Ryan and Emily discuss Bernie rips Dems on identity politics, Ro Khanna storms GOP districts, Megyn Kelly calls out Tapper on Biden, Elon quits politics.
Eric Maddox: https://linktr.ee/LatitudeAdjustmentPod
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Sager and Crystal.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Here, independent media just played a truly massive role in
this election, and we are so excited about what that
means for the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Let's move on to the the man who's always sprinkling
good luck on everyone, Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was on
Flagrant with Andrew Schultz and the Gang and Brian I
watched this. Did you get a chance to watch it?
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Sing and tell me about these guys. I don't watch
this show, so.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Cccer's friends with them, actually, but they are book you know.
Charles was talking on the podcast, he's like the cosms
of a lifelong Democrat, repeatedly in his conversations with Bernie's
I really wanted you to win in twenty sixteen. He's
kind of like he's similar. I would say he's sort
of politically similar to Rogan, probably a little less you know,
(01:13):
interested in some of the wild conspiratorial so like he's
not in as deep probably on all of those things.
But it kind of similar. And there's like Bernie brow
Ish and he even talked about how the podcast bros
Have been labeled similarly to the Bernie Bros. In conversation
with Bernie Sanders, part this almost yeah, this almost sexist
(01:35):
approach to lumping people in the pejorative categories. O.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Jay's going to come for you pretty soon. Yeah, keep
doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Yeah, they'd come right for you. DEI. But anyway, it's
the conversation before we kick it over to this one
fascinating clip. We have a couple of clips, but the
one we're going to play for verst is really, really good.
I just want to say the first part of the conversation,
they're spending like twenty minutes talking about the Brooklyn Dodgers.
And the reason that's important is I don't think there
(02:01):
are a lot of Democrats who can sit and talk
totally organically. Bernie is just like blowing them away with
his knowledge of like the nineteen fifty eight lineup of
Brooklyn Dodgers.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
The Dodgers going to LA I think it was a
formative experience for Bernie Sanders in a way that he said, Yes,
the early childhood trauma can be and I think you
can connect it to this sense of like who are
the wait, who are these oligarchs that can rip a
community apart? Like Yeah, and as somebody who was as
(02:38):
passionate about baseball in my childhood as Bernie was in his,
baseball feels like it is part of the It is
part of the community. It does not feel like it
should be something owned by an individual who can do
something with it.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
That's why you got to go with the Green Bay Packers.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
And one of the greatest sense of senses of injustice
I would ever feel as a child was when the
Phillies would not be on TV. What do you mean
I can't watch the Philadelphia Phillies. That the Philadelphia Phillies. They
have to be on TV? Yeah, this is insane.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
It's outside You're outside of Philadelphia. Yeah. The reason that
I wanted to start with that point is precisely because
I think I'm saying this as a conservative. The if
you are a If you are an ideological liberal and
you watch Bernie's fluent, natural organic conversation about the Brooklyn
Dodgers with Andrew Schultz for twenty minutes, he gives the
(03:37):
best pitch for democratic socialism, all in the context of
baseball in the first twenty minutes of that podcast. That
is changing hearts and minds. Is persuading people that the
left is reasonable, even if I disagree with it. You're
a eighteen year old boy and you're listening to that,
You're like, holy shit, this is completely true. These billionaires
come in buy up teams. Jack got the ticket prices
(04:00):
so that a family of four can't afford a vacation.
Now it's literally the price of a vacation. Yes, can't
afford to go to a game without it being the
price of the weekend at a beach for everyone to
get a hot dog, decent ticket, whatever.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Punch in the face.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Yeah, And so they come in and buy it. Parking, Well,
they use your money to build the stadium, then charge
you eighty bucks a ticket for a decent seat, and
then they take the team somewhere else ten years later,
once you've already bought your kid's gear, and you've sort
of emotionally invested in the franchise.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
It's an eighteen dollars eighteen dollars for a coke.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
And it's baseball. It's America's pastime. Yeah, And so the
way Sanders starts that segment is just a fantastic pitch
for democratic socialism. And there are so few he's willing
to laugh at their jokes about. Like they say something
about Bernie's like, we learned how to do arithmetic this
way by watching baseball, and Schultz goes, well, today, we
(04:56):
call that autism, and Bernie's laughing at it. And it's like,
you don't find other democrats, Like imagine Alista slot Can
just being able to roll with a comedian making a
joke about that she wouldn't. And it's the same thing
when Schultz makes jokes about you can only be bigoted
around your close friends, like Bernie Sanders like, look, I'm
against bigotry. Schultz goes, unless it's around your close friends,
(05:17):
and Bernie just rolls your close friend, Yeah, to your
close friends. So let's roll this clip so that I
can stop doing summaries of clips. I know everybody loves
that this is d one.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
It's good about what happened to you in twenty sixteen
with this Bernie Brose movement where you're your followers are
seen they have a racism problem, missagy problem.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
Do you think that's a superPAC thing behind that?
Speaker 4 (05:38):
No, it was the Democratic establishment. Oh wow, okay, you know.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
That was just they were sitting there. We had a
lot of young people, we have people of color, and
you know, they create this kind of myth with the
help of the corporate media or all that stuff. You know.
Speaker 7 (05:50):
It's kind of interesting to that note is during this election,
the podcast space, which the Democrats largely avoided, they feel
had some influence in the election, and they started to
label us the podcast bros and said that we were
sexist and we were racist and bigeted. It's almost like
(06:11):
it's the exact same strategy to get you out of there.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Yeah, that's what the liberally China does. They run away,
look getting again. I would hope that everybody who's watching
the program is that we as a nation have got
to and or forms of biggotreat right. Yes, that I
thought off as a basic assumption. Unless I see your
close friends, right, it's racism but sexism, homophobia or aenophobia,
(06:37):
whatever it is. But and you know, liberal democrats talk
about that all the time. And then you get to
what we call identity politics. That you're black, you're wonderful,
you're tremendous, you're yeah, you're the greatest human being on earth. Yeah,
And rather than say what do you what do you
stand for?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Exactly ya? That's why who cares? What do you stand for?
Speaker 6 (07:00):
You know, is every gay person brilliant and wonderful and great?
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Now of course that everybody's um.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
Yeah, So the issue is what you stand for, which
huts you back to what we discuss every class politics
in the sense of which side are you on? Are
you going to stand with working families, Are you going
to raise the minimum wage to a living wage or not?
Are you going to guarantee fight to guarantee healthcare to
all people or not? Are you going to demand that
(07:27):
the wealthiest people stop paying their fair share of taxes on?
Those are the issues, and no one cares what color
you want, you know, what your gender is, et cetera,
et cetera.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Okay, so Ryan, well done again. You just this is
what's so frustrating is democrats. I just wrote about this morning. Actually,
like they're on their quest, we can put the next
hair straight up on the screen, this multimillion dollar quest
to find the nextra rogue. In The New York Times
had an interesting three Yeah, The New York Times had
an interesting report on it. Sorry, yes, I skipped ahead
(07:56):
about how Democrats are now throwing millions of dollars they
have spreadshere of influencers to try and create the next
Joe Rogan when obviously they lost the original Joe Rogan.
Who's somebody who had Bernie Sanders on and then a
big conversation with Bernie Sanders about universal health care and
all of these democratic socialist policies that Rogan is pretty
interested in. And Democrats don't want to change their policy
(08:19):
offerings or their tone, as evidenced by the fact that
they're not leaning into Bernie being the guy that can
help them win back the Rogan instead of astroturfing some
partisan hack that's going to be exactly the opposite of
what succeeds on the podcast circuit, which is the anti
partisan ship of free, willing conversation and authenticity. Bernie can
(08:43):
go on flagrant just like Trump can, just like Jade
vance Can and he can go in Theovonne, he can
go on Joe Rogan, and it's because he's a critic
of the Democratic Party in the same way that Trump
is a critic of the Republican Party. You could say
Bernie's more sincere than Trump, sure, but they're both criticizing
their own party, which is what you're not going to
pay a bunch of influencers to do. Nobody wants the
(09:04):
dem donors to give millions of dollars to people who
are then going to go trash the Dems.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
We got Rokana coming pretty soon, So let's roll this
last clip of D two from here where he talks
about our Democrats a threat to democracy as well.
Speaker 7 (09:19):
The problem I think a lot of voters had is
like they didn't even know if it was her. We
didn't even know if Biden was president. We didn't even
know if these were her talking points, and we felt
that over the last four elections, Democrats we felt that
we didn't have a say on who could be president.
We talk a lot about the Republicans being autocrats and
oligarchs and taking over democracy, but from the Democrat perspective,
(09:42):
and as I'm a lifelong Democrat. I felt like the
Democratic Party completely removed the democratic process from its constituents
and they I think they need to have some accountability
of that.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
No, um, I don't for you.
Speaker 7 (09:55):
I mean I wanted you to. Like twenty sixteen, I
was like, this is going to happen. This guy's going
to do it, and it felt like they it felt
like they stole it from it. And I'll be honest,
it broke my heart when you when you support him.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
Look but you have in the world that I live in,
you got a choice. And I mean a lot of people,
including my wife, agree with you, but you know you're
down to a choice. It's going to be Hillary Clinton
or is it going to be Donald Trump? Not a
great choice, but it ended up being him anyway.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
So why don't we burn it down?
Speaker 6 (10:27):
Well, because it's easy to say, burning it down means
that children are not going to have you know, foodia,
that the schools will deteriorate, people will not have healthcare.
I got it, and I you know, I'm an elected official.
I got to represent the people and I can't turn my.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Back on But then could we not also say if
ostensibly there hasn't been a fair primary for the Democrats
since two thousand and eight, Are they not also a
threat to democracy?
Speaker 7 (10:48):
We often hear fair.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Enough that is that is Yeah, I'm not going to
argue with that point, including my wife.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
That was a pretty funny line. Yeah, that's why he
can hang with the Yeah, and Jane is Yeah, she
is more of a burn it down than Bernie is.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Yeah, that is more than Bernie bro than Burney.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Sure, Bernie actually wanted somebody to primary Obama in twenty twelve,
which killed him. Then in twenty sixteen they used that
against him ruthlessly. Then I think he would like at
the time, he would have loved to take it back.
He didn't have any idea that he was going to
be a competitive presidential candidate in the next cycle. So, yeah,
(11:29):
twenty twelve that was fair because no he ran against
him Obama. Twenty sixteen, we know twenty twenty votes were fair. Yeah,
but the party just consolidated around Joe Biden. Yeah, Bernie
was like pulling ahead even among black voters after Nevada,
But the Democratic primary voters are very lockstep. And when MSNBC,
(11:54):
CNN people to judge Obama, Amy Klobuchar, everybody consolidated they moved.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Yeah. Well, and that's what sends just really cheating.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
It's like they used the power of the party to
beat him, which, yes, is hypocritical if your name is
the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Yeah, and it's the reason that you end up getting
the Andrew Schultz of the world looking seriously at Donald Trump.
And it's because they're so disillusioned by how Bernie Sanders
was treated. And until Democrats acknowledge that they're not going
to have success in the anti establishment podcast circuit, they
can continue to you know, New York Times, the Daily
(12:33):
and pr they'll still do really well in the podcast charts.
It's something that I think them sort of take for granted.
But they're not going to win back young men until
these faults are acknowledged, and they're not going to pay
their way to bullshitting people and to thinking that they're
sincerely acknowledging those faults. So good luck to everyone. That's
how we're ending every segment there.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Good luck exactly all right. Up next, we got Rocan
in the studio, a Democrat of congressman is taking his
pitch to some red districts or at least purple districts
around the country. Here let's play a little bit of
a Rokanna heading to Pennsylvania. I want to ask.
Speaker 7 (13:12):
Are we safe?
