February 27, 2025 • 25 mins
In this episode, Mary Katharine Ham and Karol Markowicz discuss the recent firing of Joy Reid from MSNBC, the changing media landscape, and viewer preferences. They delve into the implications of the White House's media access policies and public sentiment regarding government spending and efficiency. The conversation also touches on Elon Musk's role in government initiatives and the significance of recent executive orders aimed at deregulation. Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Email Normally HERE
Follow Karol on X
Follow MK on X
#JoyReid #MSNBC #mediaaccess #governmentspending #ElonMusk #deregulation #publicopinion #executiveorders #medialandscape #governmentefficiency
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 (00:05):
Hey guys, our normally friends. Welcome back to normally the.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Show with normalish takes for when the news gets weird.
I am Mary Katherine Ham.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
I'm Carol Marcowitz.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
Hi Mary Catherine. How's it going.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
It's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I just did that thing that you, as a mom
will recognize, which is that I finally had lunch with
my friend who I had said I should have lunch
with for a very long time.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I didn't know anybody actually did that. I know we
talk about doing it, but that's impressive.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
I know none of our kids were sick. We managed
to make it out of the house at the same
time and voila huge lunch.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Wow. I feel like you should write it up to
let the rest of us know how it's done.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
I'll just do a substack on that. How do you
have lunch with your friend?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
I feel like it would go viral?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Actually, so maybe I should Okay tips for me on that.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
I'll get on it.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
The big news in the media world is that MSNBC
has fired Joy Reid and actually conservative media as hard
as hit, because what are we going to do with
that Joy Reid to mock.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I know it is tough.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
There will be so so many fewer clips for us.
Oh yeah, already, yeah, Mattl's already in there to fill
the gap though, because she with her twenty five million
dollar salary for doing several shows a week, was like,
you know, this is very disappointing. We shouldn't leave her,
we shouldn't let her walk out the door. I find
(01:30):
it unjustifiable. And then she alluded to it being racism
because she said she's one of the few hosts of
color missing entirely. The network is replacing her with two
African American hosts and a Hispanic woman.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Right, But if you point that out, then you're saying
that they're interchangeable.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
So there's no there's no way to win this.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Calvin ball with the left. It's by the way, Michael Steele,
former head of the r n C, Simone Sanders, a
former Bernie Sanders spokeswoman, and Alicia Mennindez.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Right, that's cool.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, and then MSNBC is restructuring in general. It's not
just about joy. They also acted weekend shows hosted by
Amen Moe Yieldin, Jonathan kpe Haart, Katie Fang, and Jose
Diaz Blart and I have to admit I don't know
some of those names, and I would think that if
you have shows on television, I would know those names.
(02:23):
But it goes to the point that MSNBC has really
been struggling. Their numbers are down forty one percent twenty
twenty four, and Joy specifically had a fifty three percent
decline in post election viewership. She was racist and kind
of crazy, and for some reason, that's not selling anymore.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Yeah, I'm look, I think a lot of people who
are on the losing end of this election want to
sort of cocoon. They want to not be on the
outrage roller coaster with Mattout and Joy Reid, and so
they are not tuning in. I also, I think there
might just be fewer of them who have an appetite
(03:02):
for that at this point. At this point, Republicans are
outnumbering self identified Democrats in this country, and more Democrats
watch Fox News then watch MSNBC and c in it
like the fashion is crazy.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Yeah, it's crazy. Every time I say it, I have
to check it because I'm like, is that right?
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Is it still true? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
But I think they just came out with new numbers
recently that showed that certainly in the demo, which is
why smart Democrats go to Fox News to like talk
to those people.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Right, makes sense.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Because you got to.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
I think we have a little montage of some of
Joy's best work, shall we hear ye?
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Take a deep breath for just a moment and ponder,
big balls.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Can just be clear.
Speaker 6 (03:45):
I got into Harvard only because of a fermative action.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
It was, to put it.
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Mildly, a celebration of the very thing the American right
has turned into its latest anti wokeness boogeyman, diversity, equity,
and inclusion. To any of you guys, I trust Uncle
Clarence and Amy Coney Barrett. In America and only in America,
you are literally rolling the dice every time you leave
your house. They are radicalizing those people, particularly when they're
(04:12):
radicalizing young people. That's how we talk about the way
Muslims act. When you see what Donald Trump is doing,
is that any different.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
Congress needs to get it done.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Got in another fucking war. I stopped using Twitter quite
a long time ago.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
I don't tweet.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
I don't want to give elon any content, but every
so often I.
Speaker 6 (04:28):
Would check it just as an aggregate.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
This is a.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Mess and not even a normal mess.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
It's a fascistic mess. I have to say I did
not go out on July fourth and would not. The
idea of going to a mass gathering, a parade or
a big fireworks thing outside seems insane to me.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
Yeah, craziness, We're the crazy ones.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
She wore a purple MSNBC branded tracksuit on her last night, which,
like pois for creativity. Also odd to don the corporate
logo of the place that just canned you, It seems
an odd choice.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
She always a crying video after the fact, talking about
all the issues that she thinks got her fired, which
I don't think it was the issues that I don't
think that it's because leftism exists. It's because she was
unable to be a good messenger for those issues. And again,
crazy and kind of racist or racist and kind of
(05:30):
crazy just isn't selling like it used.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
To well, And I will never forget that in twenty eighteen,
this is a vintage scandal. I love that someone uncovered
her two thousand and seven to two thousand and nine blogging.
