November 28, 2024 • 46 mins
The Nation’s Jeet Heer talks to us about the Democratic Party’s rebuilding efforts. Congresswoman Becca Balint examines how to push back against Trump’s agenda.
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):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and Donald Trump Junior says his father
has discussed banning mainstream journalists from the White House briefing room.
It's going to be all one American News. We have
(00:22):
a great show for you today. The Nation's Jeet here
talks to us about how the Democratic Party rebuilds. Then
we'll talk to Congresswoman Becca balland about how to push
back against Trump's agenda.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
But first the news.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
So Molly, as usual, we have to talk about Elon
Musk's unhinged tweeting. He's naming people by name who he's
going to recommend get fired. Isn't that so nice of him?
I think you should know this as somebody he wants
to help docs.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Again, one of the things that happens when you go
maga is that you have to tweet all the time.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
That's one of the laws of going back. I thought
about it, but that's right, it's true. You have to
just completely live online.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
And so just like we remember that in twenty sixteen,
we spent all this time our news cycles were controlled
by Donald Trump's tweets. Now we have another person to
add to this attention economy, and that is the richest
man in the world, Elon Musk. He is tweeting up
a storm day night, left right all the time.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
I really liked the insight from his former friend podcast
hosted author Sam Harris that said that he's staying up
all night sniffing ketamine all day.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
His behavior is very erratic, and usually staying up all
night as a sign that something else is going on.
But who am I to judge not sleeping and spending
your entire life online as someone who enjoys living online myself.
But I think what is a little bit nefarious about this,
besides the fact that he has this fan base that's
(01:56):
similar to Donald Trump's fan base, is that there's.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
A real war.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
A lot of these government employees have become the targets,
and so there he started doing this thing where he
is posting their names online. So last week, in the
midst of a fury of his daily mistives, mus reposted
two x posts that revealed the names and titles of
people holding four relatively obscure climate related government positions.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Each post has been viewed.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Now again, they do juice their numbers, but or at
least we think they use their numbers.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Who knows they juice their numbers.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yeah, but we want to be careful when we say
something like that. But yes, so we think they used
their numbers. But either way, a lot of angry people
have seen the names of these obscure government climate officials
who are now perhaps going to get a barrage of
negative attention the way that I had when I had
that experience with Elon. At least one of the four
(02:54):
women has deleted her social media accounts, which is very
much the way I'm sorry to tell you was posted.
It's public information, but you know, no federal employee, I mean,
these are not These are not billionaires. They don't have
the wherewithal to have private security, and as we know
from interviewing Lisa Page, being targeted by a MAGA changes
(03:20):
the trajectory of your life in a million different ways.
So I don't know, again, you know, maybe they're trying
a lot of this MAGA stuff is trying to scare
people into not being brave, into not standing up for themselves,
into not standing up for what's right, into feeling that
that there's no choices, that they have to go along
(03:42):
with whatever Trump World wants them to. And I think
that's what this is. It's a sort of bullying and
it's really too bad, and it's really dark.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Speaking of bullying.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah, so Molly allowed me to read one of mister
Trump's quote unquote truths to you, a New York Times
apologize to its readers for getting years of trun coverage
so wrong. They write such phony quote unquote junk, knowing
full well how incorrect. It is only meaning to demean
Maggot Haberman, a third rate writer and fourth rate intellect. Right,
(04:15):
story after story, always terrible, and yet I almost never
speak to her. They do no fact checking because facts
don't matter to them. I don't believe I've had a
legitimately good story for The New York Times for years,
and yet I won in record fashion, the most consequential
presidential election of decades. Where is the apology?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Mag is very into apologies.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Yet they're not into ever apologizing themselves now well.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
And also, I mean, again, what did he get from
Maggie apologizing to him?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
A bad stuff? That is correct?
Speaker 1 (04:45):
I just want to say two things here, New York
Times again, people like to be mad at them, and
I am guilty of this too.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Gonna say, right, they.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Do know that, you know, but they do some incredible reporting.
And Maggie, I know a lot of people get mad
at her, but she does incredible reporting. And also here
we have Donald Trump calling her an anti semitic slur maggot,
which is something that we've seen him do before. And
I just want to point out that this is in
(05:16):
response to a story. He appeared triggered by a story
about an aide named Natalie Harp who serves as his
gatekeeper with a creepy level of devotion. I just want
to point out this coverage, even just the very simple
stuff that actually happens, not you know, sort of opinion,
but really just straight reporting. There is no way to
(05:38):
report this stuff without ending up as the target. So
I just want to say that, like, if we didn't
have this information, we wouldn't know at all.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
What was happening. We would be so much worse off.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
And I am just grateful that we're getting this information
so we can at least have some sense of what's
happening behind the scenes and what maga's machination are. So
I just think that it's really terrible that this kind
of stuff is happening to journalists, and I hope it
stops so I know it won't soar.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
In the past, it has been asked to be or
not to be, that is the question. But if the
Trump administration they're asking how much should we invade Mexico,
that is the question.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Yeah, Mexico for Mexico. I want to point out, are
we going to go to Mexico?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
A senior Trump transition member said how much should we
invade Mexico?
Speaker 2 (06:33):
That is the question.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Look, it's very again, what's happening here is that this
is about cartels, this is about fentanyl, and this is
about needing an enemy for MAGA again. Will they go
to war with Mexico or is this just blustered to
try to get the base excited? Right? We don't know
because a lot of times we've seen Trump World get
(06:57):
excited say they're going to go to war with Mexico.
They're definitely want to go to trade war with Mexico.
But we don't know. And look, you know, here's the
scary thought. I just think like we have to be
so careful with Trump World because a lot of times
they want you to get upset and to get hysterical,
and then they're like, we were never going to invade
(07:18):
Mexico anyway. That's a crazy lib lie. So I would
just take this with a grain of salt. That said,
the soon to be head of the DD said, if
it takes military action, that's what it will take.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
It may take eventually, says Pete Hegsith.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Obviously you're going to have to be smart about it,
which is as good. It is good to be smart
about things. Obviously the precision strikes. But if you put
the fear in the minds of the drug lords at
least as a start, and they can't operate in the
open with impunity, it changes the way they operate. You
combine that with an actual border security and now you're
(07:59):
cooking with gas and you've got a chance. We're definitely
going to war with Mexico.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
I like these bid games with the cartel. But then
you have Senator Marco Rubio who's going to be Secretary
of State hedjag and seg that will go to war
with the drug cartels under condition that there's cooperation with
the Mexican government. You know what I was thinking, with
war with two countries, cooperation. That's usually the key word
in war.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Yeah, I don't fucking know.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I mean, I don't think we should go to war
with Mexico, but you know, I also don't think we
should drink raw milk. That said, bird flu has been
detected in raw milk, So it's possible that worlds will.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
In fact collide.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Get Here is a contributor to the nation and the
host of the time of monsters. Welcome back, too fast Politics.
Your friend of mine, get.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
Here always get to be on the program wells, they
said on Lord of the Rings. Happy to be with you,
Wally John fast Here. At the end of all things.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Yes, at the end of all things. I just want
to say.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
My response to that when we were talking about it before,
was you don't even fucking go here because you live
in Canada.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
That's true, that's true. That is actually an advirtu of
the thing I did. But it turned out to be
a very smart thing.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, yes, I'll say now.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
It turns out. But Canada had its own trouble. That
Trump is threatening twenty five percent terrorists unless we stopped
people of illegal immigrants and drugs into the United States,
And like I honestly don't know, okay, illegal immigrants. If
you're talking about Canadians, you're basically talking about people like
William Shatner who go down to Hollywood. In terms of drugs,
(09:41):
I would actually say that I think that the foal
is the other direction. My sense is like of all
major drugs and actually gun crimes in Canada, it flows northward,
not southwards.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
My favorite is a Mexican president who's like, stop sending
us all your guns, you fucking animals. I mean, like,
this is the problem with be in America is we're
like the capital of you know, every man, woman and
child has fifteen ar fifteen.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
I mean in Canada as well, this is like a
major problem because we do have gun laws, but you know,
it's a porous border. We have not built the wall,
but you're thinking about it.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah, keep that William Shattner in.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
It is a case that with like all almost all
gang violence, it turns out that there's a gun that's
kind of traceable back to the United States. The flow
of migrants, crime and guns is in the other direction.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
What I'm shocked.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
It is good to be in Canada. I do have
extra rooms. So yeah, if you or anyone else needs space.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Here fast forward to Jesse and I showing up on
your doorstep. But let's talk really about the only war
that is fun and easy to win. Do you remember
when Trump tweeted that back in the early days.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Yeah, that's right, that's the fat.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Trade wars are fun and to win. Our trade war's
fun and easy to wind.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Well in this case, I think with Trump, you kind
of understand a lot of this is cafe be like
he wants to, you know, like sort of do this
sort of pretend thing, and that's you know, like twenty
five percent tariffs stuff they covered kind of goes would
be catastrophic for both countries. I think we have to
be realistic that, Like, I think Trump likes to show
victories to his supporters and then often involves bluster. And
this is what he did in the first term. Actually
(11:24):
with NAFTA. He basically said, we're gonna renegotiate NAFTA, gonna
tear it up, and you know, like so, you know,
the Canadians of Mexicans came in, they made a few
small tinkerings around the edges, and then Trump was able
to proclaim like I got rid of Thata, and I
you know, I reade Trump da Trump, Right. I'm hoping
it could well be that he has some more serious
(11:45):
protectionist talks in his administration this time, and it could
be more than just talk. But I am hoping that talk. Yeah,
that is the kind of Trump and bluster. I mean,
I think that with Trump the real danger a lot
of liberals fall into. Maybe not so much anymore, but
the first term was like taking too much of the rhetoric, like.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Seriously swinging at every pitch.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
Yeah, exactly, exactly. So, so you have to kind of
a big rule, you know, going forward, is watch what
they do, not what they say, or at least compare
what they do to what they say.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Take him physically, but not literally just kidding, it's technically,
but not emotionally.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, but not hysterically. I mean, I
think we kind of have to like focus. I mean,
these are very serious times. It's a very grim matteric
that this man is returning to the White House, and
that he is returning radicalized. I mean, he is very angry,
and I think that he does have based on his
Picks nominations. In the rhetoric that's coming through. I think
(12:44):
there are a few areas where he's very serious on
and one is revenge, really wants to use the legal
system to get back at his enemies. The other I
think is actually immigration, and that that is actually worrisome.