Speaker 8 (13:14):
Is my family safe? And you know you asked are
we safe? And you're mature enough and you're thoughtful enough
that I'm going to give you an honest answer. And
the honest answer is that there are people right now
in power who are making it harder for folks who
(13:38):
are lesbian. And in this country, there are people who
are making it harder for folks who are on Medicaid
and who need those services to live well and to
have basic health care. That's true about what's going on,
But you know, we also have a country where a
(13:59):
sixth grader gets to stand up and talk about that
and talk about that and talk about that in a
way that is so much more powerful than anything I
can say or any congress person can say.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
All right, joining us here is Democratic Congressman Rocanna. Thanks
for joining it.
Speaker 8 (14:18):
Thank you the standing of issue. So it was for
the sixth grade girl, not for me, But that was
a powerful moment because she stood up there a lot
of courage and she said, I'm afraid. I'm afraid for
my family, and what can you tell me? That's going
to keep me safe. And there's not much you can
tell folks. And I was pretty honest with her about
some of the cuts that are taking place and the
(14:40):
climate affair that it's been created.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
And this is this is kind of your you know,
this is your homecoming in a way. You're from Bucks County.
I was actually just up that way from my cousin's
high school graduation from Boyertown High I was born. I
was born in Allentown, which you also visited.
Speaker 8 (14:56):
That's why we were having such a hard time getting
a venue. I said, how's it so hard? They said
the graduation graduation?
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Yeah, exactly. So how is Allentown? Where'd you go in Allentown?
Speaker 8 (15:05):
We were in Allentown and it was right next to
the Mack Truck facility. A lot of the folks in
Mack Truck, unfortunately, are losing their jobs in July. Two reasons. One,
those jobs are going to Mexico. So I'm in Donald
Trump here's talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back. How about
we just start not losing them. And the second thing
(15:26):
is these blanket tariffs have caused Mack Trucks to raise
their prices by twenty five percent, and they've lost twenty
five percent of orders. And so these folks from UAW
were there saying, you know, three hundred and fifty four
guys are going to get laid off if you guys
don't do something, and appealing to Ryan mackenzie, the congress
person there in Donald Trump to save their jobs.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
So what would an industrial policy look like? That didn't
lead to that, because Trump, when he talks about bringing
manufacturing back, is not talking about mack Truck laying people
off in Allentown. He's talking about the opposite of that.
And mack Truck laying people off has been going on
for forty years and it had a bit of a revival,
but there was a formative experience with my child. Remember,
(16:11):
like everybody talking in Allentown, mack Truck is moving to
South Carolina. Like one of the first things that a
lot of these companies do is they move from the
Union states down to the non union states, and then
when there's a little bit of union activity there, then
they had to Mexico or China or Vietnam or wherever
they go. So what would you do, because obviously it
makes no sense for US policy to be hurting mac
(16:38):
in Allentown.
Speaker 8 (16:39):
Yeah, well, first, you wouldn't have blanket tariffs that are
making it harder for manufacturers to import things that they
need for their trucks before you actually phased in the
production in the United States. So if you wanted to say, Okay,
here are the component parts, we're going to produce that
in the United States and phase in tariff's fine. But
you can't just have these blanket tarfs. Second, I would
(17:00):
have an offshoring tax. I mean, if you're going to
offshore a plan, you're causing a lot of disruption, You're
causing a lot of harm to a community. There should
be a tax right now. Actually, the tax overseas is
less than the corporate tax in the United States. It's
twenty one percent here, but to repatriot profits it's only
ten percent. So we need to have an offshoring tax.
And third, i'd have an economic Marshall plan and development
(17:22):
policy of what are we going to invest in these
communities to build new factories and where are we going
to commit to buying things where the government can buy things.
Some of it may be mac trucks, some of them
may be other kinds of manufacturing. Some of it may
be healthcare, education, it's not all going to be manufacturing,
but you need to have a concerted investment economic development strategy,
none of which down from as he wants to just
(17:44):
wave a magic wand with blanket tariffs. And it's in
some cases like mack Truck, unintentionally. I don't think Trump
wants to hurt them, but unintentionally hurting them.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
So I have a two prong question on that point.
Because the Big Beautiful Bill, if it gets past, is
promising tax ri offs for investment in the United States, building, manufacturing, building,
factory building in the United States, and retroactive to January twentieth,
like one hundred percent write offs on all of that.
Corporate tax would go down from twenty one percent to
fifteen percent. The Trump administration sees that as a sort
(18:15):
of compliment to the tariff policy, as kind of an
industrial policy in a tax structure way. What do you
make of that? Do you think substantively that's helpful? And
having been talking to people in counties that went Obama, Trump, Biden,
Trump in many cases people who have voted for Democrats
and Republicans in the presidential ticket in recent decades, do
(18:37):
you think those types of policies could be sold by
the Trump administration, like, do you think the Trump administration
will have an easy time saying, listen, we are bringing
manufacturing back if that bill passes in substance and in style.
I guess is the question.
Speaker 8 (18:52):
Well, first of all, on this substance, they're also repealing
some of the Inflation Reduction Act production tax credit. So
it's not a clean build that says, if you're making
things in America, we're going to give you tax credits.
I guess if you're making things that happen to be
low carbon, they want to take those tax credits away.
They have some of the accelerated depreciation, but it's also
(19:13):
a very trickle down approach. Their view, I mean, a
genuine view is we're going to create these global deals.
We're going to provide these tax breaks, and somehow it's
going to lead to more job creation in the United
States and every community, and may lead to more job
creation in Silicon Valley. It may lead to more job
creation and capital centers. But I don't think these companies
(19:33):
are going to say, Okay, now we're going to go
in Johnstown, We're going to go in Lorraine. We're going
to build the types of manufacturing that those communities want.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
To do that.
Speaker 8 (19:42):
You need federal directed investment, you need a workforce, you
need to ask these communities what to do. In terms
of the politics of it, I think he's going to
try to sell that, but ultimately reality is reality. At
some point people are going to say, Okay, am I
getting laid off? Am I getting new jobs. It's why
Donald Trump is so much more effective as an outsider
(20:04):
than as president in my view. As an outsider, you know,
David Brooks said, he asked all the right questions, he
just said some of the wrong answers. As an outsider,
he can say all these problems, but when he's as
a president, he's going to be judged on the actual record.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
Great, and so you had you were saying you had
some Trump protesters. We did, who showed up? How what
was their deal?
Speaker 8 (20:23):
But first of all, it's an argument for every Democrat
going on Fox News because they said, you know, first
they started approaching me. I said, oh no, I'm going
to get yelled at. And they said, we have a request.
Can we get a selfie? I said, you want a
selfie with me? So we see you all the time
on Fox News. So that's the That's what started the conversation.
And then I said, well, why don't you just listen,
because I just introduce a bill to codify Donald Trump's
(20:47):
executive order. I'm the first the pharmaceut on the pharmaceutical
bill to say that Americans shouldn't pay more than people
in every other part of the world. And Bernie and
I had done something simil or years ago where we
said that if you're paying more in America than places
in Japan or Germany, we should take away the patents
(21:08):
from those pharma companies. Trump says, let's import the cheap drugs,
and we got to bipartisan. It's with bigs, it's with Luna,
and so this got the Trump voters paying attention. I said,
I'm not for medicaid cuts. They said, well, we don't
want Medicaid cuts. I said, I'm for keeping this mac
truck jobs here. They said, we're for that.
Speaker 9 (21:26):
Now.
Speaker 8 (21:27):
I said, you know, the bill actually has these cuts.
And I think that the politics the debate is going
to be whether Trump can sell them that is not
cutting medicaid, when in my view it actually is. He's
calling it waste, fraud, and abuse.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
It's not though, right.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
So on that point, even actually on the drug bill,
Have you heard anything from the White House? Have your
Republicans heard anything, Republican colleagues heard anything from the White
House that there might be movement on that or is
Republican leadership going to do everything they can not to
let that come to the floor or get into any
other packages.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
It's an uphill battle get it onto the floor. There's
so much lobbying money off big pharma. And you know,
Donald Trump's out there saying he's already lowered drug prices
by eighty five percent, so accomplished. He's got the talking points.
But again, he's president and maybe right now people think, okay,
this is going to happen, But a year from now
(22:19):
they're going to wonder, have drug price has actually gone down?
And I would think this would be such a home
run for him if he would actually we would pass
this law and codify it, and he'd be the president
to take on big pharma, he would it would be
a huge deal. But I just don't think that the
Republicans in Congress are going to do it or the
Senate are going to do it.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
He just got a kind of surprise win in the
Senate on a similar vein where they passed Last night,
they passed it alt the No tax On Act got
one hundred votes in the Senate, just went through by
unanim's consent. Democrats like, all right, fine, we'll do this.
Do you think is that going to pass the House?
Speaker 8 (22:58):
It's going to be part of the Reckon Soation Bill.
I do think it'll pass. You know, as you know,
they've given the no tax for tips for four years.
They're giving the tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires
for ten years.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Well that's why it was only one hundred and thirty
five or and that's the.
Speaker 8 (23:13):
Gimmick that they had. But look, Donald Trump obviously has
incredible political instincts. You don't become president twice. I mean,
I don't agree with his leadership, but his no tax
on tips was a stroke of brilliance in Nevada and
other places. My view is, we got to raise the
living wage, but in the meantime, yeah, why are we
taxing tips on working families? And so you're going to
(23:37):
get support for it, and I think the argument from
Democrats is why are you making this four years and
not ten years and having the millionaire billionaire tax cut
for ten years? By the way, eighty thousand dollars plus
that every millionaire is going to get based on this
tax plan, and it's about seven hundred and fifty dollars
for people under one hundred thousand dollars just on the
(23:59):
tax breaks. And then there was this CBO study which
is just astounding of distributional analysis saying that the bottom
ten percent are going to be hurt because of the
Medicaid cuts and the cuts and food stamps, in the
top ten percent are going to benefit. And it's a
pretty straightforward analysis.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
Could you see the So what about the pharmaceutical measure?
It feels like from a political perspective, You've got Trump
has already said it, he's for it, he's claimed he's
doing it. You've got the bill. What's the mechanism to
expose the big pharm a lobby as the ones in
the way of it, because once they're exposed, it's much
(24:38):
more difficult for them.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Yeah, call up the Health and Human Services secretary, see
if he wants to do some message.
Speaker 8 (24:43):
That's not a bad idea. Actually we can reach out
to him. I'm hoping we get as many Republicans and
Democrats to sign on to it. Look, it's not perfect
in terms of what I prefer Lloyd Doggett or Bernie's approach. Yes,
but the argument I'm making to my Democratic colleagues is
I'm not changing the language because I don't want to
then say to Republicans, here's an excuse to oppose it.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Now.
Speaker 8 (25:04):
For Republicans, I'm saying, look, we're literally codifying Trump's executive order,
and then how are you not for this? And I
think we can get to a large number of House
members on this bill, we start to get momentum because
the reality is that both parties have taken money from
big pharma or buy into those talking points always going
(25:25):
to hurt innovation and hurt drug discovery. Not true. I mean,
most of that is happening with your and my tax dollars.
But we've got to expose it. It's a powerful lobbying
group and that's really what's standing in the way now.
Speaker 4 (25:39):
The debate consuming Democrats right now is the you know,
what did you know and when? About President Biden's sinility.
Megan Kelly and Jake Tapper had it out a little bit.
Let's to set the context. Let's play some of this
Kelly Tapper clip over here.
Speaker 10 (25:54):
In my ecosphere. We were covering all of these. It
wasn't just falling down, it was get lost. It was
some of the stuff you report in your book. We
knew and we were reporting on, like the multi jump
cuts in the videos of him, or it was obvious
he couldn't get through a one minute take. It was
clear to us that he was using teleprompter, and there
(26:15):
was some reporting on that at the time, all of
which the White House was denying. Now the current White House,
I have some connections with the Joe Biden white House.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
I had none, but you did.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
There was an attempted cover up.
Speaker 10 (26:26):
It could only ever work if you allowed it, if
the press allowed it. Some of us tried not to,
and some of us were complicit.
Speaker 11 (26:33):
The Biden white House did not like me. Okay, this
is I do not have great connections with the Biden
White House.
