Chuck’s Commentary - The U.S. Retreats From Being The Leader Of The Free World + Trump’s Transactional & Corrupt Pardons - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's sponsorship time. But you know what, it's really great
when you get a sponsor that you already use.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
And guess what.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Quint's is something that in the Todd household we already
go to. Why do we go to Quint's Because it's
a place you go where you can get some really
nice clothes without the really expensive prices. And one of
the things I've been going through is I've transitioned from
being mister cot and tie guy to wanting a little
more casual but to look nice doing it. Is I've
become mister quarter zip guy.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well guess what.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Guess he's got amazing amounts of quarter zips. It is Quints.
I have gotten quite a few already from there. The
stuff's really nice. They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.
I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good. You don't
normally get that for fifty bucks or less. Italian wool
coats that look and feel like designer the stuff. I'll

(00:49):
be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay,
is this really as nice as it looks? Well, when
I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.
So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I
take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw
it up when I clean it. But I've been quite impressed.
In Hey, it's holiday season. It is impossible to shop
for us middle aged men. I know this well. Tell
your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners. Try Quints.

(01:12):
Or if you're trying to figure out what to get
your adult child, what to get your mom or dad,
I'm telling you you're going to find something that is
going to be comfortable for them on Quints. So get
your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quints.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Don't wait.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
Go to quints dot com slash chuck for free shipping
on your order and three hundred and sixty five day
returns now available in Canada as well. That's qui nce
dot com, slash chuck, free shipping and three hundred and
sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck. Use
that code. Hello there, Happy Monday, and welcome to another

(01:52):
episode of the Chuck Podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:54):
Of course, I have to open up.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
To do a little representing here to say I'm relieved
and surprised at the committee's decision with the University of
Miami and football is an understatement. I don't think any
of the sins that I've been identifying of this committee
should somehow be washed away. What they have done with
the SEC in Alabama is as suspicious as ever, and

(02:19):
I have I do not blame anger out of the
folks at Notre Dame. I think the strangest decision was
including Alabama. Actually the strangest decision was including Oklahoma. We
can have a longer discussion about that. And I have
still had a bunch of stuff to say about this.

(02:39):
I love the fact that now all these ESPA personalities
at CURTA. Herdstreet are saying we should get rid of
this TV show. Good luck getting your bosses to agree
to do the TV show.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
But you are correct.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
The college football ranking shows created this antagonism of fan bases, suspicion, conspiracy, theory, ease,
all of that, the behavior of the committee, the lack
of sort of consistency, the decision, all that business it.
You know, they have nobody to blame but themselves. I

(03:13):
had a friend of mine quickly text he said, well
all your whining worked, and I'm like, hey, don't encourage me.
There's a I hope that's not the case in a
weird way. I hope it wasn't outside agitators like myself
and others pointing out facts that they were unaware of.
I should hope they were. That they didn't need people

(03:34):
to point these things out, but to say that how
this went down and the it is going to do
nothing but encourage more activity like the activity a bunch
of US University of Miami partisans participate in over the
last few weeks. There will be more of that come

(03:56):
next year, until they finally get rid of this committee
and allow basics what happens on the field dictates everything
hard stop. But like I said, I'll have more to
say about college football. And for those of you who
don't care about sports or college football, or have written
off college football because you don't like how they've been
doing this for frankly one hundred years, they have never

(04:17):
gotten their postseason, right, I get it, I understand, and
I will put this at the end of this podcast.
Let me give you a rundown of what I got
going on today. We of course have got sort of
I want to go through a little bit of the
national of the of the new National Strategic Security Strategy

(04:37):
Memo that gets updated every year by whoever's in the presidency.
And to say there's a departure not surprising, but a
departure of of what role America should play in the
world is an understatement. Bottom line, the president of the
United States does not want to be the leader of
the free world, if you take the National Security Strategy

(05:04):
update seriously. I want to get into that a little
bit on this Trump pardon anger at Henry Quaar and
what it really tells us about how the pardon system.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
Works in the Trump White House. But I want to
start with.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
Sort of the news that wasn't That wasn't the headline,
but I think it's something that I wanted to spend
a few minutes focused on before I get to some
of the sort of you know, hot take headlines that
I know.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
I want to dabble in.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
I've got a few things, just sort of what I
would call a notebook item of news events that I
think folks need to be following more closely. But finally,
earlier this week, the Trump White House put out the
twenty twenty five National Security Strategy Memo, and.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
Here's what it signals.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
It signaled to a significant and explicit departure from the
long standing US foreign policy goal of actively spreading and
supporting democracy abroad. Here on the eve, you know, of
the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our founding as
a small D democratic country as the sort of beacon

(06:15):
of democracy for the world, this is not the role
Donald Trump and the MAGA movement wants the United States
to play. The America First ideology is strewn all through
this document. It reorients US policy away from what's been
a values based interventionism and toward a more strictly pragmatic

(06:37):
America First approach, defining core national security interests as sovereignty,
homeland defense, economic strength, and self reliance. No longer do
we believe in spreading our value, supporting our values, supporting
small D democracy when it's necessary. In fact, non interventionism.
The strategy explicitly criticizes past efforts to impose quote, democratic

(07:01):
or other social change that differs widely from their traditions
and histories. It's just a clear rejection of the post
Cold War consensus on democracy promotion in nation building.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
Right.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
This is where there was a strong, sort of broad
bipartisan consensus that the United States should always first and
foremost support freedom, support democracy when it is obviously how
much do you use military to do it? Look, those
are fair debates, but to no longer be in the

(07:32):
business of supporting it or promoting it seems to be
a big mistake. The strategy memo also generally favors accepting
countries as they are, which of course is a cherry
picked thing. I'll get to that in a minute. As
their leaders quote as they are in regions like the
Middle East, prioritizing stability and transactional cooperation over shared interests
on shared interest rather than talking about internal political reform.

(07:55):
Of course, we've seen the Vice President lecture Europe and
not accepting Europe at face value. We've seen the President
of the United States lecture Brazil on how it decided to
deal with Bolsonaro, not accepting Brazil at face values.

Speaker 2 (08:12):
So this is this is clearly a.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
Philosophy that they will only sometimes follow depending on their
personal relationships with said country or said leader. But for
the most part, real politic is not something that you
hear me criticize. I think sometimes you have to deal
with the countries that you have, you have to deal
with the leaders that you have, not necessarily the leaders

(08:39):
that you want. But there's a fine line. Right, So
for as far as this administration is concerned, they believe
foreign policy to be judged by what makes the United
States more powerful and prosperous period, not by the form
of government of its partners. So it means we'll have
closer cooperation with essentially undemocratic regimes haters. It is, there

(09:01):
is no more value judgment on who the United States
does business with or allies with, unless we've decide there's
a value judgment on who the US. So you right,
it's like under that scenario, why are we h why
are we blockading Cuba?

Speaker 2 (09:18):
Right? Why why aren't we just dealing with Cuba as
it is? Right? It's great, we have.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
Select this is there's there's a clearly not.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
This is this is a a.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
An aspirational document, not one that they plan on following
when it's inconvenient to their own beliefs. On this one,
what's interesting is that the document also took a shot
at Europe. It criticizes the European Union and e integration efforts,
claiming they have suppressed political liberty, prevented innovation, and fostered
Europe's decline. Basically, they're on the side of the Brigsteers,

(09:56):
and they're on the side of everybody that and on
mister Orbon who's all anti EU. This is a document
even though these many of these countries are choosing to
do this. So out of one mouth they're saying, we've
got we've got to judge by what the United States
makes a more powerful and prosperous not by the form

(10:16):
of government of its partners. And then the next prep, hey,
you Europe don't try to get together and have a
powerful EU. So obviously there is a political dynamic to this,
which is this administration is going to support other nationalist movements, right,
whether it's a nationalist movement with Nigel Faraj in the UK,
a nationalist movement in Hungary that is pretty clear, and

(10:41):
with the controversial political party and the political movement in
Germany that AfD. It explicitly signals support for quote patriotic
European parties often interpreted as far right nationalist parties, calls
for the US to cultivate resistance to Europe's current trajectory.
So again, on one side of their mouth, this security
strategy memo says, hey, the United States is going to

(11:02):
accept countries as it is. Then in its next breath,
when it comes to Europe, they're saying, we're going to
get involved in the internal politics of European countries on
the side of nationalists. Sorry, if you were looking for consistency,
you know, the Trump administration is not a place to go.
This would be a dramatic intervention into the internal politics
of key allies, and we would be disrupting NATO, disrupting

(11:25):
the EU, essentially America's most important cultural as well as
sort of traditional allies for the last one hundred years.
I mean to do this to Europe feels like just frankly,
a little bit of a troll rather than anything that

