February 11, 2025 • 60 mins
Stephen A. Smith is a New York Times Bestselling Author, Executive Producer, host of ESPN's First Take, and co-host of NBA Countdown.
Stephen A. sits down with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for a far-ranging interview about the Super Bowl-winning Philadelphia Eagles, Donald Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders, a Gaza takeover, Democratic party reforms, and his future political aspirations.
Support the show: http://www.youtube.com/@stephenasmith
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Welcome to the special edition of the Step and A
Smith Show. I call it a special edition because of
who I am about to talk to. I am honored
to have my next guest. He is the forty eighth
Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And obviously we know
he's sitting here with me in New Orleans because the
Philadelphia Eagles played in the Super Bowl. I'm talking about
the Pennsylvania government himself. Mister jos Shapiro, how are you, sir, House.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Everything great to be with you, Steve.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
I couldn't wait to talk to you because there's so
many things to talk to you about outside of sports.
We talked about our sports the other day, and now
here we go. We're gonna get in your wheelhouse right now.
And you've seen the president, forty seventh President of the
United States, Donald Trump, handing down an abundance of executive
orders and it's something that we can get into in
a little while. But the first order of business is
(00:58):
his position that essentially the US wants to take over
the Gaza. Yeah, what was your reaction when you heard that?
And when you saw him standing next to Benjamin Netan, Yahoo,
the Prime Minister of Israel whistling.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So I thought it was an unserious proposal. I thought
it was a proposal that, if he actually carried it
out the way he said he was, violates international law.
I thought it was deeply disrespectful to the Palestinian people.
I think it doesn't take into account Jordan and Egypt
(01:31):
and how they're gonna feel about it. I thought it
was wrong. Look, I want these hostilities to and I
want all these hostages home. I'm someone who believes that
there should be a two state solution. I want the
Palestinians to have a state that they can call their own.
I want them to live peacefully, side by side with Israel.
I think what Donald Trump did was make that harder.
(01:53):
And again I thought it was really un serious and unhelpful.
At this time, you still got about one hundred ish
hostages that aren't home. Why would you do anything to
upset that process?
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Now?
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Why would you do anything like that that's going to
make it harder for those loved ones to be able
to wrap their arms around those hostages get them back
from Hamas's Hamas's control. So I didn't think it was serious. Look,
I get this guy. He likes to make a lot
of noise. He likes to put a lot of stuff
out there, throw a bunch of stuff up against the
wall and see what sticks. And I'm sure we're going
(02:26):
to talk more about that. I just thought this was
both unserious and unhelpful at this time.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
With that being said, how did you feel again about
prime in Benjamin that Yahoo's response, which was pretty much nothing.
I mean, he looked at it, looked like he had
glee on his face. He certainly didn't see alarm, seem
alarmed or disturbed by what the president was saying. And
what do you make of that?
Speaker 2 (02:47):
I think Natanya, who's playing a short term game, he's
not thinking about the long term interests of Israel's playing
a short term game to keep himself out of legal jeopardy,
to keep himself self and power with this really difficult
coalition that he needs to be able to stay into power.
I think if you're taking a long term, sober look
(03:09):
at Israel's safety and security, you need to figure out
a way for the Palestinians to look drive hamas out,
drive terrorism out, of course, but have a stable home
where they can focus on their economic goals, their educational goals,
their other goals as a nation, and that is going
(03:30):
to create more peace and stability in the region. And
I don't think that's out who thinks about that at all.
He's just trying to look at his short term interest.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Why do you believe he doesn't think about that at all?
I would surmise it's just a guess because I certainly
don't know as much as you, But I would surmise
that one of the reasons he may have short term
thinking is because when we think about what Hamas did
last October seventh, and how they ravaged to Israel and
kidnapped and murdered people, what have absolutely awful excuse for it?
(04:01):
That was on Benjamin Yaho's watch, correct, And I imagine
there are a plethora of people in Israel that are
not very fond of him in the job he has
done because they point the finger at him for that.
Could that explain your assertions about his short term.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
That's why I'm saying short term the moment this war
is over, which look, God willing, this war is gonna
be over tomorrow. We want all these hostages home, we
want the violence to end. There's gonna be a whole
lot of questions about why didn't he know on October seventh,
or what did he know and what did he ignore?
His trial for corruption charges gets back going, He's going
(04:36):
to have to answer to the sixty two ish sixty
fourist whatever he's got now members of his coalition as
to what the best path forward is. As long as
there is continued fighting, as long as there is continued
what I would describe as chaos within his ranks, he's
able to be protected. That is maybe in the interest
(04:57):
of Benjamin Natanyahu in the short term, it is not
the interests of Israel in the long term. I've said
for a long time stephen A, I don't think Natanya
who's got the best interests of Israel long term. Now
I'm sitting in the backseat. I'm not in Israel. I'm
not a voter in Israel. I'm not an Israeli citizen.
I don't get a say in this. I'm answering your
question as someone who's looked at this issue. I think
(05:20):
long term, you want to create an environment. We're twelve, thirteen, fourteen,
fifteen year old Palestinian kids are growing up not with
animosity toward Israel, but with hope for a brighter future
for themselves, same thing for Israeli kids. If you're able
to do that, you're able to create stability in the
region in the long run.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
I'm questioning this possibility when you talk about the displacement
of one point five million Palestinians.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Am I talking about Trump's That's what I mean.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
I'm in Trump. I mean Trump, That's what I'm talking about.
When you're talking about when he's talking about it along
those lines, and you don't hear emphatic resistance to that
emanating from Israel, Yeah, then they're going to be viewed
as being complicit, which to me is additional reasons for
the forther the vitriol to continue moving forward. I don't
see how peace comes from that. No, I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
I don't see how peace comes from it. I don't
see how it's lawful what President Trump has put forth,
and again I don't think it's in the interests of
Israel long term.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
With that being said, where do you go from here?
As the governor of Pennsylvania, as somebody who's been seen
who's been seen as being pro Israel as well you
should and has been criticized for that, particularly leading up
to the election. I'm wondering how you feel right now
about your stance where you stand, knowing the criticism that
(06:38):
you have received from being pro Israel, and now you're
taking the position I stand.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I stand where I stand, and I don't get too
highs from the too high from the love or too
low from the hate. I think with any of these issues.
And I'll remind Steven that I'm a governor of Pennsylvania.
I'm not the Secretary of State. That's right, But I
got opinions on things, and I'm happy to share them
with you. I think you've got to study issues, think
you've got to be open to opinions that aren't your
(07:03):
own and bring them in as you're thinking through stuff.
And then ultimately you've got to make the decision that
in my day job is in the best interests of
Pennsylvanians and the best interest in the future of Pennsylvania.
And you've got to stick to that regardless of the
love you get or the hate you get on it.
So I'm mindful that there are some people out there
that attack me. Let's be real for being a proud
(07:26):
American Jew and someone who's open about celebrating my faith
and open about how my wife and I are choosing
to raise our kids and proud of who we are.
I get that that brings attacks from others, but that
doesn't force me to change the way I think about
stuff or change where I've usedt toff. What I do
leave myself open to are people who bring a different perspective,
(07:51):
who are able to educate me on something I don't
know about, and I'm willing to open up my mind
to those things and evolve in my positions. Your positions,
when you change your position, I think it's really important,
especially when you're a job like mine, to be really
honest with the people you serve about. Why give you
an example of that, moving from Middle East to something else.
(08:12):
I ran twice successfully for Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Both
times I ran in support of the death penalty. Honestly
held view based on research, based on the experiences that
I had as an elected official and then serving as
Attorney General. Case by case by case would come across
my desk, and I could never sign off on capital punishment.
(08:36):
Something was bothering me about that. I spent a lot
of time thinking about it, spent a lot of time
looking at it. More then my ten year old kick
came over me one day and said that we don't
do the death penalty in Pennsylvania, do we? And I
couldn't look my kid in the eye and explain to
him why we have the death penalty and why it's important. Now,
I realized there's some folks out there who feel strongly
(08:58):
on both sides of this. But after I thought about
my kids question, I thought about my experience as Attorney General.
I changed my mind on it, and I stood up
in West Philadelphia give a long speech to folks explaining
why I had. I know there's some people that didn't
like that I changed my view on that, but I
know they walked away going, you know what that guy
(09:18):
actually thought about it. He explained to me why he
is the way he is on that. I share that
example with you because I'm not going to be bullied
into changing my position one way or the other based
on the noise that comes from people attacking me about
being Jewish or attacking me about my support of Israel.
But I am going to always be open to different perspective,
(09:40):
different ideas, different thoughts, and communicate with the public, with
my constituents in Pennsylvania as to why or how I've
evolved on an issue.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
If not better, do you think that makes you distinctively
different from the President of the United States from the
Republican Party as we speak, considering how dogged they may
be in their positions and how they don't necessarily change,
at least publicly. Here's what I say.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
I don't know how the president makes decisions or thinks
about issues. And I'm not trying to be a jerk senter.
I really don't. I don't have an insight into how
he thinks through an issue and arrives at a conclusion.
I differ from him on a lot of his confusion conclusions.
I don't know the process. The folks that I have
a problem with are the enablers who know better, These
(10:27):
members of Congress who have basically given up their constitutional responsibilities.
The Republican elected leaders who will come to me and
whisper in my ear. Can you believe he said that
I don't agree with that? Whatever? And then you see
these guys out at the press conference the next day. Oh,
Donald Trump's the best. I agree with them on this.
I agree with them on that. Those are the folks
(10:47):
I have a problem with, and how they go through
those mental gymnastics and sleep at night.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
See I view them. If I may make a statement here,
I view them your show. You get to make that
unstable people. People use derogatory terms, gutless or whatever, and
I say, okay, But to me, they are scared to
death because this is a man that has proven he
will get you out of office. And if you're addicted
to power and influence and it comes from sitting in
(11:16):
one of those seats in the House of Congress, you're
gonna do everything you can to hold on to what
you have. And that's why they capitulate. Look at Ted Cruz,
he talked about his wife. Look at MARKA. Rubio. I
am aligned Marco Ruby and that's the Secretary of State.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
I mean, look at some of this stuff. Profoundly weak people.
Let me tell you something. You insult my wife, we're
not gonna be on the same team. And I just
I find these folks to be ridiculous. First off, they've
got a constitutional responsibility that the citizens of their states
or their districts gave them. It's part of the whole
checks and balances. We teach our kids this in elementary school.
(11:50):
The fact is they have given up on that, And
this isn't about issue A or B. Right, we can
debate these issues whether we agree disagree. The fact is
that they have a responsibility to play And it's not
just saying, yeah, mister President, whatever you want. They have
a constitutional responsibility to do their jobs and they're not.
Those are the folks that bother me the most in
our policy.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
What about the notion that people would look at Democrats
and when we talk about, you know, the Republicans not
having much spine, what about on the Democratic side where
it got to a point, at least in my estimation
as just a conscientious observer, it got to a point
where people were scared of their own shadows because of
the cancel culture that existed. And a lot of people,
(12:32):
obviously for believe that the Democratic Party provoked that mind
that level of thinking. What about that? What about people
who look at the Democratic Party and some of the
members of this.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Fair criticism, yes, and it's criticism that I love it
against folks in our party for years, not trying to
personalize it about candidate A or or B. But yeah,
I think we started walking around on eggshells. I think
it is important to treat people with respect I think
it's important to respect people for who they are. I
(13:02):
think it's important to not bully other people in our society.
But you can't go to such an extreme that you
end up talking past folks and you end up not
actually being able to listen to people and the feelings
they have, the emotions they have, the desires they have,
because you feel like you have to follow a certain
(13:24):
set of rules or practices otherwise you don't get to
be in the room. And I think that's been a
problem for a lot of years. I don't do my
politics that way. I don't govern that way, and I
would argue I govern the toughest, most swingiest date in
the entire country. And I'm proud of what we've been
able to do there to bring people together and to
not bully others, but to also not get ourselves so
(13:45):
caught up in an extreme that we're not able to
have an honest conversation with people.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Do you believe that's what lost the election for Kamala
Harris were just what we just finished talking about, the
general consensus about the thinking associated with the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Conduct your question, But I'm going to say I'm not
a pundit here and I get that. You know, like
in sports, you know, you lose a game on Sunday,
you got to spend time on Monday trying to figure
out what happens. So when you start practicing Tuesday for
the next game next weekend, you're better, right. And I
get that there's gonna be folks doing that analysis. And
(14:21):
I think that that is a fair question you are asking.