Speaker 7 (26:40):
Well, clearly you have a lot of sources.
Speaker 10 (26:42):
You say you talked to over two hundred sources for
this book, so you have something you could have called
and worked.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
I know.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
That's the point is that they were not being honest.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
That's how the Street Journal get it.
Speaker 10 (26:53):
In June of twenty twenty four, and Jake Tapper and
CNN couldn't find sources for this story then before he
dropped out.
Speaker 11 (26:59):
No, it's just again going to do if we're going
to if we're going to do this, let's just stick
to the facts here, Okay when there is a damn, That's.
Speaker 10 (27:09):
What I've been doing all along. I'm talking about what
you miss the biggest story of the century when it
comes to presidential politics.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
So that's Jake Tapper taking the beating.
Speaker 8 (27:19):
A little bit of his own medicine.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Yes, speaking of that. Actually, Joe Scarborough getting a little
bit of from from Mark Halpern.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Oh yeah, let's let's roll some of this next clip too.
Speaker 12 (27:31):
I say to people, go watch the State of the
Union address. Talk to people who talked to Joe Biden.
He had good days and bad days. You were with
him on a good day and had conversations with him
on a good day, but good days on good days,
good days.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (27:44):
Looking but looking back at that, do you say, well,
it was misleading to say best by never without caveating
it and say except on the days when he's not
the best Biden? Well, but but I never I never
saw those days.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
First, Well you did?
Speaker 12 (27:58):
You did, because he saw Hi, address the dead congress woman,
and you saw him in South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
And yeah, more than I can show you.
Speaker 12 (28:05):
So I can show you the r n C clip Reils.
There were plenty of days in public when he when
he was not the best Biden ever, and.
Speaker 9 (28:11):
Of course stumbled and he stumbled and he stumbled and
bumbled around.
Speaker 8 (28:15):
Mark.
Speaker 9 (28:15):
I mean, yeah, he he certainly did. Uh, Donald Trump did,
other politicians did. But but but it And it's actually
the same case as a lot of times when I've
gone in and talked to Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
So where did you where did you come down on
this storing? Like, what what was your sense of Biden's
sinility and ability to be president versus privately versus publicly.
Speaker 8 (28:40):
Well, first of all, obviously right now everyone is hoping,
uh and praying for his full recovery from from prostate cancer.
But what I have said is it was a mistake
for President Biden to run. I had seen him a
few times in the year UH and had said that
based on my conversations, he should run. Now, in light
(29:00):
of all that's come out, I think that was a
wrong judgment. We also were hearing from a lot of
people in the Botton White House that he's capable of
doing it, he has the energy. We should have pushed back.
It should have been more independent, should have asked more questions,
shouldn't have had as much deference. I do think it
was capable of doing the job of president. But was
(29:21):
he up for a grueling campaign in four more years.
That seems obvious that some of us, many of us
in the party, got it wrong.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Well, I'm curious. I imagine you know, if you do
more town halls, you'll hear sentiments that sound just like
Meghan's to Jake Tapper.
Speaker 8 (29:37):
There.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
I feel like it's part of a trust deficit that
voters have with Democrats now. It feels like a significant
question mark that people will come to Democratic congressman with
the correct me if I'm wrong, if that's not something
you hear from your constituents. But I wonder how you
address that, how Democrats address that. I know Jake Tapper
isn't like an elected Democratic official, but as somebody.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
In Kansas like to the public, right, yeah, well.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
And he did. I mean, his coverage was mixed. He's
trying to defend his record, but the point is he
wasn't banging the drum every day saying this guy is
he doesn't seem capable of leading the country for another
four years, and there's significant questions about whether he's capable now.
So how do you think Democrats can or should or
shouldn't address that question?
Speaker 8 (30:21):
Well, I do think this created a trust deficit and
was read one of the big reasons we lost, and
the American people punished the Democratic Party for that trust deficit.
But I think the American people are very fair and
also tend to move on. And the only way that
this story drags out, in my view, is if we're
not honest. If we don't come out and say it
(30:41):
was a mistake, we own it, We're going to be
better in pushing back, and now we want to talk
about the future and what's happening with medicaid and your
jobs and tax policy. If we continue to say, well,
we were right and we didn't make a wrong call,
then I think it drags on. And that's why I
just think I don't think it is in any way
(31:02):
betraying Joe Biden. I'm still very proud of his record
off the IRA and the Chip sack. I just think
he made a wrong judgment to run, and many of
us should have asked tougher questions and shown more independence,
And I guess if you say that, I think the
American people are pretty fair and just.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
In terms of like the lessons that can be taken
away from it is one of do you, in your
own mind, when you look back, do you think one
of the reasons that maybe you didn't push for the
answers to those questions hard is that there didn't seem
like a good alternative in the moment because Joe Biden
had pushed for some of the economic populist economic policies
that people like you had pushed for. Is there something
that you thought maybe it held you back from asking
(31:40):
pushing further asking those questions. I think the.
Speaker 8 (31:42):
Biggest thing, in my view is the deference to seniority
and party leaders that sort of the culture of the
Democratic Party. I mean, we see this unfortunately today with
Jerry Connolly's passing, but we saw that in the Oversight race.
We've seen this time and again that the Democratic Party
has a lot of culture of deference to seniority, to
(32:03):
people who've been there, to party leaders, and we just
need to be more willing to push back at least
to get for me that was the main reason. I
also think the fact that it went so long at
the end. You know, if there was a robust open
primary and someone like Bernie Sanders would have gotten in
and had the time, that's one thing. But when it
was one hundred days left, there was a fear that
(32:25):
Biden had championed and was championing fairly progressive policy and
that the DNC would sort of engineer something that would
move the party in a much more corporate direction. And
that's I think also part of the reason that you
had progressives being out there for Biden because they liked
a lot of Biden's policies.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Yeah, I think that's the case too, And I wonder
how much the coronation of Kamala Harris plays into this whole,
the same sense of betrayal or rejection that the public
feels towards the Democratic behavior in twenty twenty five, or
do you think if when you know, even Obama we
(33:04):
now know through reporting, and it seemed you could kind
of sense it at the time, but we now know
that the Obamas, both Obamas, thought that there should be
an open primary and that the convention should really choose
a candidate a completely radical idea like Democrats get together
and democratically decide who should be the nominee, and they
were front run by, eventually by Biden and then others
(33:26):
who could very quickly just endorsed Kamla and there it
was done. So do you think do you think that
plays into it? Do you think that was do you
think that was a mistake not to have You know,
the argument was all will be six weeks of fighting
on and on, But what was that a mistake to
not have an open primary?
Speaker 8 (33:44):
It was Look, the ideal situation would have Biden does
better than expected at the midterms, announces he's not doing
his second term, and there's a real open primary. Because
I do think it was awkward to go to a
convention and to pass over the sitting vice president. I'm
not saying that that wouldn't have been preferable to what
we did, but there's an awkwardness to that, Whereas I
(34:06):
don't think anyone would have said that if there was
an actual open election. The second best case, though, would
have been an open convention and primary. And the reason
is that the American people have this sense. In my view,
I mean having lost races, having lost a race and
won a race two years later. I mean I lost
to an incumbent and the one against the same incoment
two years later, and the biggest thing I got was, well, bro,
(34:26):
you're really working hard. You must really want this job.
You've been campaigning so long. And I think with Donald Trump, unfortunately,
there was a sense like he's been campaigning for this
for four years what we saw as criminal charge lawsuits.
People said, well, he's really fighting this and he's fighting assassinations.
And so there was here's this person who's been campaigning
for four years for a job and someone who's you know,
(34:47):
one hundred days, and the American people kind of want
you to earn it. They want you to beg and
ask for their votes and fight for that. And that
is something that Obama really benefited from, right. I mean,
he was in every milk and cranny of this country
fighting for his Hillary. And I think it hurt Harris
in just her chances had she defeated someone, and it
(35:10):
would have actually strengthened her.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
And can you imagine the hagiography that Biden would be
getting right now if he had anybody watching this. Who's
if you're in your eighties and you're hanging on to
your Senate seat, like, think about this.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
Yeah, they love breaking points if Biden.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
I'm sure they do. If Biden. They watched it right
after the PBS News Hour clip on YouTube bends. Yeah,
if Biden had stepped down, like you said, after the
mid after they overperform in the mid terms, he steps down,
he says, I said I was going to be a bridge.
I'm following through on it, like the glowing portrayals of
his legacy that we would be kind of sloshing through
(35:52):
right now.
Speaker 8 (35:53):
Do you think even if Trump wins that's the case.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
I think even if Trump wins, because he then he
did the best he could. He did what he said
he was going to do. He set the party up,
and then the people chose Trump. But I think actually
Democrats probably win.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
The cancer diagnosis tragically would have vindicated that decision as well, saying,
you know you it was maybe.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
Could have been honest about the cancer diagnoses earlier. Right
she's saying that he just learned that he's in the phones.
It's like, I'm not a cancer doctor, but.
Speaker 8 (36:21):
Saying that he hasn't been tested since twenty fourteen, I mean,
I don't.
Speaker 4 (36:24):
You know that's what the what kind of guy? His
age doesn't get regular anyway alone the president, as as
Biden says, anyway.
Speaker 8 (36:31):
Yeah, but look, I think that Democrats have to find
a way to genuinely celebrate some of the policy achievements
because we don't want to move back to a Democratic
party that doesn't have a worker centered politics, a belief
that there should be stayed intervention, that there shouldn't be
blanket trade, right. I mean, just because Trump's blanket tariffs
(36:54):
aren't working doesn't mean that the Democrats now should start
celebrating NAFTA or China's ascension. It's a world trade organization.
I think Biden represented a break from unfettered globalization and
separating that and being proud of that, from his decision
to run and owning up to that. And you know,
other than maybe Dean Phillips or a few people, there
(37:15):
are very few Democratic elected officials who weren't endorsing Biden
and saying something or the other about why he would
have been a good president. And we could just say
we made a wrong judgment, didn't a light to what
it's come out.
Speaker 4 (37:28):
At least Dean went for it. But connorson KNA always
a pleasure to have you in the studio.
Speaker 8 (37:33):
I appreciate it. I always enjoyed it.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
Thank you. Elon Musk made a big announcement, actually in
a pretty casual way yesterday. He was asked during a
conference or Zoom whether he would well, I don't know Zoom.
It could have been whatever else not skyp. Skype is gone,
but it could have been Google Meet. Who knows. He
was asked about his political donations, the future of his
(37:56):
political donations, which again donated just a crazy amount of money. Yeah,
almost three hundred million just in the last cycle. So
Republicans he has this America Pack have been have been
really building up an infrastructure around an anticipation of future
donations from Elon Musk. Let's take a listen to what
he said.
Speaker 8 (38:17):
I think.
Speaker 13 (38:20):
In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a
lot less in the future.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
And why is that.
Speaker 13 (38:28):
I think I've done enough?
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Is it? Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 13 (38:37):
Well, if I see a reason to do political spending
in the future, I will do it.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
I do I currently see a reason.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
And it's easy to read into that some awkwardness. It's
always kind of baked into Elon Musk. Yes, but some
awkwardness in his relationship with the Republican Party. With Donald Trump,
he seems my particulars. He seems kind of bitter almost so,
though it can be hard to tell with Musk because
it's hard to standard.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Yeah, So this was at Bloomberg's Cutter Economic Forum in Doah,
which is just kind of hilarious in and of itself.
But that was zooming into it again. Almost three hundred
million dollars in the last election cycle, a big pack
that Republicans have been counting on. My check on this
is it's actually kind of good for the Republican Party
to not be tiptoeing around Elon Musk for the sake
(39:25):
of getting hundreds of millions of dollars from him in
an election cycle. So just from a like populist standpoint,
that's a good thing. Anti corruption standpoint, maybe it is
one way to put it. That's a good thing.
Speaker 4 (39:37):
Yeah. On CNBC, he acknowledged that he took a beating
for his entry into the arena. He blamed it on
propaganda from the mainstream media. Let's roll f two.
