May 14, 2025 • 59 mins
Veteran pollster and GOP strategist Frank Luntz talks about the failed Harris campaign, Democrat messaging problems, and whether MAGA voters will ever abandon President Trump.
IG: @ThisisGavinNewsom
Email: ThisisGavinNewsom@iheartradio.com
Phone: 855-6NEWSOM
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Coming up next on This is Gavin Newsom. I'll be
talking to legendary Republican polster and communication strategist Frank Luntz.
We'll be talking about the state of the Democratic Party,
Trump's first hundred days, and perhaps most importantly, the state
of our union.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
This is Gavin Newsom and this is Frank Lunz. You
look casual, you know, Frank, I wanted to dress up
for you.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
By the way, throughout all of this, you've been the
most interesting person to me. I haven't always agreed, You've
always been really kind to me. And even though we've disagreed,
I've enjoyed that. It's not even been a back and forth.
You're just a good guy.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I love that, man. I appreciate that. Now.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
You know what, Let's start right there, because you know,
we're at a point where we're not none of us
are talking like that. I mean, you've been studying this
stuff for decades and decades. I've been listening to you lately.
I mean, you think it's as bad as it's been
in our lifetime, meaning we're at each other's throat. This
country has never been more divided. Is that an overstatement
(01:07):
or is that about it?
Speaker 3 (01:09):
That's exactly it. And to me, and this is what's
frightening about it, is that we want to fight, we
want to argue, we want to disagree. We're looking at
a reason to be able to say I'm insulted or
worse yet, I'm offended. And that's the kind of culture
that we're in right now, and no one's trying to
(01:30):
get us out of it. And they give Corey Booker
credit because for most of his twenty five hours it
was uplifting, it was talking about real people, real concerns,
and he did in a way that isn't political. And
I think the guy who cut him off, the guy
who jumped to that to make sure that he would
always be remembered, Juck Schumer, is so far past his
(01:55):
cell by date because he doesn't really understand that now
we're playing with fire.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So, Frank, I want to talk about Corey because I
was struck by how complimentary you were of his twenty
five hour speech. But I want to go back a
little bit about you know, you've been studying this, you've
been focused on this, You've been I mean, you've been
a leader in this space and understanding communication, understanding emotion,
understanding nature of relationships, not just the relationship to one
(02:23):
another politically through the lens of ideology. But has this
been I mean, has this been decades in the making.
Is there a moment that you would mark that sort
of led to this moment? And you know, what's your
sort of over under in that respect.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
The moment that it started was the day that New
Kingridge got elected Speaker in nineteen ninety four, because that
was Republicans winning something that they know had not won
for forty years, and the Democrats didn't like it and
never got used to it. And Gingbridge was provocative. He
pushed you, He prodded you in an intellectual basis. Times
(03:00):
he used language that hurt himself. If you remember that
Christmas of nineteen ninety four, they had on the front
page of Music magazine the king Bridge that stole Christmas. Well,
you're going to get negativity if that's how the media
treats you. Now go forward to Bill Clinton's impeachment and
(03:20):
the feeling that what he did, while horrific and inappropriate,
did that really rise to the level of impeachment. Now
go forward to two thousand and now going George Bush
actually tying and how one side some people on that
one side never never awarded Bush the presidency and always
(03:45):
said that the election was stolen. And then go forward
to twenty ten and the rise of the Tea Party
and twenty sixteen to the rise of Trump. We've been
going through this now since nineteen ninety four, five or
six different moments, and here's the issue to me. In
almost all those moments, there were calm heads. There was
(04:06):
somebody who would say enough, in the next cremation point,
just stop doing this, just shut the hell up. Yeah,
you may be right, but the country is more important.
And now there's no one's doing that. There's no one
saying it. There's no one. Look, I'll say this to you,
and I like you. I said this, I really do,
(04:27):
and people will make fun of me saying it. But
when you conscious stuff the resistance I had exploded. You're
the opposition, but you're not the resistance. You're you're the
challenge should check as a governor. But that's very different
than saying I'm going to oppose everything that you do.
(04:50):
And I just feel like we've reached the point on
every side. I want to emphasize this. On every side,
they were insane and now are countries at stay. I
really do believe that a democracy is at static right now.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
No, I appreciate that. And also, you know, it's interesting
just this notion of resistance. When we did a special session.
What was remarkable to me is what I did not say,
but was what was attributed to me as it relates
to the purpose of that special session. After Trump won,
we talked about an open hand, not a close fist.
That never got any attention. Folks focused on that in
(05:26):
the context of sort of a zero sum, which I
think is so much of the politics. But I want
to go back a little bit just because nineteen ninety
four and it sort of marks a little bit of
your history. And you know, just for folks that don't
know you, as well as folks like myself that have
been following you for decades and decades, you've been traditionally
aligned with Republican causes, and you were aligned with gin
(05:47):
Ridge as it relates to that nineteen ninety four effort,
as it relates to that effort to take back the House,
as you say, for the first time in forty years,
and that contract with America, that infamous contract with America
you worked with Gingridge, did you not sort of helping
develop the language around that. Do you separate that from
(06:07):
what came after his successful ascendancy.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
It's the best, truthfully, it's the best thing I've ever done.
I should have quit while I was ahead, because it's
the first time that elected officials actually put an agenda
on the line. What was important to that contract was
what they were going to do in the first hour
and first day, which is something that still politicians need
to tell voters they want to know. Second is that
(06:34):
it itemized it ten different issues, from balanced budgets to
term limits, to fighting crime, to welfare reform, to tax
tax reform, all the issues that matter to people. And
then there was an enforcement clause. If we break our promise,
throw us out. We mean it with a one eight
hundred number to keep track of them. It was the
(06:56):
first time that anyone had offered accountability. And of course
the Democrats demonized it. They called it the Contract on America.
They were wrong, and the voters said they were wrong,
and in the endless feet let's keep the record straight here,
only forty percent of Americans ever heard of the contract
on election day, a minority of voters, but those who
(07:19):
heard of it had a four to one positive rating
towards it, which is unprecedented. And it made a difference
in the Key States because it got Republicans to run
for something, not against it. And God, I don't know
what they call you, Gaviner, governor, but governor. The issue
now is that no one runs for something. No one
(07:41):
tells you what you're for. They tell you why the
other guy's wrong, the other guy's evil, and the other
guys should be defeated. And this is a really important
conversation to have, and I'm glad that you're hosting it.
And by the way, you've taken more shit than anyway
we're bringing out. I would not have brought on Steve Bannon.
Steve Bannon scares me. I knew him before he was
(08:01):
Steve Bannon and before I was Frank Luntz. And the
guy is he scares me. But the fact that you're
willing to have these open conversations to engage with people
who you don't agree with, why is it? Why aren't
more people doing this? Why don't we have more civil
conversations designed to expose the truth, the relentless pursuit of
(08:26):
the truth. What is so wrong about this? You sir,
You've been criticized for doing this, and I'm telling people,
shut the hell up and listen. You might learn something.
Why are we I'm sixty three now and you can
hear it in my voice and how these have been
some very tough months for me. I'm learning more in
(08:47):
these months than I've learned in the last sixty years
of my life. Why are we so sure that we're
right and they're wrong? Why are we so sure that
we don't pick up another book that there's no reason
to read it, to explore, to question, and to challenge.
This is why I teach at West Point. This is
why I'm wearing this shirt, because I'm meeting with the
(09:08):
best students and Governor. You got to come. The reason
why I did this interview when I wanted to be
face to face, so I wanted to invite you to
West Point. Reach over, shake your hand because I know
then you have to go. There are more cadets from
California than any other state.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Love it.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
I want you to see the best and the brightest,
and the most ethical, and the most devoted and the
most civil. They say yes, sir, no, ma'am, thank you.
They're appreciative of their country, and they're willing to give
the greatest sacrifice for it, just as you and I
can have a civil conversation. Please come to West Point
(09:47):
and meet the best Californians you'll ever meet.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
No, I appreciate that in full disclosure, you invited me
and Wes Moore, Governor Moore from Maryland at the National
Governor Association. We were there and you asked if we
were available. The two of us had a privilege of
doing a little roundtable with you where you did a
mini focus group with these guys and they were asking
us questions and that was a special I know for Wes.
And we left that meeting, Frank, I mean, these guys
(10:12):
to your point next level, inspired by their service, their
civic mindedness, their sense of duty and patriotism. It really
touched I know, both Wes and I, and so I
appreciate your firm commitment to those young men and women
that are truly among the best in the brightest.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
And they loved you because the two of you didn't
agree on everything, and you talked with each other with
civility and respect. You had different approaches to some of
the biggest issues facing the country, and they were so
thrilled the two of the most important governors in the
country would give them an hour. And I want to
(10:54):
give you credit for this. You promised me twenty minutes.
You stayed for an hour and ten, Governor, thank you
for that. They noticed it, they appreciated it, and I
want viewers to know that you give a shit.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Frankly, no, I appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
And look, I think you know, they'd sort of distilled
the essence of I think the path back and getting
out of this mucket. I want to go back, though,
just a little bit, frank on your journey, because I'm
really fascinated by this, and I appreciate your firm defense
of the contract with America in the context of look,
having a plan, having an agenda, of being transparent about
(11:33):
it as you're running, and then having some accountability framework
and in the merits and the demerits of that, I'm
interested in. But moreover, I'm just interested in your own journey.
I mean, you were out there working not only for
causes supporting Gingridge, but obviously other Republican causes, as I
referenced in helping messaging and languaging for George Bush, and
(11:54):
you worked the pro campaign a little bit Giuliani and others.
Was there a point in your own journey, were you real, man,
this is not going well for this country that even
you started to sort of soften the edges started to
reach out to the other side.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Well, I was always curious, and it was Tom Dash
who brought me in and I created it. I have
not talked about I've never talked about this. Actually, I
don't even know if you know what I'm about to say.
I created a phrase, the Dashal Democrats, and these are
people who acted one way in Washington and a different
(12:29):
way back home. And Tom Dash was one of the
most ethical people I ever knew, still around. He's a
really special human being. But I demonized him using that
dastional democrat. And it was John McCain who came up
to me and said, do you really have to do that?
Can't we find a way to disagree without labeling people.
(12:50):
McCain a Republican dressing me down and Tom and John
McCain's tough, and he disagrees with you, he tells you it,
and you have to scrape yourself back to together and
somehow leave the room with your tail between your legs.
And I felt really bad about that. And Dash was
the first person to bring me to a Senate Democrat meeting.
(13:13):
This is maybe around two thousand, I'd say maybe two
thousand and two. And I presented to them and I
remember dan On Barbara Boxer, California senator giving me a
hard time around the table, and he leaned over to
me and he said, let it go. And it was
(13:34):
the best advice I ever got. Because she was ideological,
she's very political, very in your face, wanted to take
you on because she believed in what she believed in
and wanted you to know it and wanted to bring
you over to her side. So here's the weird thing.
