Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Mollie 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 Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy says a
Speaker 1: government shutdown would be a self defeating for the GOP, but.
Speaker 2: Doesn't he know self defeating is kind of their thing.
Speaker 1: The Guardians Margaret Sullivan stops by to talk about how
Speaker 1: the media should cover Trump and.
Speaker 2: This twenty twenty four election cycle.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to The New York Times David Leonhard
Speaker 1: about Mitt Romney's retirement and what it means for the
Speaker 1: future of the GOP. But first we have the host
Speaker 1: of the Enemy's List, fan favorite and my friend the
Speaker 1: Lincoln Projects, Rick Wilson. Welcome back to Fast Politics, Rick Wilson.
Speaker 3: Molli, John Fast, aliy To'll be with you as always.
Speaker 1: I almost want to read you the horrendous headline from
Speaker 1: a reputable newspaper. I'm not even gonna say which one,
Speaker 1: because I just you know, sometimes newspaper or straight news
Speaker 1: gets it wrong.
Speaker 2: But I'm going to read to you.
Speaker 1: And you're gonna explain why this is so. Why we're
Speaker 1: all going to drive the car off the road. And
Speaker 1: that's the best case scenario, like in fucking credible Stuff,
Speaker 1: a straight newspaper says, double blow of inquiry and Sen's
Speaker 1: indictment create tough stretch for Biden.
Speaker 3: Discuss it all proves the case that the universe inevitably
Speaker 3: devolves towards the New York Times pitchpot. Yeah, even these,
Speaker 3: I'll look, I'm gonna be really direct about what's underneath
Speaker 3: it all the desperation for an actual horse race in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four. And that's why, for months on end,
Speaker 3: even though every serious political reporter in this country knew
Speaker 3: there was not going to be a Democratic challenger that
Speaker 3: emerged against Joe Biden. RFK Junior doesn't count, and there
Speaker 3: was never gonna be a serious Republican challenger to Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: which I was telling people two years ago, thank you
Speaker 3: very much. They desperately want the drama, the intrigue, the
Speaker 3: loud noises, the mutant hellscape of Mad Max, of people
Speaker 3: racing across the desert in trucks and catching shit on fire.
Speaker 3: They desperately wanted it, and I get it, Okay, I
Speaker 3: understand it. That's the default position of the American political
Speaker 3: narrative is we want loud noises. The problem with all
Speaker 3: these things is that we have a set of perverse
Speaker 3: incentives even inside the non MAGA media, but we have
Speaker 3: on the Magamedia side a cent of perverse incentives to
Speaker 3: keep driving people out of their freaking minds by saying,
Speaker 3: my god, huns a Biden. He may face walk crimes
Speaker 3: on the Hague. You know, all the crazy shit. It's
Speaker 3: just part of their economic model, as which as I
Speaker 3: wish it was different, it's just not. It's crappy, it's horrible,
Speaker 3: it's stupid. It is the environment we live in. I
Speaker 3: don't know how to fix it, obviously, and I wish
Speaker 3: people could step back for a minute and reset, But
Speaker 3: I don't see any motivation to do it, do you.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, let's pause for a second and talk
Speaker 1: about what is really going on here.
Speaker 2: Right. This is Steve Bannon flooding. The zone was shit
Speaker 2: one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: Now, whether or not we got there because Trump wanted
Speaker 1: McCarthy to impeach Biden because he was mad that he
Speaker 1: had gotten impeached, which is one reason why we might
Speaker 1: have gotten here, or another way we got here was
Speaker 1: that McCarthy is weak and in trouble, and it has
Speaker 1: a one person motion to vacate and is scared of
Speaker 1: his caucus, so he did the impeachment again as a
Speaker 1: faustian bargain to avoid shutdown, which, by the way, is
Speaker 1: not going to work because McCarthy is terrible at this.
Speaker 1: Whether we got there this way or that way, the
Speaker 1: result is still the same, which is that the zone
Speaker 1: is now completely flooded with shit.
Speaker 2: And when you talk to a.
Speaker 1: Trump or they're going to say, yeah, our guy was impeached,
Speaker 1: but your guy was impeached.
Speaker 3: All of these things can be true at one time,
Speaker 3: and you're correctly pointing out, yes, Kevin is doing this
Speaker 3: because Heaven wants, more than life itself to have this,
Speaker 3: the fancy office and the security detail and the portrait
Speaker 3: on the wall, and the title of speaker. And if
Speaker 3: someone said to him, hey, you have to kill your
Speaker 3: dog in public, he would do it to home.
Speaker 2: No question. He'd be eating that dog.
Speaker 3: He would eat that dog live in public. He would
Speaker 3: skin it, eat it where it's fur for a hat.
Speaker 3: This guy does not believe in anything other than holding
Speaker 3: that office. And I spoke to a private equity person.
Speaker 3: Let's say, well, we're technically real estate, but private equity
Speaker 3: close enough. A big, big, big Republican donor who literally
Speaker 3: still makes the argument says, well, I've talked to Kevin.
Speaker 3: He's just keeping the crazies at Bay. I'm like, in
Speaker 3: what fucking way is he keeping the crazy at Bay?
Speaker 2: Well, he thinks he's creeping in.
Speaker 3: What way does he think? Like saying, well, bring the motion,
Speaker 3: mad fuck you? That changes that. He's doing everything that
Speaker 3: Matt Gets and Marjorie Taylor Green and Jim Jordan and
Speaker 3: Bobert and Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar want. He's doing
Speaker 3: the entire agenda of chaos and bullshit that they crave
Speaker 3: every day, and so to hold power, he will burn
Speaker 3: this country to the ground. They know the impeachment will
Speaker 3: go nowhere. You and I both know the impeachment will.
Speaker 2: Go ken Buck, right republic.
Speaker 3: Ken ken Buck not exactly a member of the squad.
Speaker 1: Right ken Buck from a very very red part of Colorado,
Speaker 1: who has now already been threatened with a primary challenge
Speaker 1: for not chatting the fuck up. That guy says there's
Speaker 1: no proof. I mean, the reality is there's no proof
Speaker 1: the impeachment. Okay, like you'll expect a bunch of partisan
Speaker 1: hacks to be partisan hacks. Fine, the federal weapons charges
Speaker 1: against Hunter Biden is a genuine failing on.
Speaker 2: The part of the government. I mean, come on.
Speaker 1: Like, obviously the fucking guy does not deserve a FED
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 2: I mean it is so like there are ten times in.
Speaker 1: History when a federal weapons charge has been.
Speaker 3: Look, as you know, I know more about the federal
Speaker 3: firearms regulatory structure.