Speaker 14 (39:55):
You are somewhat divisive figure two years ago, but now
you really are. I mean, there are people who love you,
but there are a lot of people who dislike you,
some of whom were your customers, And I wonder was
it worth the undertaking it Doge and everything.
Speaker 4 (40:08):
Else that you've done, and how it's spoken.
Speaker 14 (40:09):
You've been in terms of the things you believe in
to antagonize so many potential buyers and or users of
things like a ROBOTAXI.
Speaker 13 (40:18):
Well, I mean, unfortunately, what I've learned is that legacy
media propaganda is very effective at making you believe things
that aren't true.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
What would an example of.
Speaker 13 (40:28):
That be that I'm a Nazi, for example? And how
many legacy media publications, talk shows, whatever try to claim
that I was a Nazi because of some random ham
gesture at a rally where all I said was that
my heart goes out to you, and I was talking
about space travel. And yet the legacy media promoted that
(40:50):
as though if that was a deliberate Nazi gesture, when
in fact, every politician, any public speaker who's spoken for
any length of time has made the exact same gesture.
And yet there's sold people out there and I've never
had I've never had.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
A single puss.
Speaker 4 (41:05):
You know what I wasn't I was I was talking
about it. Yeah, and so this has had commercial damage
to in particular Tesla, the most I guess consumer facing
of his companies. You can put up F three. This
article in The Bulwark highlights one guy who paid one
hundred and ten thousand dollars a year ago for a
cyber truck now being offered fifty four thousand dollars for
(41:27):
it by Carvana. There are an enormous number of unsold
cyber trucks kick kicking around, but things could be turning around,
and you know, maybe thanks to his involvement in politics.
In the end, put up F four. Elon Musk apparently
reached out to Pete Hegseth, saying that you know that
(41:50):
he'd be happy to collaborate with the construction of this
new Golden Dome that we talked about earlier in the program.
Donald Trump is going to keep us safe from the
while barrages that he apparently expects to come our way
and is going to build us an iron dome times
gold and Elon Musk wants a piece of this, you know,
(42:10):
five hundred billion dollar project. Well that that's what the
CBO says it was cost. Trump says it's basically going
to be a tiny fraction of that. If if you're
a betting man, you always take the over on any
Pentagon contract. Elon Musk, a betting man, would like a
piece of that action. So on the one hand, Musk
saying politics has been really bad for me for the
(42:33):
foreseeable future, I'm not going to be investing. At the
same time, he's still hoping he's going to be able
to continue to get government contracts, which in our pay
to play system requires some involvement in politics, but it
doesn't require the level that he's been involved in. This
this unprecedented like I'm going to be your banker kind
(42:53):
of thing role that he was playing. And I'm curious
how you know, Democrats were nervous that Elon Musk's superpack
was and I think some Republicans were nervous too privately, yeah,
that it was going to turn Trump into not dictator
in the old sense, but like a guy who can
basically dictate anything to the Republican Party because if you
(43:16):
step out of line, here's my man, Elon Who's going
to put ten million dollars into a superpack and is
going to destroy you in the next primary more than not.
And they basically said that explicitly, and that would give
a president an amount of power over his party that
no president really has ever had before. But almost seems
(43:39):
like Trump can do that anyway. But he doesn't even
need the money, just his own, his own kind of
power and influence within the party can do it well.
Speaker 3 (43:49):
Primaries, yeah, I think in the primaries maybe, but in
general elections. I mean, I think we've talked about this
in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election that Elon Musk actually
went to Green Bay and Cheese.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
Had on good. Western civilization was at stake.
Speaker 3 (44:03):
Said, Western civilizations at stake. I think we're right. Our
coverage has been correct to pinpoint that as the moment
in which must started to slowly disentangle himself from the
Trump administration. At least in public view, it does seem
like that's happening. Privately, it does seem like he's gradually
spending less and less time near the White House, in
the White House and in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4 (44:24):
And luckily for him, he's heavily invested in Eastern civilization too.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Yeah, and space civilizations.
Speaker 4 (44:30):
In many civilizations. Yeah, he's covered.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
The bases are covered, yes, so, but I think part
of that is because he wanted to be able to
wield so much easy power in that that Wisconsin election
was a test case post twenty twenty four general election
of Musk being able to come in register tons of
new Republican voters by offering money, like bribing people to
(44:58):
register to vote, and then just come in and flick
your finger and flick of the risk, flick of the wrist,
and you've totally changed. You've bought an election. Essentially, he
was testing that he was trying that and it didn't work.
And so now in retrospect, the way Democrats framed the
election in Wisconsin as sort of a test case for
(45:20):
whether or not Musk can buy his way to complete
in total domination politically of the United States, that framing
looks pretty good because it seems to have been a
message to him that he cannot, that it will not
be that easy, and that, if anything, his attempt to
do that has become a sort of what's in albatross
for the Republican party that wants to have a new
(45:43):
populist messaging, wants to have a new populist brand, and
you have a billionaire coming in as sort of openly
bribing people to register to vote, and trying to buy
elections again openly, pretty openly trying to buy elections, spend
a bunch of money. If cash infusion changed the game,
it didn't work, and it didn't work for a couple
(46:04):
of reasons. Voters didn't like it. It's not great for Republicans.
So that's where, at least I think on the public level,
we're seeing him step back, genuinely step back. But whether
or not that investment, because we can put this funny
post from Tim Miller on the screen F three. This
is about a guy who bought his cyber truck for
one hundred and ten grand and then was offered fifty
(46:26):
four thousand back for it by Carvana. It's a long
bowlwark story about how they say in their stubheading Trump
killed Tesla. And obviously it's true to that Tesla is
struggling immensely. Some of these cars are struggling immensely. The
Tesla's valuation. Valuation has always been about more than just
the cars. It's also the technology. I mean, it's primarily
probably like the FSD full stub driving technology that's in
(46:49):
the cars. Nevertheless, yeah, the cyber truck in particular, has
struggled for reasons that aren't just Trump related, but are
definitely Trump related to So if you thought that that
was representative of Musk taking a big hit, it actually
may turn out that you know this, the Tesla hit
is nothing compared to the gain for SpaceX, for Starlink,
(47:12):
and for other Musk properties, because he's now built up
tons of goodwill with the Trump administration going forward. He
has great connections with Pete Hegseth. And by the way,
that's why people influence pedal to get the influence when
they want it, for example, when there's massive contracts.
Speaker 4 (47:30):
Golden Dome contract available. Yeah, and hey, look I'm rooting
for Tesla. We need more, you know, we need electric
vehicle companies and we need American ones. So I hope
he pulls this off. And I'm also very delighted that
he's tweeting much less, because God, that was not so
much less. That was so obnoxious to just see him
constantly in your feed. It was nothing you could do
about it.
Speaker 3 (47:50):
It wasn't even obnoxious so much as it was just
like watching a slow motion cyber truck crash right like.
Speaker 4 (47:56):
It was painful, and he would he just would keep
lading like Kat turn and Ian Miles Chong and everybody's fees.
You're not doing the world a service with that. And
he was for yourself.
Speaker 3 (48:08):
He was openly admitting that they were half baked, right,
He was like, sometimes I'll be right, sometimes I'll be wrong.
And for a billionaire to be so casual about these
pronouncements that, even if he wants them to have less power,
even if he wants people to realize that this is
just my half baked two in the morning thoughts. It's
not how people interpret things that are coming out of
the mouth of a billionaire.
Speaker 4 (48:29):
And one of the best things culturally about him is
that he's always been interesting. Yes, and he stopped being interesting.
He became a reply He became a reply guy. He
became boring.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
Yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 4 (48:40):
No pun intended on his company. And so maybe he'll
get his interesting mojo back.
Speaker 3 (48:45):
Yeah, it wasn't. It wasn't even good for like his
personal brand. Terrible, many different robles. So we'll see. But
if you had said in January twenty first, for example,
May twenty first, so exactly five months ago that uh,
you know, Elon Musker four months ago, I can't count
that's keep that in mind for all of the economic segments.
I know you already know many of you already do.
(49:06):
But if you have on January twenty first, for someone
coming to you and saying by May twenty first, Elon
is saying he's gonna be no more political donations and
basically he's done with DOGE. I think a lot of
people would have been like, WHOA, what happened?
Speaker 4 (49:21):
Well, and russ Vote is taking over Doje And russ
Vote is much more dangerous probably person than Elon because
he's methodical and he's like a revolutionary depends on your perspective.
Speaker 3 (49:32):
I mean, if you support the government becoming more limited,
relatively limited, then Russ's is definitely less dangerous because Elon
is more of like a crony capitalist than like rest
is an opponent of crony capitalism, like ideologically. So we'll
see where that.
Speaker 4 (49:51):
Goes, Yes we will. And we touched on this briefly
while Rocana was here. But the news that broke during
the show is that Representative Jerry Connolly of Virginia has
has died of cancer. This will create a special election,
It'll give Republicans one extra vote cushion as they're pushing
(50:14):
through their big, beautiful bill. But on on a personal level,
you know, Connolly took a lot of heats for despite
facing cancer running for terminal cancer turned out to be terminal.
He thought he was going to beat it the top
position on the community. It was a bad it was
(50:35):
a bad prognosis and not being up to the task.
And I think he deserved, deserved, you know, criticism for that,
you know, mis misreading that moment. I have a soft
spot for him. He was elected in two thousand and eight,
so he came in in this There were two big
waves of Democrats that came in in two thousand and
(50:56):
six and then again in two thousand and eight, and
both those classes, you know, were a big part of
the two thousand and nine and ten Obama rush of
legislation which created the CFPB, the Affordable Care Act, and
on on and so he was he was always in
the speaker's lobby. Uh and he I think to his
(51:19):
dying days almost which means that he was out out
off of the floor, just hamming it up with reporters,
always willing to be transparent about where he was giving
good quotes, giving and also given given good intel and
you know, he just represents a it was a swing
(51:40):
district at the time. Now it's a little bit more democratic,
So it's not like he was Democratic Socialist of America champion,
but he was well liked and a charming guy. Like
he came up just a machine politician, like he was
Fairfax board of Supervisors for you know, decade and that
decade plus and then member of Congress. Like you know,
(52:03):
he's not not not upbending politics, but as far as
like a machine politician goes a good guy and it's.
Speaker 11 (52:09):
A you know, so.
Speaker 4 (52:11):
You know he'll be he'll be missed on.
Speaker 3 (52:13):
That level that people have friendly memories of of him,
certainly that people have shared those machine politicians, many of
them dudes. They're they're very nice.
Speaker 4 (52:22):
That's why they're successful, backslapp and they love the chicken dinners.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
Yeah they do. They're super extroverted people, gregarious.
Speaker 6 (52:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (52:30):
So he was also Jamal Kashoggi's representative, and I was
always grateful for him to him for raising the alarm
before we knew that he was that Kashogi had been killed.
He was because he went into the consulate and I
heard immediately, like you from people close it was his
fiance were like, he hasn't come out, and so there
(52:52):
was about a week where there was still some hope
that he was alive and there could be enough pressure
put on Saudi Arabia that he would be released. That
we didn't know at the time he'd been killed right
there in the consolate, but Connolly was outspoken in real time,
so that was I credit him for that.
Speaker 3 (53:11):
Who's back on the show tomorrow? Ryn? Are you here
with Crystal? Yes? Great, something to look forward to. And
I think it's just you and me on the Friday
Show this week.
Speaker 4 (53:18):
That sounds right, all right, Well, plenty more, we'll get
a special guests or something.
Speaker 3 (53:22):
Yeah, that's we couldn't it's Soccer's baby, just the baby,
not Soccer, just the Yeah, that's right, all right, we'll
stick around for that. Breaking Points dot Com if you
want to see the second half of the Friday Shows.