How I handled her that day and how we got
to know each other afterward, and again we don't agree
(13:57):
on anything. And invited me into her last campaign, and
I said to her, do you know who I am?
Do you know what I believe?
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Like?
Speaker 3 (14:07):
What the hell? And I talked to her chief of
staff saying this is wrong, And she actually was serious
about it. She wanted someone on the team to be
a check, to be a challenge. She wanted that perspective
and she felt that her own team wasn't doing it.
(14:27):
So she said, I trust you, and trust is the
most important thing you can have, and to me, it's
the truth. The truth, relentless pursuit of the truth. We
have to be engaged in that. And I said no,
but I really appreciated the invite, and we still talked.
I think, you know this, Barack Obama on national television
(14:51):
told House Republicans that their retreat and it caused me
from time to time. And they're all saying, So he
begins to conversation by saying, I see Frank Luntz right there.
He's taking notes, and at that moment, I'm freaking out
because I am. He says, he's trying to figure out
how to defeat me, how to make Nancy BILLOWSI look bad,
(15:12):
and that's exactly what I'm doing. All I could think
of is a camera behind me shooting my computer, so
I reach over pulled it down slowly so people would
think I had anything to hide, and they're all cheering me,
the House Republicans around me way to go yeah, yeah, yeah,
And then he says, but you know, Frank and I talk.
(15:33):
We have conversations. I listened to him and he listens
to me. And then the same people around me are
now booing me shame, how dare you? And this is
the kind of relationship that I've had to American politics
over the last twenty five years. Just because we disagree
doesn't mean we can't have really deep, philosophical, solution oriented
(15:59):
conations over a meal, over a cub zero. It doesn't
mean that we can't or shouldn't engage. I'm going to
out someone in this conversation. I've had some very serious
doubts about where our country is going. And the person
I shared that with more than anyone else wasn't a Republican.
(16:20):
It was Michael Bennett of Colorado, because he had the
same doubts. And I don't want to embarrass him or
embarrass myself, but those conversations were so meaningful to me.
We would book sessions for fifteen minutes that would go
on an hour. My office knew, don't schedule when you
go see Michael Bennett, Senator Bennett, don't schedule for an hour,
(16:43):
and his office finally figured out the same. So, Governor,
to a lesser extent, you and I have done that
to a much lesser extent. But in the times that
we've gotten together, I listened to you. I listened to
your ideas. I listened to your solutions. I listen to
your leadership where I read your speeches, and I frankly
(17:04):
wish we known each other better, because where California goes,
the rest of America goes. If we get it right here,
we're going to get it right nationwide. Then we get
it wrong here, it's going to have an impact. I
appreciate you probing because that's a story I've never told
publicly before.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
I love it.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
By the way, do you remember what notes you were
taking when Obama called you out?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Yes? It was what the Republicans needed to say about Pelosi,
and it's that she doesn't engage with America. She doesn't
know America. She knows her Democratic friends in Congress, and
what do they know about America. I was trying to
draw the distinction between a Washington Democrat, which I've always done,
(17:49):
and an American Democrat who's out there in the out there,
in the real America, working for a living, making ends meet.
That was the beginning of my playing around with the
phrase paycheck to paycheck, and I was doing a whole
list of all the things that Pelosi or Obama was
saying that didn't not relate to America. And you know what,
(18:11):
I never gave Republicans that list.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Interesting speaking of you know, just that list and looking
back and as you study the effectiveness and Obama sort
of in return, respecting the fact that you're a student
of your craft, you're always your sort of open argument,
(18:35):
interested in evidence when you look back over the last
you know, forty to fifty years, who you think have
been the most effective communicators and why I assume Obama
is on that list or is he not?
Speaker 3 (18:46):
From your perspective, he's on that list. And there's a
specific speech that everyone I ask everyone to read because
it's the best speech I've ever seen a present give.
And remember I'm supposed to say Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Yeah, I was waiting for that, Frank, it's not.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
It's Barack Obama's speech in Sama, Alabama on the anniversary
of what happened on the em and Petis Bridge and
I have been made aware of this by John Lewis,
And I'll tell you another story again. By the way,
all my stories are with Democrats, now with the Republicans.
(19:23):
John Lewis invited me to join his trip, his civil
rights trip a few years before he passed away and
in every single location and everyone who spoke. He came
over to me, sat down and told me why this
was significant. And I kept saying to him, Sir, you've
got eight members of Congress here, you had Jack Kemp,
(19:44):
who is the presidential candidate. You're far more important. People.
Stop wasting your time. He puts his arm around me,
and I may may get choked up, he says, because
they're going to forget this place and you're going to
remember it. Of all the people here, it's going to
have the biggest impact on you, and so I need
to have the biggest impact on you. I'm not wasting time.
(20:07):
This is an investment. And you know what I'm telling
you that that story now it came true. I tell
people repeatedly how essential it is for all of America
to see Selma and Birmingham and Montgomery, not to read
it in the history books, not to see the documentary,
(20:30):
but to go there and see it. And sure, I
wish my voice was better because you're memorializing this, but
that was the most impactful weekend of my political life.
And to open me up to things I did not understand.
It turned me into a mentor to a number of
(20:50):
young African American boys, in some cases did not have
fathers to direct them, and who the hell am I
to give them any to give them any wisdom? But
they stayed with me. After that experience, I knew what
I wanted to do, and they gave me the grace
to say things I shouldn't say and to make mistakes,
(21:14):
and I gave them the respect to teach me. And
those young men are now in their early thirties, and
every one of them is successful. Every one of them
is doing amazing things. And I would not have engaged
them when they were nineteen if John Lewis had not
engaged me earlier in my career. So I have to
(21:35):
admit I don't know what the question was in.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
The spirit, and I love it.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
I mean, anytime we can talk about John Lewis is
worth the time. But you were talking about Barack Obama
and that moment in that speech, and how you think
that stood out to you as one of the greats.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
And there have been other ones that have been just
like that. Tony Blair is to me the best speaker
and not even American.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Yeah, former Prime Minister UK, And I've.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Said this to him within the last forty eight hours
that of everyone alive today, no one can have a
bigger impact. No one knows and understands the global implications
of where we are and what we're doing, and how
we need to get out of this mess before we
make it any worse than Tony Blair. And my biggest
political regret is that he was with the Labor Party
(22:26):
and I couldn't work for them because I was a conservative,
And in reality it was what Blair's focus and what
he tried to achieve is very similar to what I
try to do. He only does it one hundred times better.
And the effort that he's made in the Middle East
and in Africa to try to bring about understanding. He's
(22:50):
a statesman statesman, so he's he would be number two.
I want to give Corey Booker credit because so many
of Booker's speeches are so impactful. And Wes Moore, but
let me give you one more. I get on the
Democratic side, and that's Mitch Landrews. Yeah, Mitch landrew is
the single bed and you're not bad. But Mitch Landry
(23:12):
is the best retail politician I have ever seen.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
He's good. I agree with him.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
We're having lunch in a restaurant that's closed, and a
woman comes in the door and she is frail and
frazzled and crying, and it's right around the inaugurate. I've
never seen anything like it. And they're trying to throw
her out of the restaurant. And Landrew sees this and says,
(23:39):
wait a minute. He puts his arms around her and says,
what's your name, where are you from? How can I
help you? And he calmed her down and he sat
her down. He said to me, I need five minutes
with her. And she left the restaurant and she was okay.
(24:00):
And that's brilliant to me. Yeah, because that's rhetoric on
a personal, individual, human scale. So Landrew is absolutely brilliant.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I love that. So you've got to give me a Republican, Frank,
I mean, we're going to lose credibility here. Who's I mean?
You talked about Reagan.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
There's a lot of people have talked about the difference
between a great communicator versus a great orator? Is that
a distinction worthy of exploration? Is that a distinction that
could be made?
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Even some have made it as relates to Obama versus Reagan.
What's your assessment.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
And you can't forget Bill Clinton either.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
And Clinton and.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Well, here's the amazing thing. Ronald Reagan changed hearts and minds.
People went from being Democrat to being Republican because of Reagan.
And that's where he deserves significant credit. To me, Gingrich,
when he was optimistic and positive, was incredibly powerful. And
(25:02):
I have to go back to Jack Kemp, who's no
longer with us. Jack Kemp was an amazing orador because
he saw the good and the great in America. He
was about freedom, he was about opportunity, very much an
economic communicator. And for the social issues and the cultural issues.
(25:25):
For me, it would be Bill Bennett, who's still with us,
and the two of them, the three of them ging Rich,
Camp and Bennett communicated what was great and good about America.
But we just don't hear it anymore. Obviously, one of
them has passed away, one of them is essentially out
(25:47):
of politics, and the other one has gone full in
on Trump and lost some of what made him so
unprecedented in terms of an intellectual mind better than anyone
ever met.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
All right, Ginger, you're talking about, yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
The smartest elected official we've ever had. And he never
got a chance to demonstrate it because the people around
him and his own insistence on drawing your contrast between
what he saw as good and evil undermine and eventually
killed him as speaker. And if you ask me what
(26:24):
my greatest regret is personally, it's not standing in front
of him in a camera, getting in front of him
and saying, serve, don't say that. It may be true,
it may be intellectual, but the American people are not
prepared to hear it, and they will turn against you
if you say it. Newt was courageous in your face,
(26:48):
and he could have done so much more for the
country if someone had just said, don't do this because
it will hurt your reputation.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
So you both and obviously sort he marks that moment
as you reflect on where our politics today, and you
can connect that. I'm curious, how do you how much
do you connect Bill Clinton's success to UH to New
Gingrich and that contract with America.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Well, the best legislation that's passed in the last thirty years,
this is the public saying it is welfare reform to
force people on welfare to get jobs, to say to them,
we will help you and we will not punish you.
But the single best welfare program is a job that
we hope will become a career and that maybe, if
(27:38):
you're lucky, will become a calling, and that you should
not if you're able to work, you should not be
able to collect money because that's not fair to other taxpayers.
And Gingrich pushed and pushed and pushed Clinton accept back
to Way, and back to Way accepted, it voted into law,
(28:00):
and if you ask the American people, that was the
single best legislation of their lifetime because it did so
much good for so many people.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
RK. I'm curious, and you know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Just we can go down the welfare conversation, which is
fascinating to me. And I don't mean just to move
off it, because I want to sort of reconnect and
re engage and a deeper understanding of what you said
a moment ago about the need to have someone that
(28:34):
can speak in those aspirational tones, that has a strategy
that is not only engaging, but is willing to engage
people across the aisle. You've referenced on multiple occasions, and
I want to get back to Booker, but your referenced
Corey as well. But I'm curious, are we in an
environment where we reward any good behavior whatsoever? Or is
(28:57):
this an environment where there's even the city to do
what you suggest must be done.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
Yeah, you're asking the correct question. I'm going to give
you an answer that is correct, but it's not what
I want to give, which is knowing not not in
that environment. We punish people. The kinder you are, and
the more we hate you, the more we think you're
hiding something, the bigger your heart. We ask the question,
what's the most important attribute in a governor? Kindness and
(29:26):
combastion comes in second to last. Intelligence is at the bottom. Also, Wow,
we're rewarding bad behavior. We're rewarding people and we want accountability,
which is good behavior. We want someone who says what
they mean, means what they say, and does what they say.
