Full Episode - Character Is Destiny In Politics + The Independent Mayor Making The Case For Post-Partisan Politics - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you
by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, arteasonal pastries, and
fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a

(00:22):
slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
and a new protein box. I will tell you I

(00:42):
have done the gluten free box. I have done it
a second time. I have also used the code, the
todcast code. If you use the promo code toodcast at checkout,
you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as
a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.

(01:02):
They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your freezer.
Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off
your first box plus free croyissants for life. Come on
when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to
start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first

(01:23):
box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain
dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code
podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace,
so use that code. Hello, They're happy Monday, and welcome
to another episode of the check podcast. It is in

(01:46):
some ways, I've got a episode that has a ton
of stuff that I'm gonna touch on. Right, I'll touch
on a ron. I'm gonna touch on main Senate and
California governor and Texas governor and the presidency in America
to fifty and in many ways, I could sit here
and say I'm checklisting off of all these different topics

(02:06):
and headlines and the bidens and all of this stuff.
But I'd also argue I have one issue in some ways,
and in a few minutes, it's sort of the larger
point I want to make I'm going to get on
that in a minute, but let me give you a
complete rundown of today's episode, so you know what you're

(02:26):
getting yourself into. Like I said, I got there's a
lot of things that have happened over the last seventy
two hours. I think they all think there's a big
there's a large theme to them that I want to
get to about character in politics and whether it is
the people with bad character, the people that defend the
people with bad character that are the real problems in

(02:47):
American politics. And I'm going to get to that in
a minute. The Iran stalemate. You know, we in some
ways the more things, the more this is delayed and baited,
the more likely the outcome that I've been outlining for
you for some time is going to come to fruition.
It's just the question is how many stages does it take?

(03:09):
And we'll see where it goes. I do have a
little riff about you know, we sit here and worry
a lot. Where are the guardrails? The guard rails kind
of work this weekend. I'll get to it. I'll get
to that in a few minutes as well. Plus we've
got the big, first big primary in June likely one

(03:31):
of the largest single days that people will be voting.
Given the size of California's population, it obviously punches above
above the average primary day. But we also have Iowa,
South Dakota, and New Jersey that all have some interesting
races all happening. Obviously in the next thirty six hours
we'll have some signaling there. And I think actually one

(03:54):
of the more intriguing aspects is, after all this hand
ringing from Democrats that they could get shut out, there's
seems to be if we're we're we there's some pulling
out there indicating that the Republicans could get shut out
of the top two in California. So the point is
a lot of interesting headlines to talk about. Plus I've

(04:14):
yet to weigh in on the mess that the Big
Ten and the SEC are making of college football. Uh,
and of course we've got both the owners and the
players have released their first Uh. They're sort of their
their their dream scenarios, their dream pitches of how they
would solve baseball's labor and spending problems going forward, and

(04:40):
more of an equity issue that I think we know
baseball teams are dealing with. So it's a it's a
pact and busy show, and I'd like to think I'm
giving you guys everything you expect to come here for.
I want to just quickly deal with Iron here because
in some ways there is a there's quote I want

(05:00):
to share for my friend John Ellis, who if you
don't subscribe to news Items, it is a sort of
a a really well curated news of the day with
a focus a bit more on international politics, some domestic,

(05:21):
lots of market stuff, lots of science and tech as well.
I can't quite put my finger on exactly what I
would say is John Ellis's focal point, but I can
tell you it's a different type of aggregated newsletter, smart
news items, things like this, and you know, you get
his smart takes. John Ellis, for those of you who

(05:43):
don't know, he's actually the first cousin of George W.
Bush and Jeb Bush. He is if he is part
of the Bush family. He has been in and out
of Republican politics, worked in media over time. I think
it's pretty safe to say he is a one of
those never Trump right leaning folks. But you know, I

(06:04):
think his own politics is I don't think a clean
thing there, so point is is I think his newsletters
are outstanding, and news items is one of them, and
I want to highlight a news item from the weekend
because it was just it was a very concise paragraph
that I think sort of sums up where we are

(06:24):
in Iran and is sort of almost the frankly, what
I would just what I wanted to say is yeah,
what he said. I want to quote this news item directly.
But it was so good that it is also what
John Ellis did because it is the words of a
Substack author named William Usher. He's a former CIA analyst.
He's got this terrific newsletter on subsect that I'm not

(06:47):
a subscriber of what He's been quoted quite a few times,
and John Ellis's newsletter seems to be maybe I ought
to think about subscribing, So mister Usher, you can think
of mister Ellis for potentially another subscriber. But he quotes
he quotes them here, and I just want to do
it word for word here. This is where things stand
at the end of May twenty twenty six. A ceasefire

(07:07):
that neither side fully observes, a framework that neither side
fully accepts, and a set of core demands that neither
side shows any willingness to abandon. The war has settled
into a costly stalemate, military operations paused but not ended,
economic damage compounding daily, and the political clock ticking in Washington. Realistically,
Trump now faces three options, the clear victory and walk away,

(07:28):
cut a deal, or restart the war. Look, everything that
mister Usher wrote there is not is something that hasn't.
I'm sure you know, is something that I've been conveying.
It's something plenty of us have been conveying, I think
for some time really since the since since the ceasefire began,
and one realized what little leverage that the United States

(07:50):
had and how much more leverage Iran and ended up
with after this war started, thanks to ignorance or something
by our war planners having to do with the straight
up war moves. Well, I just think it succinctly sort
of tells you where we are. This is where we are.
We're in this stalemate. Here's what I can tell you.

(08:12):
The Iranians will continue to keep negotiating. Donald Trump does
not want any sort of deal. He just simply wants
the concepts of a deal so that he can essentially
declare some form of accomplishment. We need even call it victory, right,
but some form of amp Okay, I've checked that off
the list. I've got a plan to potentially implement a

(08:35):
plan that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Right,
That might be the best we can hope for here
at this point. He's going to end up giving them money,
But my guess is he'll do it in such a
way where he can claim he's not doing it the
way Obama did it when sanctions relief came. It'll probably
go through some third party country. It'll be either Pakistan
or Cutter that ends up cutting the actual check or

(08:56):
whatever it is to Iran, so that he can look
like he's not capitulating in a way that he had
criticized Barack Obama from doing. Because, again, other than restarting
the war, the only way out of this where they
where the United States can hope to save a tiny
bit of face here is to essentially create the USMCA

(09:21):
of Iran nuclear deals. And what am I referring to
when I say that, right, Trump, I ripped up NAFTA
only to renegotiate NAFTA. But ah, it's not NAFTA I've
renamed it. It's USMCA, it's NAFTA zero. Right, So here's

(09:42):
so anyway, that's where we are. You know, we're at
this point. It's nothing but market manipulation. Every morning, right,
we all wake up to see, how's he manipulating the
stock market today? Does a stock market thing? Things are
getting closer to a deal, Okay, then he has to
say nothing. If suddenly the markets are spooked, oh my god,

(10:03):
he's got to let them know that a deal is
imminent or that oh they're they're exchanging paper, et cetera.
So that's getting old, this market manipulation, which is really
what may has been about right since the seas fire.
But the here's the real scary part that's coming and
why we really do need a deal sooner rather than later,
is if you've been paying attention, very close attention to this,

(10:27):
most of the economists and experts on our oil markets
have set, including the conversations I've had with people like
Daniel Jurgen and some poem. We had these conversations in
March and April, and all of them said, look, it's
going to be starting in June that we're going to
start to feel sort of the longer tail of this,
right that in June is when you would see strategic

(10:48):
oil reserves start to be run down. It was in
June that you would start to see fertilizer inventories at zero.
That it's in June that you would start to see
the almost the you know, you've heard of the hockey
stick moment when you're examining, when you're watching a company
where you know, you're you know, things are going well,
and all of a sudden, you know, instead of you know,

(11:10):
two million dollars in revenues, you have fifty million dollars
in revenues, and it all happens within like a six
month period. It's your hockey stick moment. Well, this is
a negative version of that hockey stick moment, but it's like,
you know, we've been middling along and we've been surviving,
and we can handle, you know, a six week disruption,
and we can handle a twelve week disruption, and then

(11:32):
all of a sudden, we can't handle that disruption, and
we go from handling it with a little increase in
costs and a little bit of this to suddenly the
hockey stick moment where it's holy s, we've got to
start rationing, and we've got to start doing this. And
all of the experts had pointed to the month of June,

(11:54):
right that said, look, this needs to get done before June.
Well it's not before June anymore. Here we are, so
you know, every single day exponentially adds to the damage.
Like we are, we are in that period here, and
I know that's that's frustrating to hear. It's very you
could say, hey, you know, the media needs to you know,
go in. It is hard to it is hard to

(12:16):
show right, it's very hard to to competently predict catastrophe
because you know how people handle a crisis. Moment is uneven.
You know, some people suddenly quickly want to hoard, right,
Like the toilet paper situation we had at the beginning
of COVID, where all of a sudden, eybody decided that
they better go grab the toilet paper now. Then all

(12:36):
of a sudden we had a run on toilet paper.
We had plenty of toilet paper, but people perceived that
we wouldn't and then everybody began hoarding. And I think
that's the type of situations that's why you're it is
you're never quite sure it exactly right. There's sort of
rationality to this until there isn't. And the thing that

(12:56):
we ought to fear here is that we may hit
an a moment where the consumers started to behavior irrationally
in their own very rational ways, if that makes sense,
you know, like the hoarding of toilet paper. Like, they're
not wrong that we're going to have these supply chain issues,
but they were focused on the wrong thing. It turned
out toilet paper was going to be the least of

(13:16):
our issues. It turned out we had other issues that
we should have been a bit more worried about, but
it was certainly symbolic. That's the situation we're starting to
head towards now and God forbid. By the way, speaking
of June, that's also the start of hurricane season. As
an East coaster, as a Florida boy, you know, June
first means is a big deal date on the calendar.

(13:38):
It's when we're all sort of every morning you wake
up and you start looking at the Horn of Africa.
Anything out there, right, God forbid, we have a natural
disaster in the middle of this man made energy crisis
that the world is experienced. We're already seeing what happens

(13:58):
when you have a man made aid crisis like in
world health. With the United States pulling out of the
WHO no longer any expertise, We've now got one of
the worst of Bola outbreaks we've ever had to deal
with in the United States. His expertise is essentially on
the sidelines because of Donald Trump's personal war against international organizations,

(14:22):
and that is having a potentially calamitous effect in the Congo.
And it's certainly something that you know, again, I go
back to something I mentioned last week, which is, you know,
the United States uses soft power not out of the
goodness of their heart, but also to protect ourselves. It's

(14:44):
national security. It protects the health and safety of US citizens.
And pulling out of the WHO put human beings lives
at risks, which of course puts the United States lives
at risk. So you know, this is the These are
the type of you know, this is why the damage
that Trump has done to the government, to our international relations.

(15:08):
You don't fully appreciate how bad the damage is until
you really until you hit some crisis, right, Abola is
suddenly we're realizing this crisis that Trump and Kennedy have
created in public health is now is now, you know,
putting pressure on the entire world and could could take
something that would have been that essentially, had Kennedy and

(15:30):
Trump not touched a thing, then we'd have probably a
hell of a lot more control over this outbreak than
we do at the moment and have a lot more
experts on the ground. Donald Trump's experiencing the same thing
with his inability to deal with the Iranians in the
Strait before moves. If he hadn't beaten up every American
ally that the United States has had other than Israel,

(15:53):
if he hadn't beaten up every ally in Europe that
we had, and maybe some of them would want to
help us out more. But alas, this is what happens,
you don't, and this is what can be frustrating for
those of us that are in this space of trying
to call bullshit, trying to call balls and strikes. Let
you know, hey, this is what's happening. You need to

(16:13):
need to worry about around this corner. We need to
worry about now going around this corner. We can't tell
you exactly, We can't always tell you exactly how this
is going to have a negative impact on us. We're
just promising you. Unfortunately, it's going to have a negative
impact on us pulling out of public health, was going
to do this, how do we know it. We're now
starting to experience what this is with this, with the

(16:34):
with the struggle to to try to contain the same
ball out right. You want to understand why multilateralism has
been such a good thing for the United States, just
look at how hard it is to go it alone
in the Middle East when you choose to go it alone.
So it is, it is, it is down the road

(16:54):
that you sometimes see these negativities, and it's it's it's unfortunate,
but it also is why Winston Churchill famously said you
can eventually count on the Americans after they've exhausted every
other path. And that's why I have my own version

(17:17):
of optimism. That's how I stay optimistic even in some
of these darker moments and darker days. This episode of
the Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Soul. So
if you love that end of the day unwined but
hate the hangover, Soul's out of Office is for you.
These sparkling THCHC drinks and gummies give you the same

(17:40):
relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without the calories, and
without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes
feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in
delicious hemp derived, THCHC, and CBD products designed to boost
your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out
of office gummies designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz,

(18:02):
boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five
different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe.
So also has a variety of products specifically designed to
help you get a better night's rest, including their top
selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan favorite for deep, restorous sleep. Look,
I have made no secret. I am a believer in

(18:22):
this stuff, in cannabis and hemp derived. I do not
partake in alcohol. For the most part, I think this
stuff is a lot safer than alcohol, a lot less
addictive than alcohol. And yes, I have to say I
love these drinks. It is the glass of wine and
you know after work, that's what this is. So no
hangover and no excess calories like this. I'm a big fan.

(18:44):
So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
sold today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
percent off your entire order. Go to getsoul dot com
and use the word podcast. That's getsoul dot com promo
code podcast for thirty percent off. And yes, I too
am a customer, But I do have a larger topic

(19:13):
I want to hit on today, and it is about
the issue of character and politics. And if you think
about it, there's a lot of a lot of issues
over the last few over the last week which has
sort of resurfaced. You know, to me, what is a
constant in American politics, which is character is always destiny.
The question is whether everybody sees it at the right

(19:37):
time to deal with it. Whether it is the success
of Ken Paxton and what that says about our politics,
the potential success of Graham Platner and what that says
about our politics, the fact that we should We knew
in twenty fifteen that if Donald Trump became president, he

(19:59):
would somehow try to manipulate the government so that he
could escape a tax audit for the rest of his life,
something which, by the way, we are now finding out
is among the real motivations of this slush fund, is
him escaping accountability from the government in a battle that
he's been having with the government for a couple of decades.