I do actually think he has some commitment to the
deportation agenda and has people like Stephen Miller who are
hardcore idea logs. And on trade, I think there is
a worry that he I think, but he with trade
(13:07):
unlike the first two, they're real counterveiling things within the
Republican Party. Like he wants these trade wars, but he
also wants to keep Wall Street happy. I once saw
with his nominations that there are a bunch of you know,
like you George Soros.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
George Shurow's hedge front manager who had made billions.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
And billions of dollars and is also gay. So make
that make sense?
Speaker 4 (13:30):
That's right. How's the family is? You know, gay people
and straight proposts are wealthy allowed to do?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Yes, families? Because why should gay people not have to
be married like the rest of us.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Yes, continue let them suffer too, That will show them.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
That's the fat. So on the trade, like I do
think that, you know, like the fact that he has
to keep Wall Street happy, or he likes to keep
Wall Street happy.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, that's the guardrail.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
If there's one guard rail, it's the Dow Jones Industrial average.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah yeah, yeah, but yeah. On both immigration and I
think on the legal retribution, I think they are real
causes to worry. And you know, I mean I think that,
you know, people talk a lot about guardrails, and I
think the real guardrail is only the stupidity and incompetence
of Trump and the people around him, which which we
also saw the first term that as compared to like
Dick Cheney, who I think did a lot of more
(14:21):
damage in some ways because he knew how the federal
bureaucracy worked, He knew how to game the system to
get what he wanted. Trump does not have that, and
I think the people around him, you know, like my
colleague at the Nation, like my style, likes to say, like,
you know, well, there's some reassurance to someone who would
make Matt Getz or Pam Bondy attorney general because these
(14:41):
are these are not their best right, These are not
people who can execute you.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Ready for my hottest take, Yes, my hottest take is
that Dick Cheney enentours Harris so that she would lose.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Sorry, I'm just kidding. Maybe it's too soon for that
kind of terrible joke.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Well, I mean, it's an interesting because I think we
talked about this on this podcast before, and I had,
you know, accept.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
My lifelong hatred of the Chinese.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
Expressed great skepticism about the hugging and the Chinese strategy.
But I did allow, you know, like, as far as
I could figure out, the math did not work because
I think the people that you alienate from this and demobilize,
I think.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Is everyone in the world.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Yeah, yeah, numbers the people that you gained. But then
I also said, you know, like I did say, well,
you know, the people were in the campaign. They have
their own strategy and their own numbers, and I'm hoping
that they knew what they were doing.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
We should not do circular firing squad as much as
I want to.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
Yeah, I know, But what was I will say coming
out of all this, It is interesting. I mean, I
don't want to do like recriminations on the show, but
I think it is interesting that some of the stuff
is coming out for me is a little bit vindicating,
just in the sense that the stuff I had doubts
about the people in the campaign. Now knowledge, yes, those
are concerns, like they I did say that, Like, I
(16:04):
think it's pretty clear from public opinion that if she
made a cleaner break from Joe Biden. I really said
how she'd be different than Joe Biden, that would pay off.
And now the campaign basically just yes, that would have
had some benefit. But Kamala Harris was not comfortable. She
wants to show loyalty and you know, like the Biden
(16:24):
bath expected loyalty, so.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Right, exactly, I mean, there's real glass cliff stuff here.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
You put a woman, a black woman, in a position
where it's.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Ninety nine point nine.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Percent chance she's going to lose with that kind of headwinds.
So I do think they're just a number of factors
at play. But if we're going to talk about one
thing that is really like, the thing that I want
to talk about that makes me so furious is and
I feel like you'll appreciate this, And I keep bringing
this up and people keep telling me that I'm very
(16:59):
sweet that they won't, you know, they can't even listen
to it.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
But here's my hottest take.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Republicans have a base right that is so radicalized that
wants stuff that they you know, they put mass deportation
now on signs. Okay, like that is how radicalized they are. Okay,
mass deportation now is a chant?
Speaker 2 (17:23):
All right.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Democrats have a base that want like they want free
glasses or they want you know, contexts to be covered
by insurance, and they want Govy to be covered by insurance,
and they want some kind of free pre k. I
mean things that are like not very lefty. Democratic candidates
(17:44):
run to the center. Republican candidates run to the right.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Explain, my big thing is and I think this explies
not just a selection but really every election since the
Iraq War start to go bad, which is that the
defining division in American politics is not left and right,
moderate or radical even it's a pro system and anti system.
Going back to the you know, basically, since Katrina and
(18:10):
the Iraq War started to go bad, most Americans have
felt that the country has been going in the wrong direction.
And the first beneficiary of that was Barack Obama, who
in two thousand and eight, you know, really was able
to harvest the desire to make a clean break from
the discredited Bush administration, and in twenty twelve, Obama was
gifted with an opponent who was mister establishment incarnate, this
(18:34):
you know, multi millionaire who, as Obama rightly said, made
money by deindustrializing the Midwest and so on both twentyd
and eight twenty twelve, Obama could run as I'm the
agent of change against this discredited establishment. Now, once Trump emerged,
and I think this is a big mistake that the
Democrats made, was that they decided we will run as
(18:55):
the party of the system that will bring together everyone
discussed with Trump and once saw this even in twenty sixteen,
where Hillary Clinton, you know, was welcoming the support of Republicans,
was welcoming the support of the national security establishment, I
was basically saying Trump is a dangerous interloper within the system.
Which if you say that, that actually reinforces Trump's message
(19:17):
because you were saying, yes, he is actually anti system
and that we are the party of the system. Now,
I think in twenty twenty, Trump was hurt because he
was no longer fighting the man. He was the man,
and he was the man at the time of COVID
and at the time of the George Floyd uprising, and
so there was a real mass popular anger, anti system politics,
(19:38):
even though Joe Biden was the head and but Biden
also co opted a lot of Bernie's message on economics,
and so the Democrats were able to run as a
party of change against the man. Now in twenty twenty four,
I think, you know, I don't want to blame the candidate,
because I actually think Kamala Harris was put in a
very bad position, but because Biden was the incumbent, because
(20:00):
people continue to feel that this country is going on
the wrong track, and that's a seventy percent opinion right wrong, crack,
right track. But Harris's campaign decided the only way that
they could win is if they can appeal to moderate
Republicans who are upset at Trump, and this way they
could make up for some of the losses that they
were seeing among young people, among people of color, and
(20:21):
on working class voters. So they did this campaign where
it was hugged the Chenese and not just like Liz Cheney,
but Dick Cheney and my favorite Alberto Gonzalez, you know
the memo, they welcome his support, but also you know,
like Harris ion a glock.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Does everyone own guns except me?
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Well, if you come up to Canada, there's there will
be many fear guns. One of where chief surrogates was
a former Republican billionaire Mark Cuban, who repeatedly undercut her
economic message by saying, oh, you know she's talking about this,
he doesn't really mean at yes, And this is a
surrogate where the campaign and then also getting because they
were in the hole financially, they needed a lot of
(21:04):
donations and getting Wall Street owners to basically edit out
their message. So the populist elements of the Harris's message
in terms of going after price gouging, they had to
tone that down and they couldn't name the specific companies
that are going after.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Well, they don't want to hurt their feelings.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
If you're running where you're saying, we have a coalition
that includes Dick Cheney and Mark Cuban, and you know,
like I own a gun and I'm a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Yeah, that she kept saying that.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
You're basically saying, I am the pro system person. I
believe in the system at a time where seventy percent
of the country takes the countries in the wrong direction.
And then Trump and I think a lot of what
the Democrats did strengthened Trump because even like you know,
using the legal cases against Trump or they help support
the idea that this guy's anti system, even though Trump
(21:51):
himself is you know, like a rich guy surrounded by
other rich guys. And also they did not never were
willing to go after him for his own system ties.
They were unwilling to say, this is a guy who's
the pocket of billionaires. They never attacked Trump for being
a plutocrat, in fact, because they had their own platocracy problem.