That's all good. But that heart and that soul and
(29:52):
that thing that's inside that allows us to feel people's pain,
not only do we not reward it, we even punish
even suggest that. That makes us soft. I want to
point out because I would have forgotten and it would
have been mad. Your debate with Ron de Santas, I'm
on his side. Ninety percent of the time, and you
(30:15):
out debated him, you outcommunicated him because you added a
human develop a human component to it. Wait, go back,
your viewer should go back and watch that debate. Was
it just one on Fox?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Yeah, just one with Sean Hannity.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Yeah, and Hannay was against you. You had a mine
writer against you, you had your opponent against you, and
you had an audience against you. Sir, you did incredibly
well because you added the human dynamic to it, which
is not going to get you nominated for president. It's
not going to raise your approval rating for California. These
(30:52):
are things that the public does not care about. The
Democrats want you to beat up on Trump, right. They
don't want you. They're not asking you for a better vision.
They want you to take him on and punch him.
I guess what that'll solve. Nothing that'll get us nowhere.
(31:12):
And so there's stuff that I do. Now. The Republican
side thinks I'm way too soft. Tucker Carlson calls me
a traitor. And on the Democratic side, they don't trust
me because they know where my background is, they know
where my principles and my values lie. Right, and yet
I'm right in the middle and I don't have a country.
(31:34):
I don't have people that I can get behind. Where's
Joe Manchin now he's out of office, ib the former
governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, Joe Lieberman, the Great Joe Lieberman,
John McCain. These are a statesmen who are ridiculed and
(31:55):
laughed at and condemned, and they were the best of America.
And it's not a little bit of use, sir, and
a little bit of me. It's that middle ground, the
center of the screen, trying to get right there where
we overlap. We're not trying to get there now, we're
all on the edges and it's just showing the country.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Frank.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Is that because? I mean, society becomes how we behave
we are our behaviors and everything we've talked about has
happened quote unquote on our watch. And I say that broadly,
not as an elected official, but as you know, as
a father of four that lives in this state and
(32:43):
wants to see a better future for my kids.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Who's responsible? Are we responsible? Are elected officials responsible? Is
it something more insidious? Are the algorithms responsible? I mean,
what's your sense of the moment in and how do
we I mean, we have to sort of it seems
to me diagnose it more deeply to then begin to
sort of work our way out of it.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
No, I'm not sure about diagnosing, because I think we
all know. It's John McCain. When a woman stood up
in a town hall and said that Barack Obama was
a Muslim, McCain quietly and calmly and civilly said, no, man,
that's not true.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
It's a great moment, great moment.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
In the debates between them. I remember in the two
thousand and eight Republican debate that John McCain was cracking
a joke about Hillary Clinton saying that she wanted to
spend a million dollars to celebrate Woodstock. McCain didn't support it.
He didn't even get to Woodstock. He was locked up
at that moment, and everybody laughed. This is the We've
(33:53):
lost that kind of campaign right now. We demonize each other.
It's social media. But it's more than social media. It's
the fact that moms will not take away the phone,
will not unplugged the computer. I say this to every
parent watching our grandparent. Your child is getting addicted as
(34:14):
we speak. Your child is losing the ability to make
independent decisions and thoughts and engage human beings in a
real way because they're stuck on the web. And you parents,
don't disconnect that computer, don't say you're not going to
be on your phone. And I know how hard it
is to be a mom. Right now, I know that
(34:35):
your daughter's going to say to you, I hate you.
I'm not coming to dinner. Better that she says she
hates you than actually grows to do so because of
social media.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
So you think at the core, I mean that has
in more ways, on more days, that has more to
say about why we're in this predicament that we're in.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
It's our behavior magnified ten times by social media. And
then and I'm going to hold you the woman who
I think wants to take your job, I'm going to
hold her accountable as well.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
You're referring to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Yes, we all know how Trump communicates to people. And
I ask a very simple question, and I'm trying not
to get canceled by him. But the fact is, you
ask parents, you ask Trump voters do you want your
children to talk the way Donald Trump talks? And they
say no, they love him, they want his agenda. But
(35:33):
they don't want their kids to sound the way that
he does. And I know his response would be they
as the most wonderful vocabulary. We've all put together videos
of how he shoots sound reporters, how he calls them dumb,
how he says it's not just a matter of being wrong,
(35:53):
you're an idiot using that language. We don't want our
kids to talk that way. But we also want our
kids to tell the truth and to tell us what's
right about themselves. Now, what's wrong about the opposition? President
Harris never said what she was going to do in
the first hour or the first day. Her ads against
(36:17):
Trump were brilliant, and by the way she beat him
in the debate, Oh yeah, she played him in the debate.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
And everyone thinks so, except Trump has polls that show
that he won by thirty or forty or fifty points.
He never showed them, We never saw them. But Vice
President Harris had the opportunity to offer a different vision,
and she never did. She told us what was wrong
about Donald Trump and never told us what was right
(36:49):
about herself. So she bears some of the blame.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
You're the master polster. Is that not what the polls
said she needed to do in order to go out
the vote, or did you reflect differently on your own
analysis that they were looking for a compelling alternative vision.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Did she never get they were looking for it? In
the polling the publics that they didn't trust her. If
you don't trust her, there's a reason why. It's not
that they thought that she was a liar. Is that
they didn't know where she was. They said this again
and again in the CNN focus groups, in this stuff
that was happening in the media, polls that were being done,
(37:28):
not my stuff. Where does she stand on prices? What's
she going to do? What is she going to do
in immigration? What was her most famous comment during the campaign.
It was her interview on the View and she said,
I wouldn't do anything differently. How can you say that
Joe Biden was aol, He was not there, he was
(37:51):
not present, and there's nothing you would do differently. I
recognize your need to be loyal. I recognize your desire
not to fracture the Democratic Party. But the American people
were struggling back then as they're struggling right now, and
they needed to know what she would have done. And
Governor I'm going to give you what she could have done.
It was three weeks from the election. She chose not
(38:13):
to go in Joe Rogan, she never engaged with Stephen A. Smith.
These are people who listened to beyond traditional politics. They
invited her, didn't go. And in the end she was
on Anderson Cooper on CNN and he begins the town
hall with immigration, and he's hostile to her. It's tough
(38:36):
on her, and she should have said, and I quote Anderson,
I can answer your questions. I can answer the questions
of the American people sitting right in front of me
right now, and I'm going to choose them. So let
me do something I've not done before. Let me give
you five minutes on exactly what I'm going to do
in the first hour. What is the first piece of
(38:58):
legislation I'm going to sign. Then I'm going to do
the first day. And she would have this conversation and
then Anderson would cut her off after five minutes, and
she turned him and say, no, Anderson, I'm not done yet.
The American people have the right to know what I'm
going to do, and I have the responsibility to tell them.
And for the next thirty minutes, says he keeps trying
(39:18):
to jump in. She keeps saying to them, y'all like this,
y'all want this, And of course he endsered b yes,
And so she'd have this personal one on one engagement
with one hundred people in the audience Anderson trying to
get in, and that would have elected her president.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Do you really, I mean, do you think you're of
the opinion?
Speaker 1 (39:38):
And I appreciate this, it's always so we're all, you
know looking back, you know, one hundred and seven day
sprint and obviously the highlights of the view everything else,
and there's been so many diagnosis of what went wrong? Was,
you know, to your point about distinguishing herself a little
bit from the president. Obviously the amount of time, the
fact there wasn't an open primary. More broadly beyond her,
(39:59):
the incumbent pen to you, which some had assessed, issues
around immigration, inflation, interest rates, and Israel certainly played a role,
I imagine in some respects. But you think fundamentally this
was an election where Vice President Harris could have won.
Speaker 3 (40:14):
Hemp had ninety one in diamond counts against him, He'd
been in peach twice, he was now the oldest president
to run for office. Now that Biden was out, and
he had all these moments that one questions, by the way,
eating the dogs, eating the cats, how the heck do
(40:37):
you elect that? He said, behind it right? He still won.
And yes, he is a great communicator, he knows how
to talk to his supporters. But she blew it. And
she should wake up every day thinking to herself, how
did I lose to this guy?
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Well, I hope she doesn't do that. I want her
to move on, and we all do in context. But
I think all of us need to reflect on what happened,
what didn't happen. You were pretty pointed, weren't you after
that debate, not only that Harris won, but that potentially
Trump lost the election that night on the basis of
some of those comments. Were you I mean, did you reflect?
(41:17):
I mean it was just your point. I mean why
there was no movement in the pulse. It seemed, regardless
of Trump claiming he crushed it and Harris, I think
objectively it did, but didn't seem to move anybody.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
I never saw this before, never in American history, as
a debate and less impactful on the election.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
And she crushed it. I mean, she really did. I
was very inspired, was one of the spin room people.
So I'm paid to say that as they say, but
I really believe it. And the further distance I have,
the more impressed I was with her performance.
Speaker 3 (41:50):
Therefore, therefore, the more critical you should be of her campaign.
On that night she won the election. Why did Trump
win by such a big margin? It wasn't even that
for modern days, it wasn't that close. Why did he
win Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and others stay in Arizona.
(42:14):
He won them because people thought he said what he
meant and meant what he said, and while they didn't
like how he articulated it, which is exactly what's happening
right now. They wanted that agenda. Why did she lose
when she had the election, She had more money than God,
had an amazing debate performance that everyone saw. There was
never another debate. She gone into the lead there. Why
(42:37):
did she lose? She lost because of herself. In the end,
it's not just what's going on around you. You have
to tell people what you are for. You have to
tell them what you will do, and you have to
be able to show that you can get it done.
I remember what a big deal it was when she
was made the immigrations are I was around, I saw
(43:00):
all this, and then during the campaigns he tries to
run away from it. Oh, I wasn't important. I had
nothing to do. Own it. Be sincere with people. Let
them see you acknowledge as I'm doing right here, right now.
I got that election wrong. I knew Trump was going
to win two weeks before, but I knew he was
going to lose after that debate because no one had
(43:22):
ever recovered from such a bad debate performance. Governor. The
public deserves the truth. The public deserves candor. They have
the right to know when we got it wrong. And
if you can't admit you got it wrong, then you
probably don't deserve to have your position. And they need
to know what you're going to do so you don't
get it wrong in the future. I think we've lost
(43:45):
not just his sense of stability and decency, but I
think we've lost what made America so great, which was
this pursuit of the truth. To acknowledge that separate but
equal was not equal, to acknowledge that we could be
a more perfect union. The idea that we're always focused
on doing better for our children than the next generation.