(20:23):
There's the new revelations by Joe Biden where she clearly
was either lying in twenty twenty four about concern about
her husband's ability to run for president, or she's lying
now about her fears that he was having a stroke
at that infamous debate. It's all about It all gets

(20:44):
to this larger question, right, and it's one of the
oldest questions in politics and still one of the simplest
right is how much does character matter? It's not about policy,
not ideology, not party affiliation, but character. Generation ends up
having the same argument when it comes to this issue
of character and politics. Some voters think personal conduct is

(21:06):
highly relevant. Others think it's a distraction. Some voters care
more about what a politician says they'll do, others care
more about how they've lived their life. There's no right
or wrong way. It's called democracy. Right in the words
of Getty Lee, if you choose not to decide, you've

(21:26):
also you've still If you choose not to decide, you
still have made a choice. The point is everybody has
their own motivation for why they vote, why they don't vote,
and who they vote for or who they won't vote for,
because in this country, everybody gets to make that decision
for themselves. Well, what I've been thinking about lately, though,
isn't whether character itself matters. It's something else. It's who

(21:50):
ends up defending the character flaws, because the people who
coume up our politics the most are not always the
people with the character flaws, to the people who defend
the people with the character flaws. We spent the better
part of a decade having this argument about Donald Trump.
One of the great frustrations many Democrats had with Trump

(22:12):
supporters was watching behavior that they themselves found disqualifying for
the last few decades, at least if a Democrat did it.
Democrats found were frustrated when these Trump supporters would sort

(22:32):
of excuse things that he did or said that had
any other politician said it, they wouldn't have allowed it
to be explained away. The argument was always some version
of yeah, but right, Yeah but he's fighting for us,
Yeah but the economy, Yeah but immigration, Yeah but the

(22:55):
alternative is worse. This whole flight ninety three mindset, it
doesn't matter, right, And eventually a lot of people stopped
evaluating the behavior and just simply started defending it. I'm
old enough to remember when Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio
had cared about character in politics. They have chosen to
defend this bad character. Now, before anybody misunderstands me, this

(23:19):
isn't actually supposed to be a Donald Trump monologue. And
no it's not really a Grand Platiner monologue either. But yes,
what's been happening around him and with him helped inspire this.
But the reason I'm interested in the Platiner story is

(23:39):
because I think it reveals something a lot bigger about
what's going on in our politics. Because what I've watched
over the last few weeks is a lot of people
who spent years criticizing Republicans for enabling Trump suddenly sounding
awfully familiar. Not because the conduct is the same. It's not.
Not because the facts are the same. They're not. The

(24:00):
reasoning is the same. The reasoning goes something like this,
Yes there are concerns, Yes there are warning signs, but
that's what campaigns are for. Yes there are things that
make me uncomfortable. The cause is too important, but the
movement needs But the alternative is worse. That's the moment

(24:23):
when political judgment starts getting clouded, because every political movement
does this, and they've been doing it since the dawn
of time, every single one of them. When a movement
finds somebody it wants to believe in, yellow flags become
green flags, and red flags become yellow flags, and anybody

(24:43):
who points them out gets accused of helping the other side.
Everybody thinks they're good at spotting enablers do they just
think the enablers live on the other side of the
political aisle. The deeper issue here is one I don't
think we talk about enough of why do people run
for office? We tend to assume everybody runs for some

(25:06):
form of the same reason, but they don't. Some people
genuinely want to solve problems. Some people have ideas that
they think are unique to them and that they can
solve a political conflict with a unique solution. Some people
just simply want to serve believe that hey, that's what

(25:27):
citizenship's about. And there are plenty of people that are
driven by ambition they want a capstone on their resume.
Still others are driven by a massive ego, and some
people are searching for something, purpose, identity, community, meaning, validation, redemption.

(25:48):
Politics can offer all of those things. If you're a
washed up actor and you haven't gotten work in a
long time, you can run for mayor of America's second
largest city. And maybe you're pretty good at this. We'll
find out.

Speaker 2 (25:59):
I don't know, but.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Politics maybe the most powerful identity building exercise available in
American life today. Right, we've really sort of almost abused
politics of this. Join a movement, find a tribe, find
your mission, find people who tell you you're changing the world.
There's something incredibly seductive about that. Sometimes it's healthy. Sometimes

(26:29):
politics does give people purpose. Sometimes public service brings out
the best in people. But sometimes politics becomes therapy, and
that's where trouble starts. I've become increasingly convinced that some
people use political campaigns and political movements in lieu of therapy.

(26:50):
Maybe they're lonely or washed up reality TV host and
they don't know what to do. They can't do business
because they've scared off everybody they've ever done business with,
because they're a bad businessman. Maybe that's why they try politics.
Instead of confronting problems in their own lives. They throw
themselves into politics. Instead of dealing with personal struggles, they

(27:12):
seek validation from a movement. Instead of figuring out who
they are, they let politics tell them who they are,
and for a while it can work. Politics is a
fantastic distraction. The problem is that distractions don't solve the
underlying problems that perhaps people did need therapy for. They
just simply postpone them, and eventually those problems show up again,

(27:37):
only now they're attached to public power. And that's why
character matters, not because we're looking for saints. Politics has
never been populated by saints. Character matters because it is predictive.
That's why it matters. That's why the phrase character is

(27:59):
destiny has meaning. Character flaws rarely stay confined to a
personal life forever. Eventually they influence decision making. Eventually, they
affect judgment. Eventually they affect how somebody handles power. When
people bring personal baggage into politics, eventually that baggage influences

(28:20):
their decision making, just as the Bidens who did preemptive pardons.
We've seen this over and over again. There's Donald Trump.
How many decisions of his presidency were influenced by personal grievances?
How many were influenced by his need for validation renaming
the Kennedy Center. Folks, how many were influenced by old

(28:43):
scores he wanted to settled. The character flaws did not
stay private, they became public. You can make a similar
argument about John Edwards. This is one of the examples
I use quite a bit when talking about this, because
I have a miss empathy for a mister and missus
Edwards and what the late Elizabeth Edwards went to. But

(29:09):
they used politics in lieu of dealing with a problem.
Democratic Party became enamored with a candidate who, in retrospect,
was clearly carrying around unresolved personal issues. A family that
suffered an unimaginable tragedy losing a child also threw itself
deeper and deeper into politics, and eventually the entire party

(29:32):
paid the price. You can make a version of this
argument about Andrew Cuomo. You can make a version of
this argument about a lot of politicians. Frankly, you can
make a version of this argument at the Biden's Joe Biden,
Joe Biden, why they ever run in the first place
when their kids were in crisis. In twenty eighteen, one

(29:52):
of the tragedies of Biden's political career is that the
line between family struggles and public responsibilities became increasingly difficult
to separate the deaths he endured. Nobody wishes that upon anybody,
the burden he carried, the challenges surrounding Hunter Biden, and
no doubt, his own guilts or whatever you know that

(30:14):
a parent has when grieving both a dead child and
trying to parent a troubled living child. All of those
experiences shaped him. He's an enormously empathetic figure because of
it in some ways, and he knows how to give empathy.

(30:34):
And of course these tragedies shaped him. He's human. The
question is whether there were moments when family obligations began
competing with presidential obligations. Just A good example is the
preemptive partons. As a father, I understand them completely. I
have the power to make sure my son is never

(30:55):
touched by this mess again. I'm going to use that
power to protect my kid. I get it. As a president,
It's a huge mistake, such a terrible precedent, and might
undermines the legitimacy of the rule of law. As a father,

(31:18):
protecting your child as instinctive as a president, your responsibilities
are broader than your family. It's not an easy distinction. Again,
that's why we cared about character, but it's an important
one because democracy depends on public officials being able to
separate personal interests from public responsibilities. That's why the character

(31:40):
discussion matters so much. Not because we're moralizing, not because
we're pretending politicians should be perfect, but because power magnifies
whatever is already there. If somebody is running for something,
power doesn't fix it. If somebody is searching for validation,
power doesn't solve it. Somebody has unresolved personal baggage, power

(32:03):
rarely makes it disappear. Actually, it usually makes it more
consequential and ends up involving innocent people that had no
part of your personal issues. One of the things we've
lost over the last few decades is an appreciation for
why political parties existed in the first place. They weren't

(32:25):
just ideological organizations. They actually were vetting organizations. They weren't imperfect.
They were imperfect. They weren't perfect. They made mistakes. Sometimes
they protected the wrong people and sometimes they kept out
the right people. But they did ask hard questions before
someone got too close to power. Today, social media allows

(32:49):
candidates to build emotional relationships with supporters before they've been
fully vetted. Movements fall in love first. The movement progressives
are just in love with so no new information. They's
got to be explained away right. Questions come later, and
by then it's often too late, because once people become

(33:10):
emotionally invested in a candidate, they stop evaluating. Then they
just simply start defending. We've seen it with Trump, and
that's the cycle I worry about. And not just on
the Rhine, not just on the laugh this is everywhere.
As we've seen, this type of behavior is contagious. The
lesson of the Trump era wasn't that Republicans are uniquely

(33:32):
vulnerable to overlooking character flaws. The lesson was that every
political movement is vulnerable to overlooking character flaws. When the
cause feels important enough. The ridiculous Flight ninety three defense,
the moment we convince ourselves that the mission is more
important than the flaws, we do enter dangerous territory, and

(33:53):
the Republic is put at risk because the flaws don't disappear,
they don't become less relevant, they don't magically stop mattering.
Those flaws show up they'll affect judgment, they'll effect of
other decisions, which then affects all of us. That's why
voters should pay attention not just to the candidate with

(34:15):
the baggage. They should also pay attention to the people
explaining why the baggage doesn't matter, because those are usually
the first warning signs that a movement has stopped asking
questions and has started making excuses. So look on when

(34:38):
it comes to what's going on in main center. I
don't want to also say, hey, this means that those
that were advocating for Janet Mills should be getting drunk
and I told you so juice, because I'm not sure
Janet Mills was the answer. That's also misreading the moment.

(35:06):
What has happened, though, is that and you see it.
You see it when anybody that's part of a certain
wing of the party, when one of their well known
proponents gets accused of a character issue, there's this immediate

(35:28):
rallying around them that they're just under siege because of
what they believe, not because of who they are. Look,
it's good, it's a good pr tactic, it's a good
crisis management tactic. Deflect and blame, right, I get it.

(35:51):
But when you've spent when you've spent a decade absolutely
eviscerating one party for looking the other way on character
flaws that were so obvious. Even the character himself admitted
that he could shoot somebody and get away with it, right,
That's when you know your movement is no longer sober.

(36:13):
They are high on their own supply and the supply
of others. And I think this is where Democrats are
now in a very difficult spot here with Platter. I
don't know what to make I think it's there's a

(36:38):
lot of yellow flags here. There's a lot of issues.
These issues with him are not from twenty ten. This
isn't like George W. Bush in two thousand and us
arguing about his behavior in the seventies, which happened twenty
five or thirty years, or the conversations around Bill Clinton
in the nineties, which were about his behavior in the

(37:00):
late sixties early seventies. He was accused of sexty in
twenty twenty three. Folks, just checked my calendar again. Okay,
it's twenty twenty six. This isn't a youthful indiscretion.

Speaker 2 (37:19):
Now.

Speaker 1 (37:19):
I'm also aware that someone will say, well, he's been
going through a lot of stuff. I get that. The
question is whether politics should be used in lieu of
therapy and lou of dealing with your own problems. And
this is what has bothered me. Right, so many people

(37:42):
have figured out how to use running for president to
profit or to launder their public image, and so much
so that that you've seen it sort of right. I mean,
you know Eric Swollwell create you know, essentially patted his
resume by a useless case and paying for president, and
it almost got him the nominee, almost got him to

(38:04):
the governor's mansion, until somebody decided those character flaws were
just too much to leave dead and buried. Mike Huckabee
had no interest in being president when he ran the
first time. He was just looking for a talk show,
looking for money, and he got it. In fact, he

(38:26):
was almost too successful. He became a serious candidate for
the nomination for a brief period of time, and I
remember they struggled with it because I don't think they
ever planned on being that successful. Donald Trump never planned
on being that successful. He was just doing it for ratings,
for his own Q rating, hoping to make himself relevant.

(38:48):
And we've seen it, Gary Bauer, Al Sharp, that, Alan Keys,
Mike Huckabee, Ben Carr's Herman Kane, I mentioned Swallwell, Tulsa Gabbard, Right,

(39:09):
we can keep Bobby Kennedy Junior. None of these people
were serious presidential candidates. None of them just wanted to
have a real job. They were looking for a shortcut
to some thanks to the celebrification of politics, right, which
really started to be an obvious career path when we

(39:31):
became a full three cable channel world back in the
late nineties, early odds and now with fragmentation. Right, Hell,
look at what I'm doing. All right, I'm an individual
creator in that sense, I don't even need a network.
But I promise you I'm not going to use politics

(39:52):
in lieu of therapy. This episode of the Chuck Podcast
is brought to you by fan Duel. You could break
the playoff action all the way to the finals, and
we're here with fan Duel Predicts. All you have to
do is sign up to get a twenty five dollars bonus.
You get to follow all of the finals dishes, swishes,
wishes and misses. Every move is a potential plot twist.

(40:13):
You'll predict the spread the total points, even the game
winning moments that make the playoffs and especially the finals,
where one run, one rebound, one shot can change the
entire trajectory of the finals, from opening tip to the
final buzzer. Stay locked in with every pass, every play,
and every moment that moves us closer to crowning a

(40:33):
new NBA champion. And yes, it's going to be a
new NBA champion. Sign up now for your twenty five
dollars bonus on fan Duel Predicts. So Game one is
going to be Wednesday night. So one thing I will
say is I think that over under to eighteen that

(40:53):
where I'm a little I'm not ready to go automatically
like one of them is going to be shot at
how the other plays. And so I think Game one
is a feeling out game and I don't want to
pick a side. I'm going with the over. That's going
to be what I do. But it is notable to
me that the money line for Nicks to win the

(41:14):
game and the money line to win the series is
al must identical, which to me provides you an intellectual
way to handicap the game. This is an offer by
FanDuel Prediction Markets LLC. It's a registered Futures Commission Merchant
eighteen plus. Bonus is non withdrawbal and expires seven days
after receipt. Trading derivatives involves significant risk and may not

(41:37):
be suitable for all investors. Find out if that's you.
Manage your activity with FanDuel's consumer protection tools. Restrictions apply.
See the terms at FanDuel dot com. Slash predicts, slash bonus,
hyphen offer hyphen terms. You look at a lot of
the issues we have here, the biggest one being who

(42:02):
ends up as our elected leaders. We've made the process
weirdly easier for flawed characters to do this than for
true normal people to do it, and that's something I
don't know how we fix overnight. Now, Platner could still win.