So again, if you're running it's a change election country
(22:13):
in the right direction, wrong direction, it's hard to be
in incumbent. But they went out of their way, and
I think also not criticizing Joe Biden and not making
clear that you're going to break with Joe Biden as
saying your only different with Joe Biden is you'll have
a Republican in your cabinet. Again, the message of the
Hairs campaign was the system is good. We're going to
defend this system against this disruptive, unstable fellow, Donald Trump.
(22:37):
And it's unfortunately the case that Americans of their position,
where people hate the establishment so much that even people
who don't otherwise like Donald Trump, will go with Donald
Trump so I think that was the dynamic that they
ran a pro system message in a time of deep
anti system feeling.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Yeah, and again, I think that's a really interesting and
important point, this idea that Democrats need to understand that
being part of the system is not necessarily a winning
message to anyone.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
No, no, it is not a winning message, and you
have to actually offer people like real change that can
affect their lives. And I think the one advantage that
Democrats have is there are things in their message that
they can emphasize in that way.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I mean, the legislation is very very, very very good.
The problem is that while the legislation is very good, Like,
for example, if you had democratical legislation versus Republican legislation,
you would want the democratic legislation, right, I mean, there's
it's not even a question because the Republicans' ideas are like.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
We want to you know, make everything.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
More expensive and also take away all your rights and
give billionaire's tax cuts.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
I mean, those are hard to sell.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
The problem is I feel like, for whatever reasons, Democrats
are just have a very difficult time insmitting any of that.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean there's a couple of things that
did hurt them. I do think that they sort of
mentioned cinema thingk hurt them just because it made them
look a little bit ineffectual. But I mean, honestly, I think,
like you know, having like a president who was not
able to articulate his message. I think Biden had genuine
achievements as a president and had stuff that he could
tell people that he actually did for them, but he
(24:21):
was not we have to be honest about this. He
was not someone who.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, He's a terrible public speaker and has always, always,
always been, and anyone who says otherwise is to completely
fullish it.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
If you have a period where people are mad at
the system and think that the country is in the
wrong direction to have like, you know, like an eighty
eighty one year old man as the face of your party.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
Wait, we have to pause.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Jesse says that I said that I never I have
always agreed that that Biden is a bad speaker.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Okay, I may have been less, I mean, ch Anyway,
we're out of time. We're not going to invite Jesse back.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
You, thank you, thank you. Is is always great ed? Yeah,
I mean, I hope in the coming American Canadian war.
I do not have to like kill name at you
and be a sniper. I will say that the last
time our two country spots from where every we burned
down the White House. We did it once and we'll
do it again.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Oh yeah, that was very good. We did it once
and we'll do it again.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
You're known for your for her, but you guys live
ten miles.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
From the right, and you lived ten miles from our border.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
That's what I think the thing that people don't mention.
I mean, the Canadians were able to fight very well
in eighteen twelve, but it's because we had the indigenous allies.
The walks were on our side, and there were there
were they were the ones who actually, you know, like
we're supposed to burn down of the White House. So
maybe we can recruit them again. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Yeah, I'm sure they're feeling very generous towards you.
Speaker 4 (26:05):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Should be fine.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Becca Balance represents Vermont's Soul congressional district. Welcome back, too
fast politics, my.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Favorite Vermont congresswoman.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
I'm sorry that was me because you are the only, yes,
the only congress person at all from Vermont.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Welcome Beaca.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
Thanks Mollie, very happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
So here we are. It is December. No, it's still November,
the world's longest month. Democrats failed to recapture the presidency,
and Democrats have lost the United States Congress. They've lost
the Senate, but picked up a few seats in Congress,
or at least one. So explain to us what the
one hundred and nineteenth Congress will look like.
Speaker 5 (26:51):
Yeah, so you're right, we did pick up a few seats,
and actually, even right before I got on here, it
looks like we're going to pick up Derek Tran as well,
and so we're going to have a few more Democratic seats.
The Republicans' majority will be even more narrow than the
last session, and so they couldn't govern in the one
hundred and eighteenth. They're not going to be able to
(27:14):
govern in the one hundred and nineteenth. You've got extremists
still driving driving the train, you've got apologists not speaking up.
You know, it will be I think very similar, except
of course we've lost the White House and the Senate.
And you know you asked me right before we got on,
I was feeling and I'm feeling ready because I know,
(27:35):
I know what's coming. And I've been reading a lot
of historian Timothy Snider talking about you know, what do
we do when we're facing tyranny, reading a lot of
Hannah arent who wrote a lot about totalitarianism, and so
I feel like I understand the way that I need
to show up. And it is so clear to me
from talking with my constituents and my friends in Congress
(28:00):
who whether they are women of color or part of
the trans community. You know, you've got people who feel
utterly kicked to the curb and just don't have the energy.
They're trying to heal, they're trying to shore themselves up
for what's coming. So the rest of us have to
do the work we have to and we have to
be as courageous as we possibly can. That's what's guiding
(28:23):
me right now. And the comfort that I feel in
looking at the clowns that the Republicans have as and
I say they are they are a leader in their
conference that you've got people like Nancy Mace and Margie
Taylor Green. You know, those are the people they give
permission to to have the mouthpiece, and they don't, they
(28:46):
don't keep them in line.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
So let's talk about that, because you know, we're in
a quest to feel better here. Right here, we are
just like in a moment, we're in the wilderness. We
don't know what's going to happen. Right Trump has not
taken office yet. It will be his second presidency. He
is He ran for president to stay out of jail.
It worked out extremely well for him. We should all.
(29:11):
You know, there's a spiritual lesson here about swinging for
the fences, and now we don't really know how it's
going to play out. But I think something that makes
me feel a lot better is when I look at
the two hundred and eighteenth Congress, because Republicans had the majority,
and tell us what happened in the two hundred and
eighteenth Congress.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
They could not govern the way out of a paperbag.
They got nothing done.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Milly, you don't have.
Speaker 6 (29:38):
To take my work for you just have to google
Chip Roy on the floor, he stood up and said
the things that we had all been saying, which is
you literally Republicans got nothing done. And you know you've
got Mike Johnson, who is, you know, a terrible leader.
He doesn't know how to steer his conference towards getting
(29:59):
a anything done. So you've got a situation where you
can't even make this stuff up because no one would
believe it.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
Right, it would be on Siah life. So one of
the bills we voted on this year was the Huha Act. Okay,
hands off our household Appliance.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Oh, that's a favorite of mine.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
Continue a good one that literally came to the floor
of the House of Repute. There were dozens and dozens
of bills just like it. They don't know how to
do anything except messaging. So it is I think they're
going to realize that they have an even tougher job
trying to get anything because actually, we have a lot
(30:40):
of really smart, committed colleagues within the Democratic Caucus who
are completely and totally paying attention, and a lot of
folks within the Republican Conference are not. And so it
is true that it is It is both terrifying this moment,
and I think it is a moment that we knew
we were moving towards right because we saw all of
(31:05):
the indications in the first presidency and then in this
election that truth meant nothing anymore. Right, So, when you
can't distinguish between fact and fiction, when you can't distinguish
between true and false. Right, then there is no organizing
principle for the Republicans, And so we have to have
that organizing principle. And I've been thinking about how Trump
(31:28):
and all of his apologists are actually doing what every
other demagogue has done before them. Right, So their messages
are marked by extreme contempt for facts, and facts depend
entirely on the power of the people who make them up. Right,
So this is a time when we can't obey in advance.
(31:49):
We have to be courageous. We have to defend the
institutions and stand out and stand up. And it isn't
wasted time. We have to draw action between those who
believe that there actually are facts and the ideal candidate
actually for Trump's cabinet. We can laugh they are it is.
(32:11):
It is a clown car. But the organizing principle actually
is not that they're committed anti semites, fascists, or racist,
but that he's picking people who can no longer distinguish
between fact and fiction and only have one organizing principle,
and that's loyalty to try.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Yeah, I don't think he really cares about that stuff.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
I think he just wants his people in there in
the hopes of being able to do what he wants to.
Speaker 5 (32:34):
Do right absolutely, and so you know, the bar's pre
low right now, and so we have to have our
initial organizing principle is standing up for everyone's rights and
human dignity. That is the organizing principle that I build
everything from.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
So let's talk about that.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
You have a congresswoman who is coming into this Congress
from the state of Delaware, who is been targeted by
Nancy Mace.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Can we talk talk about that mercilessly.
Speaker 5 (33:02):
So Sarah McBride, who I might you know start by saying,
is a really experienced and effective legislator. She came up
through her legislature in Delaware. I was down campaigning for
her a couple months ago. We've become friends over the
last year and a half. Through the Equality Caucus.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
She's taken the seat of now Senator right.
Speaker 5 (33:24):
You got it, Lisa Blunt Rochester, you got it. And
so Nancy Mays I think, tweeted three hundred times about
trans people, bathroom Sarah McBride just horrible stuff last week.