(11:46):
is in the best interests of the national security of
the United States. Now, there's still some soft power that
this memo that this strategy Memo does support. When discussing democracy,
the strategy member primarily focuses on defending and renewing American
principles at home, like limited government, the rule of law,

(12:07):
constitutional fidelity, and calling that the foundation of US strength.
And then it calls for respectful influence, stating that the
US will maintain its quote unrivaled soft power through which
we exercise positive influence throughout the world that furthers our interests,
but adds that the US will be quote respectful of
other countries, differing religions, cultures, and governing systems. Apparently except

(12:28):
when it comes to Europe. In the EU, it's a
key line that minimizes the impetus to push for political
change abroad. But the bottom line is this, This twenty
twenty five National Security Strategy memo effectively ends the era
of America wanting to be the leader of the free world.
You know, I've always said the presidency of the United

(12:48):
States is really three jobs in one. When you're running
as a political candidate, you're running to be leader.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
Of your party.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
You're running to be the actual president of the United
States and of the three hundred and thirty million people.
So that's sort of job too, right to essentially actually
execute the office. And then the third job is leader
of the free world. But as far as Donald Trump's concerned,
that is no longer a job he we know he

(13:17):
has never saw him See, he does not believe he
should be the promoter of democracy around the world, the
promoter of freedom around the world. He is you know,
this is not as if he says one thing and
does another on that issue. He has never said he
wants to do. That's what's been inconsistent is he says, hey,
we should be just dealing with countries as they are, right,

(13:40):
this is what the decision we've made about China and Russia,
rather than hope we can make change subtly with soft
power or at times hard power, except of course, when
he decides he doesn't like somebody or he doesn't like
a political movement. So it is like many an ideological
de declaration that Donald Trump has made. There are so

(14:03):
many holes that there is Swiss that it's sort of
like a declaration of Swiss cheese. And this National Security
Strategy memo in many ways does echo the broad sort
of definition of what somebody would describe as an isolationists
of America, first of sort of detaching the United States

(14:24):
from the world, very much articulating what the philosophy of
the Republican Party was before World War Two. The problem
is that is not how he actually executes the presidency right.
It is really there is no ideolize, there is no
Trump doctrine beyond what's good for Trump. Right, he gets
involved in a country. If somebody asks him to get involved,

(14:46):
he wants to be. You know, if he thinks there's
some benefit to him, he'll get involved. I mean, you know,
you there's when you look at the deal he cut
with Cutter to give them this NATO like defense agreement.
Does that happen without the airplane? I think we all
know the likely.

Speaker 2 (15:03):
Answer to that.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
And I just put that out there because this is
a huge departure, and I know that there is This
is not something that a lot of people are going
to vote on, but I will tell you this, this
makes us weaker, and this makes us less safe. There's
going to be a lot of people who feel let
down by the United States. Feels as if the United
States doesn't ever really care about freedom and democracy, no

(15:28):
longer cares about human rights. And there's always been a look,
we've we've always been better on human rights rhetoric than
we've been on trying to use our influence to improve
a situation. Because there's you know, you know, just what
should our military be used for? Okay, I think those

(15:49):
are those are bare debates, but this is a total
sort of washing our hands of the debate about what
you know, should would the world be off if we
all lived under a democracy, and if you, as leader,
as president of the United States, don't believe that, I

(16:10):
don't think.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
You should represent America.

Speaker 1 (16:13):
We're an idea. We are not an ethnic based anything.
I know that the President would like us to be,
but we are not. The whole point of this country
was to was an idea that anybody could be an
American if they believed in the idea of America, the
idea of freedom, the idea of democracy, didn't matter what

(16:35):
ethnicity you were, what religion you practiced. That ultimately, do
you believe in that core idea of individual liberty? And
what this memo sadly does is sort of reject that
and isn't interested in promoting it, which should make us,
should make you feel concerned that if we're not interested

(16:57):
in promoting it, then are we really interested in and
having it here at home? So look, I'm not going
to sit here and be one of these folks that
the democracy is about to crumble. I don't think it is.
I think our democracy is pretty well embedded in society,
and I just think it's going to be a lot
harder to destroy our democracy than some fear. But this

(17:18):
weekens the democracy. This erodes our credibility around the world
in ways that isn't going to get repaired with the
next president. This is generational damage and this retreat and
that's what make no mistake. This National Security Strategy Memo
is just a full retreat. Guess who loves this memo?

(17:40):
Vladimir Putin, He's ecstatic. And in fact, Donald Trump Junior
was in Cutter along with his buddy Tucker Carlson earlier
this week and he was asked during an event in
Cutter Donald Trump Junior if the US president could walk
away from Ukraine, and Junior said, I think he may,
and then he adds this, what's good about my father,

(18:02):
and what's unique about my father is you don't know
what he's going to do. The fact that he's not
predictable forces everyone to actually deal in an intellectually honest capacity.
There's a few things where Trump's unpredictability is helpful. In
the Middle East it has been, and I think in
dealing with some of those countries that's kind of the

(18:24):
way it goes. But guess who was happy about the
new National security memom. The Kremlin lauded this, saying that
the new directive stopped calling Russia a direct threat and
calling that a positive step, according to Reuters, So.

Speaker 2 (18:41):
There you go.

Speaker 1 (18:43):
We now have a new national security strategy philosophy that's
governing this executive branch and the decisions that are going
to be made at the State Department, at embassies around
the world, the CIA, the Pentagon. That do that make
two countries happier above all others, Russia and China?

Speaker 2 (19:06):
Is that good for America? Is that good for democracy?
I think we know the answer.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
the best shape. My mother single mother, now widow, myself
sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,

(19:36):
but it was important at the time, and it's why
I was able to go to college. Little did he
know how important that would be in that moment.

Speaker 2 (19:45):
Well, guess what.

Speaker 1 (19:46):
That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.
They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's
one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you

(20:10):
just answer a few health questions online. You can get
a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
You can get up to three million dollars in coverage,
and some policies start as low as two dollars a
day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family

(20:34):
with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free.

Speaker 2 (20:36):
Quote at ethos dot com slash chuck.

Speaker 1 (20:39):
So again, that's ethos dot com slash chuck. Application times
may vary and the rates themselves may vary as well,
but trust me, life insurance is something you should really
think about it, especially if you've got a growing family.
I want to pivot a little bit here, and that

(20:59):
is to the fascinating anger of Donald Trump at Henry Quaar,
the Democratic congressman who last week decided who got a
pardon from President Trump? And I told you on that
last episode, boy, nothing is done for free. So the
question is where did this come from? And what is

(21:21):
Quaar going to be giving in return? Well, apparently Donald
Trump expected something in return. So let me give you
a quick summary of sort of everything you need to
know about this Trump Quaar pardon controversy, because I actually
think this shows that basically Donald Trump is confessing a
crime right here, and it's and the crime is that

(21:44):
he is selling these pardons. Sometimes he's selling them for
actual money, and sometimes he's selling them for some sort
of political support. Well, let me go through this. So
here's the actual charges that Quai Are and his wife
are facing. They were indicted into four on a dozen
federal charges that included bribery, money laundering, and conspiracy. The

(22:05):
charges basically alleged that the couple accepted six hundred thousand
dollars in bribes from a Mexican bank and an Azerbaijani
oil and gas company in exchange for advancing interests. So
I told you that these are the types of crimes
Trump has been pardoning left and right right. Anybody that's
been accused of essentially using their having being bought off

(22:28):
for their influence is something Trump doesn't think is a crime.
Tells you something right there, right. So, on December third,
he granted a full and unconditional pardon to both Henry
and Emmelda Quar, both both the congressman and his wife,
and it effectively ended the federal prosecution before the schedule
April twenty twenty six trial, which could have been a

(22:49):
huge problem for his reel lift. And at the time,
Trump justified his pardon by saying he was reversing a
quote politically motivated prosecution, he claimed, and he claimed that
the Justice Department and President Biden had weaponized the system
against Quaar simply because the congressman had been a vocal
critic of Biden's border policies. He called Quair beloved and

(23:11):
said he was speaking the truth against open borders. Well
after receiving the pardon, Quaar publicly thanked Trump but firmly
stated he would not be switching parties and he would
run for reelection as a Democrat in the twenty eighth
congressional district in Texas. Well, that's exactly what he did
earlier or just before the weekend. He filed the paperwork

(23:33):
for his reelection bid as a Democrat on the same
day the pardon was announced, and then Trump went off right.
He was really angry. He reacted to the strong public
criticism just a few days after the pardon, specifically lashing
out at Quaar for running as a Democrat. The core
of his complaint was perceived as a quote.