That can be part of the analysis. But I think
that this has been years in the making. I've seen
it in rural communities in Pennsylvania where, by the way,
I did quite well as a Democrat running in those
areas where Democrats stops showing up, stop treating our farmers
with respect. By the way, our farmers maybe do the
(14:42):
most noble work in society. They feed our neighbors. Right,
National Democratic Party for a lot of years started defining
success is having a college degree. Let me tell you
something to you, Nay, sixty two percent of Pennsylvania adults
don't have a college degree. So if you're one of
those sixty two percent, you looked at the Democratic Party,
(15:05):
this is years and years and years in the making,
and your being total success is defined by something you
don't have. Well, all of a sudden, you're gonna start
to say, are those folks really for me? I've tried
to govern differently. Held my first day in office, I
signed an executive order doing away with the college degree
requirement to work in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Well sixty
(15:26):
percent of the people I've hired in Pennsylvania don't have
a college degree. We're better for respecting people from all
different walks of life. I think our party for a
lot of years started getting away from that. Now the answer.
Part of it is that Monday morning analysis you got
to do after you lose again lose an election. That's fair,
But part of it is I think folks are looking
(15:48):
too much to Washington and not enough to what's been
happening in the States over many years. I think there's
a number of governors who are doing thoughtful things that
matter in people's lives. My job is in to just
give speeches and make a lot of noise. My job
as a governor is to put points on the board
every day for our school kids, for our farmers, for
(16:10):
our cops, for our firefighters, for everybody. And I try
and do that in a way that lifts everybody up.
Doesn't shut people out, doesn't do it with an attitude
of elitism or extremism, and it's working in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
But think about it. If I remember correctly doing my research,
I was reading up about how Republican led effort for
millions of millions of dollars in school vouchers or something
that you supported, if I remember correctly, and you got
criticized for that by your own party. Yep. I mean,
so I'm looking at it from that stample. I'm saying,
wait a minute here, at some point in time, do
you pause. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about them,
(16:44):
other members of your party that is. And I'm saying,
look at what this man is doing in the state
of Pennsylvania. Look at the reputation that he has, Look
at how popular he has. You guys have said he
hasn't really had any competition. Well, I'm from the Jordan era. Yeah,
it wasn't a lot of petition because he made it
look like it wasn't. It wasn't competitive because he annihilated
(17:06):
all the time. It's Jordan, it's not Lebron. It's not Lebron.
But we'll talk about that another day. My point is
to use that analogy towards you. You would think that
knowing all of this, seeing your record, seeing a state
like Pennsylvania, knowing how rabid the base is, not just
as fans of the sports team, but even their politicians,
(17:27):
that knowing that you had such popularity in that state,
it would be a no brainer, considering the importance of
the state of Pennsylvania, that Kamala Harris would have chosen
you as a vice presidential nominee. But that did not happen, sir, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
And look, Steven, I said all along, Kamala Harris had
a deeply personal decision to make who she wanted to
run with, who she wanted to govern the country with.
Uh In the end of the day, I had a
personal decision to make too, okay, And I love being governor.
I love being able to chart my own course. I
love being able to meet a pencilnion on their farm
(18:02):
on the streets of Philadelphia, hear their problem, and actually
do something about it, get shit done for them. I
always want to be in a job where I can
make real change, make decisions and make things happen. And
I love being governor in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
So is that your way of saying that it was
a job that you didn't want because you wanted to
be governor.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
It's my way of telling you how much I love
being governor, and also respecting the fact that she had
a decision to make she made it. I think Tim
Wallas is a good guy. I wish they would have won.
I can't pay my heart out for them. I worked
hard to make sure to do my best to help
make sure they want and they came up short.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
Well, let me be more direct, sir, if she had
offered you the vice presidential position, would you have accepted.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
I think I think it is not worth going back
and kind of Monday morning quarterback and later going into hypotheticals.
I also want to be respectful of the vice president
not get into our private conversations as well. I can
tell tell you that I love my work. I love
being able to do my work on my terms. I
love being able to do my work and still be
(19:06):
a father to our four kids and a husband of
my loved my life since the ninth grade, and the
best way for me to serve the public to be
able to meet the obligations I've learned about from the
way my parents taught me in the way my faith
teaches me, it should be governor in Pennsylvania right now, All.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Right, everybody, listen up with all the big time sports
action is happening each and every day to Stephen A.
Smith Show wants to make sure you are taking advantage
of it all. That's why we've partnered with Prize Picks,
the largest fantasy sports platform and all the land, to
help you cash in on all your sports knowledge. You see.
Prize Picks is a daily fantasy act where you pick
two or more of your favorite players and then you
(19:49):
select more or less on their projected stats for the game.
Choose from any of your favorite players Luka, Doncic, Jimmy Butler,
and Zach Lavine all in the same entry to sit
back and watch. The list is endless and now with
Prospects Flex Friday option, you can still cash out even
if your lineup isn't perfect. That's right, every Friday, just
look for the protected play so win or your cash
(20:11):
back and get this. Prize Pects now offers MasterCard for
quick and easy deposits into your account during the sports season.
Make your picks in less than sixty seconds and turn
your sports opinions into real money. All season long on
Prize Picks. So download the app today and use code
sas to get fifty dollars instantly after you play your
first five dollar lineup. Again, download the app and use
(20:34):
code sas to get fifty dollars instantly after your first
five dollar lineup Prize Picks. Yo, run your game. We
started off this conversation by talking about Israeli Palestinian conflict
that obviously had transpired at the time she needed to
(20:56):
make a decision. Speculation was that there were some folks
who didn't know whether you would be the right guy
because you were Jewish, because you were pro Israel, etc.
This is the year twenty twenty five. Yeah, and yet
we're weeks removed from that still being mentioned as a concern.
(21:17):
What does that say to you about the state of
America right now, that that is still a concern in
some people.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
You know, I heard a little bit of that noise.
I know there's a lot of noise online about that.
I don't going to pay much attention to that, but
I got to tell you, man, when I travel across Pennsylvania,
and I think we can agree the ultimate swing state.
If you want to be president of the United states.
You're Donald Trump, comme Myers, you gotta win Pennsylvania. I
got to tell you, I go across the state and
(21:46):
folks open up to me about their faith because I'm
a person of faith. I find that it allows me
to have a greater connection with my constituents, with my
fellow Pennsylvanians. I find that it is a value add
not a divisive thing. Remember, I'm literally someone who has
(22:06):
followed in a line of leaders of Pennsylvania. I followed
William Pennon, a guy who created the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
as a place that would be warm and welcoming for
all people of all faiths. I'm not sure pen ever
imagined there'd be a Jewish governor, right, But I think
that's a spirit that we have always had. That or
(22:30):
a place that's tolerant or a place that's welcoming. And
so yeah, I know there's a lot of noise that
was surrounding that, you know, in our national and politics,
But my experience when you're actually out talking to folks,
when you're out engaging with them, is folks are really
good and honorable and decent. They may not worship the
way you do, but they appreciate that you're a person
(22:50):
of faith, that you're grounded in something, and it gives
them something to connect with you on is it.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Fit to say that the Jewish community shares exactly what
you just expressed, Because we've been hearing a lot about
anti Semitism, and one of the things that I point
to is that I'm not Jewish. I can't stand when
people who are not black try to tell Black people
about what they've experienced. It gets on my last nerves
because you don't know. But I will tell you, as
(23:16):
a black individual, I'm not Jewish. You would know better
than me when we hear anti semitism? How real is
that issue? In this day and age?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Anti Semitism is on the rise. Okay, that is an
empirical fact. I still think the vast, vast, vast, vast
vast majority of people are good and decent and respectful,
but it is true that it is on the rise.
I think that there are a number of reasons for that,
(23:48):
but one that I think has been driving a lot
of this is the fact that two oftentimes we don't
have leaders speaking in acting with moral clarity, giving certain
folks who respewing anti semitism or other forms of bigotry
a pass or actually allowing their words to be misappropriated
(24:14):
by someone who's hateful to use that as a tool
to attack others. I think we see that from the
President of the United States at times, and it's dangerous,
and so I think that is something that we have
to guard against, and every leader has that responsibility speak
and act moral clarity. I try to do that, and
(24:34):
I think if more leaders did that, you'd see the
incidents of anti semitism, racism, hatred, bigotry and all forms
begin to be reduced in our society. It's never gonna
get rid of it, but it's going to be reduced.
I just can't stress enough, though, Steven. As I get around,
as I talk to people, as i'm in their communities,
(24:55):
most people are really good and decent and honorable folks.
They'll stand up to someone who's b someone in their
community or online completely and that gives me hope, That
gives me a sense of optimism. I'm not sure our
politics are keeping up with where the community is right now,
but it is something that I think gets lost a
lot of times in our media or online. I'm not
(25:17):
someone who bashes the media but I think sometimes that
storyline gets missed.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Could politics be what's bringing our society down?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
In parties?
Speaker 1 (25:26):
On what the part it is?
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Because I think leaders have a responsibility speaking act of
moral clarity, and too many of them don't.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Right now, what do you say, because we know some
of the rhetoric the president is used, as you alluded
to and what have you, And obviously that's problematic at times,
no doubt. But there's another side too. Just the other
day we saw Democrats really pushing back on Doge's apartment,
you know, Elon Musk and his it. You don't get
(25:57):
me started with that and the verb, the language they use.
Some would say that kind of rhetoric is exactly what
we don't need either. How are you any better as
a party than what you're describing the other side to be?
There are folks who look at Democrats and they say that, now.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yeah, and look, I didn't see this specific thing you're
talking about, but I'm not gonna duck what you're saying,
because I think you make an important point. In general,
I think you do have too much of this rhetoric
in both parties that is divisive, that is too white hot,
that is just making it harder to find common ground.
(26:41):
I get the theatrics of politics, right, I get that
there are some folks out there in Pennsylvania who, Yeah,
they got to like sort of show that they're fighting
with me to their constituents so they can score some
political points. But you know what, you got to get
your ass around the table and also make some progress
and work on things together. And so I was trying
(27:02):
keep that in mind with my rhetoric and as I
deal with others across the island Pennsylvania. I think we've
got to learn from the way we try and do
business in our commonwealth. At the national level, I don't
think that kind of rhetoric, no matter what parties engaged
in it is helpful, and it further divides us, and
(27:23):
it breeds more cynicism in our society. And when you've
got a public that gets cynical, a few things happen.
Number One, you kind of lurch back and forth in politics. Well,
I'm pissed at these guys, I'm voting for these guys.
How many times have we seen that over the last
twenty years? Stephen A right, Democratic wave, Republican wave. I
(27:44):
think a lot of that is because people are angry
and they're cynicism, and so they're going back and forth,
and it makes it harder to actually get stuff done
that matters to people. Do you tell this to your
own party?
Speaker 1 (27:55):
I mean, when people think about the squad, or they
think about the progressives on the extreme, look the mag
is on the right, you could say what you got
to say to them, because you're absolutely right. But on
the left as well, do you say this stuff to
your own party?
Speaker 2 (28:05):
You know, I don't know that it's my job to
lecture other Democrats. I think what my job is is
to be a hell of a good governor. In Pennsylvania.
The shows you can get elected with not just Democratic votes,
but Republican independent votes as well. I'll tell you I
got more votes anybody ever in the history of Pennsylvania
running for government. I'm not saying it's about myself on
(28:26):
the back. I'm saying that because, as a empirical fact,
the only way you get the numbers I got is
by having Republicans and independents vote for you along with Democrats.
I'm governing in a way where our ratings show Republicans
independence still support the work I'm doing. I think the
best thing I can do is not lecture people in
my party or the other party, but show that you
(28:48):
can do common sense things well, can bring people together
and you can get stuff done.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
What govern that come to you for advice? Because I mean,
you're winning, you're doing your job, so you would think
that if you you you've got a formula that can
be emulated. I mean, listen, I'm a thief. I steal
successful habits all the time. I see a successful habit,
I'm stealing it. Okay, I'm gonna massive it, I'm gonna learn.