And there have been no voices of condemnation from the
Republican Conference. None, absolutely none. Margie Taylor Green has even
threatened violence against Sarah McBride if she were to ever
(33:47):
use the women's bathroom. Now, keep in mind, she hasn't
even been sworn in yet. Okay mcnide was on the
Capitol last week for her orientation. Okay, doesn't even have
the job yet. They are trying to make it an
incredibly hostile work environment for her coming in, using fear mongering,
hatred directed not just at her. Certainly she is the
(34:10):
most visible target, But what I keep reminding people is
that there are trans people who work on Capitol Hill,
in offices for various legislators on the Hill, there are
members of the press who identify as transfre non binary,
and certainly our constituents who come to the Capitol be
able to use the bathroom. So it is not just
about her, But they've made it about her that somehow
(34:32):
her very presence right is an exoustential crisis for them.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
It's somehow offensive to them.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Yeah, somehow offensive. And you know, one of the things
I have been resisting making this tweet, but I might
do it this week if she keeps up her anticsays
to sort of poke Nancy Mason, say, do you really
think you haven't already been in a bathroom with a transplment,
Like really, right, it's already happened, lady, and nothing to
happen to you, and it won't. They're unserious people. They
(35:02):
don't care about governing, they don't care about serving their constituents,
so they just use these fear tactics to whip up
their base. But also, let's face it, it's a crass
play for eyeballs and money. She sent out. May sent
out all of these fundraising things about how she was
standing up, you know, for women, and of course the
absurdity of it is the only way that this kind
(35:22):
of band could be enforced is if you violate the
privacy of everyone entering a bathroom. You know who's going
to be determining whotinues it or not.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
The Nancy May story, though, really is a redistricting story, right, Like, yeah,
she is normal, talk to us about that.
Speaker 5 (35:39):
Yeah, she seemed to be team normal at least she
you know, pretended right when you see what she tweeted
and said in public in twenty twenty one, friend of
the LGBTQ community, you know, not homophobic, not transphobic. You
know these are her you know her own interviews, you know,
indicated this, and then they're the district was redistrict to
(36:01):
be much more read, much more maga. And now she
is basically distancing herself from all of the more sane
things that she said, and she has gone full on
Maga to try to get in the good graces of
the President and his apologists. And so we should be
(36:24):
watching very carefully around issues about redistricting and jerrymandering, because
this is what happens. You get a more highly distilled
version of Maga when that happens.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
We're in the two hundred and eighteenth Congress and Trump
has picked a number of Republican Congress.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
People to go and serve in his administration, right everyone
from a leash stephanaic. So you know a lot of
these people. Wow, So I'm hoping you could talk about
a what that means, like taking all these members of
Congress out because they already have such a slim majority
and now they're going to have an even slimmer majority,
and then be what they're like and who we should
(37:04):
be watching in this cabinet.
Speaker 5 (37:06):
Yeah, okay, great, I love this question. So, yes, it's
going to make the life of Mike Johnson much more
uncomfortable and painful over the next year.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
I'm here for victimless crime, if whoever was right exactly.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
So, yes, they're picking off members of the House to
come serve the administration. I just saw that. He now
is also looking at some of the members who lost
their seats, like laur Shaves Dreamer has been tapped.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
I would love you to talk about Lori Shavis Dreamer
because she actually is very counterintuitive to Trump world.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
She is, and I am very intrigued by it. So
I play on the bipartisan women's softball team, okay, which,
as a queer woman, is on brand. I know, but
it's an opportunity for.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Me say that.
Speaker 5 (37:50):
I know, I said it.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
I said it.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
I own it.
Speaker 5 (37:53):
Lourie's on the team, okay, the softball team, not my team.
So she has never given any indication of being a
maga Republican or somebody who is enamored of Trump or
the or the.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
Plan, and if anything right, she is very involved in
organized labor.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Yes, so make this make sense to me.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
It makes no sense to me. I can't. I scratched
my head. I wonder how long she'll last. Honestly, because
she is someone who I think has more of a
sense of herself than someone like Alis Stephonic, who has
done a complete, in total one point eighty from who
(38:37):
she was in her prior life.
Speaker 1 (38:40):
Right, same as Nancy Mayce, right at least of exactly
went to Harvard was a sort of normal quote unquote Republican,
was incentifized, tad crazy.
Speaker 5 (38:50):
She has sold her soul. She knows better, she knows
exactly what she's doing. It is a craven maneuver for power,
it really is. And so folks like Elist Stephonic scare
the hell out of me because they are willing to
cancel out any of their previous beliefs in order for power.
With Laurie Shautus Dreimer, I'm really curious again. I don't
(39:13):
know how long she will last because she is someone
who strikes me as having a sense of what working
people need right now. And that's certainly not what.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
This Trumpism is based on, exactly.
Speaker 5 (39:26):
It's about propping up billionaires, right and turn you over
the keys to the kingdom. So that's a curious one.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
I want to go back to what you said a
minute ago about Alice Staphonic, because Alice Stavonic and Nancy
Mayce have had the same transition that Jadie Vance has
had right never Trump Republican to Maga.
Speaker 5 (39:50):
Yep, they are a very stark example of what it
means when you prioritize power over principles.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Right, and they have chosen also.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
Comfort for themselves over courage. When you look at Mace,
when you look at Stephonic, when you look at Vance,
there is no courage they have. They have turned in
their courage for the comfort of cozying up to an
autocrat so that they might benefit from that.
Speaker 2 (40:19):
And this is the thing I want you to make
sense of.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
Okay, I'll try.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
Vance right knows better, very smart when to many Ivy
League College's wife is very smart.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
He knows better.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
So is this because it quite and has written a
very best selling book, which is more than I have.
Is there a world in which Vance one day is like, yeah,
this was not good, Like I'm gonna go back to
being normal or does he never go back to normal.
Speaker 7 (40:47):
Only when it suits him, only when it suits him.
Look at look at Nikki Haley. I mean, she's also
an example of this. She's going to try to try
to rehabilitate herself in the next presidential primary. You can
that's what she's going to do, because it's never about
the principles. It is about their own desire for power
(41:11):
and control. It is as craven as that. And so yeah,
I believe that jd. Vance will do whatever is advantageous
to JD Vance, no question.
Speaker 5 (41:22):
And so we have to be have to be standing up.
That's why I say, those of us who have the energy,
who have the focus and the attention right now, we
have to be as courageous as we can be and
not give in to this cynicism that says, actually truth
doesn't matter anymore, that principles don't matter anymore. I will
remind you the thing that guides me in these moments
(41:44):
is the fact that my grandfather was killed in the Holocaust.
He was killed in the last few weeks of the war.
I always think about how he never gave up his
humanity in the midst of depravity. That's my goal is
for me and for my colleagues, And I will tell
you I am also reaching out as much as I
(42:05):
can to the people that I'm friendly with across the
aisle to say you have a responsibility to stand up
to the depravity. You do in your own way. You
gotta do it. It can't fall to us because look, Okay,
I don't know if you and I talked about this,
but the day after Biden had that terrible debate, okay,
and everybody's wondering, what are we going to do? Okay.
(42:28):
I was on the floor of the House. It was
the very next day, and a Republican who I know,
crossed over the aisle to talk to me and he said, so,
what are you guys going to do? And I said, well,
it's only been twelve hours. I'm not sure. We're gonna
have to do some real soul searching. And he said, well,
you have to get another candidate. And I said what
(42:49):
he said, You have to get another candidate because we
won't and Trump can't have a second term, so you
have to do it. There's a real conversation long. So
these are the people that I am trying to reach
person to person and saying, if you hope to have
a democracy for your children and your grandchildren, you can't
(43:11):
keep going along to get along. You can't. And we'll
see if any of them find the courage, but I
fully anticipate that Jade Vance and Nikki Haley and you
know Stephanic, you know, I believe that her principle's blowing
the wind. What is advantage to her? And when you
look at Mace, when you look at Stephanic, these people
(43:32):
are not lightd within their conference, people don't have respect
for them, and yet they will not they will not
find the backbone to stand up. So I'm trying to
figure out how to give them some courage to do that,
because it can't only fall to the Democrat.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
Thank you, Becca, You're welcome.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
There.
Speaker 2 (43:53):
No Jesse Cannon Somali.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
One of the things I think people always forget as
we get a new incoming freshman class of GOP congress
people is one of them is going to be absolutely
bad shit. And I think we found them.
Speaker 4 (44:10):
We found him.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
Naw, we got a nice new Florida representative coming in
named Randy Fine. And I think he's what mister Trump
meant when he said very fine people, because this is
what he likes.
Speaker 2 (44:23):
Randy Fine. Let's talk about Randy Fine.
Speaker 1 (44:27):
He's from Florida. Need we say more? Oh Jesus Christ,
come on, man, I just read this and I'm like,
as a Jew not excited the Hebrew hammer, Why do
we do this context. So I'm reading fines tweet Randy Fine,
(44:50):
Florida State senator now going to be a House Republican
put on X. The Hebrew hammer is coming. Fine, who
is Jewish? Though not like I'm Jewish?
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Thank you?
Speaker 1 (45:06):
Fine, The Hebrew hammer is coming. Rashida to leave and
iohan Omar might consider leaving before I get there. And
then there's a hashtag bombs away.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
Oh, not great for the Jews.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
I really don't like this tweet that he wrote earlier,
which is throw rocks get shot one less Muslim terrorist
fire away.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
Yeah, it's not going to be good.