Speaker 2: Yes, then probably you should, but that's because you own
Speaker 2: a small.
Speaker 3: Arsenal probably than any other human being.
Speaker 2: You know, yes, hopefully.
Speaker 3: When Hunter Biden filed his forty four to seventy three,
Speaker 3: which is a form used under the federal background check system. So,
Speaker 3: by the way, let's start right there. He wasn't trying
Speaker 3: to like illegally obtain a gun on the black market.
Speaker 3: He went to a firearms dealer, filed the federal background
Speaker 3: check form. Whatever the presumption was about his current legal
Speaker 3: status is where he went wrong on this. So he
Speaker 3: made a either deliberate or accidental mistake in the filing.
Speaker 3: And let me tell you something, unless you're a hardened career,
Speaker 3: multi charge, long term felon, you're not going to catch
Speaker 3: a federal charge on that. You know, what they're gonna do.
Speaker 3: They've got to rid your nick's form. They're going to
Speaker 3: come back and go, no, you can't have the gun.
Speaker 3: That's how it works. Most firearms transactions are done just
Speaker 3: like that. You fill out a form and it says,
Speaker 3: have I renounced my American citizenship? Are you currently engaged
Speaker 3: in filitia sect to all this stuff? Right? No one
Speaker 3: gets charged under this, No one. There are hundreds of
Speaker 3: thousands of these forms every year. And here's the thing,
Speaker 3: there are millions of them filed every year. The vast
Speaker 3: majority of gun purchases go through the system. Hunter Biden,
Speaker 3: for whatever reason, they're now saying, Wow, this is like
Speaker 3: somebody's who's like filing the serial numbers off of glocks
Speaker 3: and selling them off out of the back of his car. No,
Speaker 3: it's not the same. It is an overreach. I'd like
Speaker 3: to know what the MAGA explanation is, because I heard
Speaker 3: that government was weaponized and was totally there stacked in
Speaker 3: favor of the Bidens, that nothing ever happened to them.
Speaker 3: I heard that a couple of times. Now I may
Speaker 3: be wrong, but I'm guessing catching a federal felony charge
Speaker 3: is not something that most people imagine we be delivered
Speaker 3: to the Bobolin crime family if the federal government was
Speaker 3: so in fucking pocket.
Speaker 2: It is so shockingly fucked up.
Speaker 3: Somebody at DOJ, if you tried to bring this charge
Speaker 3: as a general rule, somebody would go, the fuck is
Speaker 3: wrong with you? This is not going to be the
Speaker 3: highest and best use of federal prosecutorial time and effort.
Speaker 3: But here we are.
Speaker 2: So are you saying the merit Garland Justice Department that
Speaker 2: refused to prosecute Trump after January sixth, is now making
Speaker 2: a mistake with its charges against Hunter Biden.
Speaker 3: I know you'll find this shocking. Other people will find
Speaker 3: this shocking too, But a lot of people in the
Speaker 3: FBI and the DOJ, yes.
Speaker 2: It can't be. Don't not true.
Speaker 3: I was told that the New York FBI Field office
Speaker 3: was chock full of liberals and activists who love AOC
Speaker 3: in America. Exactly.
Speaker 1: We're just going to look at solid facts of like
Speaker 1: the Justice Department fucking around with democratic candidates. I will
Speaker 1: remind you of the James Coomy October surprise.
Speaker 2: Yes, indeed, but of course he's apologized for that.
Speaker 3: So yes, we have a track record of the Justice
Speaker 3: Department not making the best calls around election season. But
Speaker 3: here we are, and look, Molly, this is part and
Speaker 3: parcel of a broad Republican strategy at Steve Bannon, then
Speaker 3: the ship flooding, and to make morally equivalent in the
Speaker 3: most absurd way, the idea that Joe Biden is somehow
Speaker 3: corrupt in the head of the Biden crime family, which
Speaker 3: is like the ends of twenty twenty four. And they
Speaker 3: do it because Donald Trump is a goddamn criminal. They
Speaker 3: do it because Donald Trump is facing ninety one charges
Speaker 3: in four separate indictments and more to come. Because he's
Speaker 3: a criminal who persists in criming, because he's a criminal
Speaker 3: who persists in attempting to retake power in the country.
Speaker 3: The idea here to make them equivalent, so they could
Speaker 3: say whoa Trump was indicted and Saul was Biden's son
Speaker 3: for laptop and.
Speaker 2: Out and out right, it's basically the same.
Speaker 3: The madness of this should be evident to anybody who
Speaker 3: draws air into their lungs.
Speaker 1: With the exception of the mainstream media, let's talk about where.
Speaker 2: We're going to go now.
Speaker 3: We will both sides ourselves to fucking death in this country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to talk for two seconds about what
Speaker 1: Republicans have done here very successfully, which is working the rafts.
Speaker 2: Right. This is the result of working the rafts.
Speaker 1: This is a Justice Department that's worried that it looks
Speaker 1: too liberal. Talk to us about what it means to
Speaker 1: work the rafts.
Speaker 3: This is the secret weapon of the Republican Party. Not
Speaker 3: only for the last five or ten years, but this
Speaker 3: started back in the nineteen sixties during the Johnson administration
Speaker 3: when a couple of Republicans. Back then they were millionaires,
Speaker 3: because back then a millionaire meant something. Today they'd be billionaires,
Speaker 3: and they are funded by billionaires today. This infrastructure, the
Speaker 3: Brent Bozell infrastructure, the right wing media, you know, screechers
Speaker 3: and howlers, claiming that anytime someone reports on something, it
Speaker 3: displays liberal bias, and you must kill the liberal bias.
Speaker 3: And so these people work very carefully, very methodically. They're
Speaker 3: constantly on the phone. They never ever ever stop hauling
Speaker 3: and say that's unfair. I may not be as far
Speaker 3: right as Steve Bannon, but that's unfair that you're treating
Speaker 3: us like second class citizens, and we have a right.
Speaker 3: They will use the media's rules, they will use institutional rules.
Speaker 3: They will use society's rules to absolutely burn the building down.