I'm gonna do what I have to do because I
want to win. Sure, what about folks in you but
(29:16):
they don't they don't reach out to you. They do.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
I'm just saying, I'm happy to have those conversations with
a candidate running for office, with party committees and groups
and what have you, and I do. But I don't
think sort of engaging in uh, you know, a public
beating of people in my party or the other. I
don't think that's particularly helpful. I think the best thing
I can do is lead by example in the commonwth
(29:40):
and That's what I'm trying to do every day.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Let's get back to Trump in this regard these executive
orders that he's been handed out like skittles, some crying.
I mean, it's something special, It's it's unbelievable. I mean,
he's got a fresh shop.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Most of them aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
But I'm wondering what your thoughts have been about the
executive orders A. And is there one is that, anyone
particular that alarms you more than the others.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Yeah. I think the one that alarms me the most
is the one that actually, of all the things he signed,
is the only one that's absolute, and that is when
he pardoned people who assaulted cops on January six, When
he granted clemency to people that assaulted cops on January six,
(30:31):
I think that shows an utter lack of respect for
law enforcement. Listen, I'm someone who for years has respected
law enforcement. We invest in law enforcement in Pennsylvania. I
have their backs. They screw up, they're gonna be held accountable,
but I got their backs. I understand how central safety
is and law and order is. Proper law and order
that respects people's constitutional rights is for a civilized society.
(30:56):
And the fact that on his first day using the
power of that sharpie pen gave those folks a pardon,
says a lot about his values and something I really
strongly disagree with.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Now, just to be clear, do you believe are you
of that position for anybody who stormed the capitol that
day or just those who engage that there are those
on the right that say some of them were lawless,
not all. Do you differentiate?
Speaker 2 (31:29):
No, of course you have to differentiate between someone who
was assaulting a cop versus someone who wasn't. Of course
there's a difference. But look, stephen A. I mean, these
folks were prosecuted, a jury of their peers heard the
evidence and convicted them. I'm not going to stand here
(31:51):
right now and say this sentence was too weak, this
sentence was too strong.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Whatever.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
You asked me a question, I'm answering it directly. You
asked me what you know, what is it about? You
know the things that he signed that you know, what
do you think of that? I thought that was the
most disturbing thing. And you know, in a civilized society,
you've got to have rule of law being respected by
all people. You've got to make sure that people's constitutional
(32:17):
rights were protected in the process. And I just thought
using the stroke of that pen to do that on
the first day sent a really poor.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Message Department of Government efficiency. It was created, it was
not something that was in existence before Trump got there,
your thoughts about its existence, and a non elected official
like Elona Musk, yeah running it. Well.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Look, I'll just tell you in Pennsylvania, I've worked my
tail off to cut costs put money back in people's pockets.
I've cut taxes five six times. I've proposed in my
most recent budget to cut taxes even more. We're trying
to make childcare more affordable, help seniors stay in their homes,
help our small businesses. We're trying to bring down the
car lost of goods and services to put money back
(33:02):
in people's pockets. And one of the ways we are
doing that and also still being able to invest in
our schools, in public safety, and economic development is by
eliminating wasteful spending in Pennsylvania. So I'm all for eliminating
wasteful spending. And I'm glad they've got a crew that's
looking at that now. I mean, I kind of have
(33:23):
to left. This goes back to the beginning of our
conversation about members of Congress. I mean, this money doesn't
just go out will and nilly. The way it happens
is members of Congress vote for these appropriations bills and
a president signs it into law. So those members decided, hey,
they want a million dollars going to the Stephen A.
(33:43):
Smith's Society or whatever, and then to not actually spend
that money and have the members of Congress that supported
it not stand up and say, wait a minute, we
got some constitutional responsibility here. We sent the money out.
That to me is a little crazy. So yeah, I
think we should be cutting back on wasteful spending. I
think you got to go through a legal process to
(34:03):
do that. I am glad the Trump administration is looking
at it. I think wasting too much money for too long,
And it's not dissimilar to the kind of work we're
doing in Pennsylvania to cut costs.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Your thoughts about his position on diversity, equity and inclusion
DEI being completely eradicated and eliminated, your thoughts, You know.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
You reference before all the eos he signed, executive orders
he signed, and a whole bunch of them have to
do with so called deis. It seems to me that
they're using that as an excuse for everything from the
horrific plane crash in Washington, DC to the fact that
(34:46):
they do not have a plan to do the one
thing that people really wanted Donald Trump to do, which
is to cut costs in our communities. I haven't seen
any eos about making eggs any cheapness, stephen A. I
don't know of milk or gas or any of these
other things, so I'd like to see him focusing on
(35:07):
that when it comes to this issue of DEI. You
didn't kind of ask me this directly, but I do
want you to know where I'm on this. I mentioned
William Penn before, yes, and I take very seriously my
responsibility as a governor that we have a place that is
warm and welcoming for all, that respects all people, no
matter what you look like, where you come from, who
(35:29):
you love, who you pray to, that doesn't pit one
group against the other, and that respects people for who
they are and doesn't make people feel guilty for who
they are. I have never thought that DEI should be
vested with one employee or one office. I think it
is a mindset of respect for all of acknowledging our
(35:54):
shared history and making sure that opportunity is available for
all Pennsylvanians in my case, or for all Americans. What
I don't like about what the President's doing is he
uses these sharply signed executive orders to bully other people.
And I think that's bullshit. If you're a president, you're
(36:15):
a governor, you're a mayor, you're a leader of a community,
you've got a responsibility to lift everybody up, not talk
certain people now, not pit one person against the other.
That makes everybody's life less safe, and it's bad.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
For our society. Let me share my position with you
about DII real quick to see if you agree what
I've said publicly. DEI. What I don't like about what
I've seen the right doing since Trump has gotten into
office and signed these ohs is that you're making the
claim that anybody associated with DEI was unqualified incompetent. And
(36:55):
I said, first of all, that's wrong. But secondly, and
most importantly, as was as was the case with the
Rooney Rule in the National Football League, as was the
case with affirmative action, we're just going to ignore why
it was put in a place to begin with. We're
going to ignore the origin of its existence. It existed
because it was unfair unfairness and inequities that were being practiced,
(37:20):
and it needed to be addressed. That's why the programs
came in play to begin with. So it seems like
we have a segment of our society wants to ignore
the reality of.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
So I'm talking about our shared history. We have to
understand that, and you've got to be building a society
where everybody's got opportunity, not where you're pitting one against
the other, but where everybody's got opportunity. That's what I'm
trying to do in Pennsylvania, and also trying to make
clear that you know, when a black owned business does
well in my commonwealth, it doesn't mean that that small
(37:51):
business next door owned by someone who looks like me
has to do worse off. This is not a zero
as some game. We can lift everybody up. One of
the things I'm most proud of is the work we're
doing to bring a high quality education every zip code
in Pennsylvania. Right we got to make sure that a
child that looks like me as a shot and a
child that looks like you has a shot, and we
(38:12):
shouldn't be pitting those kids against one another either. In
the way we teach them or in the way we
fund their schools.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Immigration, I have to confess to you, I'm liberal in
my thinking. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
I've always been that way, even though I mostly vote Democrat.
Here's the deal. I'm looking at his position and closing
the borders, and I must say I could not disagree
with him because of Biden. President Joe Biden opening the
(38:53):
borders when he took office, and I took it to consideration.
Barack Obama, Barack Obama was once joked about, I shouldn't
say joke, but he was one the border and the
porter in chief, so he certainly practiced it. He campaigned
on it, he let it be known. He said, well,
he had to say. They went out and did it.
But he didn't stick out his chest and brag about it.
(39:14):
He just did the job. I'm looking at Biden and
you come into office, you know, after he departs four years.
After he departs, Trump has his administration for four years.
Then you come into office, and to me, you went
against what Obama was doing and you opened the borders,
and that's what caused a lot of this. Right now,
to that.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
You say what I would say, you have your facts right,
and that's important because a lot of the conversation about
immigration has been devoid of facts. You go, look, Barack
Obama is deporting way more people than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Yes he did.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
I think it's also true to say that there was
a border challenge during the Biden administration. I have for
years and years and years said the same thing. We
need a secure border. Must make sure our border is secured.
Some places it requires offense, some places it requires technology,
some place that requires personnel, you name it. But you've
(40:07):
got to have a secure border, and you've got to
have clear rules of the road to enter this country.
Someone who wants to come to America, I want you
to come here, follow the rules, and I want you
to make this country even better by bringing your talents,
by bringing your heart, your passion, your drive to this
great nation. Follow the rules. I also think, because we
(40:29):
have had these challenges for so many years, you've got
to acknowledge the more than ten million people who were
here who came here illegally and have a path for
them going forward, whether that path is deporting them because
they've violated the law here, or that path is saying
you've been here long enough, you're part of our society,
(40:51):
you're working here, your kids go to school here, you
name it, Yona house, whatever, We're going to make sure
that there is now a pathway for you for citizenship.
Think that's common sense. I think that's where most people are.
I think what Donald Trump has been doing in his
early days is actually, by the way, not meeting the
numbers that Obama had. But he's doing a lot of
(41:12):
pr around it. He's scaring the shit out of a
lot of communities. He's pitting people against one another. I
got no problem if you want to deport someone who
broke the law while they're here, who harmed someone while
they're here, you name it. But I do think you've
got to have a comprehensive immigration solution, something I've been
calling for for years.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Hi, I'm sorry neither side is pulled off.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
And by the way, I think you also have to
have a comprehensive immigration solution that acknowledges the workforce issues
we have in this country, that actually listens to what
farmers need in their communities, listens to what states need,
listens to the way immigration immigrants have enhanced our economy
(41:58):
in many ways, and I think you have to have
that kind of honest conversation. Lawmakers have to come together
and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. We were on the
one yard line about a year ago when Donald Trump
said to the members of Congress, back out because he
wants to use as we want to use. The issue
goes back to the point I was making before. You
(42:20):
got a whole bunch of Republican lawmakers who seemingly are
swearing an oath to Donald Trump and not the Constitution
every day. That's dangerous for our society. We do need
comprehensive immigration reform. We need a secure border, and we
need a pathway for those who were here.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Today, Around ten thousand employees of the USA the Agency
for International Development are expected to be fired, furloughed, or
put on Leave your thoughts about his position.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
With that, you know, I don't know. I'm not talking
your question, but I don't know enough of the specifics
of what's going on there. But I do know this.
Members of Congress voted for a bill that funded all
these operations USAID. It was signed by the President of
the United States. It is lawful. Whatever Donald Trump chooses
(43:07):
to do it us ai D. It needs to be lawful.
He can't just do this unilaterally given the laws that
are in place going forward. If he wants to propose
a new law, it does away with USAID or curtails
its operations. That certainly is progative. He won the election,
he gets to put his mark on things, but he's
(43:27):
not a king. He doesn't get to just sign an
executive order and say this is the way it's going
to be. When there is a law in place. His
executive order doesn't get to trump.
Speaker 1 (43:39):
He is the closest thing to a king. I certainly
don't look at him that way, but he is the
closest thing to a king. When you consider the Republicans
and how they at his beck and call right now
in the House, in the Senate, etc. It's like he's
put people in there, and I brought up hag Seth.
Obviously Matt Gatez didn't get the position that he was
shooting for his Attorney General vam Bondi's now in there.
(44:00):
You see a lot of these folks that are in
office right now, and clearly the loyalty and the fealty
to him appears to be his top priority. So certainly
you're not gonna call him a king in a complementary way,
particularly in a democratic society that is the United States
of America. But nevertheless, the fear that people had seems
(44:20):
a bit real because of the cachet and the power
that he wields. And you have folks in this country
who voted for who says that's exactly what we need.
Because Washington has spent decades not getting things done. How
do you argue against that thing.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
You got to unpack a lot of what you just said.
There's a lot of different important threads there that I
want to talk about. One, the president is using his
hard power and soft power. He is flooding the zone.