(44:08):
And now we try to cover stuff up, and now
we tried to accept the status quo. The same people
who screamed and hollered about prices and voted for Donald
Trump because he thought that he would make their life
more livable. Look at the stock market, look at four
one case. Those same people are saying, well, we need
an adjustment in the stock market. It was too high.
(44:31):
You couldn't afford your food and fuel, and now you
actually want your time and savings to be reduced because
it's artificially high. We have to tell the truth, just
for once. I want to use the F word, but
I don't because I want you to put this hanging on.
Speaker 2 (44:47):
It's been used often here, Frank, Yes.
Speaker 3 (44:51):
But I'm actually so serious. Now, embrace the truth, seek
the truth, fight for the truth, and demand that people
tell you it. And when they say to you they
weren't wrong, make them prove it. And when you say
to them, I've got a better answer, show me. Please.
Speaker 1 (45:18):
All that being said, Trump voters, you've been doing the
focus groups, you did the assessment of his first one
hundred days with everything you just said, everything you laid out,
and the imperative of being honest and accountable and speaking truth.
Speaker 2 (45:32):
No one's moved.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
His base is not moved, right, I mean remarkably despite
their four one case, despite the impacts on prices, the
uncertainty as it relates to the tariff, and all the
other sort of chaos that one would have otherwise expected. Perhaps,
but do I think to degree that certainly is alarming.
Speaker 3 (45:51):
Because they'll say to you, as they did in a
very articulate way, we want action. And Joe Biden was
for years of inaction, four years of empty rhetoric without
the intensity of getting it done.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
And they frank, they and forgive me just for cutting
you there. But they didn't see the chips and Science acts.
They didn't see the infrastructure build they didn't see foreigner
bipartisan bills. They didn't see the Safer Community actors relates
to gun violence and mental health. They didn't see the IRA,
They didn't see those as accomplishments. Is it because the
rhetoric didn't back it up? Why was he, from your perspective,
(46:30):
missing in action? Or were all those things trivial in
the context of the American people.
Speaker 3 (46:35):
They're not trivial, And normally I try to look at
the camera. But now I'm looking at you in my screen.
See a reaction here. You actually hit it right on
the head. They didn't see it. They didn't see the
jobs from the Chips Act. They didn't see the roads
getting built from the infrastructure. They didn't see efforts and accountability,
(46:59):
all the things that you just mentioned. No, sir, they
didn't see it. They heard about it, but it wasn't
in front of their eyes. And what did they see?
People coming over the wall, people coming across the border
at night New York City, where people were illegal immigrants
(47:19):
were seen as murderers. That's what they saw. They didn't
see prices coming down. They knew the price of eggs,
they knew the price of a gallon of gas. That's
what they saw. In your question, you actually answered it.
They didn't see it. And this is a challenge for
you in the last two years of your administration. If
(47:41):
you want people to see how Califlorifornia's changed, they have
to internalize it. It's not enough for you to say it.
You have to show them visually and they have to
believe that it's true.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
One more thing about Trump, please, they supported his agendas
still do. They want an end to illegal immigration, and
so they're willing to turn a blind eye if some
people get kicked out as shop. They desperately want the
US on a level playing field versus China. So they're
willing to support tariffs if that's what makes China give
(48:18):
American products, American services and the American workforce, and even
shake which they do not do. No, they didn't see waste,
and they desperately want an end to waste. For Washington spending.
They don't like Elon Musk with a chainsaw, but they
do like the fact that agencies that cannot prove that
(48:40):
they're delivering. Yep, they do want those agencies cut. That's
why they support Trump, not for the execution, but for
the agenda.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
So, Frank, what is your you know in I love
just in the limited time, just pivot a little bit because.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
I think what you know where we are and where
we're going.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
I mean, I think about the reflect you're reflecting on
Harris's campaign a little bit and trying to seek some
truth telling, particularly from the Democrats, to understand and own it.
Where do you see the Democratic Party right now? And
where do you see Donald Trump and the republic and
perhaps separately, where do you see the Republican Party independent
(49:22):
of Trump? And, if I may just to extend the
long question, any advice for the Democratic Party, any advice
for the Republican Party independent of MAGA perhaps and Trump
and trump Ism itself.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
I have to start somewhere, So we'll start with the Democrats.
The public support Trump's agenda, they just don't support the execution.
So tell me how you're going to address immigration, but
do so in a way that delivers better results. How
are you going to address the unleveled playing field between
the US and China that is genuinely hurt American manufacturing,
(50:02):
but to do so in a way that guarantees that
factories can open up here and where American the workforce
is respected for what it does. They do want cuts
to waste for Washington spending. They just want a scalpel
and on a chainsaw. So I'm looking for the Democrat
who surrounds himself for the word better, who emphasizes we
(50:26):
can do it better than that. We hear you, we
understand you. We know you're pissed off, we know you
wanted us to fight. Don't get mad, don't get even
get ahead who focuses on leap frogging the current resistance. Two.
(50:46):
And it's not aquiescence, it's not Chuck Schumer at all.
It's Haakm Jeffries at his best. Because Hakeen Jeffries at
his best offers solutions that will address Medicare and medicate
(51:07):
that seeks to hold Washington accountable without punishing the hardworking taxpayer.
And in the end, and this is the great way
to end, the Democratic part respects the hardworking taxpayer. Democrats
just want to tack. You say you just want to
tax the rich, the wealthy, the affluent. But every time
you call for raising the debt tax, for example, that
(51:29):
punishes family businesses. Every time you set that number, the
people who actually hire, who create jobs, are those who
are successful. I live in a beautiful home in la As.
You know, I will only be here this year, maybe
twenty five days, and I really wanted to do this
(51:50):
face to face because I appreciate you, and I wanted
to express that you're going to be a leading Democratic candidate.
Don't punish success. Find a way to share it, find
a way to spread it. But if you punish it,
you'll never get elected. Because in the end, Americans will
(52:13):
not support that. They do believe that we have a
wealth gap that's out of control. It's one of the
best democratic issues is income gap. But they don't want
to take the wealthy down. They want to bring the
paycheck to paycheck voter up. And I don't think Democrats
fully understand that.
Speaker 1 (52:31):
So you think it's a big mistake where Bernie and
AOC are going in terms of just the oligarchy frame.
You think that just reinforces a frame that you don't.
Speaker 2 (52:42):
Think as well. You know, it is more broadly well received,
despite pulling even your own polling or estimates saying sixty
two to three percent of American support of wealth text.
Speaker 3 (52:52):
It gets them, and someone was you saw the presentation
because that's been public about this. Yeah, it gets themed,
get some crowds of twenty or thirty thousand people, which
is a lot, and make them relevant to the debate.
But it doesn't get them elected president. And that's the difference.
(53:13):
And there needs to be someone who says, look, this
is a great country, we just have a few of
our We need to fix what's wrong without undermining what's
right about America. And that's not what they do. They're
too negative and they're too on the nose, and it
will bring about significant Democratic support, but it will not
(53:37):
put them in the overall office. In twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (53:40):
You're reminded me of Bill Clinton's famous lize nothing wrong
with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America.
Speaker 3 (53:47):
Yes, and I believe that that's his line. I believe
he wrote that, and that's an understanding of where America
is at right now. Because we're very pessimistic. We believe
the future is going to be worse than the present.
We believe that the president is worse than the past.
But we're not going to vote for someone who's inherently negative.
We're not going to vote for someone who's going to take.
(54:10):
We want someone who's going to give. And on the
Republican side, there has to be a better message than
we need to get even with them, then we need
to punish them, because in the end that does not
bring the country together. There needs to be a message
that says, yes, they got it wrong and you got hurt,
(54:31):
but you're not forgotten, you're not ignored, and we haven't
betrayed you. We will write this country, Remember, Governor, it's
the working class union voter that put Donald Trump in
office and took that election away from Kamala Harris. It's
(54:52):
the Latino who said, you want to take all this
to help the black community. What about us Latino men
voted Trump for the first time ever. Yep. These are
fundamental changes that have not happened. And the last thing
I'd say is among young men, they've come to see
(55:13):
more in Trump that's better for their future than Vice
President Harris. I don't know if it's what Trump got right.
I don't know what Harris got wrong. But these are
big fundamental shifts that the Democrats have to address, and
I don't see them addressing it. This is why. And
by the way, at your best, you address it. At
(55:39):
your best, you talk about this and you engage it.
You kicked Dessan's ass in that debate, and I think
he had the issues on his side. They had the
moderator on his side. But every time you go and
this is California and I we don't want to get
into California, but this is part of the Democratic Party.
(56:01):
You have a group of Democrats that get you to
stand up and cheer and give you standing ovations, and
you're pumping your fists in the air, and I get
you noticed, but that will not get you votes.
Speaker 1 (56:14):
Love bless and I want to end as I promised,
as we began, and that's going back to Corey Booker.
You know you were outspoken in your praise and you've
referenced it a few times in this conversation that was
twenty five hour marathon. Corey's Corey's consider him sort of
extended family.
Speaker 2 (56:33):
I've known him forever.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
He's an actual friend, not one of those political friends.
So I have a strong bias towards him, and he's
just deeply sincere. I think he's a wonderful human being.
Most importantly, forget politics for me, and my judgment is
about the character of the person. So I loved the
fact that you thought that was a special speech, But
let's end. Why did you think that was a special speech?
(56:54):
And what did it represent in this moment that you
think needs to be more represented more broadly in moments
to come.
Speaker 3 (57:01):
He told stories of real people, He told stories of
real life, and he didn't just bash the president. He
spoke in favor of them, of uplifting them, of celebrating them.
Corey Booker has the most positive message for the country,
which is not what Democrats wanted to hear in twenty twenty,
(57:25):
which is why you didn't get the nomination. My challenge
to Senator Booker is, can you put that twenty five
hours into a bottle, have the guts to say, I'm
not going to beat up on Trump. I'm going to
tell you where we could be as a country, where
(57:45):
we could be as a society, and I'm going to
celebrate the positive that to America as I addressed the
pain and the suffering. If he can do that with
the discipline of not getting drawn into Trump, and if
Democrats realize that they're going to get elected in twenty
twenty eight, they rise or fall based on their own positions,
(58:10):
not Trump, based on their ability to do it better
and more favorably and more hopefully and with greater celebration.
We don't celebrate anything anymore. We condemn, and we dismiss,
and we disregard and we hate. If Booker can be
can be the antidote to that, he'll be the Democratic
(58:33):
nominee and he'll be the next president. And if he
can't do it, maybe Mitchell andre can. And if he
can't do it, maybe Wes Moore can that they can't
do it. Sure, maybe you can, but it's not taking
the easy road, it's taking the better road.
Speaker 1 (58:53):
Well, what a way to end, Frank, thank you for
all your insight, Thanks for the history, thanks for joining
us today.
Speaker 2 (59:01):
I'm very grateful for this opportunity.
Speaker 3 (59:03):
And Governor, the idea that this idiot from West Harbor, Connecticut,
who flunk calculus as a freshman in college, who had
trouble holding his first job, gets invited to have this
conversation with the governor of California. What a life. Thank you,
(59:23):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (59:24):
What a life. I appreciate that. Frank, thank you, thanks
for being with us on tears.