Speaker 3: It's like, in fairness, you have to sell me the
Speaker 3: gasoline to pour throughout this building so I can set
Speaker 3: it on fire. And that's what they do, because, believe me,
Speaker 3: the end state for journalism is not hey buddy, we're
Speaker 3: all going to play it straight up the middle. The
Speaker 3: end state for journalism under Steve Bannon is you have
Speaker 3: to have a license to be a journalist, and you're
Speaker 3: going to report what we want you to report. They
Speaker 3: should not think of this as in the future. Ask oh,
Speaker 3: it'll be like going back to regular bush. No, it'll
Speaker 3: be like going into a RAQ and being in the
Speaker 3: bath party and getting a license to have a newspaper
Speaker 3: and getting a license to be a reporter. The natural
Speaker 3: outcome is not the guys you see in DC, guys
Speaker 3: who used to be like me, Like a lot of
Speaker 3: Republican consults in DC. They take reporters out to dinner,
Speaker 3: they buy them drinks, they do the thing, and it's like, hey, buddy,
Speaker 3: you know, we're the normal ones, Tory man, We're cool,
Speaker 3: and they are in service to a movement and a
Speaker 3: guy who would literally put them in prison camps if
Speaker 3: he got his way. And that's the fact. Not all
Speaker 3: the Republicans who are spending the press know that or
Speaker 3: say that. But listen to what Trump says. He always
Speaker 3: tells you what he will do. When he says he'll
Speaker 3: put his political opponents in prison camps, that's what he'll do.
Speaker 2: That's what he means.
Speaker 1: Margaret Sullivan is a columnist at The Guardian and author
Speaker 1: of Newsroom Confidential. Welcome back to Fast Politics, Margaret Sullivan.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mollie.
Speaker 5: I enjoy being on your fantastic podcast, and I always
Speaker 5: enjoyed speaking with you, even if the.
Speaker 2: Subject is rather grim.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I have friends where I hesitate to emotionally blackmail
Speaker 1: them to do something with me, but on this case
Speaker 1: I had to because.
Speaker 2: I sent you.
Speaker 1: You know, I always send you what strikes me as
Speaker 1: like a grievous medium malpractice. And today there was a doozy,
Speaker 1: which was this Washington Post title of how Biden's son
Speaker 1: is charged with three counts of federal weapons possession and
Speaker 1: not filling out the form right and he's also being
Speaker 1: impeached by the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy. Because
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy is quite worried about a government shutdown and
Speaker 1: he can't control his caucus. But the sort of headline
Speaker 1: we saw was just this really gross kind of both
Speaker 1: sides saying like Biden's gonna have a tough time now.
Speaker 2: And I sent it to you and I.
Speaker 1: Was like, we got to get Margaret on here. So
Speaker 1: I feel like this is a nine to one one year.
Speaker 5: Margaret, Right, And just to tell you and your listeners
Speaker 5: exactly what those words were in the posts, double blows
Speaker 5: of inquiry and Son's indictment create tough stretch for Biden.
Speaker 4: So this is a case in which those that is.
Speaker 5: True, I mean that is literally true, but it also
Speaker 5: is misleading and it lacks context. And so my big
Speaker 5: thing is that if we're going to tell the truth
Speaker 5: and not be neutral, and I was happy to hear
Speaker 5: Chris jan amenpor put it so so succinctly this week,
Speaker 5: be truthful, not neutral, then that kind of headline is
Speaker 5: not helpful, and it's harmful because it creates a situation
Speaker 5: that lacks context and is misleading.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I think that's a really good point. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about where we are, because like twenty fifteen, that election
Speaker 1: was shaped by I think three words, but her emails. Right,
Speaker 1: So the idea was trumpad Trump's he had allegations of
Speaker 1: sexual misconduct, he had this, he had that, he had
Speaker 1: tape of him talking about grabbing women, and yet the
Speaker 1: constant refrain in the mainstream media was about her emails.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: It was this sort of endless effort to equalize Clinton's
Speaker 5: dubious practices on her emails. It wasn't ideal with Trump's
Speaker 5: incredible list of things that should have disqualified for him
Speaker 5: as president. And so this one piece was blown out
Speaker 5: of proportion constantly and with very terrible timing. And when
Speaker 5: Komi started up his investigation again at the FBI and
Speaker 5: all of Trump's stuff which we knew about, but somehow
Speaker 5: he was so distracting and so entertaining and so compelling
Speaker 5: and a ratings machine that these things got equalized.
Speaker 4: And then guess what, he got elected.
Speaker 1: So your very good piece in the Guardian today talked
Speaker 1: about this idea that Trump is covered as an entertaining
Speaker 1: figure and in a kind of jovial way that a
Speaker 1: democratic challenger is not.
Speaker 2: Can you talk about that?
Speaker 5: Well, you wrote a great piece in the since we're
Speaker 5: in a mutual admiration society, or you wrote an important
Speaker 5: piece in Vanity Fair a couple of weeks ago, or
Speaker 5: maybe just last week, because we've lost track of time
Speaker 5: about I think the headline was something like, can bide
Speaker 5: and ride boring to reelection?
Speaker 4: And that's a great question.
Speaker 5: I mean, he is boring, and we should all be
Speaker 5: very grateful that he's boring, because the boringness includes human decency,
Speaker 5: good governance, having people around him who are experienced and
Speaker 5: who he listens to, and getting things done in government.
Speaker 5: If that means boring, then we should all be celebrating boring.
Speaker 5: Trump is never boring. We have to say that for him.
Speaker 5: He called himself a ratings machine. He is. He is compelling.
Speaker 5: That's not a good thing in this case. So you know,
Speaker 5: that's sort.
Speaker 4: Of the en and the aang here.
Speaker 5: But it seems like the media has a hard time
Speaker 5: separating itself from seeing Trump as this constant sort of
Speaker 5: clickmeister and someone who will keep us entertained at all costs,
Speaker 5: you know, right over the cliff of democracy into authoritarianism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it does seem like that, and I understand.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about how we got here, because I
Speaker 1: feel like that is something that I think could be
Speaker 1: relevant So my question for you is some part of
Speaker 1: this is conservative pundits and politicians working the refs.
Speaker 2: Can you talk about that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, when we say working the refs, what we mean
Speaker 5: is that, so there's the mainstream media. So what we
Speaker 5: mean by that is sort of the big newspapers or
Speaker 5: traditional newspaper companies, the New York Times and the Wall
Speaker 5: Street Journal, and the three broadcast networks and the cable
Speaker 5: networks that aren't Fox News. Right, Okay, so let's call
Speaker 5: that is sort of the big journalism, big media and
Speaker 5: working the refs. Is that there's a constant barrage of
Speaker 5: criticism from the right that says, you people are all
Speaker 5: spouting DNC talking points, you're all doing the work of
Speaker 5: the DNC, you're in the tank for the Democrats, on
Speaker 5: and on, and what the media wants to be seen
Speaker 5: as is nonpartisan and fair, which is a reasonable thing
Speaker 5: to want to be seen as. But when the right,
Speaker 5: whether it's politicians or media figures, or whether it's Tucker
Speaker 5: Carlson or whether it's Trump, come after the mainstream media
Speaker 5: and say look at you, you're doing the work of
Speaker 5: the DNC. The reaction to that that's working the refs
Speaker 5: you're pushing the refs in this case, the media to
Speaker 5: move to the right, and so very dutifully the media
Speaker 5: does move to the right. And then it's never enough,
Speaker 5: so you move to the right some more, and the
Speaker 5: sort of overton window of normalcy keeps moving rightward.