Speaker 2 (23:51):
Lack of loyalty.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
Let me read you the full truth social post. Only
a short time after signing the pardon, this is true truth,
social Posts, Congressman Henry Quair announced that he will be
running for Congress again. He put running in quotes in
the great state of Texas parenthesesis state where I receive
the highest number of votes ever recorded. He loves to
throw these sort of sort of statistics that are kind

(24:15):
of meaningless pretty much because our population always grows, particularly
in the Sun Belt. Whoever wins these states each time
is getting the most number of votes that anybody's ever gotten.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
But anyway, but I digress.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
He's complaining that Quaer file for office as a Democrat,
continuing to work with the same radical left scum that
just weeks before wanted him and his wife to spend
the rest of their lives in prison. Such a lack
of loyalty. Loyalty is in all caps, something that Texas
voters and Henry's daughters will not like. Oh well, next time,
no more, mister nice guy. I never spoke to the
congressman and his wife or his daughters, but felt very

(24:48):
good about fighting for a family that was tormented by
very sick and to arrange people they were treated so badly.

Speaker 2 (24:55):
So I don't.

Speaker 1 (24:59):
This is clear to me that there's a lot more
reporting that we all need to do on this one.
Do we really think there was very little conversation between
members of Koar's family and the White House. There was
obviously some conversation. The President cited a letter from his daughters.
He said he was moved by the letter from his daughters.

(25:23):
But Trump, certainly it sounds like thought he was doing
this in exchange for something, and he's angry when the
something that he expected sounds like he expected either quair
or to switch parties. Filed a run as a Republican
or whatever. Right, he did it just before the filing deadline,
So you know, if you're looking for fishy smells here

(25:44):
that like, okay, is you know, is there something here
We're not being told right.

Speaker 2 (25:49):
The timing of the.

Speaker 1 (25:50):
Pardon is a tell, right just before the Texas filing deadline,
and then he lashes out after Quaar files as a Democrat. Methinks,
we don't have all the details of this story, but
the most important part of this is Trump's public reaction,
because again we sort of are shrugging our shoulders right

(26:14):
now collectively about what is happening nearly once a week,
which is Trump does a major pardon of somebody that
has no business getting a pardon, but who magically has
a connection to somebody close to the president former president
of Honduras, magically is close to Roger Stone right, the
guy with the crypto binance. He's magically in business with

(26:36):
the President's sons. And we quay are with somebody. You know,
this is part of Remember, he is already ordered Texas
Republicans to do the redistricting business. One of the places
they think they're going to make up ground is in
South Texas. He pardons Henry Quayar just days before the
filing deadline. Quaar decides to stick and run as a Democrat,

(27:00):
Perhaps looking at the polls and realizing that being a
Republican at twenty twenty six might not be the best decision,
even in South Texas.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
Next cycle and Trump goes crazy.

Speaker 1 (27:13):
Let's just say, I think we know that he uses
the pardon power to try to get what he wants.
Maybe it's business deals for his kids, maybe it's political support,
maybe it's something else. Maybe it's just simply to help
a friend get a payday, whether it's a Paulmanniford or

(27:33):
Roger Stone or whatever. By the way, it's very funny
today Roger Stone has other people out there trying to
claim he didn't.

Speaker 2 (27:41):
He didn't.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
They're not saying he didn't make money off the pardon,
but he wasn't paid to represent the president. I have
a feeling we know that there's some specificity in these
denials in order for them to not look totally crooked
in all of this. But anyway, I am I am

(28:04):
just I do not get why there's not more outrage
about the weekly sales. Weekly go look at this list
of pardons, and it's it's it's uh. It ain't making
America great again, that's for sure, but it is making crime.

Speaker 2 (28:26):
Easy again.

Speaker 1 (28:27):
And that especially white collar crime that alarm a lot
of people. And if you're going to wonder why the
pitchforks may come out for left and right, you know,
this is Donald Trump being on the side of the elites,
being on the side that rip off everyday people. Just
remember that, Just remember that of those that thought Trump
was going to be on your side, that he was

(28:48):
going to go get those elites. Instead he pardons those elites.
A few things, a few other things before we get
to the interview with Jared Bernstein. I I am fascinated
by the sixty minutes interview that Marjorie Taylor Green gave
on Sunday. I think the quote that is making the

(29:09):
rounds is fascinating, which let me just read it. I
watched many of my colleagues go from making fun of him,
making fun of how he talks, making fun of me
constantly for supporting him, to when he won the primary
in twenty twenty four, they all started excuse my language,
Leslie referring to Leslie Stall kissing his ass, and decided
to put on a Maga hat for the first time.

(29:30):
Here's the thing, I am convinced that Marjorie Taylor Green
is coming about all of this, not as some sort
of act or as some sort of pivot. I think
this is somebody who was naive to how politics were.
She owned a jim, she lived in her own world,
didn't like what she saw, got caught up in the

(29:52):
Trump movement, maybe believed that he wasn't a bullshitter, believed
this bullshit is like realizing sort of it, and it's taken.
You know, it's sort of a little bit at a time,
because you know, she doesn't she does. You know, it's
almost as at first she thought, you know, this is
where I'm wondering, did she think political theater was the

(30:15):
way you were supposed to do this? And then she realized,
you know, she just got the wrong introduction to what
politics was. She only got the introduction through the prism
of Trump. But she actually thought these folks believed in something,
and she's found out the hard way that they don't
really believe.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
What they say.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
Let's just say I think she's I think she is
somebody that if she chooses to run for something, like
I said this before, John as suffer better, should be relieved.
She's not running for the Senate. But I you know,
I don't know whether she has this ambition. She may not,
she may just view this, but maybe you don't do

(30:57):
a sixty minutes interview if you don't have trying to
preserve yourself a place in the future somewhere. But what
if she's the pure, the real MAGA candidate in twenty
eight primary vance and that becomes the split. Does it
open the door for a third item too? Anyway, just

(31:18):
something to think about a few other things that I
wanted to that I wanted, one other aspect that I
wanted to get to, and then we'll get to the
interview with Jed Burnstein. The other story that's sort of
roiling Washington is the shocking unpopularity of all four congressional
leaders right now. And we've been in periods like this before.

(31:41):
After sort of the fall of Jim Wright in the
late eighties, there was a period between sort of the
Right speakership and the Gingrit speakership where just felt like
there was just not a lot of a lot of
great leadership on Capitol Hill and both parties were going
through a transition. And then you sort of got, you know,

(32:01):
you got that's that's when sort of get parting. Gingrid
stepped in and then they created some stability, and you
had Mitchell and Dole for a little bit. We went
through a period I think where when Dashel lost and
you had like a lot and frist and there was
a lot of unsteadiness congressional leadership there and sort of
the mid Ats, and then you got Uh sort of

(32:23):
some stability again, the rise of Pelosi on the left,
the rise of Bayner and the right, Mitch McConnell getting
Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, and they sort of created
and now I think we're in another one those right,
we're sort of the Senate leaders have really not you know,
McConnell and Read have been replaced, but they but they're
but neither Schumer nor Thune has the same level of

(32:45):
credibility that either one of those two leaders had. UH
and Jeffreys and Johnson clearly don't have the same level
of credibility that their predecessors had Pelosi or McCarthy. And
I'm not sure any of these four are going to
gain it. Right, I think we're going to have to
go through this cycle, and you're going to see, right,
if Republicans lose the House, there's going to be a
new House leader, and I'll be honest, I think it's
going to be a free for all and that might

(33:06):
be healthy. They kind of need, you know, they're sort
of in some ways. Johnson was an outsider, but he
was an outsider sort of helped by insiders. I think
if you have a loss of control of the House,
that maybe you'll have a true ground swell and it'll
be interesting to see, you know, maybe there's maybe it's
an institutionalist like Tom Cole who's sort of of a

(33:29):
transitional figure, kind of the way John Thunne is I
think right now in center Republicans, but you have House
Democrats not crazy about you know, Jeffreys really feels very
uncomfortable in this position right now. I mean, I think
what's happening with New York City politics has him looking
over his left shoulder constantly. Chuck Schumer seems to be

(33:50):
worried about his left shoulder all the time as well.
He feels like he's kind of lost his touch as
sort of that electability guy. The point is, it's fascinating
to see the reason I think you have such anger
on Capitol Hill right now. And also I think some unpredictability.
I think this sort of weak leadership that you have

(34:10):
right now collectively means that there are more potential free
agents on issues out there than I think folks realize.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
We'll see what happened.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
I mean, we've already had a We've already had more
discharge petitions this House that I've seen in I think
the previous twenty years, and that you know, the more
discharge petitions you have, the more you have a leader
that doesn't have control of their own party. So you know,
if you told me you get some strange bedfellows getting
together on healthcare subsidies, strange bedfellows getting together on tariff policy,