You get the show in your inbox early every day,
so make sure to subscribe there if you can. If
you can't, just make sure to subscribe. We appreciate it
very much, and Ryan and Crystal will see you back
(53:43):
here tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (53:44):
See that
Hey, guys, Sager and Crystal.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Here, independent media just played a truly massive role in
this election, and we are so excited about what that
means for the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Let's move on to the the man who's always sprinkling
good luck on everyone, Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was on
Flagrant with Andrew Schultz and the Gang and Brian I
watched this. Did you get a chance to watch it?
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Sing and tell me about these guys. I don't watch
this show, so.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Cccer's friends with them, actually, but they are book you know.
Charles was talking on the podcast, he's like the cosms
of a lifelong Democrat, repeatedly in his conversations with Bernie's
I really wanted you to win in twenty sixteen. He's
kind of like he's similar. I would say he's sort
of politically similar to Rogan, probably a little less you know,
(01:13):
interested in some of the wild conspiratorial so like he's
not in as deep probably on all of those things.
But it kind of similar. And there's like Bernie brow
Ish and he even talked about how the podcast bros
Have been labeled similarly to the Bernie Bros. In conversation
with Bernie Sanders, part this almost yeah, this almost sexist
(01:35):
approach to lumping people in the pejorative categories. O.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Jay's going to come for you pretty soon. Yeah, keep
doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Yeah, they'd come right for you. DEI. But anyway, it's
the conversation before we kick it over to this one
fascinating clip. We have a couple of clips, but the
one we're going to play for verst is really, really good.
I just want to say the first part of the conversation,
they're spending like twenty minutes talking about the Brooklyn Dodgers.
And the reason that's important is I don't think there
(02:01):
are a lot of Democrats who can sit and talk
totally organically. Bernie is just like blowing them away with
his knowledge of like the nineteen fifty eight lineup of
Brooklyn Dodgers.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
The Dodgers going to LA I think it was a
formative experience for Bernie Sanders in a way that he said, Yes,
the early childhood trauma can be and I think you
can connect it to this sense of like who are
the wait, who are these oligarchs that can rip a
community apart? Like Yeah, and as somebody who was as
(02:38):
passionate about baseball in my childhood as Bernie was in his,
baseball feels like it is part of the It is
part of the community. It does not feel like it
should be something owned by an individual who can do
something with it.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
That's why you got to go with the Green Bay Packers.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
And one of the greatest sense of senses of injustice
I would ever feel as a child was when the
Phillies would not be on TV. What do you mean
I can't watch the Philadelphia Phillies. That the Philadelphia Phillies. They
have to be on TV? Yeah, this is insane.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
It's outside You're outside of Philadelphia. Yeah. The reason that
I wanted to start with that point is precisely because
I think I'm saying this as a conservative. The if
you are a If you are an ideological liberal and
you watch Bernie's fluent, natural organic conversation about the Brooklyn
Dodgers with Andrew Schultz for twenty minutes, he gives the
(03:37):
best pitch for democratic socialism, all in the context of
baseball in the first twenty minutes of that podcast. That
is changing hearts and minds. Is persuading people that the
left is reasonable, even if I disagree with it. You're
a eighteen year old boy and you're listening to that,
You're like, holy shit, this is completely true. These billionaires
come in buy up teams. Jack got the ticket prices
(04:00):
so that a family of four can't afford a vacation.
Now it's literally the price of a vacation. Yes, can't
afford to go to a game without it being the
price of the weekend at a beach for everyone to
get a hot dog, decent ticket, whatever.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Punch in the face.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Yeah, And so they come in and buy it. Parking, Well,
they use your money to build the stadium, then charge
you eighty bucks a ticket for a decent seat, and
then they take the team somewhere else ten years later,
once you've already bought your kid's gear, and you've sort
of emotionally invested in the franchise.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
It's an eighteen dollars eighteen dollars for a coke.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
And it's baseball. It's America's pastime. Yeah, And so the
way Sanders starts that segment is just a fantastic pitch
for democratic socialism. And there are so few he's willing
to laugh at their jokes about. Like they say something
about Bernie's like, we learned how to do arithmetic this
way by watching baseball, and Schultz goes, well, today, we
(04:56):
call that autism, and Bernie's laughing at it. And it's like,
you don't find other democrats, Like imagine Alista slot Can
just being able to roll with a comedian making a
joke about that she wouldn't. And it's the same thing
when Schultz makes jokes about you can only be bigoted
around your close friends, like Bernie Sanders like, look, I'm
against bigotry. Schultz goes, unless it's around your close friends,
(05:17):
and Bernie just rolls your close friend, Yeah, to your
close friends. So let's roll this clip so that I
can stop doing summaries of clips. I know everybody loves
that this is d one.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
It's good about what happened to you in twenty sixteen
with this Bernie Brose movement where you're your followers are
seen they have a racism problem, missagy problem.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
Do you think that's a superPAC thing behind that?
Speaker 4 (05:38):
No, it was the Democratic establishment. Oh wow, okay, you know.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
That was just they were sitting there. We had a
lot of young people, we have people of color, and
you know, they create this kind of myth with the
help of the corporate media or all that stuff. You know.
Speaker 7 (05:50):
It's kind of interesting to that note is during this election,
the podcast space, which the Democrats largely avoided, they feel
had some influence in the election, and they started to
label us the podcast bros and said that we were
sexist and we were racist and bigeted. It's almost like
(06:11):
it's the exact same strategy to get you out of there.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Yeah, that's what the liberally China does. They run away,
look getting again. I would hope that everybody who's watching
the program is that we as a nation have got
to and or forms of biggotreat right. Yes, that I
thought off as a basic assumption. Unless I see your
close friends, right, it's racism but sexism, homophobia or aenophobia,
(06:37):
whatever it is. But and you know, liberal democrats talk
about that all the time. And then you get to
what we call identity politics. That you're black, you're wonderful,
you're tremendous, you're yeah, you're the greatest human being on earth. Yeah,
And rather than say what do you what do you
stand for?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Exactly ya? That's why who cares? What do you stand for?
Speaker 6 (07:00):
You know, is every gay person brilliant and wonderful and great?
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Now of course that everybody's um.
Speaker 6 (07:05):
Yeah, So the issue is what you stand for, which
huts you back to what we discuss every class politics
in the sense of which side are you on? Are
you going to stand with working families, Are you going
to raise the minimum wage to a living wage or not?
Are you going to guarantee fight to guarantee healthcare to
all people or not? Are you going to demand that
(07:27):
the wealthiest people stop paying their fair share of taxes on?
Those are the issues, and no one cares what color
you want, you know, what your gender is, et cetera,
et cetera.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Okay, so Ryan, well done again. You just this is
what's so frustrating is democrats. I just wrote about this morning. Actually,
like they're on their quest, we can put the next
hair straight up on the screen, this multimillion dollar quest
to find the nextra rogue. In The New York Times
had an interesting three Yeah, The New York Times had
an interesting report on it. Sorry, yes, I skipped ahead
(07:56):
about how Democrats are now throwing millions of dollars they
have spreadshere of influencers to try and create the next
Joe Rogan when obviously they lost the original Joe Rogan.
Who's somebody who had Bernie Sanders on and then a
big conversation with Bernie Sanders about universal health care and
all of these democratic socialist policies that Rogan is pretty
interested in. And Democrats don't want to change their policy
(08:19):
offerings or their tone, as evidenced by the fact that
they're not leaning into Bernie being the guy that can
help them win back the Rogan instead of astroturfing some
partisan hack that's going to be exactly the opposite of
what succeeds on the podcast circuit, which is the anti
partisan ship of free, willing conversation and authenticity. Bernie can
(08:43):
go on flagrant just like Trump can, just like Jade
vance Can and he can go in Theovonne, he can
go on Joe Rogan, and it's because he's a critic
of the Democratic Party in the same way that Trump
is a critic of the Republican Party. You could say
Bernie's more sincere than Trump, sure, but they're both criticizing
their own party, which is what you're not going to
pay a bunch of influencers to do. Nobody wants the
(09:04):
dem donors to give millions of dollars to people who
are then going to go trash the Dems.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
We got Rokana coming pretty soon, So let's roll this
last clip of D two from here where he talks
about our Democrats a threat to democracy as well.
Speaker 7 (09:19):
The problem I think a lot of voters had is
like they didn't even know if it was her. We
didn't even know if Biden was president. We didn't even
know if these were her talking points, and we felt
that over the last four elections, Democrats we felt that
we didn't have a say on who could be president.
We talk a lot about the Republicans being autocrats and
oligarchs and taking over democracy, but from the Democrat perspective,
(09:42):
and as I'm a lifelong Democrat. I felt like the
Democratic Party completely removed the democratic process from its constituents
and they I think they need to have some accountability
of that.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
No, um, I don't for you.
Speaker 7 (09:55):
I mean I wanted you to. Like twenty sixteen, I
was like, this is going to happen. This guy's going
to do it, and it felt like they it felt
like they stole it from it. And I'll be honest,
it broke my heart when you when you support him.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
Look but you have in the world that I live in,
you got a choice. And I mean a lot of people,
including my wife, agree with you, but you know you're
down to a choice. It's going to be Hillary Clinton
or is it going to be Donald Trump? Not a
great choice, but it ended up being him anyway.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
So why don't we burn it down?
Speaker 6 (10:27):
Well, because it's easy to say, burning it down means
that children are not going to have you know, foodia,
that the schools will deteriorate, people will not have healthcare.
I got it, and I you know, I'm an elected official.
I got to represent the people and I can't turn my.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Back on But then could we not also say if
ostensibly there hasn't been a fair primary for the Democrats
since two thousand and eight, Are they not also a
threat to democracy?
Speaker 7 (10:48):
We often hear fair.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Enough that is that is Yeah, I'm not going to
argue with that point, including my wife.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
That was a pretty funny line. Yeah, that's why he
can hang with the Yeah, and Jane is Yeah, she
is more of a burn it down than Bernie is.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Yeah, that is more than Bernie bro than Burney.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Sure, Bernie actually wanted somebody to primary Obama in twenty twelve,
which killed him. Then in twenty sixteen they used that
against him ruthlessly. Then I think he would like at
the time, he would have loved to take it back.
He didn't have any idea that he was going to
be a competitive presidential candidate in the next cycle. So, yeah,
(11:29):
twenty twelve that was fair because no he ran against
him Obama. Twenty sixteen, we know twenty twenty votes were fair. Yeah,
but the party just consolidated around Joe Biden. Yeah, Bernie
was like pulling ahead even among black voters after Nevada,
But the Democratic primary voters are very lockstep. And when MSNBC,
(11:54):
CNN people to judge Obama, Amy Klobuchar, everybody consolidated they moved.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Yeah. Well, and that's what sends just really cheating.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
It's like they used the power of the party to
beat him, which, yes, is hypocritical if your name is
the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Yeah, and it's the reason that you end up getting
the Andrew Schultz of the world looking seriously at Donald Trump.
And it's because they're so disillusioned by how Bernie Sanders
was treated. And until Democrats acknowledge that they're not going
to have success in the anti establishment podcast circuit, they
can continue to you know, New York Times, the Daily
(12:33):
and pr they'll still do really well in the podcast charts.
It's something that I think them sort of take for granted.
But they're not going to win back young men until
these faults are acknowledged, and they're not going to pay
their way to bullshitting people and to thinking that they're
sincerely acknowledging those faults. So good luck to everyone. That's
how we're ending every segment there.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Good luck exactly all right. Up next, we got Rocan
in the studio, a Democrat of congressman is taking his
pitch to some red districts or at least purple districts
around the country. Here let's play a little bit of
a Rokanna heading to Pennsylvania. I want to ask.
Speaker 7 (13:12):
Are we safe?
Speaker 8 (13:14):
Is my family safe? And you know you asked are
we safe? And you're mature enough and you're thoughtful enough
that I'm going to give you an honest answer. And
the honest answer is that there are people right now
in power who are making it harder for folks who
(13:38):
are lesbian. And in this country, there are people who
are making it harder for folks who are on Medicaid
and who need those services to live well and to
have basic health care. That's true about what's going on,
But you know, we also have a country where a
(13:59):
sixth grader gets to stand up and talk about that
and talk about that and talk about that in a
way that is so much more powerful than anything I
can say or any congress person can say.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
All right, joining us here is Democratic Congressman Rocanna. Thanks
for joining it.