It wasn't that hard to uncover. I mean, she put
it in public on something called the Read Report, so
It wasn't like it was under a mysterious name or anything.
But she at that time made some posts that were
(05:54):
homophobic about Charlie christ, the then Florida governor. She made
some anti smittic remarks, some kind of racist, kind of crazy.
As you know, we see a pattern here. When this
was found out, she sort of kind of apologized, and
then she also sort of kind.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Of said it was a hacked.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
She was hacked somehow. That person had gone back to
two thousand and seven to two thousand and nine. I
was just saying, hackers, just say like I had. I
was younger, I had different takes. I was unwise putting
all of this online in this form, and like I'm
different now. I mean, no, among she said she was
hacked and the FBI was going to get to the
(06:33):
bottom of it.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
They're still working on it. I think around the clock.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Cash is actually in charge of that investigation now. So
so that was sort of in twenty eighteen. I was like,
so this is just a These are the news people
I'm supposed to trust. Is the people who outright lie
to my face when they're caught in the same exact
stuff that they try to fish out about normal, regular
(06:57):
civilian people all the time.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Yep, those people do get fired and they do lose
opportunities enjoy just got to go on and pretend it
was a hack that you know, they're going to get
to the bottom of some at some point. You're absolutely right.
That was a telling moment where it was like they
could do things that we cannot.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Yes in light of that.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
By the way, this might make a decent segue to
our second part of our press segment, which is that
the White House is We've talked about them going after
the AP and saying, you know, you can't have your
spot in this pool or in on Air Force one
because you're using Gulf of Mexico instead of Golf of America.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Although I think.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
This is petty, I also think it does potentially have
First Amendment implications because the name they're using is speech
and this is a government ento team making these rules. However,
a judge who the AP asked for immediate relief on this,
Judge Trevor McFadden, did not grant it. I'm a little
bit surprised by that. He says he didn't find he
(07:59):
didn't find any reason to immediately stop the administration's ban
but he said that case laws seemed to be against it.
So I think if they move forward with this as
they will, they will very likely lose. The filing said
that just because this is from the White House or
from the government, just because the AP may have long
received special media access to the president, does not mean
that such access is constitutionally compelled in perpetuity. Again, I
(08:23):
think they'll probably lose this and should. However, I understand
there is not a great well of support for the AP,
who I will nonetheless stick up for.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
There was also do it for you.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
No, they definitely wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Ye. Another development in this area is that and this
is just breaking So I do not know all the details, admittedly,
But Caroline Levitt from the podium said today or made
some reference to the fact that the White House Correspondents Association,
which generally creates the pool that goes to events, that
designates who goes where, because of course they have to
(09:00):
have a limited pool at times that they will no
longer be deciding the pool. The White House will be
deciding the pool, so they'll make a decision who comes, right.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Why was there a separate organization deciding which media outlets
get access to the president.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Well, so I don't think they'll get to decide.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
I think the White House Correspondence associations still would have
some sway. I think the concern is that if the
White House decides, then what happens is you know exactly
what to say to get favor with the White House
to get access to these events. Now, there is a
version of this that happens all the time in Washington
with the Biden administration. Say what they want and you
(09:42):
get access to their officials. This is access journalism. Happens
all the time as usual. The Trump administration is making
this much more explicit. And I don't like this one either,
But again, nobody's going to stick up for these rights.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Cool, right, what was the last four years about? What
was Biden's little Oh it's on which orders to call on?
And they already knew what he was going to be
asked and all of that.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
It's going to.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Be very hard for them to say, oh no, now
we have to have kind of a range of voices
here what he buys it anymore.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Again, the public doesn't care.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
I think if they can keep that pool actually diverse, Yeah,
that's good. I do worry that the messages get in
line or else you don't get access. Now, amazingly, a
press corps will suddenly find its backbone and not get
in line for a Republican administration.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
By administration like whatever you need, whatever you need, man.
Speaker 4 (10:41):
Yeah, just call us, just just call on me.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Do you need me to read this specific question? Do
you do you need me to give you the answer
to the question.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Yeah, I'll do quite the same, you know.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Reaction from them with a Republican no.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
We'll see where it goes in the court. I imagine
that they'll lose all these Ye, you're right though.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
It was the transparency that's the problem.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
Right.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
If the Trump administration just said we don't want the
ap here because we don't have space, right, they could
have gotten rid of them easily. But they're like, no,
we need them to say what we want them to say.
