March 11, 2025 • 44 mins
David Jolly, the former Republican congressman turned independent, graces the podcast with his sharp insights and a healthy dose of sarcasm. He dives right into the absurdity of party politics, revealing how the evangelical movement has hilariously strayed from its roots, trading foundational beliefs for partisan warfare. It’s a wild ride as he critiques both major parties, claiming they’ve become more about preserving power than serving the people. Jolly’s political journey, from a Southern Baptist upbringing to navigating the cesspool of Congress, gives him a unique perspective on the current state of affairs, peppered with irony and wit that keeps both hosts, David Wheeler and Colonel Moe Davis, on their toes. As the conversation unfolds, he lays out his vision for a more pluralistic political landscape and doesn’t shy away from discussing his potential run for governor of Florida in 2026, all while poking fun at the ridiculousness of today's political climate.
The episode unfolds with hosts David Wheeler and Colonel Moe Davis introducing David Jolly, a former member of Congress and current independent political voice. Right from the get-go, Jolly's narrative captivates as he reflects on his upbringing as the son of a Baptist minister and how that experience inadvertently equipped him for the cutthroat world of politics. His self-deprecating humor shines as he quips about how navigating the power struggles of church life was a fitting prelude to the whirlwind of Capitol Hill. Jolly's candid revelations about his departure from the Republican Party are both refreshing and thought-provoking, as he paints a picture of a political landscape that often prioritizes party loyalty over genuine beliefs and values. His journey from a traditional Republican to an independent thinker highlights the growing discontent among voters who feel unrepresented by the two-party system.
The dialogue takes a sharp turn as Jolly critiques the modern evangelical movement, illustrating how it has diverged from its founding principles. His sarcastic observations about the current state of evangelical politics reveal the absurdity of a community that once championed inclusivity and compassion now aligning itself with figures who starkly contradict those values. Jolly's sharp wit underscores the irony of how two of the most religious presidents in history, Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden, have faced backlash from their own party, while figures like Donald Trump are embraced despite their apparent divergence from core Christian teachings. This exploration of faith and politics invites listeners to reconsider the true essence of their beliefs and how they intersect with the political realm.
As the episode progresses, Jolly candidly discusses his potential run for governor of Florida in 2026, framing it as a necessary step to address the pressing issues facing the state. He paints a picture of Florida under Republican control as chaotic and unsustainable, emphasizing the need for a coalition that transcends party lines to tackle issues like the affordability crisis and public education. His vision resonates with listeners who are tired of the status quo and yearn for a government that genuinely represents their interests. The episode wraps up with a call to action, encouraging listeners to engage in the political process and advocate for change, underscoring that a truly representative government is achievable when individuals prioritize their values over party affiliation.
Takeaways:
- David Jolly emphasizes the absurdity of the current political landscape, stating that it seems Congress has devolved into a mere rubber stamp for executive decisions, undermining its constitutional purpose.
- In a strikingly sarcastic manner, Jolly critiques the Republican Party's relationship with evangelical movements, likening it to a dysfunctional marriage that ultimately hurts both parties involved.
- He argues that...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:07):
Welcome back to mucu, folks,where we cut through the noise and
dig into the truth. No sugarcoating, no spin, just the raw, unfiltered
conversations that matter. I'mDavid Wheeler and always I'm joined
by my co host, the one andonly Moe Davis. Take it, Moe.
Hey, David, it's good to beback with you. And we got a great
guest today. Today that we'rereally privileged to have on. I'm
(00:29):
assuming most folks that arelistening to this podcast probably
spend more time watching MSNBCthan Fox News. And if you watch msnbc,
you've no doubt seen DavidJolly on there a number of times.
He's a former Republican,former member of Congress. He represented
Pinellas county, Florida from2014 to 2017 in Congress. And if
(00:50):
you're not familiar withPinellas county, it's St. Petersburg,
Clearwater area. I served onthe Appropriations Committee and,
you know, certainly sinceleaving Congress has been a regular
feature on, on CNN and more soon msnbc.
So David, really appreciateyou coming on today. Thanks for doing
this.
Hey, it's great to be with youguys. I appreciate the invitation.
(01:10):
Well, let's start out. You're,you're the son of a Baptist minister.
So how did you get from thegood Book to the cesspool of politics?
You know, people would say,where'd you learn politics? And I,
I'll say I learned it in thepulpit. I learned it in the church.
And sometimes the politics ofthe church, particularly those who
grew up in it, you'llunderstand, might just prepare you
(01:31):
for Congress. But, you know,it's a mode because I am wrestling
with a lot, as we all are inthe Trump era. And I left office
and the party in 17. You know,the truth is, I was never a good
enough Republican. Even when Igot in, I was kind of a Bush 41 Republican
living in a Tea Party era. Butafter the breakup, I didn't jump
(01:52):
into the Democratic arms. I'vebeen an independent for the last
seven or eight years. And atmy, I think what I have really discovered
in my political journey isthat my foundational beliefs are
really in progressiveevangelism. Now, I say that I didn't
grow up in a progressiveevangelical church. My father was
a Southern Baptist pastor inthe south in an era where conservatism
(02:13):
reigned and still does in theevangelical movement. But I think
my orientation in both faithand politics is what the label that
Jimmy Carter often had put onhim as a progressive evangelist.