Whether you agree with his positions or not, and I
don't agree with many of them. Putting that aside for
(44:58):
a moment, you have to appreciate the fact that he's
pushing as hard as he can, trying to expand his
power as much as he can. If you look at
a lot of what he's doing, though it goes against
the bounds of the law, it is outside of what
the law allows. And that is where these members of
(45:20):
Congress and others who constitutionally are required to be a
check on him, are not doing their jobs. There are
laws in place that he can't get around just by
signing an executive order or having a loud and angry
press conference. He wants to change the law, he's got
to go through that lawmaking process and get himself the
votes in the House, get himself the votes in the Senate,
(45:42):
and get a bill to his desk. I fault those
members of Congress who are not standing up and doing
their part as the American people who say we wanted
this kind of change, we wanted this kind of disruption.
I get that. I'm not denying you that. But the
way we make change in this country, the way we
disrupt things in this country, is by working within the
bounds of the Constitution of the United States. And we
(46:03):
have seen in the early days the President of the
United States trying to go outside the bounds of the Constitution.
He thought he could do away with birthright citizenship written
in the Constitution by signing the executive order. A court
slapped him down immediately. He thought he could freeze federal funding,
funding that had been duly appropriated to the states. Quickly,
(46:24):
there was an injunction put in place, saying he couldn't
do that, So I guess, Look, I don't blame the
guy for trying to expand his power, right, I don't
agree with what he's trying to do. The folks that
I've got a real problem with are the people who
constitutionally are required to stand up to that.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Who aren't Where the Democrat was the Democratic Party going
to do about it? Because I've been on records saying
who's the voice, who's the face of the Democratic Party?
Because it takes a face and a voice to beat
the kind of following he's built. I know he doesn't
get to run for office again, even though you had
some Republican representatives that wanted to push the third term
for Donald Trump. Don't get me start with that nonsense.
(47:01):
But considering j. D. Vance, as they considered Marco Ruby
as the Secretary of State, considering the fact that they're
now a part of that and a position, how he's
positioning somebody to take the reins when he's gone. What
is the Democratic Party's answer going to be that? I
see Josha Pirou, I see Wes Moore. I'm not gonna
lie to you. I'm just being honest. I'm allowed in
(47:22):
my opinion. I don't see much else right now.
Speaker 2 (47:27):
First off, Wes is a great guy, and he's doing
a great job as governor, and we're good buddies. I
think you're wrong, respectfully, by saying who's the face of
the Democratic Party and how is that person going to
stop Donald Trump. There will be a face of the
Democratic Party when the next presidential race rolls around and
(47:50):
Democrats choose to nominate someone to fill that void. In
the meantime, I think the answer is not who is
the face, but who are the faces? Who are the
people doing this work. I would say to you, respectfully,
stop looking at DC all the time. Look to what's
happening in the states. Look to how Democrats who are
(48:11):
put in positions to govern are governing responsibly. Look at
the fact that we've got democratic governors in Kentucky and
Kansas to pretty republican states. Look at the fact that
in those three swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump
(48:32):
won all three. There's democratic governors in those three states.
The point I'm trying to make to you, stephen A
is there's not going to be one person that rises
up tomorrow that becomes that voice tomorrow. But there is
a lot of good things happening amongst some Democratic leaders
in the States that I think we should be paying
attention to, who I think show a common sense, rational
(48:57):
approach to governing that can be really formative for the
conversation the Democratic Party is going to have to.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
Have going forward. I'll end this with the last couple
of questions and thank you so much for your time.
I'm a sports guy, Yeah, me too, and I think
about competition, and so when I think about Donald Trump,
I'm thinking about what does it take to beat him.
I'm not talking about an individual per se as somebody
somebody's being the king or the king make or anything
(49:23):
like that. I understand it's going to take a party.
I understand it's going to be a collective effort. I
understand one person can't do it all. But I watched
this guy stroll down some escalators in twenty fifteen, and
there hasn't been a Republican that can touch him in
ten years. And so I'm saying to myself, in order
(49:43):
to beat him, who in the party can resonate with
the American people to have that kind of impact. It
seems to me that it would be somebody that has
a national profile because the exception work somebody may do
locally isn't enough to offset the cachet that he has built.
(50:07):
That's where I'm coming from.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
He has no doubt been a dominant force in our
politics for the last ten years. My kids sort of
awareness of politics in their early years in life are
going to be shaped by Donald Trump. I don't think
that's a particularly good thing, but it's the reality. And
he has certainly taken over the Republican Party. Now he's
(50:32):
not running again, nope, and there will be a backlash
to the manner, to the way in which he is governing,
the fact that he hasn't brought costs down, the fact
that with some of the things he says, he actually
potentially makes us less safer around the world. I understand
people want disruption, but when they begin to see the
(50:55):
effects of that disruption on their lives, there will be
a backlash to that. Let's take tariffs as one example.
Speaker 1 (51:02):
I was going to bring that up.
Speaker 2 (51:04):
He proposed to put a twenty five percent tariff on
our two biggest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. That means
you're paying twenty five percent more for most of the
stuff you buy. He promised to lower cost, that's going
to raise costs. There's an effect to that.
Speaker 1 (51:19):
Now.
Speaker 2 (51:20):
He walked that back like he does most things. But
we'll see if he actually goes forward with that in
thirty days. My point to you is there will be
a backlash to that. And the answer is not a
Democrat who can ride down an escalator, an elevator, or
whatever the hell they're can ride down, but actually Democrats
who have governed with common sense, who have put points
(51:43):
on the board, and who can share a vision for
this country that's actually going to bring people back together
after Donald Trump has spent the last decade or more
dividing them.
Speaker 1 (51:55):
Is that answer? Within the two party system, what if
somebody said, doesn't need to be a Democrat, can it
be an independent? What do you say to that?
Speaker 2 (52:04):
I think there's a conversation, you know, we've been having
for a long time. Probably the most notable independent in
sort of recent memory would be that Ross Perot. And
so maybe there will be a third party or an
independent that comes along. I got to tell you something, man,
for all its challenges, right now, I'm proud to be
(52:25):
a Democrat, and I'm proud to be yeah, I am,
and I'm proud to be a voice within the Democratic
Party that is hopefully going to heal it from what
we just went through, and it's going to help move
it along in a way that broadens the conversation to
include more people back to what I was saying before.
Broadens it to people that have a high school degree
(52:45):
and chose not to go to college because we gave
that person some resources so they could go learn to
be a welder. Broadens it to include more of our
farmers because we invested in our heartland and did what
we needed to do to help our farm put food
on the table for their families and grow their farming operations.
Broadens it to include people who right now feel like
(53:09):
our party hasn't been talking to them. That's what we've
been doing in Pennsylvania. And while I recognize we got
to go through some change and some learning that Monday
morning process we were talking about before, excuse my voice,
we have got to, I think, remain committed to what's
at the core of our party, which is trying to
look out for others, help people, lift people up, give
(53:31):
all people a shot. That's how I'm trying to govern
in Pennsylvania, and that's why I think we need more
of in our party.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
My last question to you, Governor, as we sit here
right now, you have a lot of American people who
feel the damage to this country is on the fringes,
MAGA write extreme progressive, left, woke culture, cancel culture, etc.
They think about a centrist, whether it's left or right,
(53:58):
because they think that's where it meet. Of the people
lie people who are willing to compromise or are open minded,
as you articulated a little while ago, open the listening
to other folks. Maybe you've made a mistake here or
there that that thinking might might might be pervasive to
some degree at times. But they think about contrary to
(54:20):
what you think. They don't think about Steven Aye Smith.
I don't care what the pole say. Steven THEE. Smith's
not run office, Okay, Okay, I'm not knowledgeable or nothing.
That's not my life was for you think, don't even
think about it. I'm not qualified, Okay, but you are.
And there's a lot of people that look at Joshapiro
and they say the country deserves more than him being
(54:42):
in just Pennsylvania. We need him for the United States
of America. What do you have to say about that.
Speaker 2 (54:51):
That's a very humbling thing you just said. But I
also think, respectfully, you're wrong on something.
Speaker 1 (54:58):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (55:00):
I talk to people all the time across Pennsylvania and
more and more across the country. I don't hear most
folks saying to me, oh, I'm on the left, I'm
on the right, I'm on this part, I'm this. I
think where most people are is just their common sense.
They want their lives to be better. They want to
know that the people who are serving them are looking
(55:21):
out for their interests. They don't need to agree with
me ten out of ten times, but if they know
like I got their back, I got compassion in my heart,
I'm fighting for them every day. That's good enough for
most folks. And so I disagree with you a little bit.
Is I don't think this is about targeting the left
or targeting the right. I think that's actually disrespectful to
attack people because they support Donald Trump or they support
(55:44):
on the left. I never slice and dice people like
that or attack them for who they support. I think
what we need more of in this country is common sense,
people who are willing to have tough conversations with people
in another party or with a different perspective than them.
Try and surround myself with people on my senior team,
in my cabinet and elsewhere who disagree with me on issues,
(56:07):
have different life experiences than I do. We're raised differently
than me, because that forces me to think about things
in a different way. And ultimately, past policies do things
take steps that are looking out for more people than
maybe I was just aware of when I began my
public service career. So to get back to what you said,
(56:28):
I mean, yeah, I'm humbled when when folks acknowledge the
work we're doing in Pennsylvania. But I don't think it's
left right center. I think it's more like who's on
your side, who's looking out for you, who's got the
skills to get shipped.
Speaker 1 (56:43):
Down for you? Right? But the party makes the politics
make you pick a side come election day. I think
that's the way I'm getting in.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
I don't think that's right. The politics makes you pick
a party when you register, okay, right, but come election day,
and I'm proof of this. We had a whole lot
of Republicans who voted for me. I think what people
look to when they finally get in that ballot box
is who's gonna fight for me, who's going to look
out for me, Who's going to actually solve the problems
(57:15):
that matter most to me. It's one of the beefs
I've got with Trump. You know, he's focused on so
many things other than actually reducing costs. He's focused on
pitting Americans against one another instead of actually saying, Hey,
I got all of you guys, I'm the president for everybody.
I'm now gonna help reduce your costs. I'm gonna help
make you safe. I'm going to help you know, create
(57:35):
a job for you. I try and do it in
a way that brings people together. I don't think this
is an issue where you're only dealing with your side
of the field. I think you got to you gotta
work work the whole field.
Speaker 1 (57:48):
We are here super Bowl week. I can't thank you
enough for giving me your time to be sitting with
the governor for the last hour. I can't say enough
how grateful I am for your time. I really enjoyed
this conversation and thank you for the bottom of mine.
Speaker 2 (57:59):
Well, I'm grateful to be here with you. I'm grateful
for the conversation and I'm grateful that you are willing
to use your voice outside of your comfort zone, if
you will, outside of sports, which obviously you're a fantastic
and I enjoy that you care about this country, you
(58:20):
care about the Democratic Party, and I may not like
everything you say, but you're kicking people in the ass
and forcing people to think about things a little bit differently.
And I appreciate that about you. And it's time to
be here with you.
Speaker 1 (58:34):
See. Thank you so much. Anytime, I'm always here for you.
Thankk you so much, appreciate it. The Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, mister jos Shapiro, right here with Stephen A. Smith. Wow,
it was a privilege, y'all. Anytime you get to sit
down with a governor of a state, particularly a state
as formidable as Pennsylvania. What can you say? Josh Shapiro
(58:56):
and a lot of people's eyes should have been the
vice presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. Had he been
the vice presidential nominee, who knows, it might have spelled
more success for Kamala Harris. But that didn't happen, and
so we move on. Who knows what the future is
for him With the future potential lives. But one thing,
you know, just listening to him, hearing how he thinks,
(59:18):
there is no doubt that if he isn't, he certainly
should be a prime candidate for the presidency of the
United States of America in the year twenty twenty eight.