That's gonna be that's gonna be tougher in court.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
You are going to always know what they're talking about.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Yeah, it's nice, we'll be right back on normally. Well,
I have to tell you that our number one fan,
and that's my husband, says that we've been talking about
Doge too much. Oh yeah, we're gonna we're gonna and
not listen to him and just blow right through that
stop sign and do another segment on.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Doge on that point, can I say that I think
part of the design is for Doge to always be
this shiny object.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Yeah, because, as we will.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Discuss in our next next topic, other things are happening
that you might miss because Doge is so shiny, and
you know what, I might be falling for it a
little bit because it is a fun story.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Same right, And I do feel like I, you know,
just being online and hearing from people, I think those
remains what people are interested in. And maybe again maybe
they're also going for the shiny object.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
But it is quite.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Shiny, it is, indeed.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
So yesterday Harvard Harris released a poll that absolutely astounds me.
Seventy percent of Americans. The question is do you think
that the government expenditures are basically fair and reasonable or
do you think they are filled with waste, fraud and inefficiency?
And seventy percent said filled with waste, fraud and inefficiency.
(12:38):
And then the next question was do you support or
oppose the goal of cutting a trillion one trillion dollars
of government expenditures? Sixty nine percent Nice support. Then, do
you think there should be a US government agency focused
on efficiency initiatives or not? Seventy two percent said yes.
(12:59):
And finally, do you think the so called Department of
Government Efficiency DOGE, led by Elon Musk, is helping make
major cuts and government expenditures are not? Sixty percent said
that they were making major cuts. These are astronomical numbers.
You cannot get sixty to seventy percent of American's degree
in anything.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
This is unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
No. I think that one of the problems that our
friends on the left run into is that something like
the Elon email, or something like the idea of cutting
a trillion when we have a four trillion dollar a
year budget and a thirty nine trillion dollar debt.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Sounds like common sense.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
In fact, our buddy Brian Stelter over at CNN set
on air the other day, I know these things sound
these are things are nonsense, but they sound like common sense.
To that, I say, hear me out. Perhaps they are
closer to common sense than they are to sense. And
that is what Americans are picking up on, because in
(14:05):
order to do what the federal government does, it has
to be allowed to do things private citizens and private
businesses absolutely cannot to run rampant and do often illegal
things without ever being checked. And people look at that
and they go feel like, if I pulled this on
the irs, that wouldn't go well for me, right, yeah, exactly.
(14:27):
It's a completely different standard. And what happens is that
Washington and people who live in it, and many of
whom benefit from it, say, I don't know, you guys
just don't understand how important and complex this is. The
American people sometimes go, I feel like, you don't understand
how important and complex my finances are for me.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Right, that's the trick.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
Of this, exactly.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
And look, I think you know, I said on our
Tuesday episode that I think Americans are in fa favor
of all this, and I see the reaction from them
being very positive towards these DOGE cuts and policies and ideas.
I think that when they find out what we're spending
money on, they are kind of horrified. But having it
(15:15):
in data, having it in a poll like that, I'm
still amazed at.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
How high that number is.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
I thought it would be like fifty five forty five,
which would be high for America, But the fact that
we're in the seventies of approval of this. I think
the Brian Stelters of the world need to understand that
Americans don't see this as nonsense, and they see this
as very necessary work, and they appreciate that it's getting done.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
A note of caution for DOGE is that Musk is
less popular than the idea right. So a Washington Post
poll found thirty four percent of respondents said they approved
of how Musk was handling his job fifty five fifty
five percent said that he has too much power in
making decisions. So a couple of polls are there's a
(16:02):
handful that are about like evenly split or not great
for him, so to the extent that he's the face
and he continues to tweet policy that could wear thin
more than the mission does.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Right, And it's also look, is it possible that the
left is going to get under Donald Trump's skin with
this whole President Musk thing and they're going to fall apart.
That's very plausible. It could happen. I hope it doesn't.
I hope that they have a lifelong friendship that definitely
definitely doesn't end in disaster during this administration. But it's
(16:40):
all very plausible.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
I think. Another thing to remember is that the not
only are there shakeups in any administration where people serve
for two years and then they leave, those is only
supposed to last two years. Yeah right, it had an
expiration date on it. Trump had an inordinate number of
chiefs of staff of secretaries of defense during his first
(17:03):
his first time around. One of the things I like
about a Trump administration versus a Biden administration, although it
can get excessive, is that I know he'll fire somebody
if they do something that if Afghanistan happened on his watch,
he would fire someone, right, and he lost.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
To fire people. That's how we know him.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
That's the thing, right, that's that's the catchphrase.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
So he had a lot of churn in his first administration,
or I would say too much, because they were not
really prepared and didn't know what they wanted. This time
is much more prepared, but I would expect to churn.
There are going to be people that's gonna happen who
Trump decides you're not doing it, You're fired.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Right, It's absolutely coming. And I bet, like you say,
because he's prone to it, it'll happen sooner rather than later.