(34:43):
I think all of that is possible because you have
right now Thune, Schumer, Jeffreys, and Johnson do not have.
You know, they can't rule by fear, right, none of
them can. I guess Trump can put some fear into
some of these folks, but I think the fear of
Trump is starting to fade, as we've seen with Marjorie
Taylor Green and others. And there isn't a lot of

(35:06):
respect for the political acumen of the quartet that I've.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
Just talked about.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
So it is I'll just say I feel like I
haven't seen this kind of collective congressional leader weakness really
since that sort of period in between Right and Gangridge,
and then I think the period in between sort of
the fall of Hastert and delay before sort of Pelosi

(35:34):
took over, and that whole sort of period of Lot
and Frist really before McConnell took over. So we're definitely
in a transition. I will be if you told me
we have four brand new leaders in January twenty twenty seven,
I wouldn't fully be surprised, but I definitely expect that
the four we have today that I think there's a

(35:56):
good chance none of the four are there by January
of twenty twenty nine. Part of it is, I think
the shelf life of congressional leader this day is getting
shorter and shorter, the impatience of political leaders, especially if
we're electing a different type of member of Congress and
a different type of senator who are more worried about
communicating with the base, communicating with the public than they

(36:17):
are with legislating. And if if we sort of are,
our Congress gets reoriented to more sort of media savvy
elected members rather than legislative savy members. It means I
think we're going to go through us. You know, we
may cycle through quite a few congressional leaders, because everybody's

(36:38):
kind of their own political leader and political party at
this point, right with with with how we're transitioning, particularly
this new generation of elected officials. And I think that's translated,
and it probably explains why the leaders themselves know that
they you know, they don't control the bully pulpit, They
don't really control the They don't they don't have that

(36:59):
much ability to prevent donors from giving money to some
of these folks, you know. The weakness of the political parties,
the weakness of the congressional leaders, it's all led to it.
It feels like a bit of instability in Congress right now.
And like I said, the possibility, I think we have
some we could see some strange runaway legislative compromises show

(37:26):
up in the next six months, simply due to this
week leadership that we're all experiencing. There's a reason results
matter more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan
and Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. For the
last thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars
for more than half a million clients. It includes cases

(37:48):
where insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to
get away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and
Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania,
one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was
a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company
originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

(38:10):
So with more than a thousand lawyers across the country,
they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
you need a lawyer. You need somebody to get your back.
Check out for the People dot com, Slash podcast or
Dow Pound Law Pound five two nine law on your
cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same,
So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free

(38:32):
unless they win.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
Well. Of course, in promoting my Monday.

Speaker 1 (38:39):
Podcast, I forgot about my favorite segment, which no, it's
not ranting about the college football playoff. My favorite segment
every Mondays, of course, it's the podcast time Machine.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
My time Machine actually takes me. It's fascinating.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
This week in dec is the anniversary of two key
events that triggered two things, the growth of China and
massive political realignment in the United States.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
So let's go through it.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
We're gonna step in the times that we're traveling through
three different Decembers nineteen seventy eight, two thousand and one,
and the December we're living in right now, December twenty
twenty five. And it's three moments that, when you take
them all together, tell the story of how the United
States made a monumental bet on China and how we
are now quietly admitting that the bet didn't pay off
the way we expected. And believe it or not, it's

(39:37):
a story that begins with optimism, it passes through triumpolism,
and ends with realism and maybe even resignation. Let's start
in December nineteen seventy eight, this week where Jimmy Carter
and Dan Chauping announced the normalization of diplomatic relations between
the United States and the People's Republic of China. The
formal switch from Taipei to Beijing official on January first

(40:01):
of that year, but we announced it in this week
in December nineteen seventy eight. On paper, this was a
Cold War realignment decision. In practice, it was the moment
the United States decided it could shape China's future by
opening the door. But it was not some Kumbaya moment.
The reactions at the time were all over the political map.

(40:24):
The Republican realists the kit at that time, it was
the Kissinger Scowcroft branch of the Republican Party applauded the
move Kissinger called the normalization quote an historic step toward
a stable war. This wing of the Republican Party sow
it as a three dimensional chess play, bring China closer
to Washington as a way to check Moscow. Meanwhile, the

(40:45):
Conservative Hawks were furious. Barry Goldwater said Carter had quote
abandoned a trusted ally in Taiwan with hardly a second thought.
Ronald Reagan, who was not yet the nominee for the
Republican Party but already the ideological leader of this part
of the conservative movement, accused Carter of quote selling out
our friends for a theory of diplomacy. Then you had

(41:06):
the democratic left, especially the human rights advocates Pat Darien,
Carter's own human rights chief privately warned that the move
sent a message that quote human rights is negotiable when
great powers are involved. The Congressional Black Caucus publicly asked
why human rights were the centerpiece of US policy towards
Latin America and South Africa, but not Beijing. And then

(41:27):
there was the business community. How do you think they reacted?
They were ecstatic, GM, Boeing, and ge all launched internal
studies immediately. Executive memos from the time read like prospectuses
for the next gold rush. One Fortune five hundred CEO
told The Washington Post at that time, China is the
last great untapped market on Earth. We need to be
there before the Europeans get there again. This was America

(41:51):
December nineteen seventy eight, So in nineteen seventy eight you
can already see the outlines of the emerging coalition foreign
policy realists plus Wall Street plus x Borders on one side, ideologues,
human rights AFTRICUS activists and manufacturing workers on the other.
The beginning of a realignment right normalization wasn't the beginning
of a debate about China, though, it was the beginning

(42:12):
of an American consensus about China. And this was the
consensus that was wrong. We now admit that we were wrong,
but everybody seemed to believe it at the time, and
the consensus was that engagement would moderate Beijing, reform its economy,
and eventually soften its politics. Essentially, democracy would come with
economic freedom. It's a great theory, and for a while

(42:37):
it seemed like it could work. Then let's fast forward
to another December anniversary, twenty three years later. This is
December eleventh, two thousand and one. China officially joins the
World Trade Organization. This is probably the biggest hinge moment
of modern globalization, and it's backed by another wave of
bipartisan optimism. Bill Clinton, who negotiated the terms in his

(43:00):
final year in office, had said earlier about China joining
the WTO. Quote, By joining the WTO, China's agreed to
play by the same global rules. This is a win
for America.

Speaker 2 (43:12):
George W.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Bush, who inherited the process, echoed the thought. He said, quote,
A China that plays by the rules is a China
that contributes to stability. So when you hear people talk
about the UNI Party, it was on topics like this
that there was kind of a unified theory from the
center left in the center right on all things China.
Even Al Gore made the argument on the two thousand

(43:35):
campaign trail, he said trade with China encourages openess, transparency,
and reform. Well, in retrospect, what's striking isn't that Democrats
and Republicans agreed on China in two thousand and one.
It's how completely they agreed. There was really no there
wasn't there was no debate about this. This were a
lot of things Bush and Gore agreed upon. Right, it

(43:55):
was always the funniest election, Like there was a reason
I always thought that election was he said, actually a
tie because neither one of them made the case for
why the other was wrong, because they kind of said, hey,
I agree with him, so vote for May anyway. But
there were still some politics over this. The two thousand
debate over permanent normal Trade relations P and TR was

(44:16):
a pretty fierce domestic fight during the Clinton years. A
Flcio accused the administration of giving away the future of
American manufacturing. Pap Ucanan called the WATO vote the greatest
surrender of American economic sovereignty in our history. So again,
it's almost like the Sanders wing and the Trump wing right.
Nancy Pelosi, she wasn't speaker at the time. She voted
against China p and tr Bertie Sanders warned he was

(44:39):
then just a House member, a socialist, but a House
member from Vermont. He said, corporate America may profit, but
American workers will suffer. He wasn't alone, Dick Epart then
the Congressional Democratic leader Jesse Jackson. Much of the Democratic
base did oppose it, so did a chunk of the
Republican populous wing, very much more of the Pap Buchanan crowd.

(45:00):
But the corporate coalition was overwhelming. Silicon Valley, Wall Street,
Big agg big retail manufacturers were looking for low cost labor.
Everybody saw China as an economic accelerate. And here's where
hindsight is pretty clarifying. We often talked about China Shock,
the wave of job losses that hit industrial communities into
two thousands. But what we don't talk about enough is

(45:21):
how bipartisan this decision was that allowed that shock to happen.

Speaker 2 (45:25):
It was left and right.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
When China joined the WTO the United States entered the
era of the China Price, the idea that everything steel, electronics, furniture, toys,
clothing would be cheaper if it came from China. Consumers
loved it, investors loved it, retailers loved it. But the
political bill that would come due about a decade later.