Coming up next on This is Gavin Newsom. I'll be
talking to legendary Republican polster and communication strategist Frank Luntz.
We'll be talking about the state of the Democratic Party,
Trump's first hundred days, and perhaps most importantly, the state
of our union.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
This is Gavin Newsom and this is Frank Lunz. You
look casual, you know, Frank, I wanted to dress up
for you.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
By the way, throughout all of this, you've been the
most interesting person to me. I haven't always agreed, You've
always been really kind to me. And even though we've disagreed,
I've enjoyed that. It's not even been a back and forth.
You're just a good guy.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I love that, man. I appreciate that. Now.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
You know what, Let's start right there, because you know,
we're at a point where we're not none of us
are talking like that. I mean, you've been studying this
stuff for decades and decades. I've been listening to you lately.
I mean, you think it's as bad as it's been
in our lifetime, meaning we're at each other's throat. This
country has never been more divided. Is that an overstatement
(01:07):
or is that about it?
Speaker 3 (01:09):
That's exactly it. And to me, and this is what's
frightening about it, is that we want to fight, we
want to argue, we want to disagree. We're looking at
a reason to be able to say I'm insulted or
worse yet, I'm offended. And that's the kind of culture
that we're in right now, and no one's trying to
(01:30):
get us out of it. And they give Corey Booker
credit because for most of his twenty five hours it
was uplifting, it was talking about real people, real concerns,
and he did in a way that isn't political. And
I think the guy who cut him off, the guy
who jumped to that to make sure that he would
always be remembered, Juck Schumer, is so far past his
(01:55):
cell by date because he doesn't really understand that now
we're playing with fire.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So, Frank, I want to talk about Corey because I
was struck by how complimentary you were of his twenty
five hour speech. But I want to go back a
little bit about you know, you've been studying this, you've
been focused on this, You've been I mean, you've been
a leader in this space and understanding communication, understanding emotion,
understanding nature of relationships, not just the relationship to one
(02:23):
another politically through the lens of ideology. But has this
been I mean, has this been decades in the making.
Is there a moment that you would mark that sort
of led to this moment? And you know, what's your
sort of over under in that respect.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
The moment that it started was the day that New
Kingridge got elected Speaker in nineteen ninety four, because that
was Republicans winning something that they know had not won
for forty years, and the Democrats didn't like it and
never got used to it. And Gingbridge was provocative. He
pushed you, He prodded you in an intellectual basis. Times
(03:00):
he used language that hurt himself. If you remember that
Christmas of nineteen ninety four, they had on the front
page of Music magazine the king Bridge that stole Christmas. Well,
you're going to get negativity if that's how the media
treats you. Now go forward to Bill Clinton's impeachment and
(03:20):
the feeling that what he did, while horrific and inappropriate,
did that really rise to the level of impeachment. Now
go forward to two thousand and now going George Bush
actually tying and how one side some people on that
one side never never awarded Bush the presidency and always
(03:45):
said that the election was stolen. And then go forward
to twenty ten and the rise of the Tea Party
and twenty sixteen to the rise of Trump. We've been
going through this now since nineteen ninety four, five or
six different moments, and here's the issue to me. In
almost all those moments, there were calm heads. There was
(04:06):
somebody who would say enough, in the next cremation point,
just stop doing this, just shut the hell up. Yeah,
you may be right, but the country is more important.
And now there's no one's doing that. There's no one
saying it. There's no one. Look, I'll say this to you,
and I like you. I said this, I really do,
(04:27):
and people will make fun of me saying it. But
when you conscious stuff the resistance I had exploded. You're
the opposition, but you're not the resistance. You're you're the
challenge should check as a governor. But that's very different
than saying I'm going to oppose everything that you do.
(04:50):
And I just feel like we've reached the point on
every side. I want to emphasize this. On every side,
they were insane and now are countries at stay. I
really do believe that a democracy is at static right now.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
No, I appreciate that. And also, you know, it's interesting
just this notion of resistance. When we did a special session.
What was remarkable to me is what I did not say,
but was what was attributed to me as it relates
to the purpose of that special session. After Trump won,
we talked about an open hand, not a close fist.
That never got any attention. Folks focused on that in
(05:26):
the context of sort of a zero sum, which I
think is so much of the politics. But I want
to go back a little bit just because nineteen ninety
four and it sort of marks a little bit of
your history. And you know, just for folks that don't
know you, as well as folks like myself that have
been following you for decades and decades, you've been traditionally
aligned with Republican causes, and you were aligned with gin
(05:47):
Ridge as it relates to that nineteen ninety four effort,
as it relates to that effort to take back the House,
as you say, for the first time in forty years,
and that contract with America, that infamous contract with America
you worked with Gingridge, did you not sort of helping
develop the language around that. Do you separate that from
(06:07):
what came after his successful ascendancy.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
It's the best, truthfully, it's the best thing I've ever done.
I should have quit while I was ahead, because it's
the first time that elected officials actually put an agenda
on the line. What was important to that contract was
what they were going to do in the first hour
and first day, which is something that still politicians need
to tell voters they want to know. Second is that
(06:34):
it itemized it ten different issues, from balanced budgets to
term limits, to fighting crime, to welfare reform, to tax
tax reform, all the issues that matter to people. And
then there was an enforcement clause. If we break our promise,
throw us out. We mean it with a one eight
hundred number to keep track of them. It was the
(06:56):
first time that anyone had offered accountability. And of course
the Democrats demonized it. They called it the Contract on America.
They were wrong, and the voters said they were wrong,
and in the endless feet let's keep the record straight here,
only forty percent of Americans ever heard of the contract
on election day, a minority of voters, but those who
(07:19):
heard of it had a four to one positive rating
towards it, which is unprecedented. And it made a difference
in the Key States because it got Republicans to run
for something, not against it. And God, I don't know
what they call you, Gaviner, governor, but governor. The issue
now is that no one runs for something. No one
(07:41):
tells you what you're for. They tell you why the
other guy's wrong, the other guy's evil, and the other
guys should be defeated. And this is a really important
conversation to have, and I'm glad that you're hosting it.
And by the way, you've taken more shit than anyway
we're bringing out. I would not have brought on Steve Bannon.
Steve Bannon scares me. I knew him before he was
(08:01):
Steve Bannon and before I was Frank Luntz. And the
guy is he scares me. But the fact that you're
willing to have these open conversations to engage with people
who you don't agree with, why is it? Why aren't
more people doing this? Why don't we have more civil
conversations designed to expose the truth, the relentless pursuit of
(08:26):
the truth. What is so wrong about this? You sir,
You've been criticized for doing this, and I'm telling people,
shut the hell up and listen. You might learn something.
Why are we I'm sixty three now and you can
hear it in my voice and how these have been
some very tough months for me. I'm learning more in
(08:47):
these months than I've learned in the last sixty years
of my life. Why are we so sure that we're
right and they're wrong? Why are we so sure that
we don't pick up another book that there's no reason
to read it, to explore, to question, and to challenge.
This is why I teach at West Point. This is
why I'm wearing this shirt, because I'm meeting with the
(09:08):
best students and Governor. You got to come. The reason
why I did this interview when I wanted to be
face to face, so I wanted to invite you to
West Point. Reach over, shake your hand because I know
then you have to go. There are more cadets from
California than any other state.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Love it.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
I want you to see the best and the brightest,
and the most ethical, and the most devoted and the
most civil. They say yes, sir, no, ma'am, thank you.
They're appreciative of their country, and they're willing to give
the greatest sacrifice for it, just as you and I
can have a civil conversation. Please come to West Point
(09:47):
and meet the best Californians you'll ever meet.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
No, I appreciate that in full disclosure, you invited me
and Wes Moore, Governor Moore from Maryland at the National
Governor Association. We were there and you asked if we
were available. The two of us had a privilege of
doing a little roundtable with you where you did a
mini focus group with these guys and they were asking
us questions and that was a special I know for Wes.
And we left that meeting, Frank, I mean, these guys
(10:12):
to your point next level, inspired by their service, their
civic mindedness, their sense of duty and patriotism. It really
touched I know, both Wes and I, and so I
appreciate your firm commitment to those young men and women
that are truly among the best in the brightest.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
And they loved you because the two of you didn't
agree on everything, and you talked with each other with
civility and respect. You had different approaches to some of
the biggest issues facing the country, and they were so
thrilled the two of the most important governors in the
country would give them an hour. And I want to
(10:54):
give you credit for this. You promised me twenty minutes.
You stayed for an hour and ten, Governor, thank you
for that. They noticed it, they appreciated it, and I
want viewers to know that you give a shit.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Frankly, no, I appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
And look, I think you know, they'd sort of distilled
the essence of I think the path back and getting
out of this mucket. I want to go back, though,
just a little bit, frank on your journey, because I'm
really fascinated by this, and I appreciate your firm defense
of the contract with America in the context of look,
having a plan, having an agenda, of being transparent about
(11:33):
it as you're running, and then having some accountability framework
and in the merits and the demerits of that, I'm
interested in. But moreover, I'm just interested in your own journey.
I mean, you were out there working not only for
causes supporting Gingridge, but obviously other Republican causes, as I
referenced in helping messaging and languaging for George Bush, and
(11:54):
you worked the pro campaign a little bit Giuliani and others.
Was there a point in your own journey, were you real, man,
this is not going well for this country that even
you started to sort of soften the edges started to
reach out to the other side.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Well, I was always curious, and it was Tom Dash
who brought me in and I created it. I have
not talked about I've never talked about this. Actually, I
don't even know if you know what I'm about to say.
I created a phrase, the Dashal Democrats, and these are
people who acted one way in Washington and a different
(12:29):
way back home. And Tom Dash was one of the
most ethical people I ever knew, still around. He's a
really special human being. But I demonized him using that
dastional democrat. And it was John McCain who came up
to me and said, do you really have to do that?
Can't we find a way to disagree without labeling people.
(12:50):
McCain a Republican dressing me down and Tom and John
McCain's tough, and he disagrees with you, he tells you it,
and you have to scrape yourself back to together and
somehow leave the room with your tail between your legs.
And I felt really bad about that. And Dash was
the first person to bring me to a Senate Democrat meeting.
(13:13):
This is maybe around two thousand, I'd say maybe two
thousand and two. And I presented to them and I
remember dan On Barbara Boxer, California senator giving me a
hard time around the table, and he leaned over to
me and he said, let it go. And it was
(13:34):
the best advice I ever got. Because she was ideological,
she's very political, very in your face, wanted to take
you on because she believed in what she believed in
and wanted you to know it and wanted to bring
you over to her side. So here's the weird thing.
How I handled her that day and how we got
to know each other afterward, and again we don't agree
(13:57):
on anything. And invited me into her last campaign, and
I said to her, do you know who I am?
Do you know what I believe?
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Like?