And I think there are ways intoday's environment to actually empower
communities of faith tocelebrate people of faith, but to
do so within a constitutionalframework that gives freedom to everybody
(02:36):
and doesn't impose thosefoundational evangelical beliefs
into statute or into law. Andto be honest, however, you just start
to describe politics, I'm amoderate, I'm socially conservative
or socially liberal, whateverit is. I think the bulk of people
believe in the fundamentalfreedoms to celebrate your faith,
but also to practiceconstitutional law and framework,
(02:59):
if you will, in an area thatgives the most number of people the
most amount of freedom. And Ithink there's a thread there for
where our politics are, and Ithink it's why you see such great
unrest and what we're seeingcertainly on the right today, but
you could argue a little biton the left as.
Well, I guess, similar to you.My, I didn't grow up in, you know,
as the son of a minister, butI grew up with my grandmother, who
was a Southern Baptist Sundayschool teacher. One of the things
(03:22):
that burned into my memoryforever is When I was 15, I got arrested
for underage drinking. And Ihad. They called my dad, dad to come
get me, and he said, no, Ijust keep him. And my grandmother
had to come pick me up. AndI'll never forget that ride home
with her some, almost 50 yearsago now. But you mentioned Jimmy
(03:43):
Carter. I mean, it. It strikesme as ironic that the evangelical
movement, you know, the folksthat, you know, a lot of them in,
on, on social media, they noteChristian in their bio because you'd
never know it otherwise from,you know, what they post. But Jimmy
Carter, you know, he didn'tjust talk the talk, he walked the
walk. And he's been, you know,kind of demonized. And then the evangelicals
(04:04):
have embraced Donald Trump,who seems to be, you know, whatever
Jesus taught, he is theopposite of it. So how did we get
here?
Listen, I actually have amanuscript in my, my very first book,
if I ever get the courage andthe patience, might actually be on
exactly a topic like this.Let's just go to the raw politics
for a moment because this isfascinating. It is. It is remarkable
(04:25):
to me that the, the RepublicanParty and the Republican right and
the evangelical right haslampooned and rejected and demonized
two of the most religiouspresidents we've seen, certainly
in modern history, butarguably in the history of the country,
that being Jimmy Carter. AndJoe Biden. And Joe Biden. Consider
this. I mean, think about allthe presidents. Go, go through it
(04:48):
in your mind. All of themodern presidents who spoke about
their faith with greaterpassion Personal conviction, with
respect for others, more thanJimmy Carter and Joe Biden. And what
happened, I think the. Themachine behind evangelical politics,
the machine behind theRepublican Party, realized we've
got to. We've got to rejectthese two. We've got to attack these
(05:08):
two because they're shiftingthe power center to the Democratic
Party, and that can't be. Butit is easy to just beat up on. On
the party, the RepublicanParty, the evangelical movement.
My take is a little differentin this because I sit in the pews
on Sunday mornings with allthese folks. We worship the same
God. We believe in the sametenets of faith. I wish. I wish the
(05:29):
evangelical church would throwaway the crutch of politics that
they currently rely on. What Imean by that is I think the tenets
of people's faith, and thisapplies across all faiths, right?
From Judaism to Islam toHinduism to evangelical Christianity.
The calling of your faith isto win hearts and minds. The Great
Commission in the Book of Actssays, go build churches. It doesn't
(05:50):
say, go build a politicalparty. And I think the moment that
the church began to lean onthe Republican Party as a crutch
to advance a faith agenda, itweakened the church. And you can
see it in the numbers. You cansee it in people leaving the pews,
people leaving organizedchurch, organized religion. And I
think what has happened is theevangelical movement now relies on
(06:12):
the. On the Republican Partyas a crutch. And it's this mutual
aid society, this codependencybetween the two. And ultimately,
what it's doing is underminingthe faith community. And it's a reason
a lot of people today are whatI call church hurt that they can't
see themselves in the faithenvironment they used to see themselves
in because it's become apolitical rally. Too many of our
preachers sound more like FoxNews hosts than they do faith leaders.
(06:35):
And it hurts people when theysee that. And, you know, early on
when I was in office, I wasone of the very few Republicans who
supported marriage equality,for instance. And my message to the
church was this. This tenet offaith to celebrate marriage, being
between a man and a woman. Ifthat's what someone chooses to practice
as a tenant of faith belongsin the church house, you should own
(06:55):
this as a. As a faithcommunity, as an institution of faith.
And if you believe it, youshould evangelize it. But the moment
you turn to government to putit into statute, to put it into law,
the church has actually lostits authority on what they consider
to be a basic biblical Tenet,because now you've handed over that
issue to politicians who willnever be as faithful to the cause
(07:16):
as a church should be. Now, Iwouldn't suggest that same sex marriage
should be denied in any case.Actually, I prefer to be a part of
a church community thatrecognizes God made everybody and
you should love who you wantto love. But the basic principle
holds through in so much ofour politics today, the church is
leaning on the RepublicanParty as a crutch party, is welcoming
it to do so. But in the end,the church isn't achieving much.