Speaker 8 (14:18):
Thank you the standing of issue. So it was for
the sixth grade girl, not for me, But that was
a powerful moment because she stood up there a lot
of courage and she said, I'm afraid. I'm afraid for
my family, and what can you tell me? That's going
to keep me safe. And there's not much you can
tell folks. And I was pretty honest with her about
some of the cuts that are taking place and the
(14:40):
climate affair that it's been created.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
And this is this is kind of your you know,
this is your homecoming in a way. You're from Bucks County.
I was actually just up that way from my cousin's
high school graduation from Boyertown High I was born. I
was born in Allentown, which you also visited.
Speaker 8 (14:56):
That's why we were having such a hard time getting
a venue. I said, how's it so hard? They said
the graduation graduation?
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Yeah, exactly. So how is Allentown? Where'd you go in Allentown?
Speaker 8 (15:05):
We were in Allentown and it was right next to
the Mack Truck facility. A lot of the folks in
Mack Truck, unfortunately, are losing their jobs in July. Two reasons. One,
those jobs are going to Mexico. So I'm in Donald
Trump here's talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back. How about
we just start not losing them. And the second thing
(15:26):
is these blanket tariffs have caused Mack Trucks to raise
their prices by twenty five percent, and they've lost twenty
five percent of orders. And so these folks from UAW
were there saying, you know, three hundred and fifty four
guys are going to get laid off if you guys
don't do something, and appealing to Ryan mackenzie, the congress
person there in Donald Trump to save their jobs.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
So what would an industrial policy look like? That didn't
lead to that, because Trump, when he talks about bringing
manufacturing back, is not talking about mack Truck laying people
off in Allentown. He's talking about the opposite of that.
And mack Truck laying people off has been going on
for forty years and it had a bit of a revival,
but there was a formative experience with my child. Remember,
(16:11):
like everybody talking in Allentown, mack Truck is moving to
South Carolina. Like one of the first things that a
lot of these companies do is they move from the
Union states down to the non union states, and then
when there's a little bit of union activity there, then
they had to Mexico or China or Vietnam or wherever
they go. So what would you do, because obviously it
makes no sense for US policy to be hurting mac
(16:38):
in Allentown.
Speaker 8 (16:39):
Yeah, well, first, you wouldn't have blanket tariffs that are
making it harder for manufacturers to import things that they
need for their trucks before you actually phased in the
production in the United States. So if you wanted to say, Okay,
here are the component parts, we're going to produce that
in the United States and phase in tariff's fine. But
you can't just have these blanket tarfs. Second, I would
(17:00):
have an offshoring tax. I mean, if you're going to
offshore a plan, you're causing a lot of disruption, You're
causing a lot of harm to a community. There should
be a tax right now. Actually, the tax overseas is
less than the corporate tax in the United States. It's
twenty one percent here, but to repatriot profits it's only
ten percent. So we need to have an offshoring tax.
And third, i'd have an economic Marshall plan and development
(17:22):
policy of what are we going to invest in these
communities to build new factories and where are we going
to commit to buying things where the government can buy things.
Some of it may be mac trucks, some of them
may be other kinds of manufacturing. Some of it may
be healthcare, education, it's not all going to be manufacturing,
but you need to have a concerted investment economic development strategy,
none of which down from as he wants to just
(17:44):
wave a magic wand with blanket tariffs. And it's in
some cases like mack Truck, unintentionally. I don't think Trump
wants to hurt them, but unintentionally hurting them.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
So I have a two prong question on that point.
Because the Big Beautiful Bill, if it gets past, is
promising tax ri offs for investment in the United States, building, manufacturing, building,
factory building in the United States, and retroactive to January twentieth,
like one hundred percent write offs on all of that.
Corporate tax would go down from twenty one percent to
fifteen percent. The Trump administration sees that as a sort
(18:15):
of compliment to the tariff policy, as kind of an
industrial policy in a tax structure way. What do you
make of that? Do you think substantively that's helpful? And
having been talking to people in counties that went Obama, Trump, Biden,
Trump in many cases people who have voted for Democrats
and Republicans in the presidential ticket in recent decades, do
(18:37):
you think those types of policies could be sold by
the Trump administration, like, do you think the Trump administration
will have an easy time saying, listen, we are bringing
manufacturing back if that bill passes in substance and in style.
I guess is the question.
Speaker 8 (18:52):
Well, first of all, on this substance, they're also repealing
some of the Inflation Reduction Act production tax credit. So
it's not a clean build that says, if you're making
things in America, we're going to give you tax credits.
I guess if you're making things that happen to be
low carbon, they want to take those tax credits away.
They have some of the accelerated depreciation, but it's also
(19:13):
a very trickle down approach. Their view, I mean, a
genuine view is we're going to create these global deals.
We're going to provide these tax breaks, and somehow it's
going to lead to more job creation in the United
States and every community, and may lead to more job
creation in Silicon Valley. It may lead to more job
creation and capital centers. But I don't think these companies
(19:33):
are going to say, Okay, now we're going to go
in Johnstown, We're going to go in Lorraine. We're going
to build the types of manufacturing that those communities want.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
To do that.
Speaker 8 (19:42):
You need federal directed investment, you need a workforce, you
need to ask these communities what to do. In terms
of the politics of it, I think he's going to
try to sell that, but ultimately reality is reality. At
some point people are going to say, Okay, am I
getting laid off? Am I getting new jobs. It's why
Donald Trump is so much more effective as an outsider
(20:04):
than as president in my view. As an outsider, you know,
David Brooks said, he asked all the right questions, he
just said some of the wrong answers. As an outsider,
he can say all these problems, but when he's as
a president, he's going to be judged on the actual record.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
Great, and so you had you were saying you had
some Trump protesters. We did, who showed up? How what
was their deal?
Speaker 8 (20:23):
But first of all, it's an argument for every Democrat
going on Fox News because they said, you know, first
they started approaching me. I said, oh no, I'm going
to get yelled at. And they said, we have a request.
Can we get a selfie? I said, you want a
selfie with me? So we see you all the time
on Fox News. So that's the That's what started the conversation.
And then I said, well, why don't you just listen,
because I just introduce a bill to codify Donald Trump's
(20:47):
executive order. I'm the first the pharmaceut on the pharmaceutical
bill to say that Americans shouldn't pay more than people
in every other part of the world. And Bernie and
I had done something simil or years ago where we
said that if you're paying more in America than places
in Japan or Germany, we should take away the patents
(21:08):
from those pharma companies. Trump says, let's import the cheap drugs,
and we got to bipartisan. It's with bigs, it's with Luna,
and so this got the Trump voters paying attention. I said,
I'm not for medicaid cuts. They said, well, we don't
want Medicaid cuts. I said, I'm for keeping this mac
truck jobs here. They said, we're for that.
Speaker 9 (21:26):
Now.
Speaker 8 (21:27):
I said, you know, the bill actually has these cuts.
And I think that the politics the debate is going
to be whether Trump can sell them that is not
cutting medicaid, when in my view it actually is. He's
calling it waste, fraud, and abuse.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
It's not though, right.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
So on that point, even actually on the drug bill,
Have you heard anything from the White House? Have your
Republicans heard anything, Republican colleagues heard anything from the White
House that there might be movement on that or is
Republican leadership going to do everything they can not to
let that come to the floor or get into any
other packages.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
It's an uphill battle get it onto the floor. There's
so much lobbying money off big pharma. And you know,
Donald Trump's out there saying he's already lowered drug prices
by eighty five percent, so accomplished. He's got the talking points.
But again, he's president and maybe right now people think, okay,
this is going to happen, But a year from now
(22:19):
they're going to wonder, have drug price has actually gone down?
And I would think this would be such a home
run for him if he would actually we would pass
this law and codify it, and he'd be the president
to take on big pharma, he would it would be
a huge deal. But I just don't think that the
Republicans in Congress are going to do it or the
Senate are going to do it.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
He just got a kind of surprise win in the
Senate on a similar vein where they passed Last night,
they passed it alt the No tax On Act got
one hundred votes in the Senate, just went through by
unanim's consent. Democrats like, all right, fine, we'll do this.
Do you think is that going to pass the House?
Speaker 8 (22:58):
It's going to be part of the Reckon Soation Bill.
I do think it'll pass. You know, as you know,
they've given the no tax for tips for four years.
They're giving the tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires
for ten years.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Well that's why it was only one hundred and thirty
five or and that's the.
Speaker 8 (23:13):
Gimmick that they had. But look, Donald Trump obviously has
incredible political instincts. You don't become president twice. I mean,
I don't agree with his leadership, but his no tax
on tips was a stroke of brilliance in Nevada and
other places. My view is, we got to raise the
living wage, but in the meantime, yeah, why are we
taxing tips on working families? And so you're going to
(23:37):
get support for it, and I think the argument from
Democrats is why are you making this four years and
not ten years and having the millionaire billionaire tax cut
for ten years? By the way, eighty thousand dollars plus
that every millionaire is going to get based on this
tax plan, and it's about seven hundred and fifty dollars
for people under one hundred thousand dollars just on the
(23:59):
tax breaks. And then there was this CBO study which
is just astounding of distributional analysis saying that the bottom
ten percent are going to be hurt because of the
Medicaid cuts and the cuts and food stamps, in the
top ten percent are going to benefit. And it's a
pretty straightforward analysis.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
Could you see the So what about the pharmaceutical measure?
It feels like from a political perspective, You've got Trump
has already said it, he's for it, he's claimed he's
doing it. You've got the bill. What's the mechanism to
expose the big pharm a lobby as the ones in
the way of it, because once they're exposed, it's much
(24:38):
more difficult for them.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Yeah, call up the Health and Human Services secretary, see
if he wants to do some message.
Speaker 8 (24:43):
That's not a bad idea. Actually we can reach out
to him. I'm hoping we get as many Republicans and
Democrats to sign on to it. Look, it's not perfect
in terms of what I prefer Lloyd Doggett or Bernie's approach. Yes,
but the argument I'm making to my Democratic colleagues is
I'm not changing the language because I don't want to
then say to Republicans, here's an excuse to oppose it.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Now.
Speaker 8 (25:04):
For Republicans, I'm saying, look, we're literally codifying Trump's executive order,
and then how are you not for this? And I
think we can get to a large number of House
members on this bill, we start to get momentum because
the reality is that both parties have taken money from
big pharma or buy into those talking points always going
(25:25):
to hurt innovation and hurt drug discovery. Not true. I mean,
most of that is happening with your and my tax dollars.
But we've got to expose it. It's a powerful lobbying
group and that's really what's standing in the way now.
Speaker 4 (25:39):
The debate consuming Democrats right now is the you know,
what did you know and when? About President Biden's sinility.
Megan Kelly and Jake Tapper had it out a little bit.
Let's to set the context. Let's play some of this
Kelly Tapper clip over here.
Speaker 10 (25:54):
In my ecosphere. We were covering all of these. It
wasn't just falling down, it was get lost. It was
some of the stuff you report in your book. We
knew and we were reporting on, like the multi jump
cuts in the videos of him, or it was obvious
he couldn't get through a one minute take. It was
clear to us that he was using teleprompter, and there
(26:15):
was some reporting on that at the time, all of
which the White House was denying. Now the current White House,
I have some connections with the Joe Biden white House.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
I had none, but you did.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
There was an attempted cover up.
Speaker 10 (26:26):
It could only ever work if you allowed it, if
the press allowed it. Some of us tried not to,
and some of us were complicit.
Speaker 11 (26:33):
The Biden white House did not like me. Okay, this
is I do not have great connections with the Biden
White House.
Speaker 7 (26:40):
Well, clearly you have a lot of sources.