Speaker 3 (14:07):
What the hell? And I talked to her chief of
staff saying this is wrong, And she actually was serious
about it. She wanted someone on the team to be
a check, to be a challenge. She wanted that perspective
and she felt that her own team wasn't doing it.
(14:27):
So she said, I trust you, and trust is the
most important thing you can have, and to me, it's
the truth. The truth, relentless pursuit of the truth. We
have to be engaged in that. And I said no,
but I really appreciated the invite, and we still talked.
I think, you know this, Barack Obama on national television
(14:51):
told House Republicans that their retreat and it caused me
from time to time. And they're all saying, So he
begins to conversation by saying, I see Frank Luntz right there.
He's taking notes, and at that moment, I'm freaking out
because I am. He says, he's trying to figure out
how to defeat me, how to make Nancy BILLOWSI look bad,
(15:12):
and that's exactly what I'm doing. All I could think
of is a camera behind me shooting my computer, so
I reach over pulled it down slowly so people would
think I had anything to hide, and they're all cheering me,
the House Republicans around me way to go yeah, yeah, yeah,
And then he says, but you know, Frank and I talk.
(15:33):
We have conversations. I listened to him and he listens
to me. And then the same people around me are
now booing me shame, how dare you? And this is
the kind of relationship that I've had to American politics
over the last twenty five years. Just because we disagree
doesn't mean we can't have really deep, philosophical, solution oriented
(15:59):
conations over a meal, over a cub zero. It doesn't
mean that we can't or shouldn't engage. I'm going to
out someone in this conversation. I've had some very serious
doubts about where our country is going. And the person
I shared that with more than anyone else wasn't a Republican.
(16:20):
It was Michael Bennett of Colorado, because he had the
same doubts. And I don't want to embarrass him or
embarrass myself, but those conversations were so meaningful to me.
We would book sessions for fifteen minutes that would go
on an hour. My office knew, don't schedule when you
go see Michael Bennett, Senator Bennett, don't schedule for an hour,
(16:43):
and his office finally figured out the same. So, Governor,
to a lesser extent, you and I have done that
to a much lesser extent. But in the times that
we've gotten together, I listened to you. I listened to
your ideas. I listened to your solutions. I listen to
your leadership where I read your speeches, and I frankly
(17:04):
wish we known each other better, because where California goes,
the rest of America goes. If we get it right here,
we're going to get it right nationwide. Then we get
it wrong here, it's going to have an impact. I
appreciate you probing because that's a story I've never told
publicly before.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
I love it.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
By the way, do you remember what notes you were
taking when Obama called you out?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Yes? It was what the Republicans needed to say about Pelosi,
and it's that she doesn't engage with America. She doesn't
know America. She knows her Democratic friends in Congress, and
what do they know about America. I was trying to
draw the distinction between a Washington Democrat, which I've always done,
(17:49):
and an American Democrat who's out there in the out there,
in the real America, working for a living, making ends meet.
That was the beginning of my playing around with the
phrase paycheck to paycheck, and I was doing a whole
list of all the things that Pelosi or Obama was
saying that didn't not relate to America. And you know what,
(18:11):
I never gave Republicans that list.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Interesting speaking of you know, just that list and looking
back and as you study the effectiveness and Obama sort
of in return, respecting the fact that you're a student
of your craft, you're always your sort of open argument,
(18:35):
interested in evidence when you look back over the last
you know, forty to fifty years, who you think have
been the most effective communicators and why I assume Obama
is on that list or is he not?
Speaker 3 (18:46):
From your perspective, he's on that list. And there's a
specific speech that everyone I ask everyone to read because
it's the best speech I've ever seen a present give.
And remember I'm supposed to say Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Yeah, I was waiting for that, Frank, it's not.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
It's Barack Obama's speech in Sama, Alabama on the anniversary
of what happened on the em and Petis Bridge and
I have been made aware of this by John Lewis,
And I'll tell you another story again. By the way,
all my stories are with Democrats, now with the Republicans.
(19:23):
John Lewis invited me to join his trip, his civil
rights trip a few years before he passed away and
in every single location and everyone who spoke. He came
over to me, sat down and told me why this
was significant. And I kept saying to him, Sir, you've
got eight members of Congress here, you had Jack Kemp,
(19:44):
who is the presidential candidate. You're far more important. People.
Stop wasting your time. He puts his arm around me,
and I may may get choked up, he says, because
they're going to forget this place and you're going to
remember it. Of all the people here, it's going to
have the biggest impact on you, and so I need
to have the biggest impact on you. I'm not wasting time.
(20:07):
This is an investment. And you know what I'm telling
you that that story now it came true. I tell
people repeatedly how essential it is for all of America
to see Selma and Birmingham and Montgomery, not to read
it in the history books, not to see the documentary,
(20:30):
but to go there and see it. And sure, I
wish my voice was better because you're memorializing this, but
that was the most impactful weekend of my political life.
And to open me up to things I did not understand.
It turned me into a mentor to a number of
(20:50):
young African American boys, in some cases did not have
fathers to direct them, and who the hell am I
to give them any to give them any wisdom? But
they stayed with me. After that experience, I knew what
I wanted to do, and they gave me the grace
to say things I shouldn't say and to make mistakes,
(21:14):
and I gave them the respect to teach me. And
those young men are now in their early thirties, and
every one of them is successful. Every one of them
is doing amazing things. And I would not have engaged
them when they were nineteen if John Lewis had not
engaged me earlier in my career. So I have to
(21:35):
admit I don't know what the question was in.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
The spirit, and I love it.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
I mean, anytime we can talk about John Lewis is
worth the time. But you were talking about Barack Obama
and that moment in that speech, and how you think
that stood out to you as one of the greats.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
And there have been other ones that have been just
like that. Tony Blair is to me the best speaker
and not even American.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Yeah, former Prime Minister UK, And I've.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Said this to him within the last forty eight hours
that of everyone alive today, no one can have a
bigger impact. No one knows and understands the global implications
of where we are and what we're doing, and how
we need to get out of this mess before we
make it any worse than Tony Blair. And my biggest
political regret is that he was with the Labor Party
(22:26):
and I couldn't work for them because I was a conservative,
And in reality it was what Blair's focus and what
he tried to achieve is very similar to what I
try to do. He only does it one hundred times better.
And the effort that he's made in the Middle East
and in Africa to try to bring about understanding. He's
(22:50):
a statesman statesman, so he's he would be number two.
I want to give Corey Booker credit because so many
of Booker's speeches are so impactful. And Wes Moore, but
let me give you one more. I get on the
Democratic side, and that's Mitch Landrews. Yeah, Mitch landrew is
the single bed and you're not bad. But Mitch Landry
(23:12):
is the best retail politician I have ever seen.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
He's good. I agree with him.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
We're having lunch in a restaurant that's closed, and a
woman comes in the door and she is frail and
frazzled and crying, and it's right around the inaugurate. I've
never seen anything like it. And they're trying to throw
her out of the restaurant. And Landrew sees this and says,
(23:39):
wait a minute. He puts his arms around her and says,
what's your name, where are you from? How can I
help you? And he calmed her down and he sat
her down. He said to me, I need five minutes
with her. And she left the restaurant and she was okay.
(24:00):
And that's brilliant to me. Yeah, because that's rhetoric on
a personal, individual, human scale. So Landrew is absolutely brilliant.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I love that. So you've got to give me a Republican, Frank,
I mean, we're going to lose credibility here. Who's I mean?
You talked about Reagan.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
There's a lot of people have talked about the difference
between a great communicator versus a great orator? Is that
a distinction worthy of exploration? Is that a distinction that
could be made?
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Even some have made it as relates to Obama versus Reagan.
What's your assessment.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
And you can't forget Bill Clinton either.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
And Clinton and.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Well, here's the amazing thing. Ronald Reagan changed hearts and minds.
People went from being Democrat to being Republican because of Reagan.
And that's where he deserves significant credit. To me, Gingrich,
when he was optimistic and positive, was incredibly powerful. And
(25:02):
I have to go back to Jack Kemp, who's no
longer with us. Jack Kemp was an amazing orador because
he saw the good and the great in America. He
was about freedom, he was about opportunity, very much an
economic communicator. And for the social issues and the cultural issues.
(25:25):
For me, it would be Bill Bennett, who's still with us,
and the two of them, the three of them ging Rich,
Camp and Bennett communicated what was great and good about America.
But we just don't hear it anymore. Obviously, one of
them has passed away, one of them is essentially out
(25:47):
of politics, and the other one has gone full in
on Trump and lost some of what made him so
unprecedented in terms of an intellectual mind better than anyone
ever met.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
All right, Ginger, you're talking about, yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
The smartest elected official we've ever had. And he never
got a chance to demonstrate it because the people around
him and his own insistence on drawing your contrast between
what he saw as good and evil undermine and eventually
killed him as speaker. And if you ask me what
(26:24):
my greatest regret is personally, it's not standing in front
of him in a camera, getting in front of him
and saying, serve, don't say that. It may be true,
it may be intellectual, but the American people are not
prepared to hear it, and they will turn against you
if you say it. Newt was courageous in your face,
(26:48):
and he could have done so much more for the
country if someone had just said, don't do this because
it will hurt your reputation.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
So you both and obviously sort he marks that moment
as you reflect on where our politics today, and you
can connect that. I'm curious, how do you how much
do you connect Bill Clinton's success to UH to New
Gingrich and that contract with America.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Well, the best legislation that's passed in the last thirty years,
this is the public saying it is welfare reform to
force people on welfare to get jobs, to say to them,
we will help you and we will not punish you.
But the single best welfare program is a job that
we hope will become a career and that maybe, if
(27:38):
you're lucky, will become a calling, and that you should
not if you're able to work, you should not be
able to collect money because that's not fair to other taxpayers.
And Gingrich pushed and pushed and pushed Clinton accept back
to Way, and back to Way accepted, it voted into law,
(28:00):
and if you ask the American people, that was the
single best legislation of their lifetime because it did so
much good for so many people.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
RK. I'm curious, and you know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Just we can go down the welfare conversation, which is
fascinating to me. And I don't mean just to move
off it, because I want to sort of reconnect and
re engage and a deeper understanding of what you said
a moment ago about the need to have someone that
(28:34):
can speak in those aspirational tones, that has a strategy
that is not only engaging, but is willing to engage
people across the aisle. You've referenced on multiple occasions, and
I want to get back to Booker, but your referenced
Corey as well. But I'm curious, are we in an
environment where we reward any good behavior whatsoever? Or is
(28:57):
this an environment where there's even the city to do
what you suggest must be done.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
Yeah, you're asking the correct question. I'm going to give
you an answer that is correct, but it's not what
I want to give, which is knowing not not in
that environment. We punish people. The kinder you are, and
the more we hate you, the more we think you're
hiding something, the bigger your heart. We ask the question,
what's the most important attribute in a governor? Kindness and
(29:26):
combastion comes in second to last. Intelligence is at the bottom. Also, Wow,
we're rewarding bad behavior. We're rewarding people and we want accountability,
which is good behavior. We want someone who says what
they mean, means what they say, and does what they say.