(45:49):
And this is where the two thousand election becomes such
an important pivot point. I think in this story because
it's the last time both presidential nominees fully embraced the
same form policy worldview, George W.

Speaker 2 (46:01):
Bush and Al Gore. They disagreed on taxes.

Speaker 1 (46:03):
On the Social Security lock box, that's the best Al
Gore I can do in a lock box, and they
disagreed on a few other things, but on China they
spoke with the same vocabulary. Bush said during the campaign,
the best way to encourage freedom in China has engaged China.
Gore said, we benefit when China follows global rules and trade.

(46:23):
Both supported normalization, both supported p and tr both supported
China and the wto.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
Now.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
Bush took a tougher rhetorical line on China, called China
quote a strategic competitor, not a strategic partner. But that
was tone now policy. Bush backed the same trade approach
that Clinton did, and Gore paid a political price for
embracing that consensus. Union leaders told them directly, China P
and TR was the final betrayal of Clintonism. Midwestern workers

(46:50):
didn't hear rules based trade system. They simply heard factory
moving to Guangzhou. The irony is at the political base
that would later revolt again globalization. The Trump burning populist
alignment was warning about it in real time, but in
two thousand neither movement was big enough in either party
to make either one of them. We had a little

(47:11):
bit of Nator talking about it as a third party candidate,
a little bit of Buchanan talking about it as a
third party candidate, but they got about one or two
percent total. So when China joined the WTO in December
twenty one, it wasn't a partisan victory. It was the
last gas, but the uniparty consensus unfeigned policy, the belief
that engaging China will liberalize China, not transform America. History,

(47:33):
of course, had other plans.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
So I.

Speaker 1 (47:38):
This is the point of our story where we ought
to talk about the thought experiment here. What if the
United States had blocked China's WTO entry? Okay, Well, economists
who studied the counterfactual say two things. China still probably
becomes a manufacturing superpower, just more gradually and probably more
dependent on Europe and Japan. The United States still loses
industrial jobs because that trend began in the night nineties,

(48:00):
five years before.

Speaker 2 (48:02):
The WTO extension for China.

Speaker 1 (48:07):
So what probably changes simply paced, not trajectory China twenty ten.
Factory to the world probably still exists. The political shockwaves
in places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Maybe they're softened a little,
or they're delayed, but they land, and maybe the populist
backlash arrives in say the midterms of twenty eighteen, rather

(48:29):
than in twenty ten, or maybe the backlash happens anyway,
because globalization was going to be bigger than any single vote.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
The point is is that.

Speaker 1 (48:37):
It's probably not clear that anything was going to stop
the rise of China, which is always the argument the
realists make. So the question was can we shape China?
So here we are in the present moment. I open
this podcast talking about the National Security Strategy Memo that

(48:58):
was just released by this emit stration, and this is
the first US government document that clearly admits the fifty
year bet on China didn't work out as expected. It
does not call for a new Cold War. It does
not frame China as an ideological enemy. It does not
talk about containing China or transforming China. Instead, the through

(49:19):
line of this Trump Security Strategy memo is simple, China's
a permanent strategic rival. We are not trying to hold
China back anymore. We are going to try to strengthen
ourselves and compete with China. The seventy eight bet was
that opening China will shape China. The two thousand and
one bet was that integrating China will moderate China. The

(49:42):
twenty twenty five memo now basically says China is now
fully integrated, fully powerful, fully assertive, and the task is
now to compete with it, not to change it. Essentially,
we're surrendering. So you see these themes throughout the document itself.
Rebuilding the US industrial base, securing supply Chaine in American technology,
the decoupling, if you will, stabilizing relations without illusions, preparing

(50:05):
for long term competition. It's not full disengagement. It seems
to be just simply acceptance, strategic acceptance. The United States
finally acknowledging the reality shaped by decisions made in those
two earlier Decembers Carter in nineteen seventy eight, which of
course was preceded by Nixon going to China right again,

(50:28):
a bipartisan move, and then China and the wto begun
by Clinton, executed and finished by Bush. So in seventy eighth,
the US made a geopolitical bet that engaging China will
help win the Cold War and encourage reform in Beijing.
Arguably it might have done that right. We might have

(50:49):
helping separate China might have made Russia's the Soviets life
a little more challenging, so that we can't say that
bet didn't work, since we did win the Cold War
against the Soviets. But by two thousand and one, the
United States made an economic bet that integrating China into
the global trading system would expand global prosperity and lock

(51:11):
China in to a rules based world where they might
start to become small d democratic. Well, both bets did
reshape China, but boy did they reshape the United States.
They reshaped us economically, politically, and socially. And here we
are in December of twenty twenty five. The question now

(51:32):
is not how we are going to change China confront China.
It is simply, now, how do we compete with China?
So we helped create China, we helped bring upon this competitor,
and now we're surrendering and hoping we can just stay
competitive with the new manufacturing King of a.

Speaker 2 (51:55):
Hill, China. There's your time machine time Capsule of the week.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
Do you hate hangovers? We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
day regret. They're best selling. Out of Office gummies were
designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,
and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
can tailor the dose to fit your vibe. From a
gentle one point five milligram micro doose to their newest

(52:25):
fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC
beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a
glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes

(52:46):
in delicious HEMP derived THHC, and CBD products, all designed
to boost your mood and simply help you unwine. So
if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also
has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
selling Sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to

(53:07):
Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
percent off your entire order, So go to getsold dot
Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code
that's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.
All right, let me sneak at a few questions before

(53:30):
I get to college football, ask Chuck, all right. First
question comes from Shamee H from des Moin. I always says, hey, check,
congrats and Miami making the CFP head to head should
always count. I'm curious about the Iowa democrats hesitancy to
push for first in the nation status again, give them
the state's accessibility and engaged voters. Wouldn't it make more

(53:50):
sense for both parties to go along, go all in
together rather than play it safe. Also, could you someday
explain how Obama's influence reshaped or damage the dncbond just
backing Hillary, Shane he des moines, Iowa, look it is
there is this. I don't have a good answer on why. Well,

(54:11):
I could tell you why the National Democrats don't want
to be in Iowa. Right, there's first of all, one
is they don't they they believe the base of the
party is not there's no parts of the base of
the party in Iowa.

Speaker 2 (54:26):
You know, Well that's a choice, right, you could choose
to believe that.

Speaker 1 (54:30):
But there is a sense that Iowa doesn't look like
what Democratic leaders think the Democratic Party looks like. But
I would argue that's been part of the problem is
that the Democrats have been looking at organizing their party
through the through the prism of identity, rather than the
prism of ideology or policy.

Speaker 2 (54:52):
Or frankly realism.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
Given you know, if I were looking at the problem
the Demo Credit Party as it's communicating with rural America,
I'd look around and say, what's the best way to
do that? When's the last time Democrats did well in
the industrial Midwest and the agriculture Midwest. Oh, when I
was first in the nation and a guy that named
Barack Obama who was from the Midwest. Mind you always

(55:17):
thought that people underestimated the fact that being from the
Midwest was such an asset to him. You know, it's
not lost on me that the coastal nominees have been
have been the losers right right Delaware on the Atlantic coast.
You know, he won, but then it couldn't survive. Kamala
Harris coastal, John Kerry coastal, Hillary Clinton identifying as a

(55:40):
New Yorker coastal, she'd have been better off going to
Illinois to run for office, which is her original home state.
So I think the whole coastal elite issue, I think
is a real issue. You know, you look at Bill
Clinton deep South Arkansas. You look at Barack Obama right
in the middle of the country in the Midwest in Illinois.