We shall see in the years to come. I don't
think this will be the last time you'll be hearing
from him. It's certainly not the last time I intend
to hear from him, and by the way, all of
(59:39):
us should want to hear more from him based on
the things that we heard him say today. That's it
for this edition of the stephen A. Smith Show. I
hope y'all enjoyed that conversation as much as I did,
because I loved it, and I'm hoping to have more
of it. Until next time, everybody, stephen A Signing off
base of love,
Welcome to the special edition of the Step and A
Smith Show. I call it a special edition because of
who I am about to talk to. I am honored
to have my next guest. He is the forty eighth
Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And obviously we know
he's sitting here with me in New Orleans because the
Philadelphia Eagles played in the Super Bowl. I'm talking about
the Pennsylvania government himself. Mister jos Shapiro, how are you, sir, House.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Everything great to be with you, Steve.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
I couldn't wait to talk to you because there's so
many things to talk to you about outside of sports.
We talked about our sports the other day, and now
here we go. We're gonna get in your wheelhouse right now.
And you've seen the president, forty seventh President of the
United States, Donald Trump, handing down an abundance of executive
orders and it's something that we can get into in
a little while. But the first order of business is
(00:58):
his position that essentially the US wants to take over
the Gaza. Yeah, what was your reaction when you heard that?
And when you saw him standing next to Benjamin Netan, Yahoo,
the Prime Minister of Israel whistling.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So I thought it was an unserious proposal. I thought
it was a proposal that, if he actually carried it
out the way he said he was, violates international law.
I thought it was deeply disrespectful to the Palestinian people.
I think it doesn't take into account Jordan and Egypt
(01:31):
and how they're gonna feel about it. I thought it
was wrong. Look, I want these hostilities to and I
want all these hostages home. I'm someone who believes that
there should be a two state solution. I want the
Palestinians to have a state that they can call their own.
I want them to live peacefully, side by side with Israel.
I think what Donald Trump did was make that harder.
(01:53):
And again I thought it was really un serious and unhelpful.
At this time, you still got about one hundred ish
hostages that aren't home. Why would you do anything to
upset that process?
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Now?
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Why would you do anything like that that's going to
make it harder for those loved ones to be able
to wrap their arms around those hostages get them back
from Hamas's Hamas's control. So I didn't think it was serious. Look,
I get this guy. He likes to make a lot
of noise. He likes to put a lot of stuff
out there, throw a bunch of stuff up against the
wall and see what sticks. And I'm sure we're going
(02:26):
to talk more about that. I just thought this was
both unserious and unhelpful at this time.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
With that being said, how did you feel again about
prime in Benjamin that Yahoo's response, which was pretty much nothing.
I mean, he looked at it, looked like he had
glee on his face. He certainly didn't see alarm, seem
alarmed or disturbed by what the president was saying. And
what do you make of that?
Speaker 2 (02:47):
I think Natanya, who's playing a short term game, he's
not thinking about the long term interests of Israel's playing
a short term game to keep himself out of legal jeopardy,
to keep himself self and power with this really difficult
coalition that he needs to be able to stay into power.
I think if you're taking a long term, sober look
(03:09):
at Israel's safety and security, you need to figure out
a way for the Palestinians to look drive hamas out,
drive terrorism out, of course, but have a stable home
where they can focus on their economic goals, their educational goals,
their other goals as a nation, and that is going
(03:30):
to create more peace and stability in the region. And
I don't think that's out who thinks about that at all.
He's just trying to look at his short term interest.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Why do you believe he doesn't think about that at all?
I would surmise it's just a guess because I certainly
don't know as much as you, But I would surmise
that one of the reasons he may have short term
thinking is because when we think about what Hamas did
last October seventh, and how they ravaged to Israel and
kidnapped and murdered people, what have absolutely awful excuse for it?
(04:01):
That was on Benjamin Yaho's watch, correct, And I imagine
there are a plethora of people in Israel that are
not very fond of him in the job he has
done because they point the finger at him for that.
Could that explain your assertions about his short term.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
That's why I'm saying short term the moment this war
is over, which look, God willing, this war is gonna
be over tomorrow. We want all these hostages home, we
want the violence to end. There's gonna be a whole
lot of questions about why didn't he know on October seventh,
or what did he know and what did he ignore?
His trial for corruption charges gets back going, He's going
(04:36):
to have to answer to the sixty two ish sixty
fourist whatever he's got now members of his coalition as
to what the best path forward is. As long as
there is continued fighting, as long as there is continued
what I would describe as chaos within his ranks, he's
able to be protected. That is maybe in the interest
(04:57):
of Benjamin Natanyahu in the short term, it is not
the interests of Israel in the long term. I've said
for a long time stephen A, I don't think Natanya
who's got the best interests of Israel long term. Now
I'm sitting in the backseat. I'm not in Israel. I'm
not a voter in Israel. I'm not an Israeli citizen.
I don't get a say in this. I'm answering your
question as someone who's looked at this issue. I think
(05:20):
long term, you want to create an environment. We're twelve, thirteen, fourteen,
fifteen year old Palestinian kids are growing up not with
animosity toward Israel, but with hope for a brighter future
for themselves, same thing for Israeli kids. If you're able
to do that, you're able to create stability in the
region in the long run.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
I'm questioning this possibility when you talk about the displacement
of one point five million Palestinians.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Am I talking about Trump's That's what I mean.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
I'm in Trump. I mean Trump, That's what I'm talking about.
When you're talking about when he's talking about it along
those lines, and you don't hear emphatic resistance to that
emanating from Israel, Yeah, then they're going to be viewed
as being complicit, which to me is additional reasons for
the forther the vitriol to continue moving forward. I don't
see how peace comes from that. No, I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
I don't see how peace comes from it. I don't
see how it's lawful what President Trump has put forth,
and again I don't think it's in the interests of
Israel long term.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
With that being said, where do you go from here?
As the governor of Pennsylvania, as somebody who's been seen
who's been seen as being pro Israel as well you
should and has been criticized for that, particularly leading up
to the election. I'm wondering how you feel right now
about your stance where you stand, knowing the criticism that
(06:38):
you have received from being pro Israel, and now you're
taking the position I stand.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I stand where I stand, and I don't get too
highs from the too high from the love or too
low from the hate. I think with any of these issues.
And I'll remind Steven that I'm a governor of Pennsylvania.
I'm not the Secretary of State. That's right, But I
got opinions on things, and I'm happy to share them
with you. I think you've got to study issues, think
you've got to be open to opinions that aren't your
(07:03):
own and bring them in as you're thinking through stuff.
And then ultimately you've got to make the decision that
in my day job is in the best interests of
Pennsylvanians and the best interest in the future of Pennsylvania.
And you've got to stick to that regardless of the
love you get or the hate you get on it.
So I'm mindful that there are some people out there
that attack me. Let's be real for being a proud
(07:26):
American Jew and someone who's open about celebrating my faith
and open about how my wife and I are choosing
to raise our kids and proud of who we are.
I get that that brings attacks from others, but that
doesn't force me to change the way I think about
stuff or change where I've usedt toff. What I do
leave myself open to are people who bring a different perspective,
(07:51):
who are able to educate me on something I don't
know about, and I'm willing to open up my mind
to those things and evolve in my positions. Your positions,
when you change your position, I think it's really important,
especially when you're a job like mine, to be really
honest with the people you serve about. Why give you
an example of that, moving from Middle East to something else.
(08:12):
I ran twice successfully for Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Both
times I ran in support of the death penalty. Honestly
held view based on research, based on the experiences that
I had as an elected official and then serving as
Attorney General. Case by case by case would come across
my desk, and I could never sign off on capital punishment.
(08:36):
Something was bothering me about that. I spent a lot
of time thinking about it, spent a lot of time
looking at it. More then my ten year old kick
came over me one day and said that we don't
do the death penalty in Pennsylvania, do we? And I
couldn't look my kid in the eye and explain to
him why we have the death penalty and why it's important. Now,
I realized there's some folks out there who feel strongly
(08:58):
on both sides of this. But after I thought about
my kids question, I thought about my experience as Attorney General.
I changed my mind on it, and I stood up
in West Philadelphia give a long speech to folks explaining
why I had. I know there's some people that didn't
like that I changed my view on that, but I
know they walked away going, you know what that guy
(09:18):
actually thought about it. He explained to me why he
is the way he is on that. I share that
example with you because I'm not going to be bullied
into changing my position one way or the other based
on the noise that comes from people attacking me about
being Jewish or attacking me about my support of Israel.
But I am going to always be open to different perspective,
(09:40):
different ideas, different thoughts, and communicate with the public, with
my constituents in Pennsylvania as to why or how I've
evolved on an issue.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
If not better, do you think that makes you distinctively
different from the President of the United States from the
Republican Party as we speak, considering how dogged they may
be in their positions and how they don't necessarily change,
at least publicly. Here's what I say.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
I don't know how the president makes decisions or thinks
about issues. And I'm not trying to be a jerk senter.
I really don't. I don't have an insight into how
he thinks through an issue and arrives at a conclusion.
I differ from him on a lot of his confusion conclusions.
I don't know the process. The folks that I have
a problem with are the enablers who know better, These
(10:27):
members of Congress who have basically given up their constitutional responsibilities.
The Republican elected leaders who will come to me and
whisper in my ear. Can you believe he said that
I don't agree with that? Whatever? And then you see
these guys out at the press conference the next day. Oh,
Donald Trump's the best. I agree with them on this.
I agree with them on that. Those are the folks
(10:47):
I have a problem with, and how they go through
those mental gymnastics and sleep at night.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
See I view them. If I may make a statement here,
I view them your show. You get to make that
unstable people. People use derogatory terms, gutless or whatever, and
I say, okay, But to me, they are scared to
death because this is a man that has proven he
will get you out of office. And if you're addicted
to power and influence and it comes from sitting in
(11:16):
one of those seats in the House of Congress, you're
gonna do everything you can to hold on to what
you have. And that's why they capitulate. Look at Ted Cruz,
he talked about his wife. Look at MARKA. Rubio. I
am aligned Marco Ruby and that's the Secretary of State.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
I mean, look at some of this stuff. Profoundly weak people.
Let me tell you something. You insult my wife, we're
not gonna be on the same team. And I just
I find these folks to be ridiculous. First off, they've
got a constitutional responsibility that the citizens of their states
or their districts gave them. It's part of the whole
checks and balances. We teach our kids this in elementary school.
(11:50):
The fact is they have given up on that, And
this isn't about issue A or B. Right, we can
debate these issues whether we agree disagree. The fact is
that they have a responsibility to play And it's not
just saying, yeah, mister President, whatever you want. They have
a constitutional responsibility to do their jobs and they're not.
Those are the folks that bother me the most in
our policy.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
What about the notion that people would look at Democrats
and when we talk about, you know, the Republicans not
having much spine, what about on the Democratic side where
it got to a point, at least in my estimation
as just a conscientious observer, it got to a point
where people were scared of their own shadows because of
the cancel culture that existed. And a lot of people,
(12:32):
obviously for believe that the Democratic Party provoked that mind
that level of thinking. What about that? What about people
who look at the Democratic Party and some of the
members of this.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Fair criticism, yes, and it's criticism that I love it
against folks in our party for years, not trying to
personalize it about candidate A or or B. But yeah,
I think we started walking around on eggshells. I think
it is important to treat people with respect I think
it's important to respect people for who they are. I
(13:02):
think it's important to not bully other people in our society.
But you can't go to such an extreme that you
end up talking past folks and you end up not
actually being able to listen to people and the feelings
they have, the emotions they have, the desires they have,
because you feel like you have to follow a certain
(13:24):
set of rules or practices otherwise you don't get to
be in the room. And I think that's been a
problem for a lot of years. I don't do my
politics that way. I don't govern that way, and I
would argue I govern the toughest, most swingiest date in
the entire country. And I'm proud of what we've been
able to do there to bring people together and to
not bully others, but to also not get ourselves so
(13:45):
caught up in an extreme that we're not able to
have an honest conversation with people.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Do you believe that's what lost the election for Kamala
Harris were just what we just finished talking about, the
general consensus about the thinking associated with the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Conduct your question, But I'm going to say I'm not
a pundit here and I get that. You know, like
in sports, you know, you lose a game on Sunday,
you got to spend time on Monday trying to figure
out what happens. So when you start practicing Tuesday for
the next game next weekend, you're better, right. And I
get that there's gonna be folks doing that analysis. And
(14:21):
I think that that is a fair question you are asking.