Speaker 10 (26:42):
You say you talked to over two hundred sources for
this book, so you have something you could have called
and worked.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
I know.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
That's the point is that they were not being honest.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
That's how the Street Journal get it.
Speaker 10 (26:53):
In June of twenty twenty four, and Jake Tapper and
CNN couldn't find sources for this story then before he
dropped out.
Speaker 11 (26:59):
No, it's just again going to do if we're going
to if we're going to do this, let's just stick
to the facts here, Okay when there is a damn, That's.
Speaker 10 (27:09):
What I've been doing all along. I'm talking about what
you miss the biggest story of the century when it
comes to presidential politics.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
So that's Jake Tapper taking the beating.
Speaker 8 (27:19):
A little bit of his own medicine.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Yes, speaking of that. Actually, Joe Scarborough getting a little
bit of from from Mark Halpern.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Oh yeah, let's let's roll some of this next clip too.
Speaker 12 (27:31):
I say to people, go watch the State of the
Union address. Talk to people who talked to Joe Biden.
He had good days and bad days. You were with
him on a good day and had conversations with him
on a good day, but good days on good days,
good days.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (27:44):
Looking but looking back at that, do you say, well,
it was misleading to say best by never without caveating
it and say except on the days when he's not
the best Biden? Well, but but I never I never
saw those days.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
First, Well you did?
Speaker 12 (27:58):
You did, because he saw Hi, address the dead congress woman,
and you saw him in South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
And yeah, more than I can show you.
Speaker 12 (28:05):
So I can show you the r n C clip Reils.
There were plenty of days in public when he when
he was not the best Biden ever, and.
Speaker 9 (28:11):
Of course stumbled and he stumbled and he stumbled and
bumbled around.
Speaker 8 (28:15):
Mark.
Speaker 9 (28:15):
I mean, yeah, he he certainly did. Uh, Donald Trump did,
other politicians did. But but but it And it's actually
the same case as a lot of times when I've
gone in and talked to Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
So where did you where did you come down on
this storing? Like, what what was your sense of Biden's
sinility and ability to be president versus privately versus publicly.
Speaker 8 (28:40):
Well, first of all, obviously right now everyone is hoping,
uh and praying for his full recovery from from prostate cancer.
But what I have said is it was a mistake
for President Biden to run. I had seen him a
few times in the year UH and had said that
based on my conversations, he should run. Now, in light
(29:00):
of all that's come out, I think that was a
wrong judgment. We also were hearing from a lot of
people in the Botton White House that he's capable of
doing it, he has the energy. We should have pushed back.
It should have been more independent, should have asked more questions,
shouldn't have had as much deference. I do think it
was capable of doing the job of president. But was
(29:21):
he up for a grueling campaign in four more years.
That seems obvious that some of us, many of us
in the party, got it wrong.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Well, I'm curious. I imagine you know, if you do
more town halls, you'll hear sentiments that sound just like
Meghan's to Jake Tapper.
Speaker 8 (29:37):
There.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
I feel like it's part of a trust deficit that
voters have with Democrats now. It feels like a significant
question mark that people will come to Democratic congressman with
the correct me if I'm wrong, if that's not something
you hear from your constituents. But I wonder how you
address that, how Democrats address that. I know Jake Tapper
isn't like an elected Democratic official, but as somebody.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
In Kansas like to the public, right, yeah, well.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
And he did. I mean, his coverage was mixed. He's
trying to defend his record, but the point is he
wasn't banging the drum every day saying this guy is
he doesn't seem capable of leading the country for another
four years, and there's significant questions about whether he's capable now.
So how do you think Democrats can or should or
shouldn't address that question?
Speaker 8 (30:21):
Well, I do think this created a trust deficit and
was read one of the big reasons we lost, and
the American people punished the Democratic Party for that trust deficit.
But I think the American people are very fair and
also tend to move on. And the only way that
this story drags out, in my view, is if we're
not honest. If we don't come out and say it
(30:41):
was a mistake, we own it, We're going to be
better in pushing back, and now we want to talk
about the future and what's happening with medicaid and your
jobs and tax policy. If we continue to say, well,
we were right and we didn't make a wrong call,
then I think it drags on. And that's why I
just think I don't think it is in any way
(31:02):
betraying Joe Biden. I'm still very proud of his record
off the IRA and the Chip sack. I just think
he made a wrong judgment to run, and many of
us should have asked tougher questions and shown more independence,
And I guess if you say that, I think the
American people are pretty fair and just.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
In terms of like the lessons that can be taken
away from it is one of do you, in your
own mind, when you look back, do you think one
of the reasons that maybe you didn't push for the
answers to those questions hard is that there didn't seem
like a good alternative in the moment because Joe Biden
had pushed for some of the economic populist economic policies
that people like you had pushed for. Is there something
that you thought maybe it held you back from asking
(31:40):
pushing further asking those questions. I think the.
Speaker 8 (31:42):
Biggest thing, in my view is the deference to seniority
and party leaders that sort of the culture of the
Democratic Party. I mean, we see this unfortunately today with
Jerry Connolly's passing, but we saw that in the Oversight race.
We've seen this time and again that the Democratic Party
has a lot of culture of deference to seniority, to
(32:03):
people who've been there, to party leaders, and we just
need to be more willing to push back at least
to get for me that was the main reason. I
also think the fact that it went so long at
the end. You know, if there was a robust open
primary and someone like Bernie Sanders would have gotten in
and had the time, that's one thing. But when it
was one hundred days left, there was a fear that
(32:25):
Biden had championed and was championing fairly progressive policy and
that the DNC would sort of engineer something that would
move the party in a much more corporate direction. And
that's I think also part of the reason that you
had progressives being out there for Biden because they liked
a lot of Biden's policies.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Yeah, I think that's the case too, And I wonder
how much the coronation of Kamala Harris plays into this whole,
the same sense of betrayal or rejection that the public
feels towards the Democratic behavior in twenty twenty five, or
do you think if when you know, even Obama we
(33:04):
now know through reporting, and it seemed you could kind
of sense it at the time, but we now know
that the Obamas, both Obamas, thought that there should be
an open primary and that the convention should really choose
a candidate a completely radical idea like Democrats get together
and democratically decide who should be the nominee, and they
were front run by, eventually by Biden and then others
(33:26):
who could very quickly just endorsed Kamla and there it
was done. So do you think do you think that
plays into it? Do you think that was do you
think that was a mistake not to have You know,
the argument was all will be six weeks of fighting
on and on, But what was that a mistake to
not have an open primary?
Speaker 8 (33:44):
It was Look, the ideal situation would have Biden does
better than expected at the midterms, announces he's not doing
his second term, and there's a real open primary. Because
I do think it was awkward to go to a
convention and to pass over the sitting vice president. I'm
not saying that that wouldn't have been preferable to what
we did, but there's an awkwardness to that, Whereas I
(34:06):
don't think anyone would have said that if there was
an actual open election. The second best case, though, would
have been an open convention and primary. And the reason
is that the American people have this sense. In my view,
I mean having lost races, having lost a race and
won a race two years later. I mean I lost
to an incumbent and the one against the same incoment
two years later, and the biggest thing I got was, well, bro,
(34:26):
you're really working hard. You must really want this job.
You've been campaigning so long. And I think with Donald Trump, unfortunately,
there was a sense like he's been campaigning for this
for four years what we saw as criminal charge lawsuits.
People said, well, he's really fighting this and he's fighting assassinations.
And so there was here's this person who's been campaigning
for four years for a job and someone who's you know,
(34:47):
one hundred days, and the American people kind of want
you to earn it. They want you to beg and
ask for their votes and fight for that. And that
is something that Obama really benefited from, right. I mean,
he was in every milk and cranny of this country
fighting for his Hillary. And I think it hurt Harris
in just her chances had she defeated someone, and it
(35:10):
would have actually strengthened her.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
And can you imagine the hagiography that Biden would be
getting right now if he had anybody watching this. Who's
if you're in your eighties and you're hanging on to
your Senate seat, like, think about this.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
Yeah, they love breaking points if Biden.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
I'm sure they do. If Biden. They watched it right
after the PBS News Hour clip on YouTube bends. Yeah,
if Biden had stepped down, like you said, after the
mid after they overperform in the mid terms, he steps down,
he says, I said I was going to be a bridge.
I'm following through on it, like the glowing portrayals of
his legacy that we would be kind of sloshing through
(35:52):
right now.
Speaker 8 (35:53):
Do you think even if Trump wins that's the case.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
I think even if Trump wins, because he then he
did the best he could. He did what he said
he was going to do. He set the party up,
and then the people chose Trump. But I think actually
Democrats probably win.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
The cancer diagnosis tragically would have vindicated that decision as well, saying,
you know you it was maybe.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
Could have been honest about the cancer diagnoses earlier. Right
she's saying that he just learned that he's in the phones.
It's like, I'm not a cancer doctor, but.
Speaker 8 (36:21):
Saying that he hasn't been tested since twenty fourteen, I mean,
I don't.
Speaker 4 (36:24):
You know that's what the what kind of guy? His
age doesn't get regular anyway alone the president, as as
Biden says, anyway.
Speaker 8 (36:31):
Yeah, but look, I think that Democrats have to find
a way to genuinely celebrate some of the policy achievements
because we don't want to move back to a Democratic
party that doesn't have a worker centered politics, a belief
that there should be stayed intervention, that there shouldn't be
blanket trade, right. I mean, just because Trump's blanket tariffs
(36:54):
aren't working doesn't mean that the Democrats now should start
celebrating NAFTA or China's ascension. It's a world trade organization.
I think Biden represented a break from unfettered globalization and
separating that and being proud of that, from his decision
to run and owning up to that. And you know,
other than maybe Dean Phillips or a few people, there
(37:15):
are very few Democratic elected officials who weren't endorsing Biden
and saying something or the other about why he would
have been a good president. And we could just say
we made a wrong judgment, didn't a light to what
it's come out.
Speaker 4 (37:28):
At least Dean went for it. But connorson KNA always
a pleasure to have you in the studio.
Speaker 8 (37:33):
I appreciate it. I always enjoyed it.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
Thank you. Elon Musk made a big announcement, actually in
a pretty casual way yesterday. He was asked during a
conference or Zoom whether he would well, I don't know Zoom.
It could have been whatever else not skyp. Skype is gone,
but it could have been Google Meet. Who knows. He
was asked about his political donations, the future of his
(37:56):
political donations, which again donated just a crazy amount of money. Yeah,
almost three hundred million just in the last cycle. So
Republicans he has this America Pack have been have been
really building up an infrastructure around an anticipation of future
donations from Elon Musk. Let's take a listen to what
he said.
Speaker 8 (38:17):
I think.
Speaker 13 (38:20):
In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a
lot less in the future.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
And why is that.
Speaker 13 (38:28):
I think I've done enough?
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Is it? Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 13 (38:37):
Well, if I see a reason to do political spending
in the future, I will do it.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
I do I currently see a reason.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
And it's easy to read into that some awkwardness. It's
always kind of baked into Elon Musk. Yes, but some
awkwardness in his relationship with the Republican Party. With Donald Trump,
he seems my particulars. He seems kind of bitter almost so,
though it can be hard to tell with Musk because
it's hard to standard.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Yeah, So this was at Bloomberg's Cutter Economic Forum in Doah,
which is just kind of hilarious in and of itself.
But that was zooming into it again. Almost three hundred
million dollars in the last election cycle, a big pack
that Republicans have been counting on. My check on this
is it's actually kind of good for the Republican Party
to not be tiptoeing around Elon Musk for the sake
(39:25):
of getting hundreds of millions of dollars from him in
an election cycle. So just from a like populist standpoint,
that's a good thing. Anti corruption standpoint, maybe it is
one way to put it. That's a good thing.
Speaker 4 (39:37):
Yeah. On CNBC, he acknowledged that he took a beating
for his entry into the arena. He blamed it on
propaganda from the mainstream media. Let's roll f two.