Speaker 2: What you get after a while is this both sides.
Speaker 5: That is very defensive and it's very scared, and it's
Speaker 5: not true to the core mission of journalism, right.
Speaker 1: And then there is the fundamental problem of click based journalism,
Speaker 1: which is that there is a real kind of incentive
Speaker 1: for journalists to write things that we'll get read.
Speaker 2: That sounds obvious, but it's actually not.
Speaker 5: It's not only things that we'll get read and engaged with,
Speaker 5: which is a high value, and that's a profit driven thing,
Speaker 5: but it's also how can we get the biggest audience.
Speaker 5: So if you're striving for the biggest audience, and again,
Speaker 5: this is all about revenue, it's all about being successful,
Speaker 5: it's all you know, The Washington Post is going to
Speaker 5: supposedly going to lose one hundred million dollars this year,
Speaker 5: so you know, there are some actual reasons to be
Speaker 5: worried about revenue. But I don't think that that should
Speaker 5: get in the way of doing good journalism. So if
Speaker 5: you're trying to get the biggest audience, then you want
Speaker 5: to create the biggest tent, and so you want to
Speaker 5: bring in It's not just the independence, it's not just
Speaker 5: the Democrats, it's not just those who are not sure
Speaker 5: lean left. You want the whole country, you want the
Speaker 5: right wing. The problem is you're never going to have
Speaker 5: those people. They have already voted with their feet and
Speaker 5: gone to Fox News or Newsmax or Bright Barter or
Speaker 5: Ben Shapiro or whoever. They're not going to start reading
Speaker 5: the New York Times every day, So it's kind of pointless.
Speaker 5: But I do think that everything we saw that happened
Speaker 5: at CNN under Chris Licht was about this making the
Speaker 5: tent big and trying to get every viewer that was possible.
Speaker 5: I mean, I believe in talking to all parts of
Speaker 5: the country and trying to communicate with everyone, but not
Speaker 5: if it means elevating liars and giving people a megaphone
Speaker 5: to say untrue things.
Speaker 4: And we see way too much of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because the thing is part of the problem is
Speaker 1: this idea that the right is just very good at
Speaker 1: messaging too, So you have a lie, and so talk
Speaker 1: to me about like ways in which we can engage
Speaker 1: with right wing content that may or may not be
Speaker 1: truthful and still report it.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: You can't ignore things. Ignoring Trump is not an option.
Speaker 1: I mean, at least right now.
Speaker 5: The sort of easy and cartoonish way to talk about
Speaker 5: this is the truth sandwich is not to let the
Speaker 5: person spout the lie and then try to fact check it,
Speaker 5: but rather to start with what is true, to allow
Speaker 5: the person to say whatever it is they want to say,
Speaker 5: and then to fact check it. It's an anti propaganda technique.
Speaker 5: You're putting the untruth, you're covering it, but you're kind
Speaker 5: of putting it in a sandwich of truth. And that
Speaker 5: is something that can help to keep the misinformation and
Speaker 5: disinformation from spreading.
Speaker 4: And help to kind of contain the lie, right.
Speaker 1: And I think that's so important because when we talk
Speaker 1: about Trump, it's really important in twenty fifteen to realize
Speaker 1: you got two billion dollars on media, So every time
Speaker 1: he's tweeted something racist, he got so much repetition of
Speaker 1: the lie.
Speaker 2: It did blur the.
Speaker 4: World, right.
Speaker 5: And I mean, it's not only the lies that get
Speaker 5: a lot of coverage. It's also kind of the silly
Speaker 5: stuff that still you know, compels people like, for example,
Speaker 5: the mugshot. You know, so when he surrendered in Georgia
Speaker 5: and there was mugshot and he posed in a particularly
Speaker 5: supposedly movie star.
Speaker 2: He thought he looked like Churchill for Margaret, I am
Speaker 2: torturing you.
Speaker 4: I couldn't see that.
Speaker 5: But at any rate, you know, there was a lot
Speaker 5: of coverage of that because it was like, oh, wow,
Speaker 5: here's this crazy, weird thing, and we're going to cover
Speaker 5: the heck out of it and show the mugshot. And
Speaker 5: you know, the effect of that is to play right
Speaker 5: into the hands of Trump and others who want this
Speaker 5: sort of thing. But the thing that I find kind
Speaker 5: of the most disturbing is, for example, with this Biden
Speaker 5: impeachment effort. And you know, we should all understand that
Speaker 5: there's really no reason to impeach Joe Biden. There's no evidence,
Speaker 5: there's not even the beginnings of evidence, and yet it's
Speaker 5: reported as this very straight thing right for the most part, Oh,
Speaker 5: Kevin McCarthy moves to begin on Biden's impeachment inquiry as
Speaker 5: if it's some very serious, you know, real thing about
Speaker 5: high crimes and misdemeanors, when really it's just about McCarthy
Speaker 5: getting incredibly pressured from the right and facing an ouster
Speaker 5: and facing a government shutdown and sort of being desperate.
Speaker 5: It's not admirable on his part, but that is what's
Speaker 5: going on. So anytime you have a headline at tweet
Speaker 5: display type of any kind, or the top of a
Speaker 5: news show that reports it without that context, you're really
Speaker 5: doing a disservice.
Speaker 2: You're actively misinforming people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that's a really good point. We
Speaker 1: cannot rely on the normal journalistic tropes of the past.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: In my Guardian column today I talked about the big
Speaker 5: problem and the big solution, and the big problem as
Speaker 5: I see it, is that the news media, the mainstream media,
Speaker 5: legitimately wants to be seen as nonpartisan. Okay, that's fine,
Speaker 5: that's reasonable, But what it means is that they do
Speaker 5: this both sides stuff all the time, and it's very damaging.
Speaker 5: And I think we all know what I mean by that,
Speaker 5: That we're equalizing things that aren't equal, and we're normalizing
Speaker 5: things that aren't normal. So that's the big problem, and
Speaker 5: the big solution, I feel is for newsrooms to remember
Speaker 5: all day long and to be reminded by their top
Speaker 5: leaders all day long what their mission is, which is
Speaker 5: to truthfully inform the public about important matters so that
Speaker 5: the citizens can go out.