That can be part of the analysis. But I think
that this has been years in the making. I've seen
it in rural communities in Pennsylvania where, by the way,
I did quite well as a Democrat running in those
areas where Democrats stops showing up, stop treating our farmers
with respect. By the way, our farmers maybe do the
(14:42):
most noble work in society. They feed our neighbors. Right,
National Democratic Party for a lot of years started defining
success is having a college degree. Let me tell you
something to you, Nay, sixty two percent of Pennsylvania adults
don't have a college degree. So if you're one of
those sixty two percent, you looked at the Democratic Party,
(15:05):
this is years and years and years in the making,
and your being total success is defined by something you
don't have. Well, all of a sudden, you're gonna start
to say, are those folks really for me? I've tried
to govern differently. Held my first day in office, I
signed an executive order doing away with the college degree
requirement to work in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Well sixty
(15:26):
percent of the people I've hired in Pennsylvania don't have
a college degree. We're better for respecting people from all
different walks of life. I think our party for a
lot of years started getting away from that. Now the answer.
Part of it is that Monday morning analysis you got
to do after you lose again lose an election. That's fair,
But part of it is I think folks are looking
(15:48):
too much to Washington and not enough to what's been
happening in the States over many years. I think there's
a number of governors who are doing thoughtful things that
matter in people's lives. My job is in to just
give speeches and make a lot of noise. My job
as a governor is to put points on the board
every day for our school kids, for our farmers, for
(16:10):
our cops, for our firefighters, for everybody. And I try
and do that in a way that lifts everybody up.
Doesn't shut people out, doesn't do it with an attitude
of elitism or extremism, and it's working in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
But think about it. If I remember correctly doing my research,
I was reading up about how Republican led effort for
millions of millions of dollars in school vouchers or something
that you supported, if I remember correctly, and you got
criticized for that by your own party. Yep. I mean,
so I'm looking at it from that stample. I'm saying,
wait a minute here, at some point in time, do
you pause. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about them,
(16:44):
other members of your party that is. And I'm saying,
look at what this man is doing in the state
of Pennsylvania. Look at the reputation that he has, Look
at how popular he has. You guys have said he
hasn't really had any competition. Well, I'm from the Jordan era. Yeah,
it wasn't a lot of petition because he made it
look like it wasn't. It wasn't competitive because he annihilated
(17:06):
all the time. It's Jordan, it's not Lebron. It's not Lebron.
But we'll talk about that another day. My point is
to use that analogy towards you. You would think that
knowing all of this, seeing your record, seeing a state
like Pennsylvania, knowing how rabid the base is, not just
as fans of the sports team, but even their politicians,
(17:27):
that knowing that you had such popularity in that state,
it would be a no brainer, considering the importance of
the state of Pennsylvania, that Kamala Harris would have chosen
you as a vice presidential nominee. But that did not happen, sir, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
And look, Steven, I said all along, Kamala Harris had
a deeply personal decision to make who she wanted to
run with, who she wanted to govern the country with.
Uh In the end of the day, I had a
personal decision to make too, okay, And I love being governor.
I love being able to chart my own course. I
love being able to meet a pencilnion on their farm
(18:02):
on the streets of Philadelphia, hear their problem, and actually
do something about it, get shit done for them. I
always want to be in a job where I can
make real change, make decisions and make things happen. And
I love being governor in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
So is that your way of saying that it was
a job that you didn't want because you wanted to
be governor.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
It's my way of telling you how much I love
being governor, and also respecting the fact that she had
a decision to make she made it. I think Tim
Wallas is a good guy. I wish they would have won.
I can't pay my heart out for them. I worked
hard to make sure to do my best to help
make sure they want and they came up short.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
Well, let me be more direct, sir, if she had
offered you the vice presidential position, would you have accepted.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
I think I think it is not worth going back
and kind of Monday morning quarterback and later going into hypotheticals.
I also want to be respectful of the vice president
not get into our private conversations as well. I can
tell tell you that I love my work. I love
being able to do my work on my terms. I
love being able to do my work and still be
(19:06):
a father to our four kids and a husband of
my loved my life since the ninth grade, and the
best way for me to serve the public to be
able to meet the obligations I've learned about from the
way my parents taught me in the way my faith
teaches me, it should be governor in Pennsylvania right now, All.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Right, everybody, listen up with all the big time sports
action is happening each and every day to Stephen A.
Smith Show wants to make sure you are taking advantage
of it all. That's why we've partnered with Prize Picks,
the largest fantasy sports platform and all the land, to
help you cash in on all your sports knowledge. You see.
Prize Picks is a daily fantasy act where you pick
two or more of your favorite players and then you
(19:49):
select more or less on their projected stats for the game.
Choose from any of your favorite players Luka, Doncic, Jimmy Butler,
and Zach Lavine all in the same entry to sit
back and watch. The list is endless and now with
Prospects Flex Friday option, you can still cash out even
if your lineup isn't perfect. That's right, every Friday, just
look for the protected play so win or your cash
(20:11):
back and get this. Prize Pects now offers MasterCard for
quick and easy deposits into your account during the sports season.
Make your picks in less than sixty seconds and turn
your sports opinions into real money. All season long on
Prize Picks. So download the app today and use code
sas to get fifty dollars instantly after you play your
first five dollar lineup. Again, download the app and use
(20:34):
code sas to get fifty dollars instantly after your first
five dollar lineup Prize Picks. Yo, run your game. We
started off this conversation by talking about Israeli Palestinian conflict
that obviously had transpired at the time she needed to
(20:56):
make a decision. Speculation was that there were some folks
who didn't know whether you would be the right guy
because you were Jewish, because you were pro Israel, etc.
This is the year twenty twenty five. Yeah, and yet
we're weeks removed from that still being mentioned as a concern.
(21:17):
What does that say to you about the state of
America right now, that that is still a concern in
some people.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
You know, I heard a little bit of that noise.
I know there's a lot of noise online about that.
I don't going to pay much attention to that, but
I got to tell you, man, when I travel across Pennsylvania,
and I think we can agree the ultimate swing state.
If you want to be president of the United states.
You're Donald Trump, comme Myers, you gotta win Pennsylvania. I
got to tell you, I go across the state and
(21:46):
folks open up to me about their faith because I'm
a person of faith. I find that it allows me
to have a greater connection with my constituents, with my
fellow Pennsylvanians. I find that it is a value add
not a divisive thing. Remember, I'm literally someone who has
(22:06):
followed in a line of leaders of Pennsylvania. I followed
William Pennon, a guy who created the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
as a place that would be warm and welcoming for
all people of all faiths. I'm not sure pen ever
imagined there'd be a Jewish governor, right, But I think
that's a spirit that we have always had. That or
(22:30):
a place that's tolerant or a place that's welcoming. And
so yeah, I know there's a lot of noise that
was surrounding that, you know, in our national and politics,
But my experience when you're actually out talking to folks,
when you're out engaging with them, is folks are really
good and honorable and decent. They may not worship the
way you do, but they appreciate that you're a person
(22:50):
of faith, that you're grounded in something, and it gives
them something to connect with you on is it.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Fit to say that the Jewish community shares exactly what
you just expressed, Because we've been hearing a lot about
anti Semitism, and one of the things that I point
to is that I'm not Jewish. I can't stand when
people who are not black try to tell Black people
about what they've experienced. It gets on my last nerves
because you don't know. But I will tell you, as
(23:16):
a black individual, I'm not Jewish. You would know better
than me when we hear anti semitism? How real is
that issue? In this day and age?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Anti Semitism is on the rise. Okay, that is an
empirical fact. I still think the vast, vast, vast, vast
vast majority of people are good and decent and respectful,
but it is true that it is on the rise.
I think that there are a number of reasons for that,
(23:48):
but one that I think has been driving a lot
of this is the fact that two oftentimes we don't
have leaders speaking in acting with moral clarity, giving certain
folks who respewing anti semitism or other forms of bigotry
a pass or actually allowing their words to be misappropriated
(24:14):
by someone who's hateful to use that as a tool
to attack others. I think we see that from the
President of the United States at times, and it's dangerous,
and so I think that is something that we have
to guard against, and every leader has that responsibility speak
and act moral clarity. I try to do that, and
(24:34):
I think if more leaders did that, you'd see the
incidents of anti semitism, racism, hatred, bigotry and all forms
begin to be reduced in our society. It's never gonna
get rid of it, but it's going to be reduced.
I just can't stress enough, though, Steven. As I get around,
as I talk to people, as i'm in their communities,
(24:55):
most people are really good and decent and honorable folks.
They'll stand up to someone who's b someone in their
community or online completely and that gives me hope, That
gives me a sense of optimism. I'm not sure our
politics are keeping up with where the community is right now,
but it is something that I think gets lost a
lot of times in our media or online. I'm not
(25:17):
someone who bashes the media but I think sometimes that
storyline gets missed.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Could politics be what's bringing our society down?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
In parties?
Speaker 1 (25:26):
On what the part it is?
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Because I think leaders have a responsibility speaking act of
moral clarity, and too many of them don't.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Right now, what do you say, because we know some
of the rhetoric the president is used, as you alluded
to and what have you, And obviously that's problematic at times,
no doubt. But there's another side too. Just the other
day we saw Democrats really pushing back on Doge's apartment,
you know, Elon Musk and his it. You don't get
(25:57):
me started with that and the verb, the language they use.
Some would say that kind of rhetoric is exactly what
we don't need either. How are you any better as
a party than what you're describing the other side to be?
There are folks who look at Democrats and they say that, now.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yeah, and look, I didn't see this specific thing you're
talking about, but I'm not gonna duck what you're saying,
because I think you make an important point. In general,
I think you do have too much of this rhetoric
in both parties that is divisive, that is too white hot,
that is just making it harder to find common ground.
(26:41):
I get the theatrics of politics, right, I get that
there are some folks out there in Pennsylvania who, Yeah,
they got to like sort of show that they're fighting
with me to their constituents so they can score some
political points. But you know what, you got to get
your ass around the table and also make some progress
and work on things together. And so I was trying
(27:02):
keep that in mind with my rhetoric and as I
deal with others across the island Pennsylvania. I think we've
got to learn from the way we try and do
business in our commonwealth. At the national level, I don't
think that kind of rhetoric, no matter what parties engaged
in it is helpful, and it further divides us, and
(27:23):
it breeds more cynicism in our society. And when you've
got a public that gets cynical, a few things happen.
Number One, you kind of lurch back and forth in politics. Well,
I'm pissed at these guys, I'm voting for these guys.
How many times have we seen that over the last
twenty years? Stephen A right, Democratic wave, Republican wave. I
(27:44):
think a lot of that is because people are angry
and they're cynicism, and so they're going back and forth,
and it makes it harder to actually get stuff done
that matters to people. Do you tell this to your
own party?
Speaker 1 (27:55):
I mean, when people think about the squad, or they
think about the progressives on the extreme, look the mag
is on the right, you could say what you got
to say to them, because you're absolutely right. But on
the left as well, do you say this stuff to
your own party?
Speaker 2 (28:05):
You know, I don't know that it's my job to
lecture other Democrats. I think what my job is is
to be a hell of a good governor. In Pennsylvania.
The shows you can get elected with not just Democratic votes,
but Republican independent votes as well. I'll tell you I
got more votes anybody ever in the history of Pennsylvania
running for government. I'm not saying it's about myself on
(28:26):
the back. I'm saying that because, as a empirical fact,
the only way you get the numbers I got is
by having Republicans and independents vote for you along with Democrats.
I'm governing in a way where our ratings show Republicans
independence still support the work I'm doing. I think the
best thing I can do is not lecture people in
my party or the other party, but show that you
(28:48):
can do common sense things well, can bring people together
and you can get stuff done.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
What govern that come to you for advice? Because I mean,
you're winning, you're doing your job, so you would think
that if you you you've got a formula that can
be emulated. I mean, listen, I'm a thief. I steal
successful habits all the time. I see a successful habit,
I'm stealing it. Okay, I'm gonna massive it, I'm gonna learn.