(42:30):
There's no doubt Susan Collins has worn out her welcome.
She probably shouldn't have run again. And if Jared Golden
had agreed to run for the Senate seat, there'd be
no Graham Platner. Right, that was the ideal democratic replacement,

(42:56):
But perhaps there should have been a bit more. I mean,
it was folks were so you know, I think progressives
were so excited about having somebody who's charismatic, who didn't
look like a stereotype of a progressive that they may
have put blinders on. We'll see. Maybe Platner has figured

(43:19):
all this out, and the decision to put it all
out there is part of it. The voters have Manald
decide this. But i'd be you know, I'm watching a

(43:42):
lot of really, I'm watching a lot of people who mocked,
a lot of Republicans who rationalized Trump support now using
some of the same language and same defense mechanisms to
explain away any thing that's uncomfortable regarding Platner, as I said,

(44:07):
with redistricting, and look, I don't I wish I had
a better answer here as to what the alternative way
for the Democrats to behave other than I just happened
to think of you just sort of behaving your principles.
Eventually that might matter. But you can see this mindset
of if you can't beat them, join them tactics, use

(44:28):
the same tactics. It's a bad road to go down.
If it was, If it was the wrong road for
Republicans to go down, why do you think that's the
right road for some Democrats to go down? If it's
wrong it's wrong. The same criticisms apply to the right,

(44:49):
the same things they say is wrong. If you're offended
by Platner and you're on the right and you look
the other way on Trump or Paxton, you have no credibility,
zero zilch. At some point, credibility is going to matter

(45:11):
to a majority of voters. It does more than I think.
I think our politicians have such low disregard for you,
the voter. They think they can bullshit their way out
of anything. Pay no attention to the guy who doesn't
pay his taxes honestly for the last thirty years. So
he's decided to try to come up with some convoluted

(45:33):
scheme to prevent the government from ever looking at any
taxes he has filed up up to the point he
leaves office. I'm referring to what we're learning more about this,
but this crazy defense fund of Donald Trump's, the weaponization thought.
By the way, he is a reminder now that we
have a judge sort of reopening the case and the

(45:56):
guardrails are working. You know, sometimes we think, oh no,
you know, nothing matters. Well enough, Center Republican squealed, his
agenda got stalled. Guardrails are always going to get dented.

(46:18):
I've got a little area over here near Glee Road
and Chambridge that a guard rail gets knocked over and
gets reput back up all the time because people take
the curve too fast. The guardrails there to minimize the damage,
not to ever prevent any damage ever, but it's to

(46:38):
force it back on the path if you can, and
worst case scenario at least just sort of end the
destruction right there at the moment, mitigate the damage that's
done so our guard the guard rails are still working.
I do think this weaponization Fund's never going to see
the light of day. It's such a political liability that

(47:03):
you have people leaking from the White House that they're
looking for a way to kill it. And it's guardrails
that got Donald Trump's name off the Kennedy Center. A
judge decided to read the Constitution and realize what article
won that it's Congress that named the institution, and it's

(47:29):
Congress that has to rename the institution. Donald Trump can
lobby Congress to add his name to the Institution, but
he's got to have the votes. He won't have the
votes because Donald Trump's alienated a third of his own party,

(47:50):
his own people aren't going to want to give him
this honor because of the way he's behaved. Comes back
to the irony I was painting earlier about every decision
comes with consequences. You just don't know when you have
to pay your consequences, pay that bill. Take take for instance,

(48:12):
you know the fact that every everybody that was in
just about everybody that was invited to participate in the
America two fifty, which was really being done handled by
the Trump super pac version of it. This Freedom two fifty,
which is has you know, America two fifty was a
bipartisan organization passed by Congress. Freedom two fifty is a

(48:35):
slush fund for Donald Trump and his cronies. Well, it
was Freedom to fifty that was inviting those artists. But
here's the irony. And I know we can't create a
personality transplant of Donald Trump. But let's say Donald Trump
had at least some check on his own ego. But
let's say Trump really wanted a massive turnout of great celebrities.

(48:56):
A normal American president would have made all the living
presidents the honorary chairs of America two fifty, and all
of those presidents would have worked with this president and
had an array of artists get involved that they all
individually have relationships with and you would have had a
true celebration of America with cultures, with every culture or

(49:22):
every large culture in this country represented quite well. But
Donald Trump's ego is such that he can't bring himself
to share anything, including the presidency, with which he has
shared with forty four other individuals. I guess technically forty
three other individuals, since he and Grover Cleveland are both
kind of twice. But he couldn't even share that distinction.

(49:47):
And that's what I find sad about this whole America too.
I want to celebrate America two fifty. Donald Trump is
making it very He's politicizing. He politicizes everything. The irony
is that he wrote to power by complaining that the
left politicized everything. All he does is politicize again. Two
rungs don't make a right. We have an entire right

(50:09):
wing political movement that is based on two wrongs make
a right. I am. If the left behaves the same way,
it's not good for any of us. Jokers to the left,

(50:31):
clowns to the right, and here I am. Here we
are stuck in the middle with these guys, but we
can always do something about it. That's why character is
supposed to matter. Here's the thing. We knew all of
Donald Trump's character flaws before he was elected president, and
everything that even his supporters don't like about it was

(50:53):
revealed before he ever became president. If you chose to
ignore those character warnings, you are now you know. Unfortunately,
you alone don't get to play the consequences. We all
are paying the consequences for your decision to look the
other way.

Speaker 2 (51:18):
So we can't.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
This is ultimately right. When you know, last week I
brought up and I spent a lot of time on
what the on the pope's encyclical when it came on
artificial intelligence. And the reason I did is because I
do think that this is American pope, because he doesn't
just speak English, he speaks American. He is going to

(51:41):
be a He's probably going to be the moral leader
America's desperate for some new pulling out last week that
showed that a larger, growing chunk of Americans are concerned
about America's moral values. We've become Donald every Donald Trump
is the north Star. This is why I've talked about
this when it comes to all of this, right, he

(52:03):
is in charge. The American president is in charge of
America's thermostat, whether that's on whether violence or a culture,
or in anything else. His behavior is a role model,
whether he chooses to be the room, whether he wants
to be a role model or not, people model it.

(52:27):
It's why we need to get back to character counting
for a lot more than it has in our politics
for a while. And I get it right, you're a
little nervous about institutions, you're a little miss about group think,

(52:49):
and look at you know these people that were sorely
good character people got it. Look people with good character
have bad ideas. I'm not saying they don't. You vote
them out. And when they're voted out, they respect the decision.
See George W. Bush. That's what you're looking for. And
a good character person, Barack Obama George W.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
Bush.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
Two high character people. They accepted the premise of when
they were right or wrong. They listened to voters when
voters expressed concern, and they and they and they and
they calibrated. That's all we can ask from our leaders,
and that's all we really can look look for when
we're trying to figure out whether you know, we're the vetters.

(53:30):
Now there are no political parties vetting anybody. All parties
want to know is who gives them the fastest track
to power. Parties are no longer seems to be worried
about finding the responsible actors. And I know someone'll say, well,
Chuck Shumer try to get Jana Mills. He didn't. He didn't. Really,

(53:51):
he still misread the room. He was right about He
may have been right about Platner, but he may have
been right about platter for all the wrong reasons. So
it's a It's funny, you know, I was tracking all

(54:13):
of these different stories and was thinking about doing them
as as sort of these separate things, and you realize
it's really sort of this larger crisis that we have,
which is we stopped. We decided collectively not to value
character and morality, and that was a decision we made

(54:35):
with Trump. And now we're getting folks who have decided, well,
this is what this must this must be better. So
now the Democrats are copying right in some ways. And
this is why I've said Plattner Collins feels like a
rerun of Trump Hillary from sixteen parties are in reverse

(54:57):
similar sort of mindsets, one side rationalizing their support, the
other side struggling to convey why status quo is changed.

(55:19):
But I think this platinum election is going to teach
us a lot about where the Democratic Party is headed
and where twenty twenty eight is headed. It's also why
we're not one election away from sort of getting past
this moment we've been living in. We have a couple

(55:39):
more false starts, I think before we truly sober up
enough and realize that both parties have gone off the
deep end in different rays for different reasons. A few
other notes, a few other notes on the weekend, just
a few other things. Jill Biden, like I said, I

(56:08):
was part of the reason for my long monologue was over,
you know, was this sort of changing explanation. You know,
it's interesting the I don't you want to talk about
a group of people who have been totally insulated from
what the rank and file really thinks. I think it's

(56:30):
the bidens I you know, I'll be curious. I'm not
sure people are going to want to read this book.
I maybe hate readers angry readership, but that was it was.

(56:53):
If you don't know the Bidens. What she said seemed
like an empathetic spouse. But if you covered the Biden
dis closely, you covered this story closely, it doesn't ring
very honest at all. And that's a shame.

Speaker 2 (57:11):
It is.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
You know, it's so funny. Before Biden decided to run
for president in twenty nineteen, I think that they probably
had the highest approval rating of any family in the
Democratic Party. There was empathy for them, there was sort

(57:33):
of this he was sort of this beloved, sort of
wingman of the presidents, referring to President Obama. But you know,
it's funny what ambition does to people. He wanted something
so bad that he ignored everything around him that was

(57:56):
going on, and they did enormous damage to their Their
own irony is that they did enormous damage to the
Democratic Party, enormous damage to their own legacy, and they
did some I think they did real harm to their
own family. And I'm sorry to think that.

Speaker 2 (58:19):
Is.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
Every interaction I've had with every Biden living or dead,
was nothing but a good interaction. These are good people,
and good people can go down certain roads. That happens.
Bad people can do it too, so can good people

(58:39):
just like you. Know, so I saw, you know, I
think that that there was a lot of us that
had a lot of good will that overlooked some of
these flaws. And I you know, when I when I
heard this interview again, I was just reminded, why did
they run in the first place? And the alternative would

(59:03):
have been probably Pete Pootage and Bernie Sanders fighting it
out to the end in twenty twenty and probably wouldn't
have mattered, Meaning COVID was going to elect the Democrats
no matter what. So who knows where this would have
had it. But this is the world, this is the

(59:26):
timeline we're on, this is the one we live in.
Uh quick preview. I'm we're gonna have live coverage of
the big primary night on Tuesday night. The most interesting
development over the weekend has been in the governor's race.
It shows polling now Javeer Basera and Tom Steyer could

(59:48):
both finish in the top two slots, locking out Republicans
from this, which of course would be a nightmare for
Besara or of styr Right. They both want Hilton in
the top two, and for a while Democrats are worried
they'd get locked out completely. The trump endorsement of Hilton

(01:00:09):
has sort of prevented that, And now it's possible that
this just ugly race for governor, which you know, it's funny,
with its serial sort of front runners and constant searching
for something else and alternative and dissatisfaction with the candidates
that are there. Is this going to be a preview

(01:00:30):
of the twenty twenty eight presidential primary season, Because that's
one theory I have, is that we could have a
series of front runners, meaning that people are just constantly
you know, they know what they don't want, and they're
going to keep trying different trying on different outfits and
seeing which one they decide looks best. That's kind of

(01:00:51):
what we've been watching with California governor. Eventually the primary
comes and they have to make a decision. But the
lack of people turning in their ballots and the fact
that people are turning in as late as they have
is proof that they're waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.
They don't love their choices. They know they're settling. They're
just trying to decide is this the last thing they
have to settle for? Anyway, It's just one way that

(01:01:14):
I think you could watch California government and the other
race that I'm intrigued by. Of course, on Tuesday night
we've got Iowa Senate, a little progressive versus establishment going
on there between Josh Turrick and Zach Wallas. I think
in this case a lot of money's been spent on
behalf of Josh Turick, and I certainly I think would
rather be him than Walls, but we shall see. And

(01:01:35):
then there's an LA Mayor where Karen bass is playing
an interesting game here. She's not really responded much to
Spencer Pratt, and people have probably have been wondering how
come she doesn't respond to all this and how much
is Spencer Pratt a right wing fever dream that sort
of doesn't really exist in the real world. Look, I
think it's I think practic certainly going to do better
than you think, probably will underperform the polling in general.

(01:01:59):
LA Mayor polls usually you know, under under pole African Americans,
So she's probably gonna be a little stronger in this
top two. But secretly she wants to face Pratt. She
wants Pratt finished second, not the not the Democratic Socialist,
not the mom Donni Acolyte to finish second, that's a
much tougher top two general election for her. So if

(01:02:22):
you're wondering why Bass has been weirdly silent on Spencer
Pratt and sort of the these Fox News manufactured this,
this sort of AI campaign for mayor that uh feels
like more of us. I think this is a little
bit more of a phenomenon online than in real life.
But we're going to find out on Tuesday. But secretly,
the Bass people, I think, are hoping for Pratt as

(01:02:44):
their number two opponent, as they think that he he
is somebody that won't wear one. They're probably right on
that one, but hey, you know, this is a this
is an angry electorate, especially out in California, where it
doesn't seem as if anybody is satisfied with their current

(01:03:04):
set of elected officials. All right, speaking of not finding
satisfaction with partisanship, my guest for this episode today is
Mayor Jemmy Mobilade of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Now why am
I having this Mary Emi? On? Well, number one, he's
the largest I believe he's the mayor, he's the only

(01:03:27):
he's the he's not the only independent mayor in America.
But I believe he's governing the largest city of any
independent in office at this moment. And I'm not talking
about people that run a nonpartisan primaries, but really, no,
I mean, he really is truly an independent. What made
him unique even more unique is after he lost, he
hired his opponent, a Republican, to be his chief of staff.