Speaker 4: And hold people accountable.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's what we're supposed to be about, and
Speaker 5: that's why we're protected by the First Amendment. And if
Speaker 5: you do that, you will report with context, you will
Speaker 5: write the headlines that make sense. You will not do
Speaker 5: this crazy both sides ism. So I think there is
Speaker 5: a big problem, and I think there is a big solution.
Speaker 1: But the fundamental problem here is that you have one
Speaker 1: party that no longer believes in democracy. I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: not every member of that party, maybe not mint Romney,
Speaker 1: but the fundamental gist of it is like you go
Speaker 1: to Wisconsin, they're trying to impeach an elected judge because
Speaker 1: she won't.
Speaker 2: Rule the way they want her to.
Speaker 1: I mean, there is a fundamental disconnect here between one
Speaker 1: party you may not like, Democrats, and the other party
Speaker 1: that has sort of given up on the whole system, right.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's the fundamental politics or government problem, But
Speaker 5: that isn't really the fundamental media problem. Fundamental media problem
Speaker 5: is to not recognize that and to reflect it in
Speaker 5: your coverage all the time.
Speaker 1: Right, But if you say, well one party no longer
Speaker 1: believes in democracy, you seem like a democrat.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think that needs to be true.
Speaker 5: I mean we could reposition our thinking so that we
Speaker 5: think in terms of what shouldn't journalists and media companies
Speaker 5: stand for democracy.
Speaker 2: That doesn't seem like a heavy.
Speaker 4: Lift to me.
Speaker 5: It's just not I mean that's why we exist, so
Speaker 5: it shouldn't be a heavy lift. So if we look
Speaker 5: at it through that lens, what is the pro democracy
Speaker 5: stance candidate, et cetera, what is the anti democracy stance candidate,
Speaker 5: et cetera, Then you kind of can move away from
Speaker 5: the sphere of being partisan. I mean, it does, in
Speaker 5: this case result in finally a political answer. But that's
Speaker 5: not because we're love democrats or anything like that. It's
Speaker 5: really not about that. And I think if you surveyed
Speaker 5: as many journalists as you could find, they really aren't
Speaker 5: interested in being pro democrat or anything like that. Their
Speaker 5: pro story, they're pro conflict, they're pro getting their names
Speaker 5: on the front page, their pro their careers, those things.
Speaker 1: I want to get into this for a second too, though,
Speaker 1: because a lot of this writing, the problem is not
Speaker 1: necessarily the writing or the journalist as much as it
Speaker 1: is even the headline. Can you talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about how political headlines are born and what is the
Speaker 1: sort of pressure point there?
Speaker 5: Often, I would say, still the case is that reporters
Speaker 5: and writers don't write their own headlines. They may suggest
Speaker 5: a headline, they might write it and have it accepted,
Speaker 5: but in general editors do that, and you know, there's
Speaker 5: a lot of pressure to have the headline be the
Speaker 5: thing that's going to get the most engagement. In other words,
Speaker 5: you know, the most clicks, the most you know, the
Speaker 5: most attention. Let's put it that way. And it's not
Speaker 5: really like, oh, are we creating an impression like for example,
Speaker 5: and I mean this is this is a beauty? Is
Speaker 5: when Biden was on his Asia diplomatic mission and you
Speaker 5: know that headline in the New York Times, he had
Speaker 5: gone out to reporters, you know, in a gaggle or
Speaker 5: whatever and said, you know, self deprecatingly and jokingly, good evening.
Speaker 4: It is evening, isn't it?
Speaker 5: And then he said something about, wow, you know, five
Speaker 5: days of travel, you know, it's pretty crazy.
Speaker 2: Isn't it?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 5: And so the Times picked up on that thing that
Speaker 5: was it is evening, isn't it put that in quotes,
Speaker 5: and the rest of the headline was something like an
Speaker 5: eighty year old president on a whirlwind trip of Asia,
Speaker 5: in other words, portraying him because of the combination of
Speaker 5: the question it is evening, isn't it and his age,
Speaker 5: portraying him as this doddering guy who didn't know what time.
Speaker 4: Of day it was?
Speaker 5: Now do people get beyond the headline and read a
Speaker 5: pretty balanced story.
Speaker 4: No, A lot of times they don't.
Speaker 5: A lot of times they don't, you know, and I
Speaker 5: don't know that fixing every headline in the New York
Speaker 5: Times of the Washington Post, the kinds of things we're
Speaker 5: talking about, is really going to change the tenor of
Speaker 5: the country. But let's get it right, you know, let's
Speaker 5: at least try to not mislead and to not help
Speaker 5: those who, if elected, are going to destroy the democracy,
Speaker 5: which Trump has clearly said, you know, he's already said,
Speaker 5: I'm going to put my cronies in and we're not
Speaker 5: going to have these annoying rules that have kept me
Speaker 5: from overturning the election.
Speaker 1: Yeah, part of the problem is that it's more fun
Speaker 1: to write about fascism.
Speaker 5: Well it is for now until you're put out of
Speaker 5: business because you no longer have a free press.
Speaker 4: But I guess for now, maybe it's more fun.
Speaker 2: What you're saying is a really good point.
Speaker 1: Like the mugshot, the Lewandowski affair, this sort of big, flashy,
Speaker 1: kind of very much out of our normal political world
Speaker 1: stuff really does get a lot of attention because it's
Speaker 1: sort of scandalous and it feels like celebrity gossip and
Speaker 1: not like policy.
Speaker 5: I mean, how many years of this? This started really
Speaker 5: in earnest in twenty fifteen. It is eight years later,
Speaker 5: and I really wonder and doubt whether we've learned a
Speaker 5: single thing.
Speaker 2: Well, that is the real worry.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration has gotten a lot of things done,
Speaker 1: and they've taken absolutely the office attacked right. They've become
Speaker 1: And I was talking to a straight journalist who was
Speaker 1: saying to me, like they're aggressively boring, Like they work
Speaker 1: hard to be boring, which works for them, But do
Speaker 1: you think that is why it's so hard for them?
Speaker 1: Like the prescription drug whin and the Japan South Korea summit,
Speaker 1: even this trip just now where Biden was doing all
Speaker 1: these meetings in Alaska and did some really important stuff
Speaker 1: with Asia, and you know, China is ultimately America's biggest
Speaker 1: problem in the globe. You know, he's in there trying
Speaker 1: to get stuff going and I think quite a good way.
Speaker 2: Do you think that is their problem?