I'm gonna do what I have to do because I
want to win. Sure, what about folks in you but
(29:16):
they don't they don't reach out to you. They do.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
I'm just saying, I'm happy to have those conversations with
a candidate running for office, with party committees and groups
and what have you, and I do. But I don't
think sort of engaging in uh, you know, a public
beating of people in my party or the other. I
don't think that's particularly helpful. I think the best thing
I can do is lead by example in the commonwth
(29:40):
and That's what I'm trying to do every day.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Let's get back to Trump in this regard these executive
orders that he's been handed out like skittles, some crying.
I mean, it's something special, It's it's unbelievable. I mean,
he's got a fresh shop.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Most of them aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
But I'm wondering what your thoughts have been about the
executive orders A. And is there one is that, anyone
particular that alarms you more than the others.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Yeah. I think the one that alarms me the most
is the one that actually, of all the things he signed,
is the only one that's absolute, and that is when
he pardoned people who assaulted cops on January six, When
he granted clemency to people that assaulted cops on January six,
(30:31):
I think that shows an utter lack of respect for
law enforcement. Listen, I'm someone who for years has respected
law enforcement. We invest in law enforcement in Pennsylvania. I
have their backs. They screw up, they're gonna be held accountable,
but I got their backs. I understand how central safety
is and law and order is. Proper law and order
that respects people's constitutional rights is for a civilized society.
(30:56):
And the fact that on his first day using the
power of that sharpie pen gave those folks a pardon,
says a lot about his values and something I really
strongly disagree with.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Now, just to be clear, do you believe are you
of that position for anybody who stormed the capitol that
day or just those who engage that there are those
on the right that say some of them were lawless,
not all. Do you differentiate?
Speaker 2 (31:29):
No, of course you have to differentiate between someone who
was assaulting a cop versus someone who wasn't. Of course
there's a difference. But look, stephen A. I mean, these
folks were prosecuted, a jury of their peers heard the
evidence and convicted them. I'm not going to stand here
(31:51):
right now and say this sentence was too weak, this
sentence was too strong.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Whatever.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
You asked me a question, I'm answering it directly. You
asked me what you know, what is it about? You
know the things that he signed that you know, what
do you think of that? I thought that was the
most disturbing thing. And you know, in a civilized society,
you've got to have rule of law being respected by
all people. You've got to make sure that people's constitutional
(32:17):
rights were protected in the process. And I just thought
using the stroke of that pen to do that on
the first day sent a really poor.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Message Department of Government efficiency. It was created, it was
not something that was in existence before Trump got there,
your thoughts about its existence, and a non elected official
like Elona Musk, yeah running it. Well.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Look, I'll just tell you in Pennsylvania, I've worked my
tail off to cut costs put money back in people's pockets.
I've cut taxes five six times. I've proposed in my
most recent budget to cut taxes even more. We're trying
to make childcare more affordable, help seniors stay in their homes,
help our small businesses. We're trying to bring down the
car lost of goods and services to put money back
(33:02):
in people's pockets. And one of the ways we are
doing that and also still being able to invest in
our schools, in public safety, and economic development is by
eliminating wasteful spending in Pennsylvania. So I'm all for eliminating
wasteful spending. And I'm glad they've got a crew that's
looking at that now. I mean, I kind of have
(33:23):
to left. This goes back to the beginning of our
conversation about members of Congress. I mean, this money doesn't
just go out will and nilly. The way it happens
is members of Congress vote for these appropriations bills and
a president signs it into law. So those members decided, hey,
they want a million dollars going to the Stephen A.
(33:43):
Smith's Society or whatever, and then to not actually spend
that money and have the members of Congress that supported
it not stand up and say, wait a minute, we
got some constitutional responsibility here. We sent the money out.
That to me is a little crazy. So yeah, I
think we should be cutting back on wasteful spending. I
think you got to go through a legal process to
(34:03):
do that. I am glad the Trump administration is looking
at it. I think wasting too much money for too long,
And it's not dissimilar to the kind of work we're
doing in Pennsylvania to cut costs.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Your thoughts about his position on diversity, equity and inclusion
DEI being completely eradicated and eliminated, your thoughts, You know.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
You reference before all the eos he signed, executive orders
he signed, and a whole bunch of them have to
do with so called deis. It seems to me that
they're using that as an excuse for everything from the
horrific plane crash in Washington, DC to the fact that
(34:46):
they do not have a plan to do the one
thing that people really wanted Donald Trump to do, which
is to cut costs in our communities. I haven't seen
any eos about making eggs any cheapness, stephen A. I
don't know of milk or gas or any of these
other things, so I'd like to see him focusing on
(35:07):
that when it comes to this issue of DEI. You
didn't kind of ask me this directly, but I do
want you to know where I'm on this. I mentioned
William Penn before, yes, and I take very seriously my
responsibility as a governor that we have a place that is
warm and welcoming for all, that respects all people, no
matter what you look like, where you come from, who
(35:29):
you love, who you pray to, that doesn't pit one
group against the other, and that respects people for who
they are and doesn't make people feel guilty for who
they are. I have never thought that DEI should be
vested with one employee or one office. I think it
is a mindset of respect for all of acknowledging our
(35:54):
shared history and making sure that opportunity is available for
all Pennsylvanians in my case, or for all Americans. What
I don't like about what the President's doing is he
uses these sharply signed executive orders to bully other people.
And I think that's bullshit. If you're a president, you're
(36:15):
a governor, you're a mayor, you're a leader of a community,
you've got a responsibility to lift everybody up, not talk
certain people now, not pit one person against the other.
That makes everybody's life less safe, and it's bad.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
For our society. Let me share my position with you
about DII real quick to see if you agree what
I've said publicly. DEI. What I don't like about what
I've seen the right doing since Trump has gotten into
office and signed these ohs is that you're making the
claim that anybody associated with DEI was unqualified incompetent. And
(36:55):
I said, first of all, that's wrong. But secondly, and
most importantly, as was as was the case with the
Rooney Rule in the National Football League, as was the
case with affirmative action, we're just going to ignore why
it was put in a place to begin with. We're
going to ignore the origin of its existence. It existed
because it was unfair unfairness and inequities that were being practiced,
(37:20):
and it needed to be addressed. That's why the programs
came in play to begin with. So it seems like
we have a segment of our society wants to ignore
the reality of.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
So I'm talking about our shared history. We have to
understand that, and you've got to be building a society
where everybody's got opportunity, not where you're pitting one against
the other, but where everybody's got opportunity. That's what I'm
trying to do in Pennsylvania, and also trying to make
clear that you know, when a black owned business does
well in my commonwealth, it doesn't mean that that small
(37:51):
business next door owned by someone who looks like me
has to do worse off. This is not a zero
as some game. We can lift everybody up. One of
the things I'm most proud of is the work we're
doing to bring a high quality education every zip code
in Pennsylvania. Right we got to make sure that a
child that looks like me as a shot and a
child that looks like you has a shot, and we
(38:12):
shouldn't be pitting those kids against one another either. In
the way we teach them or in the way we
fund their schools.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Immigration, I have to confess to you, I'm liberal in
my thinking. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
I've always been that way, even though I mostly vote Democrat.
Here's the deal. I'm looking at his position and closing
the borders, and I must say I could not disagree
with him because of Biden. President Joe Biden opening the
(38:53):
borders when he took office, and I took it to consideration.
Barack Obama, Barack Obama was once joked about, I shouldn't
say joke, but he was one the border and the
porter in chief, so he certainly practiced it. He campaigned
on it, he let it be known. He said, well,
he had to say. They went out and did it.
But he didn't stick out his chest and brag about it.
(39:14):
He just did the job. I'm looking at Biden and
you come into office, you know, after he departs four years.
After he departs, Trump has his administration for four years.
Then you come into office, and to me, you went
against what Obama was doing and you opened the borders,
and that's what caused a lot of this. Right now,
to that.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
You say what I would say, you have your facts right,
and that's important because a lot of the conversation about
immigration has been devoid of facts. You go, look, Barack
Obama is deporting way more people than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Yes he did.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
I think it's also true to say that there was
a border challenge during the Biden administration. I have for
years and years and years said the same thing. We
need a secure border. Must make sure our border is secured.
Some places it requires offense, some places it requires technology,
some place that requires personnel, you name it. But you've
(40:07):
got to have a secure border, and you've got to
have clear rules of the road to enter this country.
Someone who wants to come to America, I want you
to come here, follow the rules, and I want you
to make this country even better by bringing your talents,
by bringing your heart, your passion, your drive to this
great nation. Follow the rules. I also think, because we
(40:29):
have had these challenges for so many years, you've got
to acknowledge the more than ten million people who were
here who came here illegally and have a path for
them going forward, whether that path is deporting them because
they've violated the law here, or that path is saying
you've been here long enough, you're part of our society,
(40:51):
you're working here, your kids go to school here, you
name it, Yona house, whatever, We're going to make sure
that there is now a pathway for you for citizenship.
Think that's common sense. I think that's where most people are.
I think what Donald Trump has been doing in his
early days is actually, by the way, not meeting the
numbers that Obama had. But he's doing a lot of
(41:12):
pr around it. He's scaring the shit out of a
lot of communities. He's pitting people against one another. I
got no problem if you want to deport someone who
broke the law while they're here, who harmed someone while
they're here, you name it. But I do think you've
got to have a comprehensive immigration solution, something I've been
calling for for years.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Hi, I'm sorry neither side is pulled off.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
And by the way, I think you also have to
have a comprehensive immigration solution that acknowledges the workforce issues
we have in this country, that actually listens to what
farmers need in their communities, listens to what states need,
listens to the way immigration immigrants have enhanced our economy
(41:58):
in many ways, and I think you have to have
that kind of honest conversation. Lawmakers have to come together
and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. We were on the
one yard line about a year ago when Donald Trump
said to the members of Congress, back out because he
wants to use as we want to use. The issue
goes back to the point I was making before. You
(42:20):
got a whole bunch of Republican lawmakers who seemingly are
swearing an oath to Donald Trump and not the Constitution
every day. That's dangerous for our society. We do need
comprehensive immigration reform. We need a secure border, and we
need a pathway for those who were here.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Today, Around ten thousand employees of the USA the Agency
for International Development are expected to be fired, furloughed, or
put on Leave your thoughts about his position.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
With that, you know, I don't know. I'm not talking
your question, but I don't know enough of the specifics
of what's going on there. But I do know this.
Members of Congress voted for a bill that funded all
these operations USAID. It was signed by the President of
the United States. It is lawful. Whatever Donald Trump chooses
(43:07):
to do it us ai D. It needs to be lawful.
He can't just do this unilaterally given the laws that
are in place going forward. If he wants to propose
a new law, it does away with USAID or curtails
its operations. That certainly is progative. He won the election,
he gets to put his mark on things, but he's
(43:27):
not a king. He doesn't get to just sign an
executive order and say this is the way it's going
to be. When there is a law in place. His
executive order doesn't get to trump.
Speaker 1 (43:39):
He is the closest thing to a king. I certainly
don't look at him that way, but he is the
closest thing to a king. When you consider the Republicans
and how they at his beck and call right now
in the House, in the Senate, etc. It's like he's
put people in there, and I brought up hag Seth.
Obviously Matt Gatez didn't get the position that he was
shooting for his Attorney General vam Bondi's now in there.
(44:00):
You see a lot of these folks that are in
office right now, and clearly the loyalty and the fealty
to him appears to be his top priority. So certainly
you're not gonna call him a king in a complementary way,
particularly in a democratic society that is the United States
of America. But nevertheless, the fear that people had seems
(44:20):
a bit real because of the cachet and the power
that he wields. And you have folks in this country
who voted for who says that's exactly what we need.
Because Washington has spent decades not getting things done. How
do you argue against that thing.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
You got to unpack a lot of what you just said.
There's a lot of different important threads there that I
want to talk about. One, the president is using his
hard power and soft power. He is flooding the zone.