(01:03:54):
Ready for more about Mary Jemmy Maryemy wasn't even a
US citizen ten years ago. He got to listionenship in
the last six or seven years, and he's mayor of
Colorado Springs. He's a fascinating political figure. He is truly
trying to govern from an independent lane. Not necessarily a

(01:04:18):
center lane, but an independent lane. And it's interesting the
challenges he faces doing that. Where it's works, where it doesn't.
You know, he's caught between in some ways. I think
he believes a democratic legislature that is too that is
further to the left than his city, and a Republican
presidency in Congress that's further to the right of his city.

(01:04:41):
And it's interesting how he juxtaposes the two. As you know,
this is I've been highlighting people running as independence, but
I thought it's important to highlight somebody who's governing as
an independent. So I hope you enjoy this conversation with
Mary me.

Speaker 2 (01:05:05):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:05:05):
This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
by Quints. This time of year always makes me rethink
what's in my closet. I'm trying to keep fewer things,
but better ones, pieces that are well made, easy to
wear all the time. Trust me, I am constantly on this.
I have given up ties, so I'm looking for upscale, casual,
nice casual, right That's why I keep coming back to Quints.

(01:05:25):
The fits are thoughtful, pricing actually makes sense. Dirty little secret.
Some of my birthday gifts came from members of my
family using the code and ordering from Quints, and I
love what I got. Quins makes some high quality every
day essentials. They use premium materials like one hundred percent
European linen, and they're insanely soft flow knit active wear fabric.

(01:05:46):
Their men's linen pants and shirts are lightweight, breathable, comfortable,
basically the perfect layer for spring. I've got some of
the linen shorts on right now. They're fantastic, trust me.
And the best part is that their prices are fifty
to sixty percent less than similar brands. How well Quints
works directly with ethical factories, cuts out middleman, so they're
paying for quality, not the markup of the brand. Everything

(01:06:08):
is designed to last and make getting dressed easy. This
is one I wholeheartedly endorse. I wear the products I
really like it. I can find my comfort zone here
literally what I'm comfortable wearing and comfortable appearing in on air.
So refresh your wardrobe with Quints. Go to quints dot com,
slash chuck c uhck for free shipping and three hundred

(01:06:31):
and sixty five day returns. Now available in Canada too,
so go to q U I n CE dot com
slash chuck for free shipping three hundred and sixty five
day returns quints dot com slash chuck use that code.
As many of you know, very fascinated with this current

(01:06:53):
period of American politics where we have a lot of
frustration with the two major parties and you see various tempts.
Sometimes it's in red states you see independent candidates. I've
featured them here. In some blue states where you see
independence that may lean wright, but there's been very few
examples of independence winning and governing. But one of those

(01:07:15):
places where we've seen that recently is in Colorado Springs,
and my guest right now is the mayor of Colorado Springs,
Mayor Yemmy Mobilade. Everybody calls him mayor Yemmy, like mayor Pete,
mister mayor. Welcome to the podcast, Suck. It's an honor
to be on your show. Truly, thank you for having me.
Thank you for saying that. So look when the most interesting.

(01:07:39):
I mean, in some ways, you were a big splash
to me when you first got elected, not just because
you got elected as an independent, but you hired your
opponent to be your chief of staff. That is what
everybody's like, WHOA, this is different. Okay, walk me through
that campaign and what you were thinking on hiring your opponent.

Speaker 3 (01:08:02):
Yeah, at the end of the day, I was elected
to do a job. And the job I was elected
to do transcend red and blue, transcend politics. It's about
human flourishing, It's about city flourishing. It's about a quality
of life. And Americans are feeling the pain of they
feel like they're losing that. And when you are elected

(01:08:24):
by your people, your representative, they expect you to get
the job done. While most Americans do hold a political identity.
When it comes to the quality of life, they really
do not care. And when I was running, I meant
it when I said that this leader embraces the team

(01:08:45):
of rivals approach. I am an immigrant. I have this
August eleven, in a couple of months would be my
thirty year anniversary when I came into this country right
the Chicago O'Hare airport, went to college in Indiana and
South Bend, Indiana. And one of my connections to the

(01:09:07):
American story is that I share a birthday with Abraham Lincoln,
and I'm drawn into that period of American history because
I'm drawn to his story.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
And division in our country.

Speaker 3 (01:09:18):
Was present, was present at that time in the mid
eighteen hundreds, and we have a president that united the
country at all odds, and one of the examples he
showed was his ability to bring in the best talent,
regardless of whether or not they were rivals of his.
And so my leadership, while it feels new and fresh
in these times, and I'm happy that there are some

(01:09:40):
good reminders of who we've always been as Americans, I
want to be clear, this is old school, So.

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
We're bringing We're bringing old school.

Speaker 3 (01:09:46):
Leadership and making it new school at a time that
desperately needs new examples of political leadership.

Speaker 1 (01:09:53):
Let's talk about Colorado Springs. I'm I'm gonna paint a
picture for you. That's that what some people if you
think you know Colorado for a long time in politics
and certainly the politics you know in the nineties, Colorado
Springs was the home of cultural conservatism, Yes, absolutely, now.

(01:10:15):
Colorado Springs also home of the Air Force Academy.

Speaker 4 (01:10:17):
Yes now, and it's which is an army base. Yeah,
so army and air Force, right, yes, So I think
for some people of a certain era, and I'll put
myself there to see an independent get elected as a surprise,
somebody not not from from you know, obviously from from

(01:10:41):
the right side of the aisle. But there had been
some evidence of the last decade I've seen in that
congressional district got a bit more competitive and you start
to see and and a lot of that I think
is you chalk it up to to Colorado Springs. But
you chose to move there, And I'm just curious how
how clearly you embedded yourself in the community pretty quickly

(01:11:06):
to be asked to be mayor. And I'm just curious.

Speaker 1 (01:11:09):
How would you describe how you were able to convince
people that have probably lived there a lot longer than
you have that you'd.

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
Be the best person.

Speaker 3 (01:11:17):
That's a great question, And Chuck, I'm still trying to
figure it out.

Speaker 2 (01:11:23):
If I'm being honest, how.

Speaker 1 (01:11:26):
Do you feel like you connected? Tell me how you
connected it? You clearly have connected to the community. Do
you believe it is?

Speaker 2 (01:11:31):
Is it?

Speaker 1 (01:11:32):
Faith?

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
Is it?

Speaker 1 (01:11:32):
What is it?

Speaker 2 (01:11:33):
It's all of the above, it truly is.

Speaker 3 (01:11:35):
I am the first non Republican to be elected since
Colorado Springs started doing mayor elections in nineteen seventy nine,
the year I was born. I am a true independent.
In fact, I take a lot of pride in being
dead center. I It's complicated, Chuck, And this is the

(01:11:59):
politics of most Americans. We try to put them in
these polarized and opposite and I when you sit down
and actually talk with people, you realize it's it's competent.
It's complicated. I'm a business leader in Colorado Springs. I'm
I'm an immigrant. I'm the first black mayor as well.
I am I am a bus I'm a former pastor

(01:12:20):
in Colorado Springs. You can already see pieces of my
story that it's hard to box me. And even though
people try to box me and I and I went.
I ran for office because I love this community and
I want to be the change that I do want
to see in the world. It's nobody else's response. We
can we can complain about the state of affairs. We
can say, Okay, what are we going to do about it?

(01:12:42):
And part of me chuck between us. I wanted to
see what it looks like to have a regular person
with a compelling message, and people the silent majority like
me that I'm not supposed to be in politics, that
you should be running away. I have a front row
seat into this experience. And I still hate politics, I

(01:13:05):
want to be clear, but I love public service and
it's rewarding and meaningful to serve.

Speaker 2 (01:13:12):
Politics suck.

Speaker 3 (01:13:13):
But I wanted to say, is it possible for a
regular person with a story like mine to disrupt the
world of politics as an independent and this miracle story.
I'm still trying. I'm still trying to wake up on
this dream. And I put out a message that was compelling,
that connected with the hearts and minds of Americans and.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
It paid off.

Speaker 3 (01:13:35):
And it shows you that there is an appetite for
different kind of leadership that is not red or blue,
that is about a shared vision about the future of
our floorish and as Americans.

Speaker 1 (01:13:48):
Well, let's talk about some of the challenges you're dealing
with right now. Is mayor probably the biggest one or
at least symbolically that nationally people may be wondering about,
is the loss of the Space Command to Huntsville, right.
You know, this is a delegate political situation. As a city,
you chose not to sue and instead, I think there's

(01:14:09):
still an attempt to cooperate. You know, sometimes these decisions
are very partisan. It feels as if he wanted to
reward a red state over a blue state. Is that's
how you feel, is if you guys got caught in
the middle of that.

Speaker 3 (01:14:24):
Because absolutely, yeah, yeah, absolutely, I came into office and
the decision was reversed. So before President Trump left in
twenty twenty, he moved it to Alabama. Biden came moved
it back to Colorado. But you thought, with two different

(01:14:45):
president and it got reversed. But behind it all a
group of Americans he rose, who wake up every day
to serve our country. When I speak with them. They're
caught up in this political dynamic. Do I want to
Space Command? Absolutely not. We are proud military community, Chuck.

(01:15:05):
One hundred thousand veterans, forty five thousand active service members.
That's about when you think about it, that's almost about
one hundred and fifty thousand, and we're a city of
half a million. We're talking about a quarter of a population.
About city of military oriented, high quality of life. This
is a top city for many of our military members
in many ways. I'm wearing this right, white and blue

(01:15:27):
today because I got to participate at for Carson in
the memorial service to honor our fallen. That is who
we are, so we fought hard to keep Space Command
in this city that rightfully belongs. I can't do anything
about politics, but what I can do is to understand
the political dynamics around is what is the best decision

(01:15:49):
for both the active members of our active military members
that are serving Space Command, the civilians here from them,
as well as how do we keep moving moving forward
as a community. While we knew that decision was coming,
and I'm proud to say that I still have a
great relationship with the commander of Space Command. We've actually developed.

(01:16:13):
I've developed a good relationship with Huntsville, the city that's
moving to. I've connected with the mayor. We're going to
work together on behalf of military members and in behalf
of this country. And to his credit, when I met
him at actually General white In's house, he looked at
me and said.

Speaker 2 (01:16:30):
Mayor, don't worry. We're going to take good care of
your people.

Speaker 3 (01:16:35):
That's another mayor that is putting politics, I mean putting
people ahead of politics.

Speaker 2 (01:16:40):
So we do the best with that is leadership.

Speaker 3 (01:16:43):
We do the best with the political dynamics, and at
the same time, we find ways to fill in the gap.

Speaker 2 (01:16:49):
And I'm proud to say so.

Speaker 3 (01:16:51):
Many more opportunities are coming to Colorado Springs, even though
Space Command is moving.

Speaker 1 (01:16:55):
So it sounds like, I mean, you could have picked
up You could have followed lawsuit, picked the political fight.
It might have made some people feel emotionally better. It's
also possible that he could have decided to take more
away from Colorado Springs, right right, I mean, I assume

(01:17:18):
these are the type of things you guys had to
think about every day.

Speaker 3 (01:17:22):
I still get criticized for not suing MH. I'm both
I want to be clear on both sides, because there is.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
But I don't know what a lawsuit as much as
I understand, I'm you know, I'm sitting here going lawsuit
against the administration, right, good luck? Right?

Speaker 3 (01:17:45):
I mean, I you know, I am the chief executive
in my city organization. In fact, I was at a
DC trip and I had interviews with her two or
three media folks over there, and he asked me about
my opinion, and I said, but whether or not you
agree with the president, I understand it is within his purview.
I make decisions every day on behalf of the city.

(01:18:09):
Every time I make a decision, half of the people happy,
the other half not happy. It is within his purview.
So in that way, the president is within his right.
I don't like that decision. We fought hard to make
a case to keep it here. We worked hard, Chuck
to keep it here. Every time I'm in DC, I'm
at the White House. I did that under Biden's administration.

(01:18:31):
I'm also doing that on the President trum It's my
job to advocate for the city and in my case,
advocating for our military members as well their spouses and
family members. We fought hard to keep it, but the
President moved that, and it's within his right suing. It's
really just political posture, and I think Americans are tired

(01:18:52):
of political paustring.

Speaker 1 (01:18:55):
So you're running for reelection and so why do you
believe you just another term?

Speaker 3 (01:19:02):
Because One, my leadership is still needed more than ever.
We're talking about this independent way of leading, a leadership
that is not tied to red or blue, but a
share vision about the future of my city. Two, I
am proud of my accomplishments. This city is a lot

(01:19:24):
safer than when I first took office. We have hired
nearly three hundred officers in a very short amount of time.
You know, you think about where we've come from in
terms of twenty twenty George Floyd and how that has
that impact on our police department and to see this
wave of officers leave.

Speaker 2 (01:19:44):
And now we have strengthened the force.

Speaker 3 (01:19:46):
A nine to one call center operation is it fully
staffed the first time since twenty eighteen. What that means
is now eighty six percent of calls and now answered
under twenty seconds or less. We have improved response times
from twenty four minutes to eleven minutes. Practically every area
of the data we're showing an impressive decline. We have

(01:20:09):
brought I have brought the community together in ways. We
talk about my chief of staff, who was my political rival.
Here's what's happened in Colorado Springs. A police chief, deputy
chief of police in the same room, in a formerly
incarcerated resident, working on public safety priorities and policies together.
That is a kind of leadership I have brought to

(01:20:31):
the city, and it is a leadership that has moved
us forward and have had so many deliverables. I haven't
even talked about economic development at a time where affordability
is a pain point. We are have had the most
economic development wins in our city's history. And it takes
a different kind of leadership that doesn't start from red
or blue, but sees opportunity and brings people together to

(01:20:52):
accomplish those deliverables.

Speaker 1 (01:20:55):
There's some things you can't do that out of your
purview that people may think is in your purview. Maybe
it belongs to the state, or it belongs to the FEDS,
and and I know that that can do. And sometimes
voters they don't want to hear. Yeah, but right, you know,
they just wanted to hear. But what's something that you're
dealing with the state on that you wish the state

(01:21:16):
understood should be more of a priority than they make it.