Speaker 5: But people will say that they're interested in reading about
Speaker 5: and hearing about policy and substance. But if they're presented with,
Speaker 5: you know, an in depth story about the economic efforts
Speaker 5: and how you know, or some diplomatic mission or Trump's
Speaker 5: mug shot, They're going to read the mugshot story.
Speaker 4: And that maybe is human nature.
Speaker 5: So I think that's it makes it really more important
Speaker 5: that the media do its job and be responsible.
Speaker 2: Margaret Sullivan, thank you, thank you, thank you. I owe you. Okay,
Speaker 2: no you don't, but thanks. It was fun to talk.
Speaker 1: David leon Hart is a senior writer at The New
Speaker 1: York Times. Welcome, welcome to you, Welcome back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 3: David, Thank you, Molly.
Speaker 6: It's great to be back.
Speaker 1: You know, I think about you all the time when
Speaker 1: I read your newsletter. I feel like you don't write
Speaker 1: every day, right.
Speaker 6: I don't write every day. I maybe write it four
Speaker 6: times a week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have an interesting perspective because you have to
Speaker 1: sort of be an expert on everything.
Speaker 6: Well, since no one is actually an expert, or at
Speaker 6: least I am not, I have the wonderful advantage that
Speaker 6: because it's a New York Times email, basically at any
Speaker 6: point I can call up a colleague, I can send
Speaker 6: a draft to a colleague. I can say, please tell
Speaker 6: me when I'm getting wrong here, please tell us what
Speaker 6: we should say. And so it's very nice of you
Speaker 6: to say that. I feel like what I'm often doing
Speaker 6: is channeling the expertise of the New York Times, which
Speaker 6: you know, it's like what the Daily podcast does. I mean,
Speaker 6: first of all, it's incredibly fun, right because think about
Speaker 6: every burns. You might have a question about the news,
Speaker 6: and it's like, oh, I have a question about the military,
Speaker 6: I can call Alleen Cooper, Eric Schmidt or you know.
Speaker 6: It's I know, we're here to talk about the world
Speaker 6: on my job, but it's a really fun job.
Speaker 1: No, And I mean I feel that way doing this podcast,
Speaker 1: Like I am constantly delighted that I get to have
Speaker 1: people explain things to me. But you do have this
Speaker 1: sort of like you are taking in more information than
Speaker 1: the rest of us. I think about that a lot,
Speaker 1: because I read a lot. But I always feel very
Speaker 1: conscious of the bubble, you know, whatever that looks like
Speaker 1: again that I'm in. And you know, some stories that
Speaker 1: don't make it to me, you know, like today my
Speaker 1: first cousin who has descended into madness with his involvement
Speaker 1: of the Green Party. There was a profile of him
Speaker 1: today in the New York Times, and I did not
Speaker 1: know it until I called my other first cousin. So
Speaker 1: there are definitely stories that we miss.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, I mean one of the things that I
Speaker 6: try to say to my colleaguesatise. You know, people at
Speaker 6: the Times will apologize, I'm so sorry I missed your story.
Speaker 6: I'll say, there's no way any of us, whether we
Speaker 6: work here or not, has time to read the entire
Speaker 6: New York Times. That no one should pretend otherwise. So
Speaker 6: I know how you feel. I haven't missed a story
Speaker 6: and my cousin, but I know how you feel.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the military, because there are all of
Speaker 1: these military appointments that are being held up by Tommy
Speaker 1: tuber Bell, the sort of clap back from the Republicans
Speaker 1: and I heard my ground say this on Morning show
Speaker 1: when I was on it today, was that Chuck Schumer can,
Speaker 1: in fact just take up every single one and hold
Speaker 1: the entire Senate hostage for three weeks, voting up and
Speaker 1: down every military nominee.
Speaker 2: Why do you think he doesn't do that?
Speaker 6: So, first of all, the Senate has multiple things that
Speaker 6: it wants to get done, right, and the Democrats are
Speaker 6: the one in charge, and there's a Democratic president and
Speaker 6: the Republicans control the House. So if effectively Tuberville is
Speaker 6: able to turn the Senate into a place that all
Speaker 6: it's doing is solving this problem that he created, that's
Speaker 6: sort of a gift, right. I mean, we'd be much
Speaker 6: better for the president and for the Senate Democrats if
Speaker 6: Tubert would stand down. Then if they have to turn
Speaker 6: over all the Senate's business to him, I think that's
Speaker 6: the short answer, right.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm thinking about like the leadership question in
Speaker 1: both the Senate and the House. Like Mitch McConnell last
Speaker 1: week he had this freeze again, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of discussion about like whether Republicans were going to replace him. Basically,
Speaker 1: the sort of Faustian bargain they made was that sixty
Speaker 1: percent of McConnell is better than one hundred you know,
Speaker 1: or seventy five percent McConnell is still better than one
Speaker 1: hundred percent of Rick Scott.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's something that Democrats, or at least
Speaker 6: some Democrats, can probably identify with, even if they don't
Speaker 6: like Mitch McConnell. This is a complicated analogy to make.
Speaker 6: President Biden appears to be in much better condition than
Speaker 6: Senator McConnell is, and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but President
Speaker 6: Biden is also older than a party or a country
Speaker 6: should ideally want its president to be. And yet I
Speaker 6: think what many Democrats have realized are, yes, it would
Speaker 6: be better if President Biden if we're younger. However, first
Speaker 6: of all, he by many measures, maybe not the polls,
Speaker 6: but by many measures, is at a very effective first
Speaker 6: and second of all, the incumbency has big advantages for
Speaker 6: a president. And third of all, President Biden gets the
Speaker 6: electorate in ways that many other nationally prominent Democrats do not.
Speaker 6: And often this becomes a discussion about Kamala Harris, which
Speaker 6: in some ways is unfair. It's not just Kamala Harris.
Speaker 6: I mean, there is a very reasonable argument that it's
Speaker 6: not clear that any other in twenty twenty who plausibly
Speaker 6: could have had the Democratic nomination would have won, would
Speaker 6: have beaten Trump not close. And so there's this funny
Speaker 6: thing in which do Democrats wish Joe Biden were younger?
Speaker 3: Obviously?
Speaker 6: Do Republicans which miss McConnell were younger and healthier? Obviously,
Speaker 6: But I do think it's not insane if they're deciding
Speaker 6: that they're better off with him without him. It's not
Speaker 6: great for the country. I'm now leaving beside the Biden discussion.
Speaker 6: It's not great for the country to have senators who
Speaker 6: are as important as McConnell and Feinstein, who are as
Speaker 6: obviously compromised as both of them.