It's not going to be necessarily a to year, you know,
stint Again, I hope it's not Elon because I like
this bromance that they've got going on, and I like
the work that Elon is doing, and I get that
(18:03):
he rubs people the wrong way.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
I see it.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
You know, it's understandable to me, but I give him
the benefit of the doubt because I think that what
he's doing is important and I happen to support it.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Well, I'm the same way, but I also have a
sliding scale of like what I'm willing to tolerate in
your public behavior based on what you're bringing to the
table as an industrial genius who has changed three different industries. Like,
I'm I'm willing to understand that you're quirky. Yeah, you're
(18:37):
going to sleep in a cut on the cut, You're
going to be staying up all night, You're going to
be saying crazy things in public. I don't love it.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Yeah, you're going to.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Be having But I'm with Randos, but I'm I'm willing
to like take some of this as part of the package.
It should also be noted some people are like, oh,
he doesn't do any public service, that's what the like
the Union said about him, he's ever done an hour
of on his public service. He's currently rescuing our astronauts
(19:06):
because NASA cannot do it. So I would argue he
gets credit for like at least a week of honest
public service just for that, and I appreciate that he's
there to offer that service.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Yeah, I mean the fact that he may get these
people home.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
I feel like that will get.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Him a lot of hours of community service and you know,
fulfill the oblication on the form. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
And by the way, I noticed someone noted that the
media had changed the verbiage on those astronauts from like
they were no longer calling them stranded because they didn't
want to allow for the narrative that what's happening is happening,
which is Elon Musk is like, let me pull your
US government.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Oh my gosh, I can't believe that's gone on as
long as it has. I think we need to do
a segment on that in the future.
Speaker 6 (19:58):
Lot.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Yeah, how do they just toss some astronauts up into
space and not know how to get them down?
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Yeah, we should do is the mover important part.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
It's like anyone could just toss astronauts up into the sky.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
It's the returning them.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
That is the whole thing.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
Yeah, returning the astronauts. Anyone could hold the astronauts.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
Yes, well, Elon's going to do that.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Yeah, well, let's hope.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
We're going to take a short break and come right
back with normally sour.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
In case you missed it, today is an executive order,
and I'm going to read the name and say very
honestly that I don't understand, and you're going to tell
us about it. So it's ensuring lawful governance and implementing
the President's Department of Government Efficiency de Regulatory Initiative, Yes
for it.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Basically, what this does is allow for the opportunity for deregulation,
and this executive order is pretty wide ranging.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
In every agency. They have sixty days.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
To identify rules that meet certain criteria and submit them
for recision or revision. Right, and that these these would
be like things with unconstitutional or extra constitutional powers, things
that are not deemed to hew closely to the original
legislation that was passed, in which case that's a lot
(21:32):
of regulations. Basically, it's going to catch a bunch of
stuff and they're going to send it along to be
revised or taken out of the rule book entirely, which
would make things much smoother for a lot of different industries.
They're going to do it across all the agencies. I
was following a constitutional lawyer friend of mine on Twitter
(21:54):
who flagged it for me, and he's like, you know,
these kind of things are a big deal, and it's written, well,
it's there's thought given to this and the process by
which they're going to do it. There is another one
that's in my in case you missed it pile. That
is an executive orders, an executive order that aims to
streamline environmental reviews. So this one, it would basically there's
(22:20):
a group you've never heard of called the Council on
Environmental Quality that was established as part of the NEPA,
which is a big environmental bill passed in like nineteen
sixty nine, and CEQ was formed to create environmental regulations
for all the agencies. And as you can imagine with
any government board, they got pretty out of hand and
(22:41):
they start writing a bunch of stuff that now probably
they shouldn't probably they shouldn't write. It was originally intended
to advise the Executive branch on environmental matters.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
But now they're.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Basically saying, let's go through and get rid of the
many hundreds of pages that are keeping people from doing business,
from building things. Some studies suggest that the CEQ has
found that it's regulations cause projects to be in court
(23:13):
for four point five years and require many hundreds of
pages of environmental impact statement to just even hit the ground, right,
And so it's not just the regulations, it's then the
litigation on top of it.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
The federal government usually.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Wins and like things, they can end up being built.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
But like, it's.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Crazy the amount that we put up with here that
people don't know exists. That is part of rising, raising
the cost of everything we do, and I think on
energy and on general business. These are the executive orders
that might actually change the reality on the ground, that
might change the economy, that might change inflation to get
(23:58):
people to where they need to be.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
So they're not sexy, but they are actually useful.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
That's nice.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
I like, that's exactly what I want from the government. Actually,
less sexy, more useful.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
I know.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Right, See, this is the thing we shouldn't be distracted.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Right, Let's stop focusing on the shiny items. Mary Catherine Oh.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
And by the way, as usual, you won't be surprised
to hear this. This is Reason magazine reporting. If I
did not say that, but the government, when it's convenient,
we'll just waive all of these regulations, which shows you that, like,
maybe they're not as vital as they have suggested to us.