That's all good. But that heart and that soul and
(29:52):
that thing that's inside that allows us to feel people's pain,
not only do we not reward it, we even punish
even suggest that. That makes us soft. I want to
point out because I would have forgotten and it would
have been mad. Your debate with Ron de Santas, I'm
on his side. Ninety percent of the time, and you
(30:15):
out debated him, you outcommunicated him because you added a
human develop a human component to it. Wait, go back,
your viewer should go back and watch that debate. Was
it just one on Fox?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Yeah, just one with Sean Hannity.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Yeah, and Hannay was against you. You had a mine
writer against you, you had your opponent against you, and
you had an audience against you. Sir, you did incredibly
well because you added the human dynamic to it, which
is not going to get you nominated for president. It's
not going to raise your approval rating for California. These
(30:52):
are things that the public does not care about. The
Democrats want you to beat up on Trump, right. They
don't want you. They're not asking you for a better vision.
They want you to take him on and punch him.
I guess what that'll solve. Nothing that'll get us nowhere.
(31:12):
And so there's stuff that I do. Now. The Republican
side thinks I'm way too soft. Tucker Carlson calls me
a traitor. And on the Democratic side, they don't trust
me because they know where my background is, they know
where my principles and my values lie. Right, and yet
I'm right in the middle and I don't have a country.
(31:34):
I don't have people that I can get behind. Where's
Joe Manchin now he's out of office, ib the former
governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, Joe Lieberman, the Great Joe Lieberman,
John McCain. These are a statesmen who are ridiculed and
(31:55):
laughed at and condemned, and they were the best of America.
And it's not a little bit of use, sir, and
a little bit of me. It's that middle ground, the
center of the screen, trying to get right there where
we overlap. We're not trying to get there now, we're
all on the edges and it's just showing the country.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Frank.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Is that because? I mean, society becomes how we behave
we are our behaviors and everything we've talked about has
happened quote unquote on our watch. And I say that broadly,
not as an elected official, but as you know, as
a father of four that lives in this state and
(32:43):
wants to see a better future for my kids.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Who's responsible? Are we responsible? Are elected officials responsible? Is
it something more insidious? Are the algorithms responsible? I mean,
what's your sense of the moment in and how do
we I mean, we have to sort of it seems
to me diagnose it more deeply to then begin to
sort of work our way out of it.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
No, I'm not sure about diagnosing, because I think we
all know. It's John McCain. When a woman stood up
in a town hall and said that Barack Obama was
a Muslim, McCain quietly and calmly and civilly said, no, man,
that's not true.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
It's a great moment, great moment.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
In the debates between them. I remember in the two
thousand and eight Republican debate that John McCain was cracking
a joke about Hillary Clinton saying that she wanted to
spend a million dollars to celebrate Woodstock. McCain didn't support it.
He didn't even get to Woodstock. He was locked up
at that moment, and everybody laughed. This is the We've
(33:53):
lost that kind of campaign right now. We demonize each other.
It's social media. But it's more than social media. It's
the fact that moms will not take away the phone,
will not unplugged the computer. I say this to every
parent watching our grandparent. Your child is getting addicted as
(34:14):
we speak. Your child is losing the ability to make
independent decisions and thoughts and engage human beings in a
real way because they're stuck on the web. And you parents,
don't disconnect that computer, don't say you're not going to
be on your phone. And I know how hard it
is to be a mom. Right now, I know that
(34:35):
your daughter's going to say to you, I hate you.
I'm not coming to dinner. Better that she says she
hates you than actually grows to do so because of
social media.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
So you think at the core, I mean that has
in more ways, on more days, that has more to
say about why we're in this predicament that we're in.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
It's our behavior magnified ten times by social media. And
then and I'm going to hold you the woman who
I think wants to take your job, I'm going to
hold her accountable as well.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
You're referring to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Yes, we all know how Trump communicates to people. And
I ask a very simple question, and I'm trying not
to get canceled by him. But the fact is, you
ask parents, you ask Trump voters do you want your
children to talk the way Donald Trump talks? And they
say no, they love him, they want his agenda. But
(35:33):
they don't want their kids to sound the way that
he does. And I know his response would be they
as the most wonderful vocabulary. We've all put together videos
of how he shoots sound reporters, how he calls them dumb,
how he says it's not just a matter of being wrong,
(35:53):
you're an idiot using that language. We don't want our
kids to talk that way. But we also want our
kids to tell the truth and to tell us what's
right about themselves. Now, what's wrong about the opposition? President
Harris never said what she was going to do in
the first hour or the first day. Her ads against
(36:17):
Trump were brilliant, and by the way she beat him
in the debate, Oh yeah, she played him in the debate.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
And everyone thinks so, except Trump has polls that show
that he won by thirty or forty or fifty points.
He never showed them, We never saw them. But Vice
President Harris had the opportunity to offer a different vision,
and she never did. She told us what was wrong
about Donald Trump and never told us what was right
(36:49):
about herself. So she bears some of the blame.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
You're the master polster. Is that not what the polls
said she needed to do in order to go out
the vote, or did you reflect differently on your own
analysis that they were looking for a compelling alternative vision.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Did she never get they were looking for it? In
the polling the publics that they didn't trust her. If
you don't trust her, there's a reason why. It's not
that they thought that she was a liar. Is that
they didn't know where she was. They said this again
and again in the CNN focus groups, in this stuff
that was happening in the media, polls that were being done,
(37:28):
not my stuff. Where does she stand on prices? What's
she going to do? What is she going to do
in immigration? What was her most famous comment during the campaign.
It was her interview on the View and she said,
I wouldn't do anything differently. How can you say that
Joe Biden was aol, He was not there, he was
(37:51):
not present, and there's nothing you would do differently. I
recognize your need to be loyal. I recognize your desire
not to fracture the Democratic Party. But the American people
were struggling back then as they're struggling right now, and
they needed to know what she would have done. And
Governor I'm going to give you what she could have done.
It was three weeks from the election. She chose not
(38:13):
to go in Joe Rogan, she never engaged with Stephen A. Smith.
These are people who listened to beyond traditional politics. They
invited her, didn't go. And in the end she was
on Anderson Cooper on CNN and he begins the town
hall with immigration, and he's hostile to her. It's tough
(38:36):
on her, and she should have said, and I quote Anderson,
I can answer your questions. I can answer the questions
of the American people sitting right in front of me
right now, and I'm going to choose them. So let
me do something I've not done before. Let me give
you five minutes on exactly what I'm going to do
in the first hour. What is the first piece of
(38:58):
legislation I'm going to sign. Then I'm going to do
the first day. And she would have this conversation and
then Anderson would cut her off after five minutes, and
she turned him and say, no, Anderson, I'm not done yet.
The American people have the right to know what I'm
going to do, and I have the responsibility to tell them.
And for the next thirty minutes, says he keeps trying
(39:18):
to jump in. She keeps saying to them, y'all like this,
y'all want this, And of course he endsered b yes,
And so she'd have this personal one on one engagement
with one hundred people in the audience Anderson trying to
get in, and that would have elected her president.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Do you really, I mean, do you think you're of
the opinion?
Speaker 1 (39:38):
And I appreciate this, it's always so we're all, you
know looking back, you know, one hundred and seven day
sprint and obviously the highlights of the view everything else,
and there's been so many diagnosis of what went wrong? Was,
you know, to your point about distinguishing herself a little
bit from the president. Obviously the amount of time, the
fact there wasn't an open primary. More broadly beyond her,
(39:59):
the incumbent pen to you, which some had assessed, issues
around immigration, inflation, interest rates, and Israel certainly played a role,
I imagine in some respects. But you think fundamentally this
was an election where Vice President Harris could have won.
Speaker 3 (40:14):
Hemp had ninety one in diamond counts against him, He'd
been in peach twice, he was now the oldest president
to run for office. Now that Biden was out, and
he had all these moments that one questions, by the way,
eating the dogs, eating the cats, how the heck do
(40:37):
you elect that? He said, behind it right? He still won.
And yes, he is a great communicator, he knows how
to talk to his supporters. But she blew it. And
she should wake up every day thinking to herself, how
did I lose to this guy?
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Well, I hope she doesn't do that. I want her
to move on, and we all do in context. But
I think all of us need to reflect on what happened,
what didn't happen. You were pretty pointed, weren't you after
that debate, not only that Harris won, but that potentially
Trump lost the election that night on the basis of
some of those comments. Were you I mean, did you reflect?
(41:17):
I mean it was just your point. I mean why
there was no movement in the pulse. It seemed, regardless
of Trump claiming he crushed it and Harris, I think
objectively it did, but didn't seem to move anybody.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
I never saw this before, never in American history, as
a debate and less impactful on the election.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
And she crushed it. I mean, she really did. I
was very inspired, was one of the spin room people.
So I'm paid to say that as they say, but
I really believe it. And the further distance I have,
the more impressed I was with her performance.
Speaker 3 (41:50):
Therefore, therefore, the more critical you should be of her campaign.
On that night she won the election. Why did Trump
win by such a big margin? It wasn't even that
for modern days, it wasn't that close. Why did he
win Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and others stay in Arizona.
(42:14):
He won them because people thought he said what he
meant and meant what he said, and while they didn't
like how he articulated it, which is exactly what's happening
right now. They wanted that agenda. Why did she lose
when she had the election, She had more money than God,
had an amazing debate performance that everyone saw. There was
never another debate. She gone into the lead there. Why
(42:37):
did she lose? She lost because of herself. In the end,
it's not just what's going on around you. You have
to tell people what you are for. You have to
tell them what you will do, and you have to
be able to show that you can get it done.
I remember what a big deal it was when she
was made the immigrations are I was around, I saw
(43:00):
all this, and then during the campaigns he tries to
run away from it. Oh, I wasn't important. I had
nothing to do. Own it. Be sincere with people. Let
them see you acknowledge as I'm doing right here, right now.
I got that election wrong. I knew Trump was going
to win two weeks before, but I knew he was
going to lose after that debate because no one had
(43:22):
ever recovered from such a bad debate performance. Governor. The
public deserves the truth. The public deserves candor. They have
the right to know when we got it wrong. And
if you can't admit you got it wrong, then you
probably don't deserve to have your position. And they need
to know what you're going to do so you don't
get it wrong in the future. I think we've lost
(43:45):
not just his sense of stability and decency, but I
think we've lost what made America so great, which was
this pursuit of the truth. To acknowledge that separate but
equal was not equal, to acknowledge that we could be
a more perfect union. The idea that we're always focused
on doing better for our children than the next generation.
(44:08):
And now we try to cover stuff up, and now
we tried to accept the status quo. The same people
who screamed and hollered about prices and voted for Donald
Trump because he thought that he would make their life
more livable. Look at the stock market, look at four
one case. Those same people are saying, well, we need
an adjustment in the stock market. It was too high.