(56:04):
Look at a Jimmy Carter deep South Georgia. I don't
think those things are accidents. You look at a guy
like Pete Bootaget's getting traction again a Midwesterner.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
So I don't.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
If you don't want to do Iowa because you don't
like the caucus process. And I do think this is
a tactical and mechanical critique, if you will, because two
cycles in a row, the Iowa Democrats couldn't tell us
who won the Iowa caucases. So I do think that
was a fair demerit. But just abandoning the Midwest as
first in the nation, I think it's been a mistake.
So if you're not going to do Iowa, fine, do Nebraska,

(56:41):
do Kansas, but pick a small rural state in the Midwest.
Just if you can't figure that out, you're not going
to be competitive long term for the presidency. I don't
think rural southern voters are the way in. I think
you begin in the rural Midwest. That's where you're I
could fully get rejected and asked for your question about

(57:03):
the DNC. They didn't prop up the DNC at all
when they first came in. This is yes, you are
referring to what I think the original sin of Obama
endorsing Hillary in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, which was
sort of not realizing that that isn't where half the
party wanted to go. But when it comes to the
DNC and the sort of party in general. You know,

(57:25):
they refused to sort of build the DNC at first.
They sort of built an alternative to the DNC called
Organizing for America, you know, and I think it was unfortunately.
I think he was surrounded by advisers who weren't big
fans of the DNC, and the DNC in eight was
quietly helping Hillary, right, she was sort of more of

(57:46):
the party stalwart. Obama and his team were the outsiders.
And I think the and I think the belief and
the brand of outsider that team Obama wanted to keep
even while they got to the White House, seemed to
convince them that they ought to build their own national

(58:09):
political organization. And they basically what was ofa right, what
was Obama for America became Organizing for America and it
was housed within the DNC. But all of the resources,
all of the efforts went to that it didn't really work.
It didn't become the powerful political organization to help support
his agenda, which is what it was pitched as that

(58:30):
this was going to be the continuation of the Obama
movement and these people would get engaged when he was
trying to you know, do big things past, big pieces
of legislation, whether it's healthcare, whether it has to do
the environment, et cetera. That didn't really work out so well.
And then by the time, you know, the problem was
the DNC is just a vehicle. They kind of starved

(58:52):
that vehicle, and of course starving that vehicle meant very
few resources to the states. Well, what happened by twenty
They get wiped out of the state legislatures by twenty
What does that mean? Republicans basically control redistricting for a
decade and a half. Only recently have Democrats started to
make up ground back in these state legislatures. So I

(59:15):
do think that the Obama folks that came into the
first term of that Obama White House were determined to
build their own political structure, their own organization, sort of
push aside the DNC, and it just turned out to
be a logistical mistake. Look, the DNC, you make it
whatever you are. But this idea they thought they were
going to be elected president and be an outsider in
the Democratic Party. Once you've become president, you've become leader

(59:40):
of the party. You need to accept that role. And
I would argue, for a couple of years. They didn't
accept that role. They accept that they were leader of
the free world. They accept that they were president of
the United States, and they accepted that they were the
biggest brand inside the Democratic coalition. But there were a
lot of people whispering in Obama's ear that, hey, your
brand and coalition's bigger than one party, So don't get

(01:00:01):
too caught up in the DNC politics. And there's certainly
some bureaucracy that comes with that. But that's what I
mean when I you know, and sort of that attitude
just sort of gutted the sort of infrastructure of the
Democratic Party, both on the state level and on the
national level, and it allowed it to atrophy for a

(01:00:22):
good cycle or two. And it really you know, Hillary
Clinton threw more money at it in sixteen, Joe Biden
tried to throw more money at it in twenty. But
I would argue that the reason it feels like a
week link even today goes back to that initial decision
in twenty oh nine when the team Obama came in.
This big frankly now looks like a landslide compared to

(01:00:44):
presidential elections. The couple we had before, and quite a
few that we've had.

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
After and they didn't.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
They didn't decide to build rebuild the Democratic Party in
their image. They instead wanted to build their own sort
of alternative independent committee in their own image. But by
doing that, they starved the party itself of resources. All right,
let me sneak in. I give you it was not

(01:01:11):
a long question, but I gave you a couple of
long answers there. Next question comes from Patrick from the
Hague by way of Hertford, Connecticut. He says, and he says, Chuck,
really appreciate the clarity and sharp analysis you bring to
every episode.

Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
It's become my go to listen. Excellent. Hopefully I've got
you worried about college football, not too.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
I've heard people say that Kamala Harris might actually make
a stronger Supreme Court justice than president.

Speaker 2 (01:01:31):
I've been one of those people, and.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
It got me thinking, if one branch of government could
draft a member from another, who would be the best fit,
Which current justice would make a great member of Congress?
And while plenty of members of Congress move into the
executive branch, what about the reverse? And one are Elizabeth
Warren's path to elected office. Curious to hear your thoughts.
I think that's a fun exercise of who would be

(01:01:53):
a good you know, I think John Roberts might be
a pretty good Senate leader. He seems to be pretty
good at sort of dealing with you know, probably a
Senate Republican leader, pretty good at dealing with the ideological
diversity of the rights, tries to create.

Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
A consensus, right if you know.

Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
I think I think in some ways you might be
better as Senate Republican leader than he is as Chief
Justice on that front. But I think he's definitely got
a little bit of that skill set. I think Sonya
Sotomayor would be a pretty good party leader. I don't
know if she would be a good legislative leader. I
think there's a difference, right, but I think she speaks

(01:02:35):
with a lot of clarity, she speaks with a lot
of passion, So I think sort of almost as a
in that sense, I think you would see that the
reason I'll tell you my theory of why I've always
thought Kamala Harris won't. Frankly, probably, I think the first
dream job, you know, if you talk about you get

(01:02:56):
into politics, what are your dream jobs? I'm gonna vinced
her first dream job was not president that it was
either attorney general or Supreme Court. Why do I say
that because the first office she chose to run for
was prosecutor. You know, usually our want to be presidents.
They're running, they're trying to fast track their way to Congress.
Running for DA in San Francisco is not a fast

(01:03:17):
track to Congress. That wasn't somebody that was her where
whose first goal was to get to Washington. Usually my
presidential wannabes, their first goal is to kt to Washington. However,
Loung it dates right, and that wasn't her first goal,
even as she went to school here in DC at
Howard Right. So I've always looked at that and wondered,
huh I think, and I buy it. I mean, I

(01:03:39):
don't think it's BS. I do think she's animated by
the law. I think she's animated by these things. And
I think somebody whispered in her ear sometime, you know,
when she got talked into it, because look at the
next office she runs for it from DA, she runs
for attorney general. Right, she doesn't immediately go to US
Senate or something like that, and then she gets you know,

(01:04:00):
runs for the Senate seat when it opens up and
somebody whispers in her air, you know, you could be
the first woman president. And I don't think, look, anybody,
any human being, we all have a little bit of ego.
Somebody whispers that in your ear and it's plausible. Maybe
you don't stop hearing it, right, So that's where I've
always come down on that. But look, I think I

(01:04:22):
think James Langford would make a really good you know,
if you're looking at like, and I'll be honest, I
think we need an elected somebody who's run for office
before ought to be in the Supreme Court. I think
it's terrible that we haven't had anybody. I think you
need that diversity of understanding that your rulings are going
to play in the campaign trail. Sandra Dee O'Connor, I

(01:04:42):
believe the last Supreme Court justice that ever ran that
ever ran for office for anything, she ran for a
state Senate seat in Arizona.

Speaker 2 (01:04:51):
I think that you know, what used to be.

Speaker 1 (01:04:54):
Fairly common for elected officials to get appointed to the
Supreme Court, Bill Clinton, I think with semi serious and
putting Mario Cuomo on the Supreme Court, I think I
don't I think my guess is Mario Cuomo wish to
see had said yes, considering he said no, read for
re election and loss, but that would have been interesting.

(01:05:16):
Bruce Babbitt was another one that he wanted to put there.
The point is is that there's only so much you
understand about how illegal ruling impacts their everyday lives of Americans.
I think too many of these justices go from law
school to a corporate you know, maybe law firm, maybe
a clerkship, a judge's chambers, but they don't sort of

(01:05:38):
interact with people as much. And I think having somebody
on that court that has done that, I think would
be I'd like more than just one person. But we
don't even have one person on that and that's something
that I think is missing. But I look at some
of these elected officials, like I said, on the conservative

(01:05:59):
side of the I think James Langford would make a
fascinating Supreme Court. But I look for I'm looking for
people who are intellects with a little bit of personal humility.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
So I want people like Jack.

Speaker 1 (01:06:09):
Red, Jim Langford, right, people like that, not the loud mouse.
If you will, like you wouldn't, I don't think I
think Ted Cruz intellectually would be interesting on the Supreme Court,
but I think he would feel I think he would
hate the job because of his inability to speak out right.

Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
I think that used to bother Scilly a little bit.
I think he wanted to speak out more.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
I think it bothers so to my oar, she strikes
me as somebody that would love to be speaking out more,
but feels that the pageantry of the office itself doesn't
call for it. I'd love to do a little bit
more on your question down the road. Maybe you can
come back with me with a few more of the
fantasy sort of fantasy football politics.

Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
Questions like that. All right, one last question and then
we'll get to my college football round up.

Speaker 1 (01:06:54):
Long time listening here in your podcast always reminds me
of how much I enjoyed political science classes well great.
In New Jersey, the party controlled county line was eliminated
in twenty twenty four after a lawsuit by now Senator
Andy Kim, aiming to reduce the influence of party bosses
given the lack of an open Democratic primary in twenty
twenty four, do you think this could mark the beginning
of a broader shift towards fair less party driven primary
voting ghost Scarlet Knights. John Feldman, Well, John, I have

(01:07:18):
a conversation coming up here with the a gentleman named
Nick Troiano. It's not this episode's coming up in the
next couple of episodes, and he's working on essentially get
he believes. He wrote a book called The Primary Problem,
and he believes that partisan primaries are at the root
or the root cause of our polarization. They're the root
cause of our inability for Congress to get anything done.