Speaker 1: Does McConnell sort of immunize Democrats a little bit with
Speaker 1: the age discussion?
Speaker 3: I don't think so.
Speaker 1: McConnell can't be like Biden's too old to ron right,
Speaker 1: I mean, like Republican leadership has clearly said McConnell, who
Speaker 1: has actual medical stuff going on, can stay in his job.
Speaker 1: Doesn't that sort of make a case that I mean,
Speaker 1: they obviously would not kick candidate out just for being old.
Speaker 1: If they're not going to kick a candidate out who
Speaker 1: is old and also has something going on.
Speaker 6: If we were debating this on the merits, it might
Speaker 6: have more weight. But I just think the thing with
Speaker 6: age is the fact that Biden's in better shape than
Speaker 6: McConnell and in a lot better shape. Will not immunize
Speaker 6: Bid during a campaign where he's not running against McConnell.
Speaker 6: And so I think it's too much of elip I
Speaker 6: think a lot of voters don't really care pay that
Speaker 6: much attention to the Senate, and they pay much more
Speaker 6: attention to the presidency. And Biden's not running against McConnell.
Speaker 6: If Biden we're running against McConnell, then I think basically
Speaker 6: he would be fine.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about like Republican leadership here. It's a
Speaker 1: pretty interesting and perilous in a lot of ways moment
Speaker 1: for Republicans.
Speaker 2: You have McConnell. Who is this?
Speaker 1: I mean, and I say this, it sounds like adoration,
Speaker 1: but it's really anxiety.
Speaker 2: McConnell's a genius, right, he is a genius. He got
Speaker 2: three Supreme Court seats from guy who should have had won, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, you can say what you will, but he
Speaker 2: is the Sun Sui of all of this, and he's
Speaker 2: just incredibly brilliant at getting stuff done in the Senate.
Speaker 2: And you have him in whatever state he's in. And
Speaker 2: then you have McCarthy, who is the sort of.
Speaker 1: Not that right, who can't whip votes and has had
Speaker 1: a lot of trouble and has now started an inquiry
Speaker 1: into impeachment even though he's really maybe doing it in
Speaker 1: the hopes of avoiding a government shutdown. I mean, very
Speaker 1: convoluted stuff. And he's still fighting with Matt Gates even
Speaker 1: though he did it, and he's cursing and he's saying, like,
Speaker 1: you know, so, my question for you is, here's this
Speaker 1: Republican leadership, and then you have Trump who's backstage agitating
Speaker 1: for this or that. That's sort of the party, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, there isn't someone else out there, you know
Speaker 1: who I'm missing?
Speaker 6: No, that's right. I think you were right to be
Speaker 6: alarmed about the state of the Republican Party and the
Speaker 6: Republican leadership. I think the Senate Republicans to me, proved
Speaker 6: to be substantially more functional and even open to compromise
Speaker 6: than I expected. They came to the table and they
Speaker 6: passed pretty substantial bipartisan legislation. They shaped that legislation in
Speaker 6: ways they wanted to. They made it more conservative, as
Speaker 6: they should have since they're conservatives. They have been very
Speaker 6: fish on Ukraine, and they haven't pulled this thing where
Speaker 6: they said, well, we're against whatever the President of the
Speaker 6: United States is for.
Speaker 2: For Republicans is amazing.
Speaker 6: For modern Republicans is really quick striking, and in many
Speaker 6: ways that's the way. I don't know how to apportion
Speaker 6: credit among Biden and McConnell and the other people involved,
Speaker 6: but that to me, I did not expect how much
Speaker 6: bipartisan legislation and then that, But the Democrats were still
Speaker 6: able to do a whole bunch of stuff on a
Speaker 6: party line vote, which is also completely appropriately. But the
Speaker 6: problem is we're dealing with a house that is extremely radicalized.
Speaker 6: Is talking whether they do it or not, they're talking
Speaker 6: about impeaching Biden really without any evidence. I mean, hunter
Speaker 6: Biden has done some things wrong, and I think it's
Speaker 6: legitimate to talk about that and how he's traded on
Speaker 6: the family name. But this there's no evidence of the
Speaker 6: kind of corruption that they're talking about with Biden at all.
Speaker 1: And if relatives trading on the family name, I mean,
Speaker 1: perhaps this is my own nepotistic wheelhouse, but I mean
Speaker 1: that is not illegal. And like as Tony Busby, the
Speaker 1: lawyer for Ken Paxton says, if you know trading on
Speaker 1: the influence of your parents is illegal, you know we'd
Speaker 1: all be in jail.
Speaker 6: I think it's legitimate for people, including Republicans to criticize
Speaker 6: the Bidens, including the President, for the fact that this happened.
Speaker 6: I think that's completely lee legitimate as a notion of
Speaker 6: impeaching him for things that Sun did that are sleazy
Speaker 6: and in some ways illegal, to be clear, but we're
Speaker 6: not talking about major crimes. Is unlike any other impeachment
Speaker 6: we've had. And then we didn't even get to Trump,
Speaker 6: which was in your answer, which clearly is the least
Speaker 6: functional part of the part.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about Mitt Romney because he's decided he's
Speaker 1: not going to run again, and he has done this
Speaker 1: book with Mackay Coppins, which has a lot of scoops
Speaker 1: and that sort of explain to our listeners what you
Speaker 1: make of.
Speaker 3: This of Mitt Romney.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and of Mitt Romney's departure, you.
Speaker 6: Know, I mean, look, Mitt Romney is such a fascinating character.
Speaker 6: The ways in which his life has not been identical
Speaker 6: to his father's, but the ways in which the arc
Speaker 6: have been so similar is just really striking. And this
Speaker 6: is just a small footnote. But as you know, Molly,
Speaker 6: I have a book coming out in next month on
Speaker 6: the history of the American economy and George Romney. It's
Speaker 6: dad is a minor character in the book, and I
Speaker 6: spent a lot of time reading about him and looking
Speaker 6: at pictures of him, and I recently was with Romney,
Speaker 6: Mitt Romney in person, and oh my goodness, the physical
Speaker 6: resemblance between Mitt Romney today and the Leyden life version
Speaker 6: of his father is chilling if you've spent a lot
Speaker 6: of time looking at photos. But to answer your question
Speaker 6: more substantively, I mean Mitt Romney, like his father, went
Speaker 6: and did extremely well in business, a lot richer than
Speaker 6: his dad did, because inequality is much worse and much
Speaker 6: higher than it used to be. That's sort of the
Speaker 6: point of the Romney family in my book. Then he
Speaker 6: went off and became a moderate governor of a state
Speaker 6: just like his dad, Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had
Speaker 6: this incredibly impactful term in which he passed the first
Speaker 6: version of universal healthcare and a state with Ted Kennedy.