(44:31):
You couldn't afford your food and fuel, and now you
actually want your time and savings to be reduced because
it's artificially high. We have to tell the truth, just
for once. I want to use the F word, but
I don't because I want you to put this hanging on.
Speaker 2 (44:47):
It's been used often here, Frank, Yes.
Speaker 3 (44:51):
But I'm actually so serious. Now, embrace the truth, seek
the truth, fight for the truth, and demand that people
tell you it. And when they say to you they
weren't wrong, make them prove it. And when you say
to them, I've got a better answer, show me. Please.
Speaker 1 (45:18):
All that being said, Trump voters, you've been doing the
focus groups, you did the assessment of his first one
hundred days with everything you just said, everything you laid out,
and the imperative of being honest and accountable and speaking truth.
Speaker 2 (45:32):
No one's moved.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
His base is not moved, right, I mean remarkably despite
their four one case, despite the impacts on prices, the
uncertainty as it relates to the tariff, and all the
other sort of chaos that one would have otherwise expected. Perhaps,
but do I think to degree that certainly is alarming.
Speaker 3 (45:51):
Because they'll say to you, as they did in a
very articulate way, we want action. And Joe Biden was
for years of inaction, four years of empty rhetoric without
the intensity of getting it done.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
And they frank, they and forgive me just for cutting
you there. But they didn't see the chips and Science acts.
They didn't see the infrastructure build they didn't see foreigner
bipartisan bills. They didn't see the Safer Community actors relates
to gun violence and mental health. They didn't see the IRA,
They didn't see those as accomplishments. Is it because the
rhetoric didn't back it up? Why was he, from your perspective,
(46:30):
missing in action? Or were all those things trivial in
the context of the American people.
Speaker 3 (46:35):
They're not trivial, And normally I try to look at
the camera. But now I'm looking at you in my screen.
See a reaction here. You actually hit it right on
the head. They didn't see it. They didn't see the
jobs from the Chips Act. They didn't see the roads
getting built from the infrastructure. They didn't see efforts and accountability,
(46:59):
all the things that you just mentioned. No, sir, they
didn't see it. They heard about it, but it wasn't
in front of their eyes. And what did they see?
People coming over the wall, people coming across the border
at night New York City, where people were illegal immigrants
(47:19):
were seen as murderers. That's what they saw. They didn't
see prices coming down. They knew the price of eggs,
they knew the price of a gallon of gas. That's
what they saw. In your question, you actually answered it.
They didn't see it. And this is a challenge for
you in the last two years of your administration. If
(47:41):
you want people to see how Califlorifornia's changed, they have
to internalize it. It's not enough for you to say it.
You have to show them visually and they have to
believe that it's true.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
One more thing about Trump, please, they supported his agendas
still do. They want an end to illegal immigration, and
so they're willing to turn a blind eye if some
people get kicked out as shop. They desperately want the
US on a level playing field versus China. So they're
willing to support tariffs if that's what makes China give
(48:18):
American products, American services and the American workforce, and even
shake which they do not do. No, they didn't see waste,
and they desperately want an end to waste. For Washington spending.
They don't like Elon Musk with a chainsaw, but they
do like the fact that agencies that cannot prove that
(48:40):
they're delivering. Yep, they do want those agencies cut. That's
why they support Trump, not for the execution, but for
the agenda.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
So, Frank, what is your you know in I love
just in the limited time, just pivot a little bit because.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
I think what you know where we are and where
we're going.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
I mean, I think about the reflect you're reflecting on
Harris's campaign a little bit and trying to seek some
truth telling, particularly from the Democrats, to understand and own it.
Where do you see the Democratic Party right now? And
where do you see Donald Trump and the republic and
perhaps separately, where do you see the Republican Party independent
(49:22):
of Trump? And, if I may just to extend the
long question, any advice for the Democratic Party, any advice
for the Republican Party independent of MAGA perhaps and Trump
and trump Ism itself.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
I have to start somewhere, So we'll start with the Democrats.
The public support Trump's agenda, they just don't support the execution.
So tell me how you're going to address immigration, but
do so in a way that delivers better results. How
are you going to address the unleveled playing field between
the US and China that is genuinely hurt American manufacturing,
(50:02):
but to do so in a way that guarantees that
factories can open up here and where American the workforce
is respected for what it does. They do want cuts
to waste for Washington spending. They just want a scalpel
and on a chainsaw. So I'm looking for the Democrat
who surrounds himself for the word better, who emphasizes we
(50:26):
can do it better than that. We hear you, we
understand you. We know you're pissed off, we know you
wanted us to fight. Don't get mad, don't get even
get ahead who focuses on leap frogging the current resistance. Two.
(50:46):
And it's not aquiescence, it's not Chuck Schumer at all.
It's Haakm Jeffries at his best. Because Hakeen Jeffries at
his best offers solutions that will address Medicare and medicate
(51:07):
that seeks to hold Washington accountable without punishing the hardworking taxpayer.
And in the end, and this is the great way
to end, the Democratic part respects the hardworking taxpayer. Democrats
just want to tack. You say you just want to
tax the rich, the wealthy, the affluent. But every time
you call for raising the debt tax, for example, that
(51:29):
punishes family businesses. Every time you set that number, the
people who actually hire, who create jobs, are those who
are successful. I live in a beautiful home in la As.
You know, I will only be here this year, maybe
twenty five days, and I really wanted to do this
(51:50):
face to face because I appreciate you, and I wanted
to express that you're going to be a leading Democratic candidate.
Don't punish success. Find a way to share it, find
a way to spread it. But if you punish it,
you'll never get elected. Because in the end, Americans will
(52:13):
not support that. They do believe that we have a
wealth gap that's out of control. It's one of the
best democratic issues is income gap. But they don't want
to take the wealthy down. They want to bring the
paycheck to paycheck voter up. And I don't think Democrats
fully understand that.
Speaker 1 (52:31):
So you think it's a big mistake where Bernie and
AOC are going in terms of just the oligarchy frame.
You think that just reinforces a frame that you don't.
Speaker 2 (52:42):
Think as well. You know, it is more broadly well received,
despite pulling even your own polling or estimates saying sixty
two to three percent of American support of wealth text.
Speaker 3 (52:52):
It gets them, and someone was you saw the presentation
because that's been public about this. Yeah, it gets themed,
get some crowds of twenty or thirty thousand people, which
is a lot, and make them relevant to the debate.
But it doesn't get them elected president. And that's the difference.
(53:13):
And there needs to be someone who says, look, this
is a great country, we just have a few of
our We need to fix what's wrong without undermining what's
right about America. And that's not what they do. They're
too negative and they're too on the nose, and it
will bring about significant Democratic support, but it will not
(53:37):
put them in the overall office. In twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (53:40):
You're reminded me of Bill Clinton's famous lize nothing wrong
with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America.
Speaker 3 (53:47):
Yes, and I believe that that's his line. I believe
he wrote that, and that's an understanding of where America
is at right now. Because we're very pessimistic. We believe
the future is going to be worse than the present.
We believe that the president is worse than the past.
But we're not going to vote for someone who's inherently negative.
We're not going to vote for someone who's going to take.
(54:10):
We want someone who's going to give. And on the
Republican side, there has to be a better message than
we need to get even with them, then we need
to punish them, because in the end that does not
bring the country together. There needs to be a message
that says, yes, they got it wrong and you got hurt,
(54:31):
but you're not forgotten, you're not ignored, and we haven't
betrayed you. We will write this country, Remember, Governor, it's
the working class union voter that put Donald Trump in
office and took that election away from Kamala Harris. It's
(54:52):
the Latino who said, you want to take all this
to help the black community. What about us Latino men
voted Trump for the first time ever. Yep. These are
fundamental changes that have not happened. And the last thing
I'd say is among young men, they've come to see
(55:13):
more in Trump that's better for their future than Vice
President Harris. I don't know if it's what Trump got right.
I don't know what Harris got wrong. But these are
big fundamental shifts that the Democrats have to address, and
I don't see them addressing it. This is why. And
by the way, at your best, you address it. At
(55:39):
your best, you talk about this and you engage it.
You kicked Dessan's ass in that debate, and I think
he had the issues on his side. They had the
moderator on his side. But every time you go and
this is California and I we don't want to get
into California, but this is part of the Democratic Party.
(56:01):
You have a group of Democrats that get you to
stand up and cheer and give you standing ovations, and
you're pumping your fists in the air, and I get
you noticed, but that will not get you votes.
Speaker 1 (56:14):
Love bless and I want to end as I promised,
as we began, and that's going back to Corey Booker.
You know you were outspoken in your praise and you've
referenced it a few times in this conversation that was
twenty five hour marathon. Corey's Corey's consider him sort of
extended family.
Speaker 2 (56:33):
I've known him forever.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
He's an actual friend, not one of those political friends.
So I have a strong bias towards him, and he's
just deeply sincere. I think he's a wonderful human being.
Most importantly, forget politics for me, and my judgment is
about the character of the person. So I loved the
fact that you thought that was a special speech, But
let's end. Why did you think that was a special speech?
(56:54):
And what did it represent in this moment that you
think needs to be more represented more broadly in moments
to come.
Speaker 3 (57:01):
He told stories of real people, He told stories of
real life, and he didn't just bash the president. He
spoke in favor of them, of uplifting them, of celebrating them.
Corey Booker has the most positive message for the country,
which is not what Democrats wanted to hear in twenty twenty,
(57:25):
which is why you didn't get the nomination. My challenge
to Senator Booker is, can you put that twenty five
hours into a bottle, have the guts to say, I'm
not going to beat up on Trump. I'm going to
tell you where we could be as a country, where
(57:45):
we could be as a society, and I'm going to
celebrate the positive that to America as I addressed the
pain and the suffering. If he can do that with
the discipline of not getting drawn into Trump, and if
Democrats realize that they're going to get elected in twenty
twenty eight, they rise or fall based on their own positions,
(58:10):
not Trump, based on their ability to do it better
and more favorably and more hopefully and with greater celebration.
We don't celebrate anything anymore. We condemn, and we dismiss,
and we disregard and we hate. If Booker can be
can be the antidote to that, he'll be the Democratic
(58:33):
nominee and he'll be the next president. And if he
can't do it, maybe Mitchell andre can. And if he
can't do it, maybe Wes Moore can that they can't
do it. Sure, maybe you can, but it's not taking
the easy road, it's taking the better road.
Speaker 1 (58:53):
Well, what a way to end, Frank, thank you for
all your insight, Thanks for the history, thanks for joining
us today.
Speaker 2 (59:01):
I'm very grateful for this opportunity.
Speaker 3 (59:03):
And Governor, the idea that this idiot from West Harbor, Connecticut,
who flunk calculus as a freshman in college, who had
trouble holding his first job, gets invited to have this
conversation with the governor of California. What a life. Thank you,
(59:23):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (59:24):
What a life. I appreciate that. Frank, thank you, thanks
for being with us on tears.
Host
Gavin Newsom
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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