Speaker 3 (01:21:20):
Oh, you truck in Colorado Springs politics. My guess is
your trucking Colorado politics? And one of this, this immigrant
and the outside looking in now participating fully in the
American experiment, experience experience. I've only been a citizen not

(01:21:40):
that long. We're talking six seven years ago when I
finally was able to I've been in the country who
was thirty and so to be able to vote, and
not just vote, but also run for office. And the
reason why that's important is I came from a world
of tribalism, political tribalism, where a world that we with Todd,

(01:22:01):
your main mission is for your tribe to dominate and
to lead and destroy the other tribe. When you look
at many parts of the world that operates that way,
you see very little progress. You see the same challenges
over and over. I chose this country that I love
so much, and one of the thin parts of this
that I love about our country is this thing we

(01:22:22):
call democracy. The very essence of democracy welcomes the competition
of ideas and values that is changing on the national level.
Surely on the state level, I have no issues against
my Democratic colleagues, but we have a state that is
led primarily by Democrats, and because we lack the competition

(01:22:46):
of ideas, we're now hurt in the areas of public safety,
in the areas of economic opportunity, you name it. I mean,
the recent rankings came out and Colorado is now the
third most expensive place to live in a country that
is not a rank And then I'm proud that I'm
proud of.

Speaker 2 (01:23:03):
And so I can't do much about the.

Speaker 3 (01:23:08):
Bills that get push forward on a state level, that
gets signed into law.

Speaker 2 (01:23:15):
We do our best to get ahead of it.

Speaker 3 (01:23:16):
We do our best to welcome our state legislators into
our local dynamic thing. I sometimes I give them toward
let's go in a business tour, talk to business owners,
talk to staff, get the real story so that you
can represent us well. And that is frustrating as heck,
not much I can. How would you describe your how
would you describe your relationship with the governor?

Speaker 2 (01:23:38):
It's good, I am.

Speaker 3 (01:23:39):
I take I take great pride in having a good
relationship with with leaders from both all sides of the aisle.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
I have I have.

Speaker 3 (01:23:48):
I have relationship that I spend all the way from
MAGA to DSA.

Speaker 2 (01:23:52):
Now I am frustrated with because.

Speaker 3 (01:23:56):
I I my my idealism believes that if I can
meet with them, if I could sit with them, if
we can we can debate the issues we I believe
in task conflict over a relationship conflict. Where we're getting
at as a country is we're name calling and we
need a debate.

Speaker 2 (01:24:15):
Around the issues. And sometimes that works.

Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
Many times I feel like people are stuck in those
values and chuck, I gotta be honest. I got to
be honest. I get weary in this work of unity.
It is harder. It's so hard. I met with a
group of leaders today two evenings ago, and leaders that
I don't I get to see in the community, and

(01:24:41):
they represent these I would call the silent majority.

Speaker 2 (01:24:45):
And what though, this.

Speaker 3 (01:24:46):
Leader put his arms on me and said thank you
for fighting for unity, and I just got really tary,
and I said, I'm weary.

Speaker 2 (01:24:54):
I don't know how long I can do it. I said,
I'm tired. I'm working hard.

Speaker 3 (01:24:58):
I maybe this dream it's just a pipe dream, it's
not real. And he looked at me and he said
there's so many of us that I like you in
this city.

Speaker 2 (01:25:06):
Keep going. We're behind you.

Speaker 3 (01:25:09):
We don't show up at city Hall, we're not calling
your office, but we do exist.

Speaker 2 (01:25:14):
We see you.

Speaker 3 (01:25:15):
We represent a big group of Americans that love the
work you're doing. Keep going. And that was really important
for me to hear.

Speaker 1 (01:25:33):
Look, you wouldn't have gotten elected if there wasn't that belief.
I mean, there clearly is an exhaustion. It's out there.
And you know, in some ways you have an advantage
because you you've identified your advantage. You've been both You've
been able to be here as an observer and at
the same time you came from somewhere where you have

(01:25:55):
a comparative. And it is this you and I and
I think my guess is people like the fact that
you can see it that way and realize it's, yeah,
that's work.

Speaker 2 (01:26:09):
Yeah, you know, we.

Speaker 1 (01:26:11):
Know it doesn't work. And you know, look, I I
I bow at the altar of the of the cliche
politics ab horrors of vacuum. And it's why politics abhorrors
a vacuum, meaning there's always a desire for a check,
always a desire for some sort of you know, full

(01:26:32):
Crome right, whatever, and and so you know this stuff
goes in cycles. You know, I think I think the
lack of two party competition in Colorado is a is
a certain brand of Republicanism. And you know the Romney
Republican Party can be competitive in Colorado.

Speaker 2 (01:26:49):
Right, yeah, I I I think it's.

Speaker 1 (01:26:52):
More on the Republican side than the And then, of course,
you know that's why the Democratic tent looks bigger at
the moment. I think it's in Colorado.

Speaker 2 (01:27:01):
No, that that that is well said. I I long
for the days.

Speaker 3 (01:27:05):
You have a former governor of Colorado, Governor Ritter, who
was after Governor Owens, who was a Republican governor. Governor
Ritter is a Democratic governor. I remember when Governor Ritter said,
I'm a conservative Democrat. I'm a pro life Democrat. I'm
not even sure my party accepts me anymore. And that's
what I mean that it's complicated. That's what Colorado used

(01:27:27):
to be.

Speaker 2 (01:27:28):
The pink purple is state where.

Speaker 1 (01:27:32):
Yeah, it's there's a few states out there that I
think have an allergy to this brand of conservatism.

Speaker 3 (01:27:38):
Well, I'll say our state is no longer purple. I
think it's my city, my city and I believe that
we are the last stronghold to decent.

Speaker 2 (01:27:50):
Good politics in the state.

Speaker 3 (01:27:51):
I think the road to a future Colorado runs through
Colorado Springs. We are going to teach the state in
the world what good not just good politics, but good
policies look like. And we and hire Wayne. It's a
great example of that. Let me, can I tell you
a little bit more of that relationship?

Speaker 1 (01:28:10):
Well, I'm just curious. So you guys running against each other? Yeah,
did you attack each other like on substance? I'm sure
you did.

Speaker 2 (01:28:17):
Me.

Speaker 1 (01:28:18):
Let me just Wayne, why do you believe you should
have been mayor and not him?

Speaker 3 (01:28:22):
That's a great question because now I've brought him onto
my team. Man, sure you're good.

Speaker 1 (01:28:28):
But she decided you didn't think he was qualified for
the job?

Speaker 3 (01:28:31):
Why No, I didn't. I don't think I did not
say he was not qualified. Let's be clear, Wayne how
Wayne is a former Secretary of State for the State
of Colorado. Wayne is a former city council member. Wayne
is a former county commissioner two terms. Wayne is a
former county clerk and recorder. You can see he clearly

(01:28:52):
has twenty plus years of experience. What I bring to
the table is a different level of leadership than politics.
Wayne ran his campaign that was more traditional and when
you go from Redo Blue into the political dynamics of
Colorado Springs and most American municipalities have this challenge. You

(01:29:14):
have a good boys club, a political dynamic. It's not
even about retro blue. It is about just a small
group of people that make decisions on behalf of everyone.
And I represent a new generation of the tables, bigger disables, longer.
Let's get more voices at the table to help shape
the future of our city.

Speaker 2 (01:29:33):
And that was the main difference.

Speaker 3 (01:29:36):
We started with a field of twelve of us six
seven of them all had political experience. I'm a political newcomer.
I am given a message that resonates with people. And
also keep in mind, I also have a lot of
community leadership. My leadership, what I was saying has been tried,
tested and proven. Everything I've done up to that point

(01:30:00):
was about radical collaboration, bringing people together to accomplish things
that are bigger than any one of us. This community
was willing to give that a chance. And I also
ran a campaign that was clean. I was attacked, some
of the candidates attacked each other, but my campaign was
clean and that sent a message through a lot of

(01:30:22):
residents and they wanted to give that type of leadership
a try.

Speaker 1 (01:30:28):
So I want to talk about a few things that
many cities deal with. And you know, so right now
data centers, ye are this are a pain point in
every local community, it seems in the country.

Speaker 2 (01:30:42):
Were you my meeting this morning? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:30:44):
So that's it. So I just did. I was just
just came out of an interview with the Congressman Frankly
on the East Coast, who represents probably on the East coast,
one of the hubs of the data centers at the moment,
Louden County, Virginia. And just the public's on fire on it,

(01:31:05):
you know. And whether it's about the issue itself or
just AI scares them, I don't know which. How how
is it playing in your community? And what's where are
you on this?

Speaker 2 (01:31:17):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:31:17):
This is fleshing out in real time. It's interesting you
asked that question. I had a meeting to this morning.
I called an emergency meeting seven o'clock yesterday morning to
bring the key leaders around this around this issue and
to ensure that we create a better we have a
better strategy, and we create alignment. And this is one
of those areas, Chuck, that I feel like where my

(01:31:39):
leadership shines because here is the current crisis now in
most many American cities, and now we're we're dealing with
this is you are You only have one of two options.
Either you are pro data center and growth of all costs,
while you are against it because of all the issues,
whether it's environment AI taking jobs, and there's a long.

Speaker 2 (01:32:01):
List of them.

Speaker 3 (01:32:04):
The answer is in the middle. In seminary, I learned
a term called churchham quid. It's Latin for a third way.
Churchham quid means a sense of belonging to two opposing values,
but neither one of them are the answers.

Speaker 2 (01:32:19):
The answer.

Speaker 3 (01:32:19):
The sweet spot is in the middle, and we are
in the We're right in the center of developing that
middle solution of a balanced but responsible growth. We must
grow as a city. I do not want to become
a ghost down. We need to add more jobs, we
need more housing like most American cities, but we cannot
do it in a way that is tone deaf and

(01:32:39):
not listen to the values and the needs of our residents.
And so it's around policies that allow us to say
what do we say yes to, what do we say
no to? And how do we put on display to
our residents all their needs around infrastructure concerns of which
they believe that these data centers will take away from
their quality.

Speaker 1 (01:33:00):
Let me let me put a few things at you,
because it's there are a few ideas circulating, and it's
in some ways it's just what this member of Congress
just sort of through out there, not as just different
ideas that are being debated. That these data centers, because
they can become security concerns. They've been attacked in when

(01:33:22):
that's another reason some communities are nervous about them that
they ought to only be on military basis.

Speaker 2 (01:33:28):
M hmm again have you been have you what you in
my meetings? Yeah, and that's what makes Coloradists bring such
a unique city.

Speaker 1 (01:33:37):
I was just going to say in that sense, Yeah,
you know, you guys have a big military base.

Speaker 2 (01:33:43):
They have their military installations.

Speaker 1 (01:33:45):
Right, and they have plenty of access to power that
doesn't disrupt your community.

Speaker 2 (01:33:50):
I assume correct, Yeah, I would it.

Speaker 3 (01:33:54):
So I I over the weekend I called two of
the four stars just to get the perspective, and I
called it two star to get their too. What I
love about our military partners is that they're like me.
And this is why, by the way, some of my
best relationships chuck when it comes to politics, believe it
or not. Some of my best relationships with our military
partners and also our Western folks, the cowboys, and what

(01:34:18):
they have in common is just old school, traditional work ethics,
good people and they see that in me. Our military
partners will say, we like it because may are you
a mission critical So checking in with our military partners,
they actually share the same values.

Speaker 2 (01:34:34):
Around data centers.

Speaker 3 (01:34:35):
One of the things non negotiable is I heard that
data storage is really important in terms of our nation security.
We need it too, is and we don't want anything
that takes away from our quality of life because we
two are members of this community and we depend on
our utility infrastructure for our standard operations.

Speaker 2 (01:34:56):
Yes, yes, yes, I love it that they are.

Speaker 3 (01:34:58):
And it so how do we get how do we
get to yes with the fens that support our operations?
And I've since learned, like you said, yeah, there are
some data centers that will reside within the installations. There
are and because of you know, higher classification and security needs,
there are some too that they've told me will be
outside of the installation, and these are data centers that

(01:35:22):
support the contracts, the the the Boeings and the aerospace
defense companies that do support the military. So it puts
us in a very unique place in terms of what
I can help champion and as a mayor and what
I frankly have to say no to because there are
certainly throughsholds where if it's going to have a big

(01:35:45):
impact in my community, I would not be a good
mayor to sit on the sidelines.

Speaker 1 (01:35:51):
What's your one of those red lines? You must have
a couple of red lines. Well we have we have
so right now. So Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs has its
own own utilities.

Speaker 3 (01:36:01):
That provides power, water, stormwater and what's the oh yes
and seword. Yeah, And it's a city owned enterprise. It's
its own business and functions as itself. It's supposed to
be profitable and help reduce the the the rat payers
cost it's working and because we have to control those decisions,

(01:36:24):
it's a it's a government run entity, so we're benefiting
compared to a number of communities where it's run by
private entities. So we are looking at it in terms
of where are those thresholds, for example, anything ten megawatts
and bigger. We have terrorists, and we put the ownership
on the data center, and many, many, many times we

(01:36:45):
expect them to say no, thank you. So tim megawatts
and and and less. Our utility company will support not
just data centers, but the Swire, Coca Colas and Freedom
Lay and many of these companies that are also need
power for their operations. So that those are things that
we have put in place. And we've done the same

(01:37:05):
thing too with a water conservation and restriction.

Speaker 2 (01:37:09):
We we have.

Speaker 3 (01:37:10):
Been I'm really proud of my city that we have
been way ahead of the times that we're in right now.
As I check in with my colleagues across the state
and across the country, many of them are trying to
enact a lot of the things that we as a
city have have already done.

Speaker 1 (01:37:37):
So you expect to have more data centers, expanding color
and color.

Speaker 2 (01:37:44):
Response not necessary. I expect to have a data center
or two.

Speaker 3 (01:37:50):
I don't know yet, but we're not going to be
the community that just says come because so we're tightened
our we're tightened now to ensure that any projects not
just data centers. I know data centers are now the
new political weaponize, right, no, no, no, And as we fight

(01:38:14):
over the new weaponize, and sometimes we missed that the
fact that what if there's a project that is about
to come to our city as actually requests a more
power than the data center, we'll say no to.

Speaker 2 (01:38:25):
So we have to look under the hood. And so
we were in Colorado.