Speaker 6: It became a model for Obamacare. He then runs for president.
Speaker 6: That's sort of an unhappy chapter in his career, just
Speaker 6: as it was for his dad. His dad failed to
Speaker 6: get the Republican nomination. He's sort of pretned he with
Speaker 6: someone he wasn't. I mean, he's more conservative, and he
Speaker 6: pretended to be as Massachusetts governor, but he's not as
Speaker 6: conservative as he pretended to be. Already profice and then
Speaker 6: he had this last act where he becomes sort of
Speaker 6: the conscience of the Senate. He is deeply, deeply conservative,
Speaker 6: but he also is an institutionalist. He is principled, and
Speaker 6: I think, on the one hand, normally I think we
Speaker 6: should be happy when people are not deciding not to
Speaker 6: stay in the Senate into their eighties. But I think
Speaker 6: he is the kind of person whom we need more
Speaker 6: of an American politics. He's not really a moderate. He's
Speaker 6: really conservative, but he believes in working with moderates and
Speaker 6: with liberals. He's a patriot. Where do you agree with
Speaker 6: him or not?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: My question is more, did he get to the Senate
Speaker 1: and realize this place is so damaged that you cannot
Speaker 1: solve America's problems from it? Or is this a sort
Speaker 1: of bell weather for the death of those sort of
Speaker 1: last gasps of bipartisan stuff like are we heading towards
Speaker 1: like Senate it filled with Ted Cruz's or it's terrible
Speaker 1: to be a senator after being a governor and he
Speaker 1: just figured why is it worth a look?
Speaker 6: I have deep worries about the state of American democracy.
Speaker 6: If you listen to the things Donald Trump is saying,
Speaker 6: as he is the leading candidate to be a major
Speaker 6: party dominee, it's or not to be deeply worried. I
Speaker 6: genuinely don't know how much broader import to put in
Speaker 6: Romney's leading the Senate. I mean, he is seventy six.
Speaker 6: I have not spent a huge amount of time with him.
Speaker 6: I've interviewing him a few times, but he genuinely seems
Speaker 6: to care deeply about his family. And I'll tell you,
Speaker 6: if I were seventy six, I would rather spend time
Speaker 6: with my family than with ninety nine other members. And
Speaker 6: so you know, there could be some of that going
Speaker 6: as well. I think right now there are vanishingly few
Speaker 6: people like him in the Senate. I think, strangely for
Speaker 6: some of the reasons we talked about before, setting aside
Speaker 6: the issue of who's willing to stand up to Donald Trump,
Speaker 6: which is a very very big issue. But setting that aside,
Speaker 6: I still think the Senate has some of these muscles
Speaker 6: where it's able to pass bipartisan legislation. I think the
Speaker 6: worst thing about Romney leaving is he had the courage
Speaker 6: to stand up to Donald Trump in a way that
Speaker 6: no other remaining Republican member of Congress had.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, they'll get a lot braver if he
Speaker 1: keeps losing elections. You know, there's like cowardice, but there's
Speaker 1: also just a calculus that you need the base to win.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 6: But of course that's how we can end up in
Speaker 6: very bad places as a democracy. And it's profoundly cynical.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean, and that's how we.
Speaker 6: Got here, That's how we got here. And Romney rejected
Speaker 6: that sentences.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an interesting to see him go out this way.
Speaker 1: I mean, good for McKay coppins, but it's interesting. And
Speaker 1: his total and utter disdain for JD. Vance is a
Speaker 1: little bit of a bright smack.
Speaker 6: I mean, the other thing to think to keep in mind,
Speaker 6: just from Romney's perspective is I said that his campaign
Speaker 6: for president was sort of an unhappy moment in his life,
Speaker 6: then the most unhappy moment is political history. Is that
Speaker 6: humiliating interview where Trump brings him in and then rejects it.
Speaker 6: And so in another way, you could almost think of
Speaker 6: it as, given all that Romney has accomplished, and given
Speaker 6: that he really does seem to have multiple interests in
Speaker 6: his life, in some ways, the question might be why
Speaker 6: did he even run for the Senate? And the answer
Speaker 6: is he now has a last chapter that isn't being
Speaker 6: humiliated by Donald Trump, and isn't losing the presidential election.
Speaker 6: He has a last chapter that's different and more positive,
Speaker 6: and having done that, he can now go off and
Speaker 6: leave behind the madness of the Senate.
Speaker 2: David, thank you so much for joining us. This is
Speaker 2: really great.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mollie.
Speaker 2: It's always fun.
Speaker 3: Moment.
Speaker 1: Rick Wilson, Madame, what is your moment of fuckery? You
Speaker 1: want me to go first with my moment of fuckery?
Speaker 3: Give me your moment of fuckery first.
Speaker 1: My moment of fuckery is Kevin McCarthy, believing that he
Speaker 1: has done it, has avoided a shut down, only to
Speaker 1: have Matt Gates immediately say he's.
Speaker 2: Gonna remove him, and then to have.
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy say you fucking try it, and that use
Speaker 1: of profanities and his rage against my favorite botox user,
Speaker 1: and I say, this is a botox user myself.
Speaker 2: Matt Gates is a my moment of fuckery.
Speaker 3: I gotta be honest. That's a solid moment of fuckery. Okay,
Speaker 3: Matt will betray him. You know, it's like Trump's fucking
Speaker 3: snake poem he always reads, Matt will bite Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 3: on the dick when this is over, and it will
Speaker 3: kill him. The poison will kill him. My monive fuckery
Speaker 3: is suddenly and this sweeping number of stories that are
Speaker 3: appearing in the last five or six days across the
Speaker 3: main stream media and the smart set, all like Biden
Speaker 3: must go. He is too old, We must replace him now.
Speaker 3: None of you fucking people have thought this through weirdly. Okay,
Speaker 3: let's say Biden is tottering along. He's still apparently in
Speaker 3: the room, pretty freaking sharp. Maybe he doesn't run across
Speaker 3: the oval to the helicopter anymore.
Speaker 2: But you know what, neither just Trump.
Speaker 3: It's the choice right now between old and evil make
Speaker 3: the right choice. So all this like this, like conventional
Speaker 3: wisdom coverage right now that everyone's racing to right there,
Speaker 3: Biden's too old coverage, old versus evil. I'll take old
Speaker 3: every goddamn time. That's why I don't want to fuckery.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Rick.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear the best minds
Speaker 1: in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.