(01:07:39):
And then if we can eliminate the partisan primary in general,
forget this county line business and all this stuff, we
would be in better shape.

Speaker 2 (01:07:47):
I could.

Speaker 1 (01:07:49):
I am very empathetic to this. I would love to
get rid of partisan primaries. I would like all party primaries.
I'd like to see that now I want to see.
I think parties should still identify themselves. But I think
I think it's weird that the taxpayers pay for an
election that the only way I can participate in that
election in a certain in some states is to join
some private organization that to me strikes me as a

(01:08:11):
poll tax and a violation of equal protection. I'd like
to see some better lawyering. If you will on some
of these issues when it comes to ballot access and
these partisan primaries. But you know, given I do think
we're headed in that direction, and I think part of
it is because millennials and gen z do not like

(01:08:33):
these old institutions that are called the Republican Party and
the Democratic Party. And so the more those two sort
of carcasses, if you will, semi dead carcasses on the
side of the road, the donkey and the elephant there,
the more they fight these changes to the process, I think,
the more you'll see growing support to sort of blow

(01:08:55):
up the party, the power of the political parties wherever,
wherever it still exists, like Allah, New Jersey. All right,
so that's let's talk some college football. Look, Miaey got it.

(01:09:18):
I think Miami deserved to be in. But this entire
process was a mess. There's no doubt that there is
there is there.

Speaker 2 (01:09:29):
It is not clear what this.

Speaker 1 (01:09:31):
This whole committee is so subjective. The ridiculous TV show
they put on every week, which is which creates content.
You know, I'm in the content creation business myself. It's
created plenty of content for me to be and moan about, right,
but it misled a lot of schools that misled a
lot of coaches, and there's some anger there. I saw
that the athletic director of Notre Dame is really angry.

(01:09:54):
They've decided not to be in a bowl game over this.
I wonder if cooler heads will prevail after they get
an night's sleep.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
But we'll see.

Speaker 1 (01:10:02):
I'm tapping on Sunday evening, so that's why I say
a night's sleep. If you tell me Notre Dame changes,
it's mine in the next twenty four hours. It wouldn't
surprise me, because remember, Notre name gets to keep all
that bowl money themselves. Are they really going to leave
a couple million dollars on the table, even though you
know a couple million pop tarts, right is what they'd
be leaving on the table, because I guess it would
have been Notre Dame in BYU and.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
The pop tarts bawl.

Speaker 1 (01:10:23):
So I'll be you know, every dollar counts, right, every
dollar matters. I know that's a wealthy school, but when
this day's of nil. Everybody's cash poor these days, so
cooler heads could prevail there. But I understand their frustration.
They were led to believe that that their metrics. You know,
they were going to be kept ahead of Miami, but
this consistently. The real outrage is how it's the bias

(01:10:47):
that ESPN and this committee has with the SEC. Now,
my brother in law, who's a big SEC fan, will say,
it's not a bias. The SEC is the best. They
should have an advantage, should be able to call the shots.
I have no doubt that the SEC is going to
have more teams in the College Football Playoff this year

(01:11:08):
than the Big Ten or the AEC of the Big twelve.
The problem is sort of this idea that a conference
game in the SEC is hard, but a conference game.

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
Anywhere else isn't.

Speaker 1 (01:11:17):
It's the sort of those lines of arrogance that trigger
me on this conversation. Right, Oh my god, Alabama toughening
it out in the Iron Bowl to a five and
seven Auburn team. Well, Miami had to go to a
thirty five year old, thirty five thirty five degree weather
in Pittsburgh, something that's always very difficult for Miami. They
go up there and open the can of you know

(01:11:38):
what on the pitt Panthers. The point is and wherever
Miami goes on the road in the ACC when they
beat Miami they storm the field. The point being is
every conference road game for a big brand is difficult, Right,
It was difficult when Notre Dame went to Louisville and
Louisville beats them, and they storm the field for that, Right,

(01:11:59):
That same thing happens Alabama, right when they lose to
one of their you know, to a Missouri or anybody
other than really Georgia or LSU, there's a storming of
the field, right. You know, you're to me, there's too
much storming of the field. You know, you should preserve
storming of the field for two things, winning a title
and knocking off number one. Period, Like, we should have

(01:12:21):
a rule we will not find you if you storm
the court or the field when you knock.

Speaker 2 (01:12:25):
Off number one in your home.

Speaker 1 (01:12:29):
Other than that, there's no more storming of the courts.
I mean, I've seen, you know, when Miami was in
its low period in the ACC, there would still be
these like storming of the fields and like you know,
Raleigh or Blacksburg or you know, like, oh.

Speaker 2 (01:12:45):
We beat Miami. It's like, come on, we were down
at the time.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
It's notable that every single team that lost a conference
championship game dropped in the rankings except one Alabama. What
I don't get is Alabama played eight quarters of football
against Georgia. They played well for the first quarter and
a half of the first game, and then they survived
that game and were able to eke out a win,

(01:13:13):
and then they got pummeled and the next time they
played them. To me, you got to look at all
eight quarters. There was a pattern there, right. They figured
it out, you know, they as soon as they figured
out Alabama's game plan, they shut them down. And how
did Alabama pivot the next time they played Georgia? They didn't,

(01:13:33):
and they and then they lose two of their last four.
They accumulated a third loss. And I'm sorry, I don't
see it as punishment that getting into the conference championship
game and then losing. First of all, Alabama had one
had an easy way to get into the playoff winning
get in.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
That was not an option for Notre Dame. That was
not an option for Miami.

Speaker 1 (01:13:53):
We can talk to the ACC and their ridiculous tiebreaker situations.

Speaker 2 (01:13:57):
Now it's for Notre Dame.

Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
I see that there's some reports that indicates that Notre
Dame partisans think that this was the committee sending a
message to Notre Dame that hey, you're not a member
of a conference. And look, I don't think Notre dames
wins over Navy and Pitt should count as much as
Miami's went over Pitt, simply because Pitt said it wasn't

(01:14:20):
taking that game as seriously against Notre Dame because it
didn't count. Navy said the same thing, because it didn't count.
They were fighting for a potential spot in the AAC
Conference Championship game, or don't call me the AAC, the
American Conference Championship Game. So I do think the resentment
of them not being a conference, them not having a
face of very tough schedule, was part of this, and

(01:14:41):
at some point they were going to send a message.
As much as I think that committee hates the AEC,
I think they hate Notre Dame in the special treatment
that they get more and in fact we end up
discovering Notre Dame's Now we got to guarantee going forward
if they are in the top twelve, no matter what
number they are, but if they're ranked in the top
twelve in a twelve team playoff, they get into the

(01:15:03):
playoff no matter what. They have to automatically get in.
Apparently they signed some memo understanding with the CFP. Are
you fing kidding me? They have their own legal side
deal to guarantee participation in the College Football Playoff in
a way that no other.

Speaker 2 (01:15:19):
Conference has.

Speaker 1 (01:15:21):
Come on, Notre Dame, come join a conference, Come join
the ACC. You'll still dominate, and you literally will get
into the College Football Playoff every year. The extra game
will help you. You still get to play Stanford every year.
It's a conference game. Okay, Yes, you're going to be
stuck playing Miami once in a while. That's good, not
bad for both schools. The fact of the matter is

(01:15:43):
the last time Notre Dame was truly a power was
when Miami was truly a power. Miami and Notre Dame
are good for each other, and they ought to. If
I were Notre Dame, I'd embrace that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:53):
Come on in.

Speaker 1 (01:15:54):
Look, I don't love the ACC myself. I think that
the leadership here they dodged a bullet.

Speaker 2 (01:16:00):
Do I think I know that the.

Speaker 1 (01:16:05):
The chair of this committee, the temporary chair of this committee,
the Arkansas d said that the fact that the ACC
could have been shut out was not a factor in
putting Miami over Notre dame. I think it was an
intangible I'm not going to be that naive I think they.
I think if I were the CFP, i'd be worried
about lawsuits. And if you're wondering why the group of

(01:16:25):
five gets this slot and why they've worded it the
way they did, why it's top five conference champions that
they don't specify which conferences because they don't want an
antitrust lawsuit. They don't want a lawsuit coming from the
non Power five four conferences, and so that's called lawsuit prevention.
They're like, no, no, no, no, We'll provide you a
path to the playoff, and this is the path that

(01:16:47):
they created. Is there a better way to do this?

