: you're a person accessing that care, and the people who
Speaker 1: are helping someone you know, get that care can be
Speaker 1: in the cross hears of the criminal laws in these
Speaker 1: states and it's so partant for people to realize just
Speaker 1: how draconian, you know, the criminal laws are right. And
Speaker 1: I also think this idea that you know you have women,
Speaker 1: I mean, we heard this. We've had people who run
Speaker 1: abortion clinics on this podcast and they've talked about this
Speaker 1: idea now that in a lot of these states where
Speaker 1: they've banned abortion, they won't treat women who are having mischaracters.
Speaker 1: So you really are you have women who desperately need
Speaker 1: medical assistance who are not getting it because of something
Speaker 1: that doesn't even have anything to do with that. That
Speaker 1: is absolutely correct, and it is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable,
Speaker 1: and it's and it puts the you know, it makes
Speaker 1: the point about why you cannot use the criminal law
Speaker 1: to regulate medical care in this way. You have to
Speaker 1: be able to have providers and patients, whether they have
Speaker 1: a pregnancy that they are looking to go to term
Speaker 1: with or a pregnancy that they want to end, they
Speaker 1: have to be able to provide standard of care. Pregnancy
Speaker 1: is a high risk proposition. It is a normal process
Speaker 1: of life, but it can also be life threatening. And
Speaker 1: politicians and the criminal law, you know Texas, they're enforcing
Speaker 1: a you know, ninety nine year pre rod band in
Speaker 1: the state of Texas. That cannot be hanging over the
Speaker 1: head of a healthcare provider when they are trying to
Speaker 1: give their patients the best care. Nancy, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I hope you will come back absolutely, thank you for
Speaker 1: keeping on the issue. Thank you great, Thanks so much,
Speaker 1: Molly John Fast Jesse Cannon. When Kevin McCarthy is not
Speaker 1: having to pretend he doesn't know what Donald Trump says,
Speaker 1: comes up with great policy ideas, really truly chefs. Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy is not yet speaker, but he's hoping to be.
Speaker 1: One of the things that Kevin McCarthy is doing is, uh,
Speaker 1: how do you say this in ways that are not curses? Oh? Wait,
Speaker 1: we can He's Marjorie Taylor Green's I want to say consigulatory,
Speaker 1: consiguliary lap lapdog bitch. Anyway, Kevin McCarthy is doing everything
Speaker 1: he can to try to make the maga's vote for him.
Speaker 1: One of the things he's decided that he thinks will
Speaker 1: serve him is he's going to defund the military. Yes,
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy, or he's called by Trump myke Kevin is
Speaker 1: threatening to defund the military if the vaccine mandate is
Speaker 1: not lifted to fund the police. Wasn't a dog, hey man,
Speaker 1: don't threaten me with a good time. This is a
Speaker 1: great message for them. This is really, really is good.
Speaker 1: Stuffy defund the military, Okay, So Kevin McCarthy feels it
Speaker 1: very unfair that members of the military should be vaccinated
Speaker 1: against COVID. Members the military are vaccinated against many, many,
Speaker 1: many viruses and diseases that people in America aren't because
Speaker 1: of the many exotic places they go. So Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: is making this COVID exception is really silly because these
Speaker 1: people are getting vaccinated for things that are much less
Speaker 1: occurring than COVID. But Kevin McCarthy wants to take a
Speaker 1: stand against vaccines. And remember anti vaxers are a rich
Speaker 1: and full part of the Republican Party. And uh so,
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy has decided he will defund the military unless
Speaker 1: Joe Biden removes the vaccine requirement for military servicemen. And
Speaker 1: let's remember who's the queen of the anti vaxers in
Speaker 1: the Republican Party as more proof of that. That's who
Speaker 1: actually runs the party, Marjorie Taylor Green, And that is
Speaker 1: our moment of gray. That's it for this episode of
Speaker 1: Fast Politics. Tune in at every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Speaker 1: to your the best minds in politics makes sense of
Speaker 1: all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please
Speaker 1: send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening. H