Speaker 3 (01:38:30):
We talk about large load users, okay, and our utility
company is very intentional about we're not just weaponizing that.
We're looking we're assessing the right companies as a whole.

Speaker 2 (01:38:43):
Colorado Spain says yes too, and frankly, we say no to.

Speaker 1 (01:38:49):
Do you feel that because you have a little more
control of your utilities, you have a little more leverage
we do.

Speaker 3 (01:38:56):
I'm frankly our residents have more control because it's a
and it's our board of directors are a nine city
council member board, so we do have that in some
ways that advantage.

Speaker 2 (01:39:08):
I also think we.

Speaker 3 (01:39:11):
It's weird to bring it back to me, but we're
living in a time where independent leadership is needed more
than ever. I am independent of special interest groups, I
am independent of red blue. I get to make decisions
that are in the best interest of my community. I
am forty seven years old, I am four three years
into a four year term, Lord Will and I get

(01:39:32):
to serve four more years and guess what, I am
going to be a community member in this city, so
I get to live with the decisions that I make.
So I am not just fighting as for the right
decisions as mayor. I am fighting for the right decisions
you know when I am, not when I'm fifty three,
fifty two years old and my kids are living in
this in this community either benefiting of being hurt by

(01:39:55):
the decisions that I made in my time of service.

Speaker 1 (01:40:00):
The uh, the upside of these data centers is that
they do it's a way to bring some more tax dollars, right.

Speaker 3 (01:40:07):
Absolutely, uh to pay for things, and I need it.
I want to be clear, what do you I was.

Speaker 1 (01:40:12):
Just gonna say, I'm sure there's some residents who don't
like hearing that that you're going to consider this. What
do you tell them? Tell them, tell them why these
tax dollars matter.

Speaker 2 (01:40:23):
So much well to those residents.

Speaker 3 (01:40:25):
And you've you've asked me, asked me to fix your
pop poles, You've asked me to repave your roads. You've
you've said you need more police presence in our community.
You've said that you we have to do something about
traffic safety, about road rage and some of the a
lot of number of these issues.

Speaker 2 (01:40:46):
You've said that right now.

Speaker 3 (01:40:49):
You you want higher paying jobs, You've said that you
it's it's hard to live in this in this community,
and we have to go after some of those of
companies and and provide meaningful incentives. Everything that my residents
have asked me to do demands money. Our city budget

(01:41:09):
in the city outside the thirty ninth largest city in
the country, our city budget is minimal.

Speaker 2 (01:41:16):
When I check in with my colleagues, I'm off from jealous.

Speaker 3 (01:41:19):
Not that they don't have needs, but they have much
three to four times their budget size.

Speaker 2 (01:41:23):
And so you can't have it both ways.

Speaker 3 (01:41:26):
What is because we have competing interests and that's what
I mean again independent leadership. To sit in the middle
of these competing and.

Speaker 1 (01:41:34):
The data set argument's harder. I mean, because it doesn't
create jobs.

Speaker 2 (01:41:40):
No, it doesn't. And as an economic developer, I'm aware
of that.

Speaker 3 (01:41:46):
Yeah, in fact, five six, seven years ago and we
were saying no because it doesn't great job. But What
we do know too, is that their technology is evolving.
But that's not even why we're making I have to
look at everything from a very from an area that
is calculated, systematic. We believe the right project could bring

(01:42:09):
the right investment, and that investment could be used to
further other investment in the city. What I'm not saying
is that we're going to be a city open to
all data centers. What I am saying is that we're
going to go through a criteria. We're going to have
policies to who we say yes to that I don't
know how many we're going to see.

Speaker 2 (01:42:30):
Is that one? Is that too?

Speaker 3 (01:42:31):
But we're not going to be the community that says welcome.
We're going to look at it in a very calculated
form to say, what does our community need and how
can we take those revenues to actually court jobs that
court companies that actually provide more jobs for our residents.
These things are not a yes or they're not binary.

(01:42:51):
They are very much systematic, calculated, all about strategies. One
decision that unlocks opportunity to for more opportunities.

Speaker 1 (01:43:01):
All right, before I let you go, I'm going to
hit you with one more, which is on housing. I'm
very familiar with Pensacola, which is another military community, and
it is over the last five years they have suddenly
started to run out of housing and run out of
rentold And my guess is you're running into some similar
issues in Colorado Springs. It's just like Pensacola. There are

(01:43:25):
desirable places to live. People keep coming. You've got government contractors,
a lot of temporary housing, all these things that are
that there's demands on that. Sometimes a smaller city like
yours doesn't have that capacity and desperately need you know,
what is your housing situation.

Speaker 3 (01:43:47):
Yeah, it's it's like many cities across the country. Colorado
Springs is not immune to the housing crisis in many ways.
What makes ours so unique is, like you said, Pensacola,
we are We're not only a desirable city from military partners,
we're a desirable city for the country.

Speaker 2 (01:44:05):
I mean, for.

Speaker 1 (01:44:07):
Seven years we were showing up in there. You're like
all these other people. You move to Colorado and you
never leave. Trust me, I hear that from my real
from Native Colorado and says, yeah, everybody who visits don't
visit because nobody leaves.

Speaker 5 (01:44:19):
Yes, that's what they say, don't. Don't tell them we're
a desirable city. When we promote those rankings, people say stop, stop,
we don't want that to come. No more people, right,
no more people.

Speaker 3 (01:44:29):
But and we you know, we were hit like many
cities around the Great Recession. So at this current season,
we are twenty seven thousand units short of the housing
that we need. And when you project to about twenty
thirty two, twenty thirty five, that's another six we're about
sixty thousand short.

Speaker 2 (01:44:48):
So what are we doing about it?

Speaker 3 (01:44:50):
It's all hands on deck approach, same thing with homelessness.

Speaker 2 (01:44:55):
All hands and deck approach. From the zoning.

Speaker 3 (01:44:57):
Laws that we that I have control over to promote
more housing, to the rapid response process, through the permitting
process that I can use to encourage your development to
to get to ribbon cuttings faster to move at the
speed of business. To our partnerships with the state and
a lock unlock and funding there, to a partnership with

(01:45:20):
the Feds. And because of a lot of the hot
funding that we have received, a lot of that money
that has come through me in the last three years
have now resulted in about three thousand units that are
currently open under construction are about to be open to
our partnerships with the private developers, and many of them

(01:45:40):
now are being a part of the house.

Speaker 1 (01:45:42):
What is the biggest what's the biggest hold up? What
is the is it? What what keeps this from because
a lot of places are short catch up? Is that
that's just what it is? Just catch up enough we.

Speaker 3 (01:45:54):
Have we're playing catch up because the recession, after the
recession of OA, not much development, is what's happening. People
were developered, hesitant.

Speaker 1 (01:46:06):
You get a surge of population during COVID.

Speaker 3 (01:46:08):
And we then we got a surge of population Colorado Springs.
When I moved in twenty ten, moved from we were
that city where young people were saying, well the city
is not cool enough. Now for two years Zilla name
does the number one and two city for young people
to move in. And so now it's it's it's plain
catch up. We need to unlock the supply and the

(01:46:29):
diversity of housing. But frankly, it is also connected to
what we talked about the role of the state and
in legislation that the state often passes, it actually makes
our job harder.

Speaker 2 (01:46:42):
That makes it harder for.

Speaker 1 (01:46:43):
What's something that they passed that made.

Speaker 2 (01:46:45):
One of them is.

Speaker 3 (01:46:46):
A construction defect. The trial attorneys have these perfection scenario
for them where they can sue developers, primarily around condos.

Speaker 2 (01:46:56):
They work with owners. So when there are mistakes that.

Speaker 3 (01:47:00):
Are made in and some of them are minor in
these housing developments, they work with the owners. And I
don't want to minimize you as an owner. We're owners
and you buy a home and you go, that's not
what I purchase. But what we've been asking from the
state is the right to remedy for these builders to
go back and make it right. But right now, the
way the laws are set up, it really penalizes to

(01:47:23):
develop us for millions and millions of dollars.

Speaker 2 (01:47:25):
So what they've said is we're.

Speaker 3 (01:47:26):
Not building condos and town homes anymore, and so we
have this missing gap.

Speaker 1 (01:47:33):
Of that's what do you feel like is the the
status you're missing the most exactly.

Speaker 3 (01:47:38):
That's why I say it's multi faceted. It's multi there's
so many solutions. It's not just one thing. That's a
number of things that we have to address to unlock
the supply of housing. And one that is really near
and there, to me, Chuck, is just housing innovation. The
building materials are way too expensive. We're trying to do

(01:48:00):
the same things that we've been doing for the last
eighty years and expect the result to be different. I'm
a big proponent of we have to start thinking of
new ways to build homes, whether it's three manufacturing, whether
it's manufactured homes. I live in a home that was
built eighteen ninety eight. I live in an historic part
of Colorado, Sphinx. If you try to build the type

(01:48:22):
of house that I live in today that was that
is about eight hundred thousand, but it would be probably
three million. But we don't build homes the same way
that we used to back then. But we've been building
homes the same way over the last eighty years, and
it's time to start rethinking how we build homes in
a way that still retains a quality and value of

(01:48:44):
those homes, to catch up to speed of this most
innovative technologically time that we live in human history.

Speaker 1 (01:48:53):
Mary Emmy, it's been great to get to know you.

Speaker 2 (01:48:57):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:49:00):
Passionate about a lot of issues. Chuck, no, no, no,
I mean I a reminder of why why I'm doing this, thank.

Speaker 1 (01:49:05):
You, And you know I also want you know, people
both to get to know independent leadership, but frankly to
talk about issues that everybody's talking about in their own
neighborhoods and just hear how's one community tackling it right.
And it's been interesting that there.

Speaker 2 (01:49:19):
Would be some final way.

Speaker 3 (01:49:20):
I really do believe the leadership of our future, whether
even if you're red or blue, it's still you have
to be you have to have some level of independent leadership.

Speaker 2 (01:49:30):
I think. So.

Speaker 1 (01:49:31):
Look, our first president was an independent. Hmmm, come on,
you know, and there's something there's something something to be
said about it. But uh, you know, we only apparently
tried it once.

Speaker 2 (01:49:48):
That we preach. You can say that again.

Speaker 3 (01:49:51):
No, thank you for the role you're doing and telling
these stories, and I hope our conversation can bring hope
America people.

Speaker 1 (01:49:59):
It's about these things.

Speaker 2 (01:50:01):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:50:01):
The polls always tell you they want to elect an independent,
but then you know they never vote necessarily the way
they say not funny, yeah, and so but once they
see it in action, then you know that's what you
have to do. It just takes time, one office at
a time. Mary emmy, good luck, thank you, It's all right.

(01:50:37):
It's time machine. Time let's go into the podcast time machine.
As you know, for those of you new to this,
I try to take something that's happening in the next
week in history and do a deep dive on it.
And this week we're going we're going back into the
time machine on June fourth, nineteen eighty nine, that the

(01:51:00):
futures split into.

Speaker 2 (01:51:03):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:51:03):
When Americans think about June fourth, nineteen eighty nine, if
you go ahead and google it right, look it up,
you'll usually think about one image the minute you realize
what anniversary. I'm talking about a lone man standing in
front of a column of tanks. Tank man. It's one
of the most famous photographs ever taken. It was a
symbol of courage, a symbol of resistance, a symbol of

(01:51:25):
freedom standing up to oppression. Right, you know the expression
of picture as it's worth a thousand words. I think
that's two volumes of books in that picture. But here's
the thing that most people don't remember about June fourth,
nineteen eighty nine. The most important thing that happened that

(01:51:45):
day may not have happened in Beijing. It may have
happened in Poland because on the very same day, while
tanks were moving towards Tenement Square. Polish citizens were casting
ballots in their first semi free actions in the Soviet Bloc.
On one side of the world, people voted for the

(01:52:06):
first time in decades in a free Ish election. I
had a little lish there. On the other, the government
prepared to send in the army. One communist system responded
to public pressure with elections. Remember the wall hadn't fallen yet, folks.
Another responded with force. The world remembers the tanks, but

(01:52:30):
understanding both stories may be the key to understanding why
the world looks the way it does today and why
one of the biggest assumptions of the post Cold War
era turned out to be wrong. Look. I remember those
days vividly. I was in high school. Like a lot
of Americans, I became really fascinated by what was unfolding
in China. I was you know, this may not come

(01:52:54):
as a shock to you, but I was usually the
student in my group of friends that was paying a
little bit more attention current events. So I got a
bunch of us to wear black armbands in solidarity with
the students at Tenement. In fact, I was pretty proud
of it. I got I think I got I got
folks from all walks of mine I had I had

(01:53:15):
at high school in Miami that was a third to
third a third. And if you know, you know, the students,
of course looked familiar. That's they were easy to uh
to empathize with. They looked like students anywhere. They weren't

(01:53:35):
armed revolutionaries. They carried banners, they held vigils, they demanded reforms,
They talked about corruption, accountability, political openness. When the crackdown came,
I remember trying to wondering something else as we were
trying to organize global empathy for these students. And it

(01:53:57):
was this the overwhelming assumption shared by almost everybody paying
attention to world events at the time. Man history all
seemed to be moving in one direction. Freedom was advancing,
America was winning. We were winning right, Communism was retreating,
Democracy was spreading. The future appeared obvious. Looking back, that

(01:54:21):
confidence may have been one of the great misreadings of
modern history, because to understand Tiana Men, you have to
remember the broader context of nineteen eighty nine. The protests
were not happening in isolation. The entire communist world was
under pressure across Eastern Europe. Reform movements were gaining momentum.
The Soviet Union was still around, but it was weakening.