The Obama administration fast tracked the NEPA process for more
than one hundred and seventy nine thousand stimulus Package projects
(24:38):
because they wanted them built.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Yeah, so environmental regulations out the window.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Yeah, all right, let's situational.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Right, let's get more of those tossed and.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Get to work.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I like that.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
That's one way to cut Thank you for.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Joining us on Normally.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe any
where you get your podcasts. Get in touch with us
at normallythepod at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening, and
when things get weird, act normally
Hey guys, our normally friends. Welcome back to normally the.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Show with normalish takes for when the news gets weird.
I am Mary Katherine Ham.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
I'm Carol Marcowitz.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
Hi Mary Catherine. How's it going.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
It's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I just did that thing that you, as a mom
will recognize, which is that I finally had lunch with
my friend who I had said I should have lunch
with for a very long time.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I didn't know anybody actually did that. I know we
talk about doing it, but that's impressive.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
I know none of our kids were sick. We managed
to make it out of the house at the same
time and voila huge lunch.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Wow. I feel like you should write it up to
let the rest of us know how it's done.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
I'll just do a substack on that. How do you
have lunch with your friend?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
I feel like it would go viral?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Actually, so maybe I should Okay tips for me on that.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
I'll get on it.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
The big news in the media world is that MSNBC
has fired Joy Reid and actually conservative media as hard
as hit, because what are we going to do with
that Joy Reid to mock.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I know it is tough.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
There will be so so many fewer clips for us.
Oh yeah, already, yeah, Mattl's already in there to fill
the gap though, because she with her twenty five million
dollar salary for doing several shows a week, was like,
you know, this is very disappointing. We shouldn't leave her,
we shouldn't let her walk out the door. I find
(01:30):
it unjustifiable. And then she alluded to it being racism
because she said she's one of the few hosts of
color missing entirely. The network is replacing her with two
African American hosts and a Hispanic woman.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Right, But if you point that out, then you're saying
that they're interchangeable.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
So there's no there's no way to win this.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Calvin ball with the left. It's by the way, Michael Steele,
former head of the r n C, Simone Sanders, a
former Bernie Sanders spokeswoman, and Alicia Mennindez.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Right, that's cool.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, and then MSNBC is restructuring in general. It's not
just about joy. They also acted weekend shows hosted by
Amen Moe Yieldin, Jonathan kpe Haart, Katie Fang, and Jose
Diaz Blart and I have to admit I don't know
some of those names, and I would think that if
you have shows on television, I would know those names.
(02:23):
But it goes to the point that MSNBC has really
been struggling. Their numbers are down forty one percent twenty
twenty four, and Joy specifically had a fifty three percent
decline in post election viewership. She was racist and kind
of crazy, and for some reason, that's not selling anymore.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Yeah, I'm look, I think a lot of people who
are on the losing end of this election want to
sort of cocoon. They want to not be on the
outrage roller coaster with Mattout and Joy Reid, and so
they are not tuning in. I also, I think there
might just be fewer of them who have an appetite
(03:02):
for that at this point. At this point, Republicans are
outnumbering self identified Democrats in this country, and more Democrats
watch Fox News then watch MSNBC and c in it
like the fashion is crazy.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Yeah, it's crazy. Every time I say it, I have
to check it because I'm like, is that right?
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Is it still true? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
But I think they just came out with new numbers
recently that showed that certainly in the demo, which is
why smart Democrats go to Fox News to like talk
to those people.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Right, makes sense.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Because you got to.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
I think we have a little montage of some of
Joy's best work, shall we hear ye?
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Take a deep breath for just a moment and ponder,
big balls.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Can just be clear.
Speaker 6 (03:45):
I got into Harvard only because of a fermative action.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
It was, to put it.
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Mildly, a celebration of the very thing the American right
has turned into its latest anti wokeness boogeyman, diversity, equity,
and inclusion. To any of you guys, I trust Uncle
Clarence and Amy Coney Barrett. In America and only in America,
you are literally rolling the dice every time you leave
your house. They are radicalizing those people, particularly when they're
(04:12):
radicalizing young people. That's how we talk about the way
Muslims act. When you see what Donald Trump is doing,
is that any different.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
Congress needs to get it done.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Got in another fucking war. I stopped using Twitter quite
a long time ago.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
I don't tweet.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
I don't want to give elon any content, but every
so often I.
Speaker 6 (04:28):
Would check it just as an aggregate.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
This is a.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Mess and not even a normal mess.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
It's a fascistic mess. I have to say I did
not go out on July fourth and would not. The
idea of going to a mass gathering, a parade or
a big fireworks thing outside seems insane to me.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
Yeah, craziness, We're the crazy ones.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
She wore a purple MSNBC branded tracksuit on her last night, which,
like pois for creativity. Also odd to don the corporate
logo of the place that just canned you, It seems
an odd choice.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
She always a crying video after the fact, talking about
all the issues that she thinks got her fired, which
I don't think it was the issues that I don't
think that it's because leftism exists. It's because she was
unable to be a good messenger for those issues. And again,
crazy and kind of racist or racist and kind of
(05:30):
crazy just isn't selling like it used.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
To well, And I will never forget that in twenty eighteen,
this is a vintage scandal. I love that someone uncovered
her two thousand and seven to two thousand and nine blogging.