Speaker 1 (45:36):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Thanks for listening.
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and Donald Trump Junior says his father
has discussed banning mainstream journalists from the White House briefing room.
It's going to be all one American News. We have
(00:22):
a great show for you today. The Nation's Jeet here
talks to us about how the Democratic Party rebuilds. Then
we'll talk to Congresswoman Becca balland about how to push
back against Trump's agenda.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
But first the news.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
So Molly, as usual, we have to talk about Elon
Musk's unhinged tweeting. He's naming people by name who he's
going to recommend get fired. Isn't that so nice of him?
I think you should know this as somebody he wants
to help docs.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Again, one of the things that happens when you go
maga is that you have to tweet all the time.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
That's one of the laws of going back. I thought
about it, but that's right, it's true. You have to
just completely live online.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
And so just like we remember that in twenty sixteen,
we spent all this time our news cycles were controlled
by Donald Trump's tweets. Now we have another person to
add to this attention economy, and that is the richest
man in the world, Elon Musk. He is tweeting up
a storm day night, left right all the time.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
I really liked the insight from his former friend podcast
hosted author Sam Harris that said that he's staying up
all night sniffing ketamine all day.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
His behavior is very erratic, and usually staying up all
night as a sign that something else is going on.
But who am I to judge not sleeping and spending
your entire life online as someone who enjoys living online myself.
But I think what is a little bit nefarious about this,
besides the fact that he has this fan base that's
(01:56):
similar to Donald Trump's fan base, is that there's.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
A real war.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
A lot of these government employees have become the targets,
and so there he started doing this thing where he
is posting their names online. So last week, in the
midst of a fury of his daily mistives, mus reposted
two x posts that revealed the names and titles of
people holding four relatively obscure climate related government positions.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Each post has been viewed.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Now again, they do juice their numbers, but or at
least we think they use their numbers.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Who knows they juice their numbers.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yeah, but we want to be careful when we say
something like that. But yes, so we think they used
their numbers. But either way, a lot of angry people
have seen the names of these obscure government climate officials
who are now perhaps going to get a barrage of
negative attention the way that I had when I had
that experience with Elon. At least one of the four
(02:54):
women has deleted her social media accounts, which is very
much the way I'm sorry to tell you was posted.
It's public information, but you know, no federal employee, I mean,
these are not These are not billionaires. They don't have
the wherewithal to have private security, and as we know
from interviewing Lisa Page, being targeted by a MAGA changes
(03:20):
the trajectory of your life in a million different ways.
So I don't know, again, you know, maybe they're trying
a lot of this MAGA stuff is trying to scare
people into not being brave, into not standing up for themselves,
into not standing up for what's right, into feeling that
that there's no choices, that they have to go along
(03:42):
with whatever Trump World wants them to. And I think
that's what this is. It's a sort of bullying and
it's really too bad, and it's really dark.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Speaking of bullying.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah, so Molly allowed me to read one of mister
Trump's quote unquote truths to you, a New York Times
apologize to its readers for getting years of trun coverage
so wrong. They write such phony quote unquote junk, knowing
full well how incorrect. It is only meaning to demean
Maggot Haberman, a third rate writer and fourth rate intellect. Right,
(04:15):
story after story, always terrible, and yet I almost never
speak to her. They do no fact checking because facts
don't matter to them. I don't believe I've had a
legitimately good story for The New York Times for years,
and yet I won in record fashion, the most consequential
presidential election of decades. Where is the apology?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Mag is very into apologies.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Yet they're not into ever apologizing themselves now well.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
And also, I mean, again, what did he get from
Maggie apologizing to him?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
A bad stuff? That is correct?
Speaker 1 (04:45):
I just want to say two things here, New York
Times again, people like to be mad at them, and
I am guilty of this too.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Gonna say, right, they.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Do know that, you know, but they do some incredible reporting.
And Maggie, I know a lot of people get mad
at her, but she does incredible reporting. And also here
we have Donald Trump calling her an anti semitic slur maggot,
which is something that we've seen him do before. And
I just want to point out that this is in
(05:16):
response to a story. He appeared triggered by a story
about an aide named Natalie Harp who serves as his
gatekeeper with a creepy level of devotion. I just want
to point out this coverage, even just the very simple
stuff that actually happens, not you know, sort of opinion,
but really just straight reporting. There is no way to
(05:38):
report this stuff without ending up as the target. So
I just want to say that, like, if we didn't
have this information, we wouldn't know at all.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
What was happening. We would be so much worse off.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
And I am just grateful that we're getting this information
so we can at least have some sense of what's
happening behind the scenes and what maga's machination are. So
I just think that it's really terrible that this kind
of stuff is happening to journalists, and I hope it
stops so I know it won't soar.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
In the past, it has been asked to be or
not to be, that is the question. But if the
Trump administration they're asking how much should we invade Mexico,
that is the question.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Yeah, Mexico for Mexico. I want to point out, are
we going to go to Mexico?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
A senior Trump transition member said how much should we
invade Mexico?
Speaker 2 (06:33):
That is the question.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Look, it's very again, what's happening here is that this
is about cartels, this is about fentanyl, and this is
about needing an enemy for MAGA again. Will they go
to war with Mexico or is this just blustered to
try to get the base excited? Right? We don't know
because a lot of times we've seen Trump World get
(06:57):
excited say they're going to go to war with Mexico.
They're definitely want to go to trade war with Mexico.
But we don't know. And look, you know, here's the
scary thought. I just think like we have to be
so careful with Trump World because a lot of times
they want you to get upset and to get hysterical,
and then they're like, we were never going to invade
(07:18):
Mexico anyway. That's a crazy lib lie. So I would
just take this with a grain of salt. That said,
the soon to be head of the DD said, if
it takes military action, that's what it will take.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
It may take eventually, says Pete Hegsith.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Obviously you're going to have to be smart about it,
which is as good. It is good to be smart
about things. Obviously the precision strikes. But if you put
the fear in the minds of the drug lords at
least as a start, and they can't operate in the
open with impunity, it changes the way they operate. You
combine that with an actual border security and now you're
(07:59):
cooking with gas and you've got a chance. We're definitely
going to war with Mexico.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
I like these bid games with the cartel. But then
you have Senator Marco Rubio who's going to be Secretary
of State hedjag and seg that will go to war
with the drug cartels under condition that there's cooperation with
the Mexican government. You know what I was thinking, with
war with two countries, cooperation. That's usually the key word
in war.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Yeah, I don't fucking know.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I mean, I don't think we should go to war
with Mexico, but you know, I also don't think we
should drink raw milk. That said, bird flu has been
detected in raw milk, So it's possible that worlds will.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
In fact collide.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Get Here is a contributor to the nation and the
host of the time of monsters. Welcome back, too fast Politics.
Your friend of mine, get.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
Here always get to be on the program wells, they
said on Lord of the Rings. Happy to be with you,
Wally John fast Here. At the end of all things.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Yes, at the end of all things. I just want
to say.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
My response to that when we were talking about it before,
was you don't even fucking go here because you live
in Canada.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
That's true, that's true. That is actually an advirtu of
the thing I did. But it turned out to be
a very smart thing.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, yes, I'll say now.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
It turns out. But Canada had its own trouble. That
Trump is threatening twenty five percent terrorists unless we stopped
people of illegal immigrants and drugs into the United States,
And like I honestly don't know, okay, illegal immigrants. If
you're talking about Canadians, you're basically talking about people like
William Shatner who go down to Hollywood. In terms of drugs,
(09:41):
I would actually say that I think that the foal
is the other direction. My sense is like of all
major drugs and actually gun crimes in Canada, it flows northward,
not southwards.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
My favorite is a Mexican president who's like, stop sending
us all your guns, you fucking animals. I mean, like,
this is the problem with be in America is we're
like the capital of you know, every man, woman and
child has fifteen ar fifteen.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
I mean in Canada as well, this is like a
major problem because we do have gun laws, but you know,
it's a porous border. We have not built the wall,
but you're thinking about it.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah, keep that William Shattner in.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
It is a case that with like all almost all
gang violence, it turns out that there's a gun that's
kind of traceable back to the United States. The flow
of migrants, crime and guns is in the other direction.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
What I'm shocked.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
It is good to be in Canada. I do have
extra rooms. So yeah, if you or anyone else needs space.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Here fast forward to Jesse and I showing up on
your doorstep. But let's talk really about the only war
that is fun and easy to win. Do you remember
when Trump tweeted that back in the early days.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Yeah, that's right, that's the fat.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Trade wars are fun and to win. Our trade war's
fun and easy to wind.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Well in this case, I think with Trump, you kind
of understand a lot of this is cafe be like
he wants to, you know, like sort of do this
sort of pretend thing, and that's you know, like twenty
five percent tariffs stuff they covered kind of goes would
be catastrophic for both countries. I think we have to
be realistic that, Like, I think Trump likes to show
victories to his supporters and then often involves bluster. And
this is what he did in the first term. Actually
(11:24):
with NAFTA. He basically said, we're gonna renegotiate NAFTA, gonna
tear it up, and you know, like so, you know,
the Canadians of Mexicans came in, they made a few
small tinkerings around the edges, and then Trump was able
to proclaim like I got rid of Thata, and I
you know, I reade Trump da Trump, Right. I'm hoping
it could well be that he has some more serious
(11:45):
protectionist talks in his administration this time, and it could
be more than just talk. But I am hoping that talk. Yeah,
that is the kind of Trump and bluster. I mean,
I think that with Trump the real danger a lot
of liberals fall into. Maybe not so much anymore, but
the first term was like taking too much of the rhetoric, like.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Seriously swinging at every pitch.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
Yeah, exactly, exactly. So, so you have to kind of
a big rule, you know, going forward, is watch what
they do, not what they say, or at least compare
what they do to what they say.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Take him physically, but not literally just kidding, it's technically,
but not emotionally.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, but not hysterically. I mean, I
think we kind of have to like focus. I mean,
these are very serious times. It's a very grim matteric
that this man is returning to the White House, and
that he is returning radicalized. I mean, he is very angry,
and I think that he does have based on his
Picks nominations. In the rhetoric that's coming through. I think
(12:44):
there are a few areas where he's very serious on
and one is revenge, really wants to use the legal
system to get back at his enemies. The other I
think is actually immigration, and that that is actually worrisome.