(01:54:43):
Mikhail Gorbachev was introducing reforms. The old order was clearly wobbling.
And then came June fourth, because on that day voters
in Poland delivered a stunning verdict. What's often forgotten is
that these elections were supposed to be controlled. The commun
Us government had negotiated what become known as the Roundtable Agreement,

(01:55:04):
allowing partially free elections while reserving many seats for the
ruling party. The idea was to open the system without
surrendering power. Instead, voters delivered a political earthquake. The Solidarity movement,
led by the now famous Lek Wallessa one virtually every

(01:55:25):
seat it was allowed to contest. The Communist government in
Poland was humiliated. The results sent shockways throughout the entire
communist world. Five months later, the Berlin Wall would fall.
Within two and a half years, the Soviet Union itself,
which ceased to exist, and a whole bunch of US
twenty somethings had to figure out what the hell had

(01:55:46):
to figure out the names of a whole bunch of
new countries on the map what looked like a carefully
managed opening had become the beginning of the end, and
Chinese leaders were watching all of it. And this is
the part of the story many Americans either memory hole
or forget, because the story of Tianaman isn't simply a

(01:56:08):
Chinese story. It's also a story about how China's leaders
interpreted what they were seeing elsewhere, Because while Europe was
moving in one direction, China was debating whether to follow.
The protests themselves began after the death of hu Yaobang.
He was a reform minded communist leader who had become
popular among students. What began is mourning quickly evolved into

(01:56:31):
something larger. Students gathered in Tanaman Square, then workers joined,
intellectuals joined, journalists joined, ordinary citizens joined. The demonstrations grew
into one of the largest protest movements in modern Chinese history.
At their peak, hundreds of thousands of people filled Beijing
streets some estimates, but participation at more than a million.

(01:56:55):
And the timing could not have been worse for China's leadership.
Because Gorbuschev was this in Beijing, the world's media had
already arrived. Instead of covering a diplomatic summit, cameras focused
on the protests. The symbolic heart of communists China had
become occupied by its own citizens. The entire world was

(01:57:16):
indeed watching. What many people forget is that there was
a real debate inside the Chinese government. History often gets
simplified into students versus the Communist Party. The reality was
a bit more complicated because there were some leaders who
favored compromise. There were some who favored dialogue with the students.
There were some who believe reforms should continue. Others believed

(01:57:37):
the party itself was at risk. The road not Taken
had a name, Zao Xiyang. He was China's General Secretary.
He was considered a reformer. He was a believer in
gradual political opening. In fact, a few weeks earlier, on
May nineteenth, nineteen eighty nine, he visited the students that
had gathered in Tenement Square on a hunger strike. He

(01:58:01):
spoke to them directly, We came too late, was the
quote that gets remembered the most from his visit. It
would be the last public appearance that Zaoxiyang would ever
have in his political career. Within weeks, he was removed
from power. He would spend the rest of his life
under house arrest, dying essentially in house captivity. In two

(01:58:25):
thousand and five, every turning point as a road not
taken for China. In nineteen eighty nine, that road was
Zoosi Yang. But there were others inside the leadership who
saw a different lesson. They had just watched the events
unfolded Poland, where a gradual political opening turned into a
nightmare for the powerty and power. They had watched a

(01:58:48):
Communist government attempt to keep some control over free elections,
and they had watched that opening escape its control. To them,
Poland was not an argument for reform, it was an
argument against it. The hardliners prevailed, Martial law was declared,

(01:59:09):
Troops moved toward Beijing. Residents blocked roads. For weeks, there
was uncertainty where was this headed. Then came the night
of June third and the early hours of June fourth.
The military entered the city. Live ammunition was used. Civilians died,
students die, workers died. To this day, no one knows

(01:59:32):
precisely how many. The Chinese government has never provided a
full accounting. The death toll may have been in the hundreds,
may have been in the thousands. The exact number remains
one of the most disputed facts in modern history. Perhaps
it's something kind of like Chernobyl, where it's going to
take the fall of the Chinese Communist Party for us

(01:59:52):
to ever find out the truth. But then came the
image that everyone remembers actually was not on June fourth.
It was on June fifth, the morning after a lone
man standing before in line of tanks tank man. The
photograph became the defining image of Tieneman. But in some
ways the image has obscured the larger story, because while

(02:00:14):
the world focused on the courage of one individual, a
much bigger question was unfolding. What would happen next? Most
Western observers believe they knew the answer. China had only
delayed the inevitable. Maybe reform would tick longer in China,
but it would happen. Maybe democracy would arrive more slowly,
but eventually economic modernization would produce political modernization. It was

(02:00:38):
inevitable because look, that's what seemed to be happening everywhere
else Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union. The
assumption was simple, growing middle class would eventually demand political rights,
Markets would lead to democracy. Economic freedom and political freedom
were ultimately linked. It seemed op and yet Tianeman should

(02:01:01):
have been the first warning that perhaps they weren't. At first,
China's future was uncertain. The crackdown produced international condemnation, reformers
were sideline, economic changes slowed. There was a genuine debate
about what came next, and in nineteen ninety two, Dang
Jao Ping settled the argument. Deng is one of history's

(02:01:22):
great paradoxes. He was the architect of China's economic transformation,
and he was also the leader who ultimately backed the crackdown.
The same hand that approved the tanks helped design the
system that followed. During his famous Southern tour, Deng pushed
China back towards market reforms and rapid growth, but political
liberalization would not return. That message became clear, get rich,

(02:01:47):
build businesses, invest, innovate, participaying global markets, but do not
challenge the Communist party. Political reform ended, economic reform accelerated,
and that formula changed the world. In retrospect, Tianamen wasn't
simply a story of failed of a failed democratic uprising.
It was the birth of a different model, a model

(02:02:09):
many Western leaders spent decades under estimating. Bipartisan mistake in
this country. The assumption in Washington remained remarkably consistent. As
China became wealthier, democracy would eventually follow. That belief helped
shape American policy for years. You can see it most
clearly in the debate over China's entry into the World
Trade Organization back in two thousand and one. The logic

(02:02:30):
was straightforward, trade would create prosperity. Prosperity would create a
middle class. A middle class would demand political rights. Political
liberalization would eventually follow. That was the bet, But it
was a bet Tianamen had already called into question. Today
we live at the consequences. The defining geopolitical competition of
the twenty first century is increasingly between the United States

(02:02:53):
and China's unique system. We always wondered what happened if
a authoritarian communist regime, what essentially dropped the ideological part of communism,
shared everything and instead create open economic freedom coupled with

(02:03:19):
political repression. It's not simply two countries. It's two models,
one rooted in democratic governance and one rooted in authoritarian control.
Both claim to be good for your economic well being.
One believes political freedom and economic freedom reinforce one another.

(02:03:43):
The other obviously believing they can be separated. And that's
why I think June fourth, nineteen eighty nine deserves to
be remembered for a variety of different reasons. It's not
simply as the day democracy was christ in China. It's
not simply as the story of tank Man, but as
a day that the future split into two. It's the
birth of this sort of bipolar world would suddenly have

(02:04:07):
stumbled into. In Poland, voters use ballots to begin dismantling communism.
In China, leaders used tanks to preserve it. Now that's
a reminder nobody will if given the choice of keeping
communism or dumping it. If you have free will, you're
going to dump it. That's the other lesson of Poland,

(02:04:27):
and that's why the authoritarian leaders realized they needed tanks.
One path led to the post Cold War Europe we
know today. The other led towards China that now stands
as America's principal rival. Back in nineteen eighty nine, many
people believed history had chosen its direction. Democracy was winning,
Communism was collapsing. The debate seems settled. But on June fourth,

(02:04:49):
nineteen eighty nine, two communist governments confronted the same challenge
and arrived at two very different conclusions. Poland chose the
ballot box, China chose a tank. Thirty seven years later,
we're still living with the consequences of both decisions. There's
your history lesson for the day. Now, one other thing

(02:05:10):
to look for in June fourth. Now that there's supposedly
American control and ownership of TikTok, let's see what kind
of Tieneman Square remembrances show up on TikTok this year.
I know we won't find them on we check, ask Chuck.

(02:05:38):
All right, let's take into some questions. First one comes
from Jamie ka Hey check longtime listener, first time writer.

Speaker 2 (02:05:44):
Hear me out.

Speaker 1 (02:05:45):
Would you ever consider running for president? Maybe even on
the ticket with Stephen Colbert? You have a way of
dealing complex issues clearly, and you're not seen as a
culture warrior. Plus you're willing to call out both sides.
Could you build a broader coalition? What say you?

Speaker 2 (02:05:58):
It is?

Speaker 1 (02:06:01):
I guess you could say, why don't you put your
money where your mouth is? Right? I certainly have plenty
to say. I'm a pretty good backseat driver, et cetera.
Look will I just I've never had the ambition to
personally run for office. I've not wanted to deal with

(02:06:24):
the sort of you know, when you're a quasi public figure,
and I was for a period of time. I guess
I still am in some ways. You miss your privacy
when you're not a public figure. You think you want
the attention, and then you get the attention and you're like, oh,
I want the attention on mind because you never Here's

(02:06:45):
what you learn is none of it ever gets to
be on your terms. And I think when you run
for president. Now that said, I think I'm in a
stage of life where it is I'm in a better
place to run for office than when a lot of
people choose to do it. You know, where what I
think is wrong is running for office because you don't
know what to do with your life, running for office

(02:07:05):
because your celebrity is wearing out. Running for off is
because you're you're just you know, putting off making you know,
dealing with the with the problems in your life, which
is sort of the point I was making it first.
But I will say this, I've certainly been more empathetic

(02:07:26):
of people that are trying to challenge the system, and
I do think the duopoly has broken us, it doesn't,
you know. And I do think both parties need massive reform,
and I think we need to open up, open up
the system for more, for more points of view, but
have a system that allows for it to work so
that people can be feel both heard represented at the

(02:07:51):
table and realize not everybody's going to get one hundred
percent of what they're advocating. So you're you're, you're oddly
not the first person to throw that out there, But
you know, I also feel like a trader to journalism
in some ways, like I'm happy to help others figure

(02:08:12):
out how to get into the reform aspect of it,
but you know, I was. You know, if I ever
did contemplate office, it wouldn't be with either party, That's
for sure. I would never feel comfortable doing that to
my fellow journalists at the end of the day. But

(02:08:33):
I will say this, whoever runs, I think a little
bit of an education component to running wouldn't be such
a bad thing. But I'm not sure the constituency for
that is as large as you may think, But who knows.
All right, we get fifty million subscribers to this YouTube channel,
before the end of this calendar year, and then maybe
I'll have to change my mind. That's not a challenge, folks,

(02:08:57):
that's just me being snarky. Jamie, thanks for the kind words.
Paul k right Hey, Chuck, proud of you for the
move into independent media. It's great to see. I was
struck by the recent Center primary results and had a question,
do you think Paxton heads into the general election over
confident or will he lean more into a grassroots approach.
I also curious how you see the broader impact of
negative campaigning and races like this. Paul Ka, Look, I

(02:09:22):
think packs you know, it's funny Paxton's never lost a race,
and you know, for the longest time, until Donald Trump,
we had had an interesting We had had an interesting
list of presidents and presidential nominees whose hallmark, in many

(02:09:45):
ways was an election defeat that helped make them a
better candidate. So I would say this meaning, I'm always
when somebody's never lost a race, the possibility of over
confidence is through the roof. When you've lost an early
race in your career, you just simply are usually a

(02:10:06):
bit smarter about how you go about things, and you're
a bit more I don't want to say you're risk averts,
but you're more aware of pitfalls. I think that Barack
Obama losing a race for Congress against Bobby Rush was
a huge lesson for him and how to run the
next time he ran. George W. Bush losing a race

(02:10:28):
for Congress in the seventies was incredibly helpful that you
know understanding that loss there. Bill Clinton lost a race
for Congress before winning his first race for governor. Jimmy
Carter lost a campaign before he became governor of Georgia.

(02:10:51):
Richard Nixon lost a campaign for governor before winning the
presidency in sixty eight. The point is Ronald Reagan lost
a race for presidency in seventy six before successfully winning
an eighty George H. W. Bush lost a racers say, anyway,
do you see where I'm going here? Up until Bill
Clinton and then Bill Clinton, up until Donald Trump, it

(02:11:15):
had been remind me. Milt Romney lost a race for
US Senate. John McCain lost that presidential primary in two
thousand before it became the nominee. John Carrey lost a
race for I think it was lieutenant He ran early
in the in the eighties and lost, and it was
an important lesson to him, so it was there was

(02:11:40):
always I think that there's something that you learn that humility.
I prefer an elected official that's lost an election once
because I think that they understand that they have to
listen when the voters are speaking. And usually a somebody

(02:12:04):
who has lost once is more likely to pay attention
when poles turn against them versus somebody who's never lost. Now,
you could say, just in theory, Donald Trump should have
learned a lot from twenty twenty. But if you refuse
to acknowledge that you lost, you learn nothing from it. Right,
It's I think Paxton will be a bit overconfident. I

(02:12:30):
think that there will, and you know, my guess is
he's going to live more in his grassroots on this.
But I also think we ought to be a bit
show some humility here. He clearly has a hold over
his constituents. A question I have is can he grow

(02:12:50):
his movement and how will he handle It's one thing
to be a Texas feeding frenzy, It's another thing to
get the national attention that he's going to get. Now,

(02:13:12):
maybe he thrives in it, but he couldn't melt down too.
So if I were him, I'd lean into the movement
that got me there, and I'd be running as an outsider.
I'd be portraying Tall, Rico and Cornyn as part of

(02:13:35):
the same movement in some form, and I'd be staying
as the outsider. I don't know if he will. He's
got his own financial issues and then don't forget, he's
got his own court cases that are all starting to
pile up. He's still got his divorce and all this stuff.
So that's why he probably needs to lean on those
that have stuck with him through all of this, because

(02:13:58):
in some ways they're a and there will be a
bit of a safety net for him and may be enough.

Speaker 2 (02:14:07):
Right.

Speaker 1 (02:14:07):
I mean, I think we've all underestimated Paxton's hold on
his on his voters. I know, I know I have,
and I'm not going to underestimate them again. But you know,
I will say this, I think the Paxton strategy. If
you're not for Paxton, but you're just want to stop

(02:14:27):
Talla Rico, you're asking the broader impact of negative campaigning
and races like this, It will be a battle of
the bases. What you will likely see is that the
more the swing voters are going to be as likely
to skip the race as they are to pick aside.
And I think that's why Paxton would prefer a just

(02:14:50):
a race to the bottom, because in a race to
the bottom, their base is slightly bigger than the Democratic base.
Can Taala Rico keep his keep that sort of optimistic cheerfulness.
I think it's its only path to victory is to
literally zag if he if he sort of fights fire
with fire, it undermines whatever identity he has established for himself.