It wasn't that hard to uncover. I mean, she put
it in public on something called the Read Report, so
It wasn't like it was under a mysterious name or anything.
But she at that time made some posts that were
(05:54):
homophobic about Charlie christ, the then Florida governor. She made
some anti smittic remarks, some kind of racist, kind of crazy.
As you know, we see a pattern here. When this
was found out, she sort of kind of apologized, and
then she also sort of kind.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Of said it was a hacked.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
She was hacked somehow. That person had gone back to
two thousand and seven to two thousand and nine. I
was just saying, hackers, just say like I had. I
was younger, I had different takes. I was unwise putting
all of this online in this form, and like I'm
different now. I mean, no, among she said she was
hacked and the FBI was going to get to the
(06:33):
bottom of it.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
They're still working on it. I think around the clock.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Cash is actually in charge of that investigation now. So
so that was sort of in twenty eighteen. I was like,
so this is just a These are the news people
I'm supposed to trust. Is the people who outright lie
to my face when they're caught in the same exact
stuff that they try to fish out about normal, regular
(06:57):
civilian people all the time.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Yep, those people do get fired and they do lose
opportunities enjoy just got to go on and pretend it
was a hack that you know, they're going to get
to the bottom of some at some point. You're absolutely right.
That was a telling moment where it was like they
could do things that we cannot.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Yes in light of that.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
By the way, this might make a decent segue to
our second part of our press segment, which is that
the White House is We've talked about them going after
the AP and saying, you know, you can't have your
spot in this pool or in on Air Force one
because you're using Gulf of Mexico instead of Golf of America.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Although I think.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
This is petty, I also think it does potentially have
First Amendment implications because the name they're using is speech
and this is a government ento team making these rules. However,
a judge who the AP asked for immediate relief on this,
Judge Trevor McFadden, did not grant it. I'm a little
bit surprised by that. He says he didn't find he
(07:59):
didn't find any reason to immediately stop the administration's ban
but he said that case laws seemed to be against it.
So I think if they move forward with this as
they will, they will very likely lose. The filing said
that just because this is from the White House or
from the government, just because the AP may have long
received special media access to the president, does not mean
that such access is constitutionally compelled in perpetuity. Again, I
(08:23):
think they'll probably lose this and should. However, I understand
there is not a great well of support for the AP,
who I will nonetheless stick up for.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
There was also do it for you.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
No, they definitely wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Ye. Another development in this area is that and this
is just breaking So I do not know all the details, admittedly,
But Caroline Levitt from the podium said today or made
some reference to the fact that the White House Correspondents Association,
which generally creates the pool that goes to events, that
designates who goes where, because of course they have to
(09:00):
have a limited pool at times that they will no
longer be deciding the pool. The White House will be
deciding the pool, so they'll make a decision who comes, right.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Why was there a separate organization deciding which media outlets
get access to the president.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Well, so I don't think they'll get to decide.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
I think the White House Correspondence associations still would have
some sway. I think the concern is that if the
White House decides, then what happens is you know exactly
what to say to get favor with the White House
to get access to these events. Now, there is a
version of this that happens all the time in Washington
with the Biden administration. Say what they want and you
(09:42):
get access to their officials. This is access journalism. Happens
all the time as usual. The Trump administration is making
this much more explicit. And I don't like this one either,
But again, nobody's going to stick up for these rights.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Cool, right, what was the last four years about? What
was Biden's little Oh it's on which orders to call on?
And they already knew what he was going to be
asked and all of that.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
It's going to.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Be very hard for them to say, oh no, now
we have to have kind of a range of voices
here what he buys it anymore.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Again, the public doesn't care.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
I think if they can keep that pool actually diverse, Yeah,
that's good. I do worry that the messages get in
line or else you don't get access. Now, amazingly, a
press corps will suddenly find its backbone and not get
in line for a Republican administration.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
By administration like whatever you need, whatever you need, man.
Speaker 4 (10:41):
Yeah, just call us, just just call on me.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Do you need me to read this specific question? Do
you do you need me to give you the answer
to the question.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Yeah, I'll do quite the same, you know.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Reaction from them with a Republican no.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
We'll see where it goes in the court. I imagine
that they'll lose all these Ye, you're right though.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
It was the transparency that's the problem.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
Right.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
If the Trump administration just said we don't want the
ap here because we don't have space, right, they could
have gotten rid of them easily. But they're like, no,
we need them to say what we want them to say.