Speaker 2 (01:16:49):
My god, there's probably seventy five thousand better ways to
do this. I could. You know, there's a part of
me that.

Speaker 1 (01:16:56):
Says, go to an eighteen playoff, but let the power
Let the Power four conferences run their own four team tournaments,
Have the group of five have their own the top
four champions play. You know, you get one representative there,
but it's kind of you play your way in, and
you know the Power four conferences you play your way in,

(01:17:18):
and you just do this as playing your way in.
You've got to take the human beings out of this.
You've got to take ESPN executives out of this. You've
got to take athletic directors out of this. You've got
to take conference folks out of this.

Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
Is it is fraught.

Speaker 1 (01:17:35):
There's too much money at stake and lawsuits glory coming,
and you know it'll come congressional. You're gonna have federal intervention,
and maybe there should be. But this is this committee
as it's structured. Now, you've got to get the human
element out of this. There is no committee to decide
who makes the NFL playoffs. There's no committee who decides

(01:17:55):
who makes the MOB playoffs. There's no committee who decides
who makes the NBA layoffs. There's no Yes, there's a
committee who decides the seating and the last sort of
couple of teams in a sixty eight soon to be
seventy six team thing, if you want to. You know,
I'm fine for a committee to decide seating, but I'm

(01:18:18):
not fine for a committee to decide who gets in
and who gets out.

Speaker 2 (01:18:23):
I will.

Speaker 1 (01:18:23):
I have plenty of complaints about how ESPN is a
terrible business partner for the ACC. I still think all
of the issues at the ACC, they dodged a bullet here.
This would have cost millions of dollars for everybody across
the board without getting any piece of the CFP pie.
The leadership of the ACEC still needs to be held
account and university presence in the ACC. Those that are

(01:18:46):
serious about spending all this money in football need to
have a come to you know what meeting about the
leadership of the ACEC. Because this was a debacle. They
dodged a catastrophe. Okay, thanks to their own the other
politics that sort of were all over the map with
this committee, but this was there's so many there's like

(01:19:08):
seventeen thousand other ways to do this, and yet they
chose this way to do this.

Speaker 2 (01:19:14):
Right. I'd like to see Notre Dame men.

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
I honestly, I think it's Oklahoma that doesn't belong if
you were to ask me which one of these teams
doesn't belong Oklahoma. But this is because of the stupid
Weekly rate rankings show. They came out and after Oklahoma
beat Alabama, they did this, But if you looked at
Oklahoma's body of work, I don't think you'd have Oklahoma
in this.

Speaker 2 (01:19:37):
In this I think they'd have been.

Speaker 1 (01:19:38):
Left out certainly, would you know, Yes, they've got the
Alabama win. But that Alabama win is I think way overvalued.
And if you look at Alabama's body of work, it's
not the most impressive team. And then what do they
do for Alabama? They hand them the rematch with Oklahoma
and Norman. I'm sorry, what a ridiculous gift. Now, quickly

(01:20:00):
talk about the bracket. I'm gonna be parochial here and
talk about Miami's path.

Speaker 2 (01:20:06):
Uh, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:20:09):
Let's just say Miami's got the Miami. This is the way,
you know, you talk to old school Miami football players.
I'm friends with a few of them, or you know,
sort of acquaintances with a few of them. Let me
let me not oversell it. And they would say, hey,
if you're gonna, you know, be tested, be tested all
the way, tested by the best.

Speaker 2 (01:20:29):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:20:30):
So they started Texas A and M. And if they
win that they get to play Ohio State and the
Cotton Bowl. And if they win that, they likely play
the winner the winner of Georgia and Ole Miss, with
the assumption being that Old Miss is going to play
tu Lane. So in theory, Miami's path to a national
championship game, which is would be in their home stadium.

(01:20:51):
By the way, it's at hard Rock, would be in
their home stadium. It would begin in College Station with
Texas A and M. Then it's Ohio State on December
thirty first, then it would be Georgia in the Fiesta Bow.
Miami is OH for the State of Arizona. So once
we get there, I'm going to be really skeptical of

(01:21:12):
our chances just because for whatever reason, we're OH. Like
I said, we're OH for the State of Arizona. But
the reward if we survive that would be a national
title game against either Indian or a Texas Tech. I
would say this, man, you look at the various paths.
I think both Ohio State and Georgia are jealous of

(01:21:33):
Indiana and Texas Tech. I think Texas Tech, Boy, did
they get a break? I'm not I don't get a look.
Oregon's got a good record and they're in a good conference.

Speaker 2 (01:21:45):
I don't buy it. And then they get the easy
game against James Madison. I think this is one.

Speaker 1 (01:21:52):
It'll be interesting if but I love Texas Tech. Here
I may or may not have taken a future in
Texas Tech. I think they are are totally undervalued going
through this. But you gotta love the Texas Tech path
for as tough as the path is for Georgia and
Ohio State, I think, I mean, even Indiana didn't get
the greatest path they have that they are going to

(01:22:14):
get Alabama. Although if I'm right about Alabama, then maybe
Indiana's getting catching a break. But it is a the
path for Georgia, Ohio State, yes, Miami, and Texas A
and M that feels like the brutal side of this bracket. Indiana,

(01:22:36):
Texas Tech a little a little less where you get
sort of a one dimensional Oklahoma team if you end
up having to play them, An Alabama team that just
doesn't strike any fear into anybody, and an Oregon team
that does seems a little bit softer.

Speaker 2 (01:22:53):
It just does.

Speaker 1 (01:22:55):
I can't, I can't put my finger on it, but
there's doesn't quite Maybe I'm wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:22:59):
Never mind.

Speaker 1 (01:23:00):
And by the way, one of the stats that blew
me away, it's apparently half of the college football playoff
teams have some have a coach either leaving, either a
head coach leaving or coordinator leaving. That's astonishing. That's going
to have an impact. So hopefully that's another thing that
needs to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:23:16):
Here. Do they need to fix this calendar.

Speaker 1 (01:23:18):
If you will, sort of do what the NFL does,
try to not allow coaching change, you know, try to
create some gap between the playoff and coaching changes, because
this is this this part of it is also kind
of messy as well, and that's why you got to look.
I think Miami's not gonna Miami has very few changes
in their coaching staff, so I feel pretty good about that.

(01:23:41):
I think Texas A and M has very few changes.
Did it with Georgia, But Ohio State, I think they're
losing an offensive coordinator to USF ole Miss, you know,
the ole Miss situation.

Speaker 2 (01:23:52):
So it's going to be.

Speaker 1 (01:23:55):
After all this drama. I'm excited that that Miami, if
they whatever, however far they go, they'll have had to
earn it.

Speaker 2 (01:24:05):
Right. They do not have a soft path.

Speaker 1 (01:24:08):
To the National title game. But hey, just four more games, guys,
four more games. Look, I think Miami will be competitive
in every game they're in. They will have a chance
in the fourth quarter, will win the game. The real
question is what kind of fourth quarter decision making is
going to be made by the offensive coordinator Shannon Dawson,
by the head coach Mario Christopaul, and by the quarterback

(01:24:30):
Carson Beck. If there's a question mark about Miami, it
is going to be their decision making when a game
is on the line, all three of those gentlemen, so
that they will Miami goes as far as their ability
to make key decisions, timely decisions in the fourth quarter.

(01:24:54):
I'm looking forward to my first trip to College station. Yes,
I'm figuring this out. I'm looking forward to it. I've
been wanting an excuse to get the Bush forty ones
library as well. So it's a two for a political
and sports junkie, right, I get to go see the
field that hosts the so called twelfth Man. Sorry Seattle,
I think Texas, A and m did it first. The

(01:25:17):
Bush forty one library down there is a nice little
consolation prize too with our visit. All right, with that,
I will continue my little sports updates. I promise you
we got more college football that'll be fun. I'll start
to turn my focus to my packers. That could start
a knowing some of you, especially if you're Bears fans

(01:25:38):
or Cowboys fans, but we'll see. And I'm weirdly really
happy about a tiny little trade that the Nats did
for a prospect catcher who I think is a really
good prospect, a guy named Harry Ford. So I might
even sneak a little bit of a hot stovely into
some of these sports updates. So with that, uh, I'll

(01:26:02):
see you in forty eight hours. Thanks for listening, and
until I upload again, m h m hm

All Episodes

Chuck’s Commentary - The U.S. Retreats From Being The Leader Of The Free World + Trump’s Transactional & Corrupt Pardons

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Chuck’s Commentary - The U.S. Retreats From Being The Leader Of The Free World + Trump’s Transactional & Corrupt Pardons