I do actually think he has some commitment to the
deportation agenda and has people like Stephen Miller who are
hardcore idea logs. And on trade, I think there is
a worry that he I think, but he with trade
(13:07):
unlike the first two, they're real counterveiling things within the
Republican Party. Like he wants these trade wars, but he
also wants to keep Wall Street happy. I once saw
with his nominations that there are a bunch of you know,
like you George Soros.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
George Shurow's hedge front manager who had made billions.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
And billions of dollars and is also gay. So make
that make sense?
Speaker 4 (13:30):
That's right. How's the family is? You know, gay people
and straight proposts are wealthy allowed to do?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Yes, families? Because why should gay people not have to
be married like the rest of us.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Yes, continue let them suffer too, That will show them.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
That's the fat. So on the trade, like I do
think that, you know, like the fact that he has
to keep Wall Street happy, or he likes to keep
Wall Street happy.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, that's the guardrail.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
If there's one guard rail, it's the Dow Jones Industrial average.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah yeah, yeah, but yeah. On both immigration and I
think on the legal retribution, I think they are real
causes to worry. And you know, I mean I think that,
you know, people talk a lot about guardrails, and I
think the real guardrail is only the stupidity and incompetence
of Trump and the people around him, which which we
also saw the first term that as compared to like
Dick Cheney, who I think did a lot of more
(14:21):
damage in some ways because he knew how the federal
bureaucracy worked, He knew how to game the system to
get what he wanted. Trump does not have that, and
I think the people around him, you know, like my
colleague at the Nation, like my style, likes to say, like,
you know, well, there's some reassurance to someone who would
make Matt Getz or Pam Bondy attorney general because these
(14:41):
are these are not their best right, These are not
people who can execute you.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Ready for my hottest take, Yes, my hottest take is
that Dick Cheney enentours Harris so that she would lose.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Sorry, I'm just kidding. Maybe it's too soon for that
kind of terrible joke.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Well, I mean, it's an interesting because I think we
talked about this on this podcast before, and I had,
you know, accept.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
My lifelong hatred of the Chinese.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
Expressed great skepticism about the hugging and the Chinese strategy.
But I did allow, you know, like, as far as
I could figure out, the math did not work because
I think the people that you alienate from this and demobilize,
I think.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Is everyone in the world.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Yeah, yeah, numbers the people that you gained. But then
I also said, you know, like I did say, well,
you know, the people were in the campaign. They have
their own strategy and their own numbers, and I'm hoping
that they knew what they were doing.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
We should not do circular firing squad as much as
I want to.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
Yeah, I know, But what was I will say coming
out of all this, It is interesting. I mean, I
don't want to do like recriminations on the show, but
I think it is interesting that some of the stuff
is coming out for me is a little bit vindicating,
just in the sense that the stuff I had doubts
about the people in the campaign. Now knowledge, yes, those
are concerns, like they I did say that, Like, I
(16:04):
think it's pretty clear from public opinion that if she
made a cleaner break from Joe Biden. I really said
how she'd be different than Joe Biden, that would pay off.
And now the campaign basically just yes, that would have
had some benefit. But Kamala Harris was not comfortable. She
wants to show loyalty and you know, like the Biden
(16:24):
bath expected loyalty, so.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Right, exactly, I mean, there's real glass cliff stuff here.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
You put a woman, a black woman, in a position
where it's.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Ninety nine point nine.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Percent chance she's going to lose with that kind of headwinds.
So I do think they're just a number of factors
at play. But if we're going to talk about one
thing that is really like, the thing that I want
to talk about that makes me so furious is and
I feel like you'll appreciate this, And I keep bringing
this up and people keep telling me that I'm very
(16:59):
sweet that they won't, you know, they can't even listen
to it.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
But here's my hottest take.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Republicans have a base right that is so radicalized that
wants stuff that they you know, they put mass deportation
now on signs. Okay, like that is how radicalized they are. Okay,
mass deportation now is a chant?
Speaker 2 (17:23):
All right.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Democrats have a base that want like they want free
glasses or they want you know, contexts to be covered
by insurance, and they want Govy to be covered by insurance,
and they want some kind of free pre k. I
mean things that are like not very lefty. Democratic candidates
(17:44):
run to the center. Republican candidates run to the right.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Explain, my big thing is and I think this explies
not just a selection but really every election since the
Iraq War start to go bad, which is that the
defining division in American politics is not left and right,
moderate or radical even it's a pro system and anti system.
Going back to the you know, basically, since Katrina and
(18:10):
the Iraq War started to go bad, most Americans have
felt that the country has been going in the wrong direction.
And the first beneficiary of that was Barack Obama, who
in two thousand and eight, you know, really was able
to harvest the desire to make a clean break from
the discredited Bush administration, and in twenty twelve, Obama was
gifted with an opponent who was mister establishment incarnate, this
(18:34):
you know, multi millionaire who, as Obama rightly said, made
money by deindustrializing the Midwest and so on both twentyd
and eight twenty twelve, Obama could run as I'm the
agent of change against this discredited establishment. Now, once Trump emerged,
and I think this is a big mistake that the
Democrats made, was that they decided we will run as
(18:55):
the party of the system that will bring together everyone
discussed with Trump and once saw this even in twenty sixteen,
where Hillary Clinton, you know, was welcoming the support of Republicans,
was welcoming the support of the national security establishment, I
was basically saying Trump is a dangerous interloper within the system.
Which if you say that, that actually reinforces Trump's message
(19:17):
because you were saying, yes, he is actually anti system
and that we are the party of the system. Now,
I think in twenty twenty, Trump was hurt because he
was no longer fighting the man. He was the man,
and he was the man at the time of COVID
and at the time of the George Floyd uprising, and
so there was a real mass popular anger, anti system politics,
(19:38):
even though Joe Biden was the head and but Biden
also co opted a lot of Bernie's message on economics,
and so the Democrats were able to run as a
party of change against the man. Now in twenty twenty four,
I think, you know, I don't want to blame the candidate,
because I actually think Kamala Harris was put in a
very bad position, but because Biden was the incumbent, because
(20:00):
people continue to feel that this country is going on
the wrong track, and that's a seventy percent opinion right wrong, crack,
right track. But Harris's campaign decided the only way that
they could win is if they can appeal to moderate
Republicans who are upset at Trump, and this way they
could make up for some of the losses that they
were seeing among young people, among people of color, and
(20:21):
on working class voters. So they did this campaign where
it was hugged the Chenese and not just like Liz Cheney,
but Dick Cheney and my favorite Alberto Gonzalez, you know
the memo, they welcome his support, but also you know,
like Harris ion a glock.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Does everyone own guns except me?
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Well, if you come up to Canada, there's there will
be many fear guns. One of where chief surrogates was
a former Republican billionaire Mark Cuban, who repeatedly undercut her
economic message by saying, oh, you know she's talking about this,
he doesn't really mean at yes, And this is a
surrogate where the campaign and then also getting because they
were in the hole financially, they needed a lot of
(21:04):
donations and getting Wall Street owners to basically edit out
their message. So the populist elements of the Harris's message
in terms of going after price gouging, they had to
tone that down and they couldn't name the specific companies
that are going after.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Well, they don't want to hurt their feelings.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
If you're running where you're saying, we have a coalition
that includes Dick Cheney and Mark Cuban, and you know,
like I own a gun and I'm a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Yeah, that she kept saying that.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
You're basically saying, I am the pro system person. I
believe in the system at a time where seventy percent
of the country takes the countries in the wrong direction.
And then Trump and I think a lot of what
the Democrats did strengthened Trump because even like you know,
using the legal cases against Trump or they help support
the idea that this guy's anti system, even though Trump
(21:51):
himself is you know, like a rich guy surrounded by
other rich guys. And also they did not never were
willing to go after him for his own system ties.
They were unwilling to say, this is a guy who's
the pocket of billionaires. They never attacked Trump for being
a plutocrat, in fact, because they had their own platocracy problem.