That's gonna be that's gonna be tougher in court.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
You are going to always know what they're talking about.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Yeah, it's nice, we'll be right back on normally. Well,
I have to tell you that our number one fan,
and that's my husband, says that we've been talking about
Doge too much. Oh yeah, we're gonna we're gonna and
not listen to him and just blow right through that
stop sign and do another segment on.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Doge on that point, can I say that I think
part of the design is for Doge to always be
this shiny object.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Yeah, because, as we will.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Discuss in our next next topic, other things are happening
that you might miss because Doge is so shiny, and
you know what, I might be falling for it a
little bit because it is a fun story.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Same right, And I do feel like I, you know,
just being online and hearing from people, I think those
remains what people are interested in. And maybe again maybe
they're also going for the shiny object.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
But it is quite.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Shiny, it is, indeed.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
So yesterday Harvard Harris released a poll that absolutely astounds me.
Seventy percent of Americans. The question is do you think
that the government expenditures are basically fair and reasonable or
do you think they are filled with waste, fraud and inefficiency?
And seventy percent said filled with waste, fraud and inefficiency.
(12:38):
And then the next question was do you support or
oppose the goal of cutting a trillion one trillion dollars
of government expenditures? Sixty nine percent Nice support. Then, do
you think there should be a US government agency focused
on efficiency initiatives or not? Seventy two percent said yes.
(12:59):
And finally, do you think the so called Department of
Government Efficiency DOGE, led by Elon Musk, is helping make
major cuts and government expenditures are not? Sixty percent said
that they were making major cuts. These are astronomical numbers.
You cannot get sixty to seventy percent of American's degree
in anything.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
This is unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
No. I think that one of the problems that our
friends on the left run into is that something like
the Elon email, or something like the idea of cutting
a trillion when we have a four trillion dollar a
year budget and a thirty nine trillion dollar debt.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Sounds like common sense.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
In fact, our buddy Brian Stelter over at CNN set
on air the other day, I know these things sound
these are things are nonsense, but they sound like common sense.
To that, I say, hear me out. Perhaps they are
closer to common sense than they are to sense. And
that is what Americans are picking up on, because in
(14:05):
order to do what the federal government does, it has
to be allowed to do things private citizens and private
businesses absolutely cannot to run rampant and do often illegal
things without ever being checked. And people look at that
and they go feel like, if I pulled this on
the irs, that wouldn't go well for me, right, yeah, exactly.
(14:27):
It's a completely different standard. And what happens is that
Washington and people who live in it, and many of
whom benefit from it, say, I don't know, you guys
just don't understand how important and complex this is. The
American people sometimes go, I feel like, you don't understand
how important and complex my finances are for me.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Right, that's the trick.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
Of this, exactly.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
And look, I think you know, I said on our
Tuesday episode that I think Americans are in fa favor
of all this, and I see the reaction from them
being very positive towards these DOGE cuts and policies and ideas.
I think that when they find out what we're spending
money on, they are kind of horrified. But having it
(15:15):
in data, having it in a poll like that, I'm
still amazed at.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
How high that number is.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
I thought it would be like fifty five forty five,
which would be high for America, But the fact that
we're in the seventies of approval of this. I think
the Brian Stelters of the world need to understand that
Americans don't see this as nonsense, and they see this
as very necessary work, and they appreciate that it's getting done.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
A note of caution for DOGE is that Musk is
less popular than the idea right. So a Washington Post
poll found thirty four percent of respondents said they approved
of how Musk was handling his job fifty five fifty
five percent said that he has too much power in
making decisions. So a couple of polls are there's a
(16:02):
handful that are about like evenly split or not great
for him, so to the extent that he's the face
and he continues to tweet policy that could wear thin
more than the mission does.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Right, And it's also look, is it possible that the
left is going to get under Donald Trump's skin with
this whole President Musk thing and they're going to fall apart.
That's very plausible. It could happen. I hope it doesn't.
I hope that they have a lifelong friendship that definitely
definitely doesn't end in disaster during this administration. But it's
(16:40):
all very plausible.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
I think. Another thing to remember is that the not
only are there shakeups in any administration where people serve
for two years and then they leave, those is only
supposed to last two years. Yeah right, it had an
expiration date on it. Trump had an inordinate number of
chiefs of staff of secretaries of defense during his first
(17:03):
his first time around. One of the things I like
about a Trump administration versus a Biden administration, although it
can get excessive, is that I know he'll fire somebody
if they do something that if Afghanistan happened on his watch,
he would fire someone, right, and he lost.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
To fire people. That's how we know him.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
That's the thing, right, that's that's the catchphrase.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
So he had a lot of churn in his first administration,
or I would say too much, because they were not
really prepared and didn't know what they wanted. This time
is much more prepared, but I would expect to churn.
There are going to be people that's gonna happen who
Trump decides you're not doing it, You're fired.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Right, It's absolutely coming. And I bet, like you say,
because he's prone to it, it'll happen sooner rather than later.
It's not going to be necessarily a to year, you know,
stint Again, I hope it's not Elon because I like
this bromance that they've got going on, and I like
the work that Elon is doing, and I get that
(18:03):
he rubs people the wrong way.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
I see it.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
You know, it's understandable to me, but I give him
the benefit of the doubt because I think that what
he's doing is important and I happen to support it.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Well, I'm the same way, but I also have a
sliding scale of like what I'm willing to tolerate in
your public behavior based on what you're bringing to the
table as an industrial genius who has changed three different industries. Like,
I'm I'm willing to understand that you're quirky. Yeah, you're
(18:37):
going to sleep in a cut on the cut, You're
going to be staying up all night, You're going to
be saying crazy things in public. I don't love it.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Yeah, you're going to.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Be having But I'm with Randos, but I'm I'm willing
to like take some of this as part of the package.