Speaker 14 (39:55):
You are somewhat divisive figure two years ago, but now
you really are. I mean, there are people who love you,
but there are a lot of people who dislike you,
some of whom were your customers, And I wonder was
it worth the undertaking it Doge and everything.
Speaker 4 (40:08):
Else that you've done, and how it's spoken.
Speaker 14 (40:09):
You've been in terms of the things you believe in
to antagonize so many potential buyers and or users of
things like a ROBOTAXI.
Speaker 13 (40:18):
Well, I mean, unfortunately, what I've learned is that legacy
media propaganda is very effective at making you believe things
that aren't true.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
What would an example of.
Speaker 13 (40:28):
That be that I'm a Nazi, for example? And how
many legacy media publications, talk shows, whatever try to claim
that I was a Nazi because of some random ham
gesture at a rally where all I said was that
my heart goes out to you, and I was talking
about space travel. And yet the legacy media promoted that
(40:50):
as though if that was a deliberate Nazi gesture, when
in fact, every politician, any public speaker who's spoken for
any length of time has made the exact same gesture.
And yet there's sold people out there and I've never
had I've never had.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
A single puss.
Speaker 4 (41:05):
You know what I wasn't I was I was talking
about it. Yeah, and so this has had commercial damage
to in particular Tesla, the most I guess consumer facing
of his companies. You can put up F three. This
article in The Bulwark highlights one guy who paid one
hundred and ten thousand dollars a year ago for a
cyber truck now being offered fifty four thousand dollars for
(41:27):
it by Carvana. There are an enormous number of unsold
cyber trucks kick kicking around, but things could be turning around,
and you know, maybe thanks to his involvement in politics.
In the end, put up F four. Elon Musk apparently
reached out to Pete Hegseth, saying that you know that
(41:50):
he'd be happy to collaborate with the construction of this
new Golden Dome that we talked about earlier in the program.
Donald Trump is going to keep us safe from the
while barrages that he apparently expects to come our way
and is going to build us an iron dome times
gold and Elon Musk wants a piece of this, you know,
(42:10):
five hundred billion dollar project. Well that that's what the
CBO says it was cost. Trump says it's basically going
to be a tiny fraction of that. If if you're
a betting man, you always take the over on any
Pentagon contract. Elon Musk, a betting man, would like a
piece of that action. So on the one hand, Musk
saying politics has been really bad for me for the
(42:33):
foreseeable future, I'm not going to be investing. At the
same time, he's still hoping he's going to be able
to continue to get government contracts, which in our pay
to play system requires some involvement in politics, but it
doesn't require the level that he's been involved in. This
this unprecedented like I'm going to be your banker kind
(42:53):
of thing role that he was playing. And I'm curious
how you know, Democrats were nervous that Elon Musk's superpack
was and I think some Republicans were nervous too privately, yeah,
that it was going to turn Trump into not dictator
in the old sense, but like a guy who can
basically dictate anything to the Republican Party because if you
(43:16):
step out of line, here's my man, Elon Who's going
to put ten million dollars into a superpack and is
going to destroy you in the next primary more than not.
And they basically said that explicitly, and that would give
a president an amount of power over his party that
no president really has ever had before. But almost seems
(43:39):
like Trump can do that anyway. But he doesn't even
need the money, just his own, his own kind of
power and influence within the party can do it well.
Speaker 3 (43:49):
Primaries, yeah, I think in the primaries maybe, but in
general elections. I mean, I think we've talked about this
in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election that Elon Musk actually
went to Green Bay and Cheese.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
Had on good. Western civilization was at stake.
Speaker 3 (44:03):
Said, Western civilizations at stake. I think we're right. Our
coverage has been correct to pinpoint that as the moment
in which must started to slowly disentangle himself from the
Trump administration. At least in public view, it does seem
like that's happening. Privately, it does seem like he's gradually
spending less and less time near the White House, in
the White House and in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4 (44:24):
And luckily for him, he's heavily invested in Eastern civilization too.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Yeah, and space civilizations.
Speaker 4 (44:30):
In many civilizations. Yeah, he's covered.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
The bases are covered, yes, so, but I think part
of that is because he wanted to be able to
wield so much easy power in that that Wisconsin election
was a test case post twenty twenty four general election
of Musk being able to come in register tons of
new Republican voters by offering money, like bribing people to
(44:58):
register to vote, and then just come in and flick
your finger and flick of the risk, flick of the wrist,
and you've totally changed. You've bought an election. Essentially, he
was testing that he was trying that and it didn't work.
And so now in retrospect, the way Democrats framed the
election in Wisconsin as sort of a test case for
(45:20):
whether or not Musk can buy his way to complete
in total domination politically of the United States, that framing
looks pretty good because it seems to have been a
message to him that he cannot, that it will not
be that easy, and that, if anything, his attempt to
do that has become a sort of what's in albatross
for the Republican party that wants to have a new
(45:43):
populist messaging, wants to have a new populist brand, and
you have a billionaire coming in as sort of openly
bribing people to register to vote, and trying to buy
elections again openly, pretty openly trying to buy elections, spend
a bunch of money. If cash infusion changed the game,
it didn't work, and it didn't work for a couple
(46:04):
of reasons. Voters didn't like it. It's not great for Republicans.
So that's where, at least I think on the public level,
we're seeing him step back, genuinely step back. But whether
or not that investment, because we can put this funny
post from Tim Miller on the screen F three. This
is about a guy who bought his cyber truck for
one hundred and ten grand and then was offered fifty
(46:26):
four thousand back for it by Carvana. It's a long
bowlwark story about how they say in their stubheading Trump
killed Tesla. And obviously it's true to that Tesla is
struggling immensely. Some of these cars are struggling immensely. The
Tesla's valuation. Valuation has always been about more than just
the cars. It's also the technology. I mean, it's primarily
probably like the FSD full stub driving technology that's in
(46:49):
the cars. Nevertheless, yeah, the cyber truck in particular, has
struggled for reasons that aren't just Trump related, but are
definitely Trump related to So if you thought that that
was representative of Musk taking a big hit, it actually
may turn out that you know this, the Tesla hit
is nothing compared to the gain for SpaceX, for Starlink,
(47:12):
and for other Musk properties, because he's now built up
tons of goodwill with the Trump administration going forward. He
has great connections with Pete Hegseth. And by the way,
that's why people influence pedal to get the influence when
they want it, for example, when there's massive contracts.
Speaker 4 (47:30):
Golden Dome contract available. Yeah, and hey, look I'm rooting
for Tesla. We need more, you know, we need electric
vehicle companies and we need American ones. So I hope
he pulls this off. And I'm also very delighted that
he's tweeting much less, because God, that was not so
much less. That was so obnoxious to just see him
constantly in your feed. It was nothing you could do
about it.
Speaker 3 (47:50):
It wasn't even obnoxious so much as it was just
like watching a slow motion cyber truck crash right like.
Speaker 4 (47:56):
It was painful, and he would he just would keep
lading like Kat turn and Ian Miles Chong and everybody's fees.
You're not doing the world a service with that. And
he was for yourself.
Speaker 3 (48:08):
He was openly admitting that they were half baked, right,
He was like, sometimes I'll be right, sometimes I'll be wrong.
And for a billionaire to be so casual about these
pronouncements that, even if he wants them to have less power,
even if he wants people to realize that this is
just my half baked two in the morning thoughts. It's
not how people interpret things that are coming out of
the mouth of a billionaire.
Speaker 4 (48:29):
And one of the best things culturally about him is
that he's always been interesting. Yes, and he stopped being interesting.
He became a reply He became a reply guy. He
became boring.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
Yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 4 (48:40):
No pun intended on his company. And so maybe he'll
get his interesting mojo back.
Speaker 3 (48:45):
Yeah, it wasn't. It wasn't even good for like his
personal brand. Terrible, many different robles. So we'll see. But
if you had said in January twenty first, for example,
May twenty first, so exactly five months ago that uh,
you know, Elon Musker four months ago, I can't count
that's keep that in mind for all of the economic segments.
I know you already know many of you already do.
(49:06):
But if you have on January twenty first, for someone
coming to you and saying by May twenty first, Elon
is saying he's gonna be no more political donations and
basically he's done with DOGE. I think a lot of
people would have been like, WHOA, what happened?
Speaker 4 (49:21):
Well, and russ Vote is taking over Doje And russ
Vote is much more dangerous probably person than Elon because
he's methodical and he's like a revolutionary depends on your perspective.
Speaker 3 (49:32):
I mean, if you support the government becoming more limited,
relatively limited, then Russ's is definitely less dangerous because Elon
is more of like a crony capitalist than like rest
is an opponent of crony capitalism, like ideologically. So we'll
see where that.
Speaker 4 (49:51):
Goes, Yes we will. And we touched on this briefly
while Rocana was here. But the news that broke during
the show is that Representative Jerry Connolly of Virginia has
has died of cancer. This will create a special election,
It'll give Republicans one extra vote cushion as they're pushing
(50:14):
through their big, beautiful bill. But on on a personal level,
you know, Connolly took a lot of heats for despite
facing cancer running for terminal cancer turned out to be terminal.
He thought he was going to beat it the top
position on the community. It was a bad it was
(50:35):
a bad prognosis and not being up to the task.
And I think he deserved, deserved, you know, criticism for that,
you know, mis misreading that moment. I have a soft
spot for him. He was elected in two thousand and eight,
so he came in in this There were two big
waves of Democrats that came in in two thousand and
(50:56):
six and then again in two thousand and eight, and
both those classes, you know, were a big part of
the two thousand and nine and ten Obama rush of
legislation which created the CFPB, the Affordable Care Act, and
on on and so he was he was always in
the speaker's lobby. Uh and he I think to his
(51:19):
dying days almost which means that he was out out
off of the floor, just hamming it up with reporters,
always willing to be transparent about where he was giving
good quotes, giving and also given given good intel and
you know, he just represents a it was a swing
(51:40):
district at the time. Now it's a little bit more democratic,
So it's not like he was Democratic Socialist of America champion,
but he was well liked and a charming guy. Like
he came up just a machine politician, like he was
Fairfax board of Supervisors for you know, decade and that
decade plus and then member of Congress. Like you know,
(52:03):
he's not not not upbending politics, but as far as
like a machine politician goes a good guy and it's.
Speaker 11 (52:09):
A you know, so.
Speaker 4 (52:11):
You know he'll be he'll be missed on.
Speaker 3 (52:13):
That level that people have friendly memories of of him,
certainly that people have shared those machine politicians, many of
them dudes. They're they're very nice.
Speaker 4 (52:22):
That's why they're successful, backslapp and they love the chicken dinners.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
Yeah they do. They're super extroverted people, gregarious.
Speaker 6 (52:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (52:30):
So he was also Jamal Kashoggi's representative, and I was
always grateful for him to him for raising the alarm
before we knew that he was that Kashogi had been killed.
He was because he went into the consulate and I
heard immediately, like you from people close it was his
fiance were like, he hasn't come out, and so there
(52:52):
was about a week where there was still some hope
that he was alive and there could be enough pressure
put on Saudi Arabia that he would be released. That
we didn't know at the time he'd been killed right
there in the consolate, but Connolly was outspoken in real time,
so that was I credit him for that.
Speaker 3 (53:11):
Who's back on the show tomorrow? Ryn? Are you here
with Crystal? Yes? Great, something to look forward to. And
I think it's just you and me on the Friday
Show this week.
Speaker 4 (53:18):
That sounds right, all right, Well, plenty more, we'll get
a special guests or something.
Speaker 3 (53:22):
Yeah, that's we couldn't it's Soccer's baby, just the baby,
not Soccer, just the Yeah, that's right, all right, we'll
stick around for that. Breaking Points dot Com if you
want to see the second half of the Friday Shows.
You get the show in your inbox early every day,
so make sure to subscribe there if you can. If
you can't, just make sure to subscribe. We appreciate it
very much, and Ryan and Crystal will see you back
(53:43):
here tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (53:44):
See that
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.