(02:15:16):
By the way, that may not work either, But I
know just going negative ad for negative ad isn't going
to work because they're basic, because because that is a
universal way that those campaigns play out. What we don't
know is does does running the turn the page? Aren't
you exhausted? I'm not going to respond to every negative

(02:15:36):
with a negative. That's probably I mean, it fits his brand.
You always should run the campaign that fits who you
are best. And I think that fits somebody who's who
fashions themselves a Sunday pastor Brent and Phoenix Arizona Rights,
Hey aspiring remember the five question club? Well, Brent, are

(02:15:58):
we close?

Speaker 2 (02:15:59):
No, We're not.

Speaker 1 (02:16:00):
You said this is your second attempt, all right, two down,
three to go. I agree with you on expanding the House,
but wonder if something like the Wyoming rule might be
more realistic path in today's environment. Do you see that
as a viable step towards better representation or does it
run into similar challenges? I don't know if I've cut
off your question by the time I saw it. Of
what you meant like the Wyoming rule?

Speaker 2 (02:16:22):
Like?

Speaker 1 (02:16:22):
Is Wyoming the baseline? Like? What you know? What are
you gathering like the Wyoming rule? You know, should we
set a bar that no state should have any more
than two and a f times the voting power of
any of of any other state? You know, no states
should have more than two and a half times voting
power than any other state in the electoral college? Is

(02:16:43):
that what you mean by a Wyoming rule? Look, I
do think that the best argument I would come up
with for expanding the House is to that this is
design political power to Texas, Florida, California, and New York.

(02:17:06):
And that's two blue states and two red states. It's
just simply denying political power for big states, and it's
certainly denying political power for medium sized states too. I mean,
this system is only good for small states. It is
not good for where everybody lives. So that's you know,

(02:17:30):
but you're right, in these times, you've got to come
up with sort of an a political answer or a
nonpartisan answer. Right. That's why I'm you know, of looked
that Texas and California both should share the same concerns,
right that there this system denies them voting power in Washington.
And that's that there was a time that that would

(02:17:53):
have been enough. Maybe there needs to be more, but
what you're talking about might Maybe that's where if you
had a constitutional amendment that stipulated in certain things, then
it would force the hand of Congress to do things
like expand expand the size of the House, you know,
say by ten members for every ten million. You know,

(02:18:17):
for every ten million that the population expands, we had
to expand by ten members through a certain period of time, right,
Like you could do it that way. I mean, there's
all sorts of ways you could come up with metrics
that could force the hand here. But if I misread,

(02:18:38):
if we shorthanded your question too much, if you have
a better explanation of wyoming role bread, please please share.
Andy from the Quad Citi's Rights, Hey, longtime listener, first
time email Aer here. I'm currently in a production of
seventeen seventy six Nice, which got me thinking about how
some founding fathers are portrayed versus their real impact. Do
you have any lesser known figures from that era you
think deserve more credit or are often oversimplified? Best Andy

(02:19:00):
from the Quad Seti's huh oh gosh. I mean, I
think you know, the more I why watched the ken
Burns Ben Franklin thing, the more you realize Ben Franklin's
both over sort of an overrated and underrated founder in
different ways for different reasons. I think it's fair to
say all of our founders have been oversimplified and and
and undercomplicated a little bit. I need to put more

(02:19:27):
thought into that question. You know, I don't think John
Hancock is is is. I don't know if everybody would
align with the character of John Hancock the more they
knew about John Hancock, right. But that is also why
I love the ken Burns American Revolution series, because it

(02:19:47):
it just sort of noted that these were these were
all people that had a normal set of flaws like
all of us do. So I mean, look, I think
that I believe it or not. And this is going
to sound crazy when you say it, but if you

(02:20:09):
spend some time looking for scholarship on this person, you'll
realize what I'm talking about. I think we undervalue, under rate,
and under examine George Washington. There is this, you know,
there's this. There's only been a couple of really good

(02:20:34):
books on him. And part of it is, you know,
there's always been this quiet like, well, he wasn't as
book smart as Jefferson, you know, or or you know
that you both Adams and Jefferson were more intellects than
Washington was, whatever that was supposed to mean. So there
was sometimes a dismissiveness among some historians and I think

(02:20:55):
even among other others in the movement that Washington was
this great figure head, but he really wasn't that smart,
really wasn't that bright. And I just think that we
we sort of we both lionize him and certainly make
him this incredibly large figure when we're little kids, but

(02:21:20):
we don't spend enough time on him intellectually. And I
don't think we've you know, I think you know, I mean,
his Pharaoell address is more brilliant than you know, get
it gets more brilliant to me the older I get, So,
you know, it's it's I know you may think I'm
doing a cop out here, but I really think that

(02:21:44):
Washington is sort of you know, the the you know,
the guy who you know, the actual founding father of
the of you know who many people would put in
the you know, literally on the Mount Rushmore right of
our founding president. He's I think the most famous person.

(02:22:05):
People don't know a lot about it, and I don't
think we weirdly enough study Washington enough. I feel like
we study Jefferson and Madison and Adams even and I don't.
And again, part of it is that the scholarship on
Washington is I don't want to say it's simple. Simple
is not the right word I'm looking for. It's just

(02:22:28):
it's it's not as rich and dramatic and as controversial
as Jefferson, right and so right. Jefferson just has a
lot more interesting country. You know, we love contradict It's
more fun to write about contradictions than than to write
about somebody who is pretty easy to explain. And I
guess that's why we, in a weird way, have fewer

(02:22:49):
books on Washington than we do on Jefferson. Why there's
sometimes less debate about Washington than Jefferson Anyway, There's just
a it is I've I've every time I read a
new Washington biography, I'm always feeling like, is there's something

(02:23:09):
I and I guess it's it's that I hold, you know,
It's like, it's it's this this, what there is everything
we know about Washington? What there is right, there's no
hidden this hidden that. But I've always I've always felt
that Washington is both incredibly well known. You know, this

(02:23:32):
used to be said about Harlely Clinton. Here the most
famous person nobody knows anything about. And I think George
Washington is this famous founding father that people know much,
people know much less about than they realize. Next question, Ah,

(02:23:55):
Kevin rts Hey, I have a question about the Catholic
Church's role as a moral authority. Do you see any
real movement on his like women in leadership, celibacy requirements,
or recognition of same sect marriage. Curious how you think
about the Church's influence on these debates today. Well, it's
a good question, and it may prevent the opportunity that
I think Pope Leo has in this moment now, I
think Pope Leo, because he sort of shares the moral

(02:24:17):
concerns that many other people have about the Trump era,
that people will start looking to him and maybe overlook
some of these other issues that they have at the
Catholic Church. But it's pretty clear that both that Pope
Leo is going to be similar to Pope Francis, and
that he is trying to move the church from the
eighteenth century to the nineteenth century and some of these issues.

(02:24:39):
I know, I'm being a little facetious here, or maybe
he's trying to you know, Pope Francis, you know, in
the twenty first century, tried to get the church into
the twentieth century. And maybe the argument is, you know,
can they get the church out of the early twentieth
century and into the late twentieth century with women in
leadership or letting priests marry and we'll see. I mean,

(02:25:07):
I think it's a that is going to be the
other way that plenty will judge the papacy of Poplio.
But if you're going to speak in basic human rights,

(02:25:28):
then having women treated as second class citizens is a
tough place to keep hanging your hat on. And so
if I look at all of the things that the
church hasn't shifted on that could I expect the church.

(02:25:49):
Maybe we'll see. I am I expect the church in
my lifetime to have women priests before they get there
on same sex marriage, before they get there on celibacy
or on priest marrying. I think some of it is
just going to be a numbers game. They need priests,

(02:26:10):
and I think they will start to tap nuns and
then that's where this comes. It's my own speculation. Everything
is always, you know, very much incremental steps in these
institutions that are hundreds of years old. But that would
be my guess is that they would move in that direction.
Everything would be out of necessity right, necessity of keeping

(02:26:31):
the membership going, necessity of right, different reasons. So that's
why I don't expect the movement on same sex marriage,
given how you know, this is not something that the
continent of Africa is embracing in the way that Western
the Western civilizations are, So I don't know if they
make that's and they made that same movement towards recognition

(02:26:55):
of same sex marriage. I'm more inclined to believe that
they equalize women in the church before they take any
of those other steps. But you know, I will also
confess that it's hard enough for me to what i'd

(02:27:20):
like to think is correctly or coherently explain American politics.
Trying to decipher the future of the Catholic Church probably
belongs to my friend mister Weigel. George Weigel's somebody I
am a long time intellect about the Vatican here in
many American publications, and he's certainly somebody that I may

(02:27:46):
invite on this podcast very soon because I think he
does a good job of at least explaining the internal
machinations of the organization that is the Catholic Church. All right,
last question, big fan, I've been listening for years, Yes,
even the Meat the Press podcast. I'm in the early
I'm in my early forties, and my parents now in

(02:28:07):
their seventies, have the news on constantly, which seems to
be fueling a lot of anxiety. Do you have any
advice for helping people step back from the twenty four
to seven news cycle while still staying in form Thanks
for all you do, Lenny and Ipswich, Massachusetts. Well, yeah,
you know, whether it's turn off the Fox or turn
off the MS. Right, we all have this conversation about
our parents or older relatives because they you know, during

(02:28:31):
the day, they're looking for company. I get it. Look,
if they're sports fans, try to introduce them to the
MLB app especially during baseball season they have a lot
because I think a lot of times people turn the
news on for company, a little noise in the house,
and you don't just want a boring TV show or
just a rerun of something. This used to be what

(02:28:54):
you know, Oprah's popularity was sometimes just to have some
noise on instead of music in the house or whatever
it is. Right, So, look, there are other things there
are you know, there's there's sports podcasts, there's you know,
now that all of us have turned podcasts into video things,

(02:29:15):
they can find something on their interests that do this.
Introduce them to these ten and fifteen minute news little
updates that you get from like you know, whether it's
a legacy news network, an independent news aggregator, you know,

(02:29:36):
you can curate something that can essentially replace the cable
news sort of vacuum filler, which is what I think
cable news became in a lot of households. You're just
sort of filling the air, filling noise keeping you company.
There's a lot more interesting people on YouTube, right, it
can keep you a company. And there's a lot of

(02:29:59):
other subject areas. When I have a day off, I
used to just you know, when I when I had
one of those week days off and I was at home,
and I was like, I will I can keep up.
I get enough of a news feed on here and
all the different things I get, and I don't need

(02:30:21):
to listen to handwringing about the headlines all day long.
But I'm in the middle of it, right, I'm in
the business. So I'm looking for in some ways a
palette cleanser. And so I've always used sports talk is
that although I can't stand these ESPN shows in the
in the daytime, I mean the only you know, there's

(02:30:42):
PTI that's fantastic and everything else, the manufactured chat shows
they're sort of just trying to you know, that's that's
a little much for me. So not a huge fan.
But that's what I would do, is if you've got
if your parents have another interest, well I promise you
there's a daily podcast that would scratch that interest. So

(02:31:05):
find them a couple that's the best I can help
you with. Well, look, I've gone long on this one.
I have a you know, I had a bunch to
say about the latest on the mL what both the
players and the owners are putting on about baseball. By
the way, I have an interview coming up with the
owner of the Chicago Cubs later this week, Todd Ricketts.

(02:31:26):
It's mostly about a new app that he's got out
that's a way to try to cut through the partisan
noise that's out there. It's a very interesting technology, and
I think it's worth a look at. But we actually
spend a few minutes talking about, you know, the likelihood
or unlikelihood of there being a work stoppage in baseball
in twenty twenty seven. I just want to I don't

(02:31:50):
I'm I will say this. I think a salary cap
is coming, but but how do you define salary cap?
You know, we could have this huge cap that eventually
becomes relevant in ten years down the road. That would
be my advice to the owners. You know, if you
want to get the players to agree to a cap,
have the cap be absurd for the next ten years.

(02:32:12):
Then eventually you'll value yourself closer to it, and then
it might actually be an acceptable cap. But it might
be the best of both worlds there for everybody. But
that's thinking like a compromiser in a ration when we're
in a collaborator. But who knows. And I don't want
a twenty fourteen playoff. I can get behind a sixteen

(02:32:34):
team playoff. I think I've advocated for one. I think
sixteen teams is the perfect size. Any bigger and you
get teams that don't belong any smaller, and you will
always leave out a team or two that would have
been better in the right twelve left out probably two
teams that belonged Texas and Notre Dame. Sixteen probably would
have allowed one more team in that shouldn't have gotten in,

(02:33:00):
rather have one, you know, that's probably the right twenty
four I don't want eight and four. We don't want
four loss teams in the playoff. You really don't want
three loss teams in the playoff. And that should be
the be the be the goal, because if the regular
season starts to get diluted, and and and and a
third loss is accepted, but a fourth loss and literally

(02:33:22):
you can get in with a fourth loss, then what
are we even doing here? What's the point of the
regular season? It just you know it's sort of as
bad as the NBA, and again, nobody wants to become
the NBA regular season, right? Is there a sing? It
is all? It is? All it is. All it did
was decided who hosted Game seven in the Western Conference Finals,
and it turns out that home court advantage didn't matter.

(02:33:45):
So I'll admit I had a lot more in both.
But I'm mindful of your time. I'm mindful of my own.
I appreciate how much time and devotion you do give
to the hard work that gets put into this podcast.
And with that, see it forty eight hours with a
new episode. But hopefully I'll also see you Tuesday night

(02:34:05):
for our live election coverage of the June second primaries.
And this is a big one California. We're gonna be
on for at leite. We're gonna be on for a
good four hours. We're gonna go past midnight on the
East Coast. Trust me, we're not gonna go days, which
is how long it actually will take the count all
the ballots in California. But we're gonna go past midnight

(02:34:26):
and then some and have a nice good West Coast
flavor to our election life coverage on Tuesday, So if
I don't see you Tuesday night, then i'll see you
Wednesday morning. But either way, i'll see you then. Thanks
for listening, and until we upload again.

All Episodes

Full Episode - Character Is Destiny In Politics + The Independent Mayor Making The Case For Post-Partisan Politics

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

.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;}Full Episode - Character Is Destiny In Politics + The Independent Mayor Making The Case For Post-Partisan Politics