So again, if you're running it's a change election country
(22:13):
in the right direction, wrong direction, it's hard to be
in incumbent. But they went out of their way, and
I think also not criticizing Joe Biden and not making
clear that you're going to break with Joe Biden as
saying your only different with Joe Biden is you'll have
a Republican in your cabinet. Again, the message of the
Hairs campaign was the system is good. We're going to
defend this system against this disruptive, unstable fellow, Donald Trump.
(22:37):
And it's unfortunately the case that Americans of their position,
where people hate the establishment so much that even people
who don't otherwise like Donald Trump, will go with Donald
Trump so I think that was the dynamic that they
ran a pro system message in a time of deep
anti system feeling.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Yeah, and again, I think that's a really interesting and
important point, this idea that Democrats need to understand that
being part of the system is not necessarily a winning
message to anyone.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
No, no, it is not a winning message, and you
have to actually offer people like real change that can
affect their lives. And I think the one advantage that
Democrats have is there are things in their message that
they can emphasize in that way.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I mean, the legislation is very very, very very good.
The problem is that while the legislation is very good, Like,
for example, if you had democratical legislation versus Republican legislation,
you would want the democratic legislation, right, I mean, there's
it's not even a question because the Republicans' ideas are like.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
We want to you know, make everything.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
More expensive and also take away all your rights and
give billionaire's tax cuts.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
I mean, those are hard to sell.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
The problem is I feel like, for whatever reasons, Democrats
are just have a very difficult time insmitting any of that.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean there's a couple of things that
did hurt them. I do think that they sort of
mentioned cinema thingk hurt them just because it made them
look a little bit ineffectual. But I mean, honestly, I think,
like you know, having like a president who was not
able to articulate his message. I think Biden had genuine
achievements as a president and had stuff that he could
tell people that he actually did for them, but he
(24:21):
was not we have to be honest about this. He
was not someone who.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, He's a terrible public speaker and has always, always,
always been, and anyone who says otherwise is to completely
fullish it.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
If you have a period where people are mad at
the system and think that the country is in the
wrong direction to have like, you know, like an eighty
eighty one year old man as the face of your party.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
Wait, we have to pause.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Jesse says that I said that I never I have
always agreed that that Biden is a bad speaker.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Okay, I may have been less, I mean, ch Anyway,
we're out of time. We're not going to invite Jesse back.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
You, thank you, thank you. Is is always great ed? Yeah,
I mean, I hope in the coming American Canadian war.
I do not have to like kill name at you
and be a sniper. I will say that the last
time our two country spots from where every we burned
down the White House. We did it once and we'll
do it again.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Oh yeah, that was very good. We did it once
and we'll do it again.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
You're known for your for her, but you guys live
ten miles.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
From the right, and you lived ten miles from our border.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
That's what I think the thing that people don't mention.
I mean, the Canadians were able to fight very well
in eighteen twelve, but it's because we had the indigenous allies.
The walks were on our side, and there were there
were they were the ones who actually, you know, like
we're supposed to burn down of the White House. So
maybe we can recruit them again. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Yeah, I'm sure they're feeling very generous towards you.
Speaker 4 (26:05):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Should be fine.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Becca Balance represents Vermont's Soul congressional district. Welcome back, too
fast politics, my.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Favorite Vermont congresswoman.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
I'm sorry that was me because you are the only, yes,
the only congress person at all from Vermont.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Welcome Beaca.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
Thanks Mollie, very happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
So here we are. It is December. No, it's still November,
the world's longest month. Democrats failed to recapture the presidency,
and Democrats have lost the United States Congress. They've lost
the Senate, but picked up a few seats in Congress,
or at least one. So explain to us what the
one hundred and nineteenth Congress will look like.
Speaker 5 (26:51):
Yeah, so you're right, we did pick up a few seats,
and actually, even right before I got on here, it
looks like we're going to pick up Derek Tran as well,
and so we're going to have a few more Democratic seats.
The Republicans' majority will be even more narrow than the
last session, and so they couldn't govern in the one
hundred and eighteenth. They're not going to be able to
(27:14):
govern in the one hundred and nineteenth. You've got extremists
still driving driving the train, you've got apologists not speaking up.
You know, it will be I think very similar, except
of course we've lost the White House and the Senate.
And you know you asked me right before we got on,
I was feeling and I'm feeling ready because I know,
(27:35):
I know what's coming. And I've been reading a lot
of historian Timothy Snider talking about you know, what do
we do when we're facing tyranny, reading a lot of
Hannah arent who wrote a lot about totalitarianism, and so
I feel like I understand the way that I need
to show up. And it is so clear to me
from talking with my constituents and my friends in Congress
(28:00):
who whether they are women of color or part of
the trans community. You know, you've got people who feel
utterly kicked to the curb and just don't have the energy.
They're trying to heal, they're trying to shore themselves up
for what's coming. So the rest of us have to
do the work we have to and we have to
be as courageous as we possibly can. That's what's guiding
(28:23):
me right now. And the comfort that I feel in
looking at the clowns that the Republicans have as and
I say they are they are a leader in their
conference that you've got people like Nancy Mace and Margie
Taylor Green. You know, those are the people they give
permission to to have the mouthpiece, and they don't, they
(28:46):
don't keep them in line.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
So let's talk about that, because you know, we're in
a quest to feel better here. Right here, we are
just like in a moment, we're in the wilderness. We
don't know what's going to happen. Right Trump has not
taken office yet. It will be his second presidency. He
is He ran for president to stay out of jail.
It worked out extremely well for him. We should all.
(29:11):
You know, there's a spiritual lesson here about swinging for
the fences, and now we don't really know how it's
going to play out. But I think something that makes
me feel a lot better is when I look at
the two hundred and eighteenth Congress, because Republicans had the majority,
and tell us what happened in the two hundred and
eighteenth Congress.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
They could not govern the way out of a paperbag.
They got nothing done.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Milly, you don't have.
Speaker 6 (29:38):
To take my work for you just have to google
Chip Roy on the floor, he stood up and said
the things that we had all been saying, which is
you literally Republicans got nothing done. And you know you've
got Mike Johnson, who is, you know, a terrible leader.
He doesn't know how to steer his conference towards getting
(29:59):
a anything done. So you've got a situation where you
can't even make this stuff up because no one would
believe it.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
Right, it would be on Siah life. So one of
the bills we voted on this year was the Huha Act. Okay,
hands off our household Appliance.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Oh, that's a favorite of mine.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
Continue a good one that literally came to the floor
of the House of Repute. There were dozens and dozens
of bills just like it. They don't know how to
do anything except messaging. So it is I think they're
going to realize that they have an even tougher job
trying to get anything because actually, we have a lot
(30:40):
of really smart, committed colleagues within the Democratic Caucus who
are completely and totally paying attention, and a lot of
folks within the Republican Conference are not. And so it
is true that it is It is both terrifying this moment,
and I think it is a moment that we knew
we were moving towards right because we saw all of
(31:05):
the indications in the first presidency and then in this
election that truth meant nothing anymore. Right, So, when you
can't distinguish between fact and fiction, when you can't distinguish
between true and false. Right, then there is no organizing
principle for the Republicans, And so we have to have
that organizing principle. And I've been thinking about how Trump
(31:28):
and all of his apologists are actually doing what every
other demagogue has done before them. Right, So their messages
are marked by extreme contempt for facts, and facts depend
entirely on the power of the people who make them up. Right,
So this is a time when we can't obey in advance.
(31:49):
We have to be courageous. We have to defend the
institutions and stand out and stand up. And it isn't
wasted time. We have to draw action between those who
believe that there actually are facts and the ideal candidate
actually for Trump's cabinet. We can laugh they are it is.
(32:11):
It is a clown car. But the organizing principle actually
is not that they're committed anti semites, fascists, or racist,
but that he's picking people who can no longer distinguish
between fact and fiction and only have one organizing principle,
and that's loyalty to try.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Yeah, I don't think he really cares about that stuff.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
I think he just wants his people in there in
the hopes of being able to do what he wants to.
Speaker 5 (32:34):
Do right absolutely, and so you know, the bar's pre
low right now, and so we have to have our
initial organizing principle is standing up for everyone's rights and
human dignity. That is the organizing principle that I build
everything from.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
So let's talk about that.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
You have a congresswoman who is coming into this Congress
from the state of Delaware, who is been targeted by
Nancy Mace.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Can we talk talk about that mercilessly.
Speaker 5 (33:02):
So Sarah McBride, who I might you know start by saying,
is a really experienced and effective legislator. She came up
through her legislature in Delaware. I was down campaigning for
her a couple months ago. We've become friends over the
last year and a half. Through the Equality Caucus.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
She's taken the seat of now Senator right.
Speaker 5 (33:24):
You got it, Lisa Blunt Rochester, you got it. And
so Nancy Mays I think, tweeted three hundred times about
trans people, bathroom Sarah McBride just horrible stuff last week.