It should also be noted some people are like, oh,
he doesn't do any public service, that's what the like
the Union said about him, he's ever done an hour
of on his public service. He's currently rescuing our astronauts
(19:06):
because NASA cannot do it. So I would argue he
gets credit for like at least a week of honest
public service just for that, and I appreciate that he's
there to offer that service.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Yeah, I mean the fact that he may get these
people home.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
I feel like that will get.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Him a lot of hours of community service and you know,
fulfill the oblication on the form. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
And by the way, I noticed someone noted that the
media had changed the verbiage on those astronauts from like
they were no longer calling them stranded because they didn't
want to allow for the narrative that what's happening is happening,
which is Elon Musk is like, let me pull your
US government.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Oh my gosh, I can't believe that's gone on as
long as it has. I think we need to do
a segment on that in the future.
Speaker 6 (19:58):
Lot.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Yeah, how do they just toss some astronauts up into
space and not know how to get them down?
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Yeah, we should do is the mover important part.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
It's like anyone could just toss astronauts up into the sky.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
It's the returning them.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
That is the whole thing.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
Yeah, returning the astronauts. Anyone could hold the astronauts.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
Yes, well, Elon's going to do that.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Yeah, well, let's hope.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
We're going to take a short break and come right
back with normally sour.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
In case you missed it, today is an executive order,
and I'm going to read the name and say very
honestly that I don't understand, and you're going to tell
us about it. So it's ensuring lawful governance and implementing
the President's Department of Government Efficiency de Regulatory Initiative, Yes
for it.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Basically, what this does is allow for the opportunity for deregulation,
and this executive order is pretty wide ranging.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
In every agency. They have sixty days.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
To identify rules that meet certain criteria and submit them
for recision or revision. Right, and that these these would
be like things with unconstitutional or extra constitutional powers, things
that are not deemed to hew closely to the original
legislation that was passed, in which case that's a lot
(21:32):
of regulations. Basically, it's going to catch a bunch of
stuff and they're going to send it along to be
revised or taken out of the rule book entirely, which
would make things much smoother for a lot of different industries.
They're going to do it across all the agencies. I
was following a constitutional lawyer friend of mine on Twitter
(21:54):
who flagged it for me, and he's like, you know,
these kind of things are a big deal, and it's written, well,
it's there's thought given to this and the process by
which they're going to do it. There is another one
that's in my in case you missed it pile. That
is an executive orders, an executive order that aims to
streamline environmental reviews. So this one, it would basically there's
(22:20):
a group you've never heard of called the Council on
Environmental Quality that was established as part of the NEPA,
which is a big environmental bill passed in like nineteen
sixty nine, and CEQ was formed to create environmental regulations
for all the agencies. And as you can imagine with
any government board, they got pretty out of hand and
(22:41):
they start writing a bunch of stuff that now probably
they shouldn't probably they shouldn't write. It was originally intended
to advise the Executive branch on environmental matters.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
But now they're.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Basically saying, let's go through and get rid of the
many hundreds of pages that are keeping people from doing business,
from building things. Some studies suggest that the CEQ has
found that it's regulations cause projects to be in court
(23:13):
for four point five years and require many hundreds of
pages of environmental impact statement to just even hit the ground, right,
And so it's not just the regulations, it's then the
litigation on top of it.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
The federal government usually.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Wins and like things, they can end up being built.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
But like, it's.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Crazy the amount that we put up with here that
people don't know exists. That is part of rising, raising
the cost of everything we do, and I think on
energy and on general business. These are the executive orders
that might actually change the reality on the ground, that
might change the economy, that might change inflation to get
(23:58):
people to where they need to be.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
So they're not sexy, but they are actually useful.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
That's nice.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
I like, that's exactly what I want from the government. Actually,
less sexy, more useful.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
I know.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Right, See, this is the thing we shouldn't be distracted.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Right, Let's stop focusing on the shiny items. Mary Catherine Oh.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
And by the way, as usual, you won't be surprised
to hear this. This is Reason magazine reporting. If I
did not say that, but the government, when it's convenient,
we'll just waive all of these regulations, which shows you that, like,
maybe they're not as vital as they have suggested to us.
The Obama administration fast tracked the NEPA process for more
than one hundred and seventy nine thousand stimulus Package projects
(24:38):
because they wanted them built.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Yeah, so environmental regulations out the window.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Yeah, all right, let's situational.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Right, let's get more of those tossed and.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Get to work.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I like that.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
That's one way to cut Thank you for.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Joining us on Normally.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe any
where you get your podcasts. Get in touch with us
at normallythepod at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening, and
when things get weird, act normally
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!