Whether you agree with his positions or not, and I
don't agree with many of them. Putting that aside for
(44:58):
a moment, you have to appreciate the fact that he's
pushing as hard as he can, trying to expand his
power as much as he can. If you look at
a lot of what he's doing, though it goes against
the bounds of the law, it is outside of what
the law allows. And that is where these members of
(45:20):
Congress and others who constitutionally are required to be a
check on him, are not doing their jobs. There are
laws in place that he can't get around just by
signing an executive order or having a loud and angry
press conference. He wants to change the law, he's got
to go through that lawmaking process and get himself the
votes in the House, get himself the votes in the Senate,
(45:42):
and get a bill to his desk. I fault those
members of Congress who are not standing up and doing
their part as the American people who say we wanted
this kind of change, we wanted this kind of disruption.
I get that. I'm not denying you that. But the
way we make change in this country, the way we
disrupt things in this country, is by working within the
bounds of the Constitution of the United States. And we
(46:03):
have seen in the early days the President of the
United States trying to go outside the bounds of the Constitution.
He thought he could do away with birthright citizenship written
in the Constitution by signing the executive order. A court
slapped him down immediately. He thought he could freeze federal funding,
funding that had been duly appropriated to the states. Quickly,
(46:24):
there was an injunction put in place, saying he couldn't
do that, So I guess, Look, I don't blame the
guy for trying to expand his power, right, I don't
agree with what he's trying to do. The folks that
I've got a real problem with are the people who
constitutionally are required to stand up to that.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Who aren't Where the Democrat was the Democratic Party going
to do about it? Because I've been on records saying
who's the voice, who's the face of the Democratic Party?
Because it takes a face and a voice to beat
the kind of following he's built. I know he doesn't
get to run for office again, even though you had
some Republican representatives that wanted to push the third term
for Donald Trump. Don't get me start with that nonsense.
(47:01):
But considering j. D. Vance, as they considered Marco Ruby
as the Secretary of State, considering the fact that they're
now a part of that and a position, how he's
positioning somebody to take the reins when he's gone. What
is the Democratic Party's answer going to be that? I
see Josha Pirou, I see Wes Moore. I'm not gonna
lie to you. I'm just being honest. I'm allowed in
(47:22):
my opinion. I don't see much else right now.
Speaker 2 (47:27):
First off, Wes is a great guy, and he's doing
a great job as governor, and we're good buddies. I
think you're wrong, respectfully, by saying who's the face of
the Democratic Party and how is that person going to
stop Donald Trump. There will be a face of the
Democratic Party when the next presidential race rolls around and
(47:50):
Democrats choose to nominate someone to fill that void. In
the meantime, I think the answer is not who is
the face, but who are the faces? Who are the
people doing this work. I would say to you, respectfully,
stop looking at DC all the time. Look to what's
happening in the states. Look to how Democrats who are
(48:11):
put in positions to govern are governing responsibly. Look at
the fact that we've got democratic governors in Kentucky and
Kansas to pretty republican states. Look at the fact that
in those three swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump
(48:32):
won all three. There's democratic governors in those three states.
The point I'm trying to make to you, stephen A
is there's not going to be one person that rises
up tomorrow that becomes that voice tomorrow. But there is
a lot of good things happening amongst some Democratic leaders
in the States that I think we should be paying
attention to, who I think show a common sense, rational
(48:57):
approach to governing that can be really formative for the
conversation the Democratic Party is going to have to.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
Have going forward. I'll end this with the last couple
of questions and thank you so much for your time.
I'm a sports guy, Yeah, me too, and I think
about competition, and so when I think about Donald Trump,
I'm thinking about what does it take to beat him.
I'm not talking about an individual per se as somebody
somebody's being the king or the king make or anything
(49:23):
like that. I understand it's going to take a party.
I understand it's going to be a collective effort. I
understand one person can't do it all. But I watched
this guy stroll down some escalators in twenty fifteen, and
there hasn't been a Republican that can touch him in
ten years. And so I'm saying to myself, in order
(49:43):
to beat him, who in the party can resonate with
the American people to have that kind of impact. It
seems to me that it would be somebody that has
a national profile because the exception work somebody may do
locally isn't enough to offset the cachet that he has built.
(50:07):
That's where I'm coming from.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
He has no doubt been a dominant force in our
politics for the last ten years. My kids sort of
awareness of politics in their early years in life are
going to be shaped by Donald Trump. I don't think
that's a particularly good thing, but it's the reality. And
he has certainly taken over the Republican Party. Now he's
(50:32):
not running again, nope, and there will be a backlash
to the manner, to the way in which he is governing,
the fact that he hasn't brought costs down, the fact
that with some of the things he says, he actually
potentially makes us less safer around the world. I understand
people want disruption, but when they begin to see the
(50:55):
effects of that disruption on their lives, there will be
a backlash to that. Let's take tariffs as one example.
Speaker 1 (51:02):
I was going to bring that up.
Speaker 2 (51:04):
He proposed to put a twenty five percent tariff on
our two biggest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. That means
you're paying twenty five percent more for most of the
stuff you buy. He promised to lower cost, that's going
to raise costs. There's an effect to that.
Speaker 1 (51:19):
Now.
Speaker 2 (51:20):
He walked that back like he does most things. But
we'll see if he actually goes forward with that in
thirty days. My point to you is there will be
a backlash to that. And the answer is not a
Democrat who can ride down an escalator, an elevator, or
whatever the hell they're can ride down, but actually Democrats
who have governed with common sense, who have put points
(51:43):
on the board, and who can share a vision for
this country that's actually going to bring people back together
after Donald Trump has spent the last decade or more
dividing them.
Speaker 1 (51:55):
Is that answer? Within the two party system, what if
somebody said, doesn't need to be a Democrat, can it
be an independent? What do you say to that?
Speaker 2 (52:04):
I think there's a conversation, you know, we've been having
for a long time. Probably the most notable independent in
sort of recent memory would be that Ross Perot. And
so maybe there will be a third party or an
independent that comes along. I got to tell you something, man,
for all its challenges, right now, I'm proud to be
(52:25):
a Democrat, and I'm proud to be yeah, I am,
and I'm proud to be a voice within the Democratic
Party that is hopefully going to heal it from what
we just went through, and it's going to help move
it along in a way that broadens the conversation to
include more people back to what I was saying before.
Broadens it to people that have a high school degree
(52:45):
and chose not to go to college because we gave
that person some resources so they could go learn to
be a welder. Broadens it to include more of our
farmers because we invested in our heartland and did what
we needed to do to help our farm put food
on the table for their families and grow their farming operations.
Broadens it to include people who right now feel like
(53:09):
our party hasn't been talking to them. That's what we've
been doing in Pennsylvania. And while I recognize we got
to go through some change and some learning that Monday
morning process we were talking about before, excuse my voice,
we have got to, I think, remain committed to what's
at the core of our party, which is trying to
look out for others, help people, lift people up, give
(53:31):
all people a shot. That's how I'm trying to govern
in Pennsylvania, and that's why I think we need more
of in our party.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
My last question to you, Governor, as we sit here
right now, you have a lot of American people who
feel the damage to this country is on the fringes,
MAGA write extreme progressive, left, woke culture, cancel culture, etc.
They think about a centrist, whether it's left or right,
(53:58):
because they think that's where it meet. Of the people
lie people who are willing to compromise or are open minded,
as you articulated a little while ago, open the listening
to other folks. Maybe you've made a mistake here or
there that that thinking might might might be pervasive to
some degree at times. But they think about contrary to
(54:20):
what you think. They don't think about Steven Aye Smith.
I don't care what the pole say. Steven THEE. Smith's
not run office, Okay, Okay, I'm not knowledgeable or nothing.
That's not my life was for you think, don't even
think about it. I'm not qualified, Okay, but you are.
And there's a lot of people that look at Joshapiro
and they say the country deserves more than him being
(54:42):
in just Pennsylvania. We need him for the United States
of America. What do you have to say about that.
Speaker 2 (54:51):
That's a very humbling thing you just said. But I
also think, respectfully, you're wrong on something.
Speaker 1 (54:58):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (55:00):
I talk to people all the time across Pennsylvania and
more and more across the country. I don't hear most
folks saying to me, oh, I'm on the left, I'm
on the right, I'm on this part, I'm this. I
think where most people are is just their common sense.
They want their lives to be better. They want to
know that the people who are serving them are looking
(55:21):
out for their interests. They don't need to agree with
me ten out of ten times, but if they know
like I got their back, I got compassion in my heart,
I'm fighting for them every day. That's good enough for
most folks. And so I disagree with you a little bit.
Is I don't think this is about targeting the left
or targeting the right. I think that's actually disrespectful to
attack people because they support Donald Trump or they support
(55:44):
on the left. I never slice and dice people like
that or attack them for who they support. I think
what we need more of in this country is common sense,
people who are willing to have tough conversations with people
in another party or with a different perspective than them.
Try and surround myself with people on my senior team,
in my cabinet and elsewhere who disagree with me on issues,
(56:07):
have different life experiences than I do. We're raised differently
than me, because that forces me to think about things
in a different way. And ultimately, past policies do things
take steps that are looking out for more people than
maybe I was just aware of when I began my
public service career. So to get back to what you said,
(56:28):
I mean, yeah, I'm humbled when when folks acknowledge the
work we're doing in Pennsylvania. But I don't think it's
left right center. I think it's more like who's on
your side, who's looking out for you, who's got the
skills to get shipped.
Speaker 1 (56:43):
Down for you? Right? But the party makes the politics
make you pick a side come election day. I think
that's the way I'm getting in.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
I don't think that's right. The politics makes you pick
a party when you register, okay, right, but come election day,
and I'm proof of this. We had a whole lot
of Republicans who voted for me. I think what people
look to when they finally get in that ballot box
is who's gonna fight for me, who's going to look
out for me, Who's going to actually solve the problems
(57:15):
that matter most to me. It's one of the beefs
I've got with Trump. You know, he's focused on so
many things other than actually reducing costs. He's focused on
pitting Americans against one another instead of actually saying, Hey,
I got all of you guys, I'm the president for everybody.
I'm now gonna help reduce your costs. I'm gonna help
make you safe. I'm going to help you know, create
(57:35):
a job for you. I try and do it in
a way that brings people together. I don't think this
is an issue where you're only dealing with your side
of the field. I think you got to you gotta
work work the whole field.
Speaker 1 (57:48):
We are here super Bowl week. I can't thank you
enough for giving me your time to be sitting with
the governor for the last hour. I can't say enough
how grateful I am for your time. I really enjoyed
this conversation and thank you for the bottom of mine.
Speaker 2 (57:59):
Well, I'm grateful to be here with you. I'm grateful
for the conversation and I'm grateful that you are willing
to use your voice outside of your comfort zone, if
you will, outside of sports, which obviously you're a fantastic
and I enjoy that you care about this country, you
(58:20):
care about the Democratic Party, and I may not like
everything you say, but you're kicking people in the ass
and forcing people to think about things a little bit differently.
And I appreciate that about you. And it's time to
be here with you.
Speaker 1 (58:34):
See. Thank you so much. Anytime, I'm always here for you.
Thankk you so much, appreciate it. The Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, mister jos Shapiro, right here with Stephen A. Smith. Wow,
it was a privilege, y'all. Anytime you get to sit
down with a governor of a state, particularly a state
as formidable as Pennsylvania. What can you say? Josh Shapiro
(58:56):
and a lot of people's eyes should have been the
vice presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. Had he been
the vice presidential nominee, who knows, it might have spelled
more success for Kamala Harris. But that didn't happen, and
so we move on. Who knows what the future is
for him With the future potential lives. But one thing,
you know, just listening to him, hearing how he thinks,
(59:18):
there is no doubt that if he isn't, he certainly
should be a prime candidate for the presidency of the
United States of America in the year twenty twenty eight.
We shall see in the years to come. I don't
think this will be the last time you'll be hearing
from him. It's certainly not the last time I intend
to hear from him, and by the way, all of
(59:39):
us should want to hear more from him based on
the things that we heard him say today. That's it
for this edition of the stephen A. Smith Show. I
hope y'all enjoyed that conversation as much as I did,
because I loved it, and I'm hoping to have more
of it. Until next time, everybody, stephen A Signing off
base of love,
Host
Stephen A. Smith
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.