And there have been no voices of condemnation from the
Republican Conference. None, absolutely none. Margie Taylor Green has even
threatened violence against Sarah McBride if she were to ever
(33:47):
use the women's bathroom. Now, keep in mind, she hasn't
even been sworn in yet. Okay mcnide was on the
Capitol last week for her orientation. Okay, doesn't even have
the job yet. They are trying to make it an
incredibly hostile work environment for her coming in, using fear mongering,
hatred directed not just at her. Certainly she is the
(34:10):
most visible target, But what I keep reminding people is
that there are trans people who work on Capitol Hill,
in offices for various legislators on the Hill, there are
members of the press who identify as transfre non binary,
and certainly our constituents who come to the Capitol be
able to use the bathroom. So it is not just
about her, But they've made it about her that somehow
(34:32):
her very presence right is an exoustential crisis for them.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
It's somehow offensive to them.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Yeah, somehow offensive. And you know, one of the things
I have been resisting making this tweet, but I might
do it this week if she keeps up her anticsays
to sort of poke Nancy Mason, say, do you really
think you haven't already been in a bathroom with a transplment,
Like really, right, it's already happened, lady, and nothing to
happen to you, and it won't. They're unserious people. They
(35:02):
don't care about governing, they don't care about serving their constituents,
so they just use these fear tactics to whip up
their base. But also, let's face it, it's a crass
play for eyeballs and money. She sent out. May sent
out all of these fundraising things about how she was
standing up, you know, for women, and of course the
absurdity of it is the only way that this kind
(35:22):
of band could be enforced is if you violate the
privacy of everyone entering a bathroom. You know who's going
to be determining whotinues it or not.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
The Nancy May story, though, really is a redistricting story, right, Like, yeah,
she is normal, talk to us about that.
Speaker 5 (35:39):
Yeah, she seemed to be team normal at least she
you know, pretended right when you see what she tweeted
and said in public in twenty twenty one, friend of
the LGBTQ community, you know, not homophobic, not transphobic. You
know these are her you know her own interviews, you know,
indicated this, and then they're the district was redistrict to
(36:01):
be much more read, much more maga. And now she
is basically distancing herself from all of the more sane
things that she said, and she has gone full on
Maga to try to get in the good graces of
the President and his apologists. And so we should be
(36:24):
watching very carefully around issues about redistricting and jerrymandering, because
this is what happens. You get a more highly distilled
version of Maga when that happens.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
We're in the two hundred and eighteenth Congress and Trump
has picked a number of Republican Congress.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
People to go and serve in his administration, right everyone
from a leash stephanaic. So you know a lot of
these people. Wow, So I'm hoping you could talk about
a what that means, like taking all these members of
Congress out because they already have such a slim majority
and now they're going to have an even slimmer majority,
and then be what they're like and who we should
(37:04):
be watching in this cabinet.
Speaker 5 (37:06):
Yeah, okay, great, I love this question. So, yes, it's
going to make the life of Mike Johnson much more
uncomfortable and painful over the next year.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
I'm here for victimless crime, if whoever was right exactly.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
So, yes, they're picking off members of the House to
come serve the administration. I just saw that. He now
is also looking at some of the members who lost
their seats, like laur Shaves Dreamer has been tapped.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
I would love you to talk about Lori Shavis Dreamer
because she actually is very counterintuitive to Trump world.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
She is, and I am very intrigued by it. So
I play on the bipartisan women's softball team, okay, which,
as a queer woman, is on brand. I know, but
it's an opportunity for.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Me say that.
Speaker 5 (37:50):
I know, I said it.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
I said it.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
I own it.
Speaker 5 (37:53):
Lourie's on the team, okay, the softball team, not my team.
So she has never given any indication of being a
maga Republican or somebody who is enamored of Trump or
the or the.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
Plan, and if anything right, she is very involved in
organized labor.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Yes, so make this make sense to me.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
It makes no sense to me. I can't. I scratched
my head. I wonder how long she'll last. Honestly, because
she is someone who I think has more of a
sense of herself than someone like Alis Stephonic, who has
done a complete, in total one point eighty from who
(38:37):
she was in her prior life.
Speaker 1 (38:40):
Right, same as Nancy Mayce, right at least of exactly
went to Harvard was a sort of normal quote unquote Republican,
was incentifized, tad crazy.
Speaker 5 (38:50):
She has sold her soul. She knows better, she knows
exactly what she's doing. It is a craven maneuver for power,
it really is. And so folks like Elist Stephonic scare
the hell out of me because they are willing to
cancel out any of their previous beliefs in order for power.
With Laurie Shautus Dreimer, I'm really curious again. I don't
(39:13):
know how long she will last because she is someone
who strikes me as having a sense of what working
people need right now. And that's certainly not what.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
This Trumpism is based on, exactly.
Speaker 5 (39:26):
It's about propping up billionaires, right and turn you over
the keys to the kingdom. So that's a curious one.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
I want to go back to what you said a
minute ago about Alice Staphonic, because Alice Stavonic and Nancy
Mayce have had the same transition that Jadie Vance has
had right never Trump Republican to Maga.
Speaker 5 (39:50):
Yep, they are a very stark example of what it
means when you prioritize power over principles.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Right, and they have chosen also.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
Comfort for themselves over courage. When you look at Mace,
when you look at Stephonic, when you look at Vance,
there is no courage they have. They have turned in
their courage for the comfort of cozying up to an
autocrat so that they might benefit from that.
Speaker 2 (40:19):
And this is the thing I want you to make
sense of.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
Okay, I'll try.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
Vance right knows better, very smart when to many Ivy
League College's wife is very smart.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
He knows better.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
So is this because it quite and has written a
very best selling book, which is more than I have.
Is there a world in which Vance one day is like, yeah,
this was not good, Like I'm gonna go back to
being normal or does he never go back to normal.
Speaker 7 (40:47):
Only when it suits him, only when it suits him.
Look at look at Nikki Haley. I mean, she's also
an example of this. She's going to try to try
to rehabilitate herself in the next presidential primary. You can
that's what she's going to do, because it's never about
the principles. It is about their own desire for power
(41:11):
and control. It is as craven as that. And so yeah,
I believe that jd. Vance will do whatever is advantageous
to JD Vance, no question.
Speaker 5 (41:22):
And so we have to be have to be standing up.
That's why I say, those of us who have the energy,
who have the focus and the attention right now, we
have to be as courageous as we can be and
not give in to this cynicism that says, actually truth
doesn't matter anymore, that principles don't matter anymore. I will
remind you the thing that guides me in these moments
(41:44):
is the fact that my grandfather was killed in the Holocaust.
He was killed in the last few weeks of the war.
I always think about how he never gave up his
humanity in the midst of depravity. That's my goal is
for me and for my colleagues, And I will tell
you I am also reaching out as much as I
(42:05):
can to the people that I'm friendly with across the
aisle to say you have a responsibility to stand up
to the depravity. You do in your own way. You
gotta do it. It can't fall to us because look, Okay,
I don't know if you and I talked about this,
but the day after Biden had that terrible debate, okay,
and everybody's wondering, what are we going to do? Okay.
(42:28):
I was on the floor of the House. It was
the very next day, and a Republican who I know,
crossed over the aisle to talk to me and he said, so,
what are you guys going to do? And I said, well,
it's only been twelve hours. I'm not sure. We're gonna
have to do some real soul searching. And he said, well,
you have to get another candidate. And I said what
(42:49):
he said, You have to get another candidate because we
won't and Trump can't have a second term, so you
have to do it. There's a real conversation long. So
these are the people that I am trying to reach
person to person and saying, if you hope to have
a democracy for your children and your grandchildren, you can't
(43:11):
keep going along to get along. You can't. And we'll
see if any of them find the courage, but I
fully anticipate that Jade Vance and Nikki Haley and you
know Stephanic, you know, I believe that her principle's blowing
the wind. What is advantage to her? And when you
look at Mace, when you look at Stephanic, these people
(43:32):
are not lightd within their conference, people don't have respect
for them, and yet they will not they will not
find the backbone to stand up. So I'm trying to
figure out how to give them some courage to do that,
because it can't only fall to the Democrat.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
Thank you, Becca, You're welcome.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
There.
Speaker 2 (43:53):
No Jesse Cannon Somali.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
One of the things I think people always forget as
we get a new incoming freshman class of GOP congress
people is one of them is going to be absolutely
bad shit. And I think we found them.
Speaker 4 (44:10):
We found him.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
Naw, we got a nice new Florida representative coming in
named Randy Fine. And I think he's what mister Trump
meant when he said very fine people, because this is
what he likes.
Speaker 2 (44:23):
Randy Fine. Let's talk about Randy Fine.
Speaker 1 (44:27):
He's from Florida. Need we say more? Oh Jesus Christ,
come on, man, I just read this and I'm like,
as a Jew not excited the Hebrew hammer, Why do
we do this context. So I'm reading fines tweet Randy Fine,
(44:50):
Florida State senator now going to be a House Republican
put on X. The Hebrew hammer is coming. Fine, who
is Jewish? Though not like I'm Jewish?
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Thank you?
Speaker 1 (45:06):
Fine, The Hebrew hammer is coming. Rashida to leave and
iohan Omar might consider leaving before I get there. And
then there's a hashtag bombs away.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
Oh, not great for the Jews.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
I really don't like this tweet that he wrote earlier,
which is throw rocks get shot one less Muslim terrorist
fire away.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
Yeah, it's not going to be good.
Speaker 1 (45:36):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!