(07:40):
What they're doing is they'reundermining their own status as leaders
of faith in this country andaround the world. And I think it's,
it's broken a lot of hearts ofpeople of faith.
Yeah, it really has. I mean,where I'm, where I'm standing right
now, I'm literally five or sixmiles away from where Billy and Ruth
Graham lived over in, inMontre. And you know, Billy Graham
had a close relationship withpresidents of both parties. But if
(08:03):
you compare him to his son,Franklin Graham, who's become just
a.
That's right.
A right wing mouthpiece. And Ithink you're right. I think that's
the reason that participationin organized religion is falling
off. It's become so politicaland partisan and.
Yeah, well, Mo, we, I knowyour listeners may not want to get
all into religious. We can endit with this. But here's what I'd
say that Billy Graham did thatothers aren't. And I wish the church
(08:26):
today would do it. BillyGraham kept the main thing, the main
thing. And in Christianity,right, it's about the crucifixion
and the saving grace of theGod that we call our Christ. That's
the essential message ofsalvation. And that was all Billy
Graham ever wanted you toknow. Because the moment you got
off of that tenet, you gotinto places that you were losing
the audience, so to speak. Andhe knew that when he approached politics,
(08:47):
it didn't matter if you wereRepublican or Democrat. Billy Graham
knew. I'm going to pray foryou and I'm going to make sure you
understand the message ofsalvation that Christians believe
in. I share this with pastorstoday. If you can keep the church
focused on the main thing,whatever your church is, whatever
your religion is, focus it onthe main thing. You have a very tight
faith family there. But themoment you bleed into politics and
(09:08):
telling people how they shouldlive their life and what's right
or wrong and what party isright or wrong, you started to separate
people in a way that was neverthe calling of your faith, whatever
that faith might be.
You know, a couple of yearsback you were on Bill Maher's show
where you announced that youwere leaving the Republican Party.
And at the time you said thatthe two parties are not the solution.
And I'm just wondering whatyou meant by that and whether you
(09:31):
still believe it.
I believe then, I believetoday that the United States will
be better with multipleparties. And the data proves that
across western democracies, weare an outlier. In the United States
with having only two majorparties, most major democracies are
multi party democracy. Andwhat the data shows is voters have
greater participation, greatersatisfaction, there's greater policy
(09:52):
outcomes, there's greaterconsensus, there's more diversity
of representation. Multipleparties actually increase participation
and satisfaction among voters.The reason that we only have two
parties is because the twoparties write the rules in the United
States and they don't wantmore parties, they don't want more
competition. And I think whatoften we get wrong when we think
(10:12):
about the new party space isthat somehow there's this magical
center where everybody isactually a centrist and that's where
a new party could emerge. Ispent and have spent four or five,
six years on this. I helpedlaunch the Forward Party with former
Governor Christie, ToddWhitman on the right and Andrew Yang
on the left. And, and what Ilearned in that process is it's not
(10:34):
about centrism, it's actuallyabout pluralism. You know, we know
as a fundamental tenet of thecountry, the United States has embraced
pluralism, all types ofdifferent ideology. But I think within
each of our own personalpolitics, most of us are pluralists.
And what I mean by that istake the left, right spectrum rather
than just try to say, I'm atthis point on the spectrum on every
issue. I think most of us inour own politics are all. And so
(10:58):
for me, for instance, I'm forlower corporate taxes, but I'm for
stricter regulation offirearms. Now one of those puts me
on the left and one of thoseputs me on the right. And if I were
to try to sign up for a majorparty, they'd say, well, if you're
a Republican, we want you onlower corporate taxes, but don't
talk about firearm regulation.And Democrats would say, talk about
firearm regulations but don'ttalk about lower corporate taxes.
(11:20):
And, and so what I believewhen I made that statement to Bill
Maher, I believe today mostpeople want the liberation to simply
believe what they believe inpolitics and not to have to subscribe
to being in the same place onthe left, right spectrum on every
issue. Multiple parties wouldbe a cure to that. But the barriers
to entry are real. Andfrankly, the cost to launch a national
(11:44):
party starts at $100 million.And if there's a benefactor out there,
you know, a Bloomberg typethat's interested in a multi party
democracy, this is differentthan running an independent race
for office to build theinfrastructure of a party starts
at $100 million.
So what about an independentcandidacy somewhere in Florida? Anything?
Have you, have you thoughtabout that? Instead of doing, you
(12:06):
tried to start the party and Ithink you guys did a terrific job,
I mean, considering all theimpediments out there. But what about
Florida? What about Florida?Why don't you just run for something
down there, my friend?
Yeah, so listen, I, I didn'tdodge questions when I was in office.
I'm certainly not going tododge it when I'm out. I am actively
considering to run forgovernor of Florida in 2026. I have,
(12:29):
I considered at each of thelast two cycles and made the right
decision, likely to forego ateach of the last two cycles. This
cycle is very different. Youknow, my, my politics and my personal
life are in a different placetoday than they were four years ago
or eight years ago. But alsothe politics in the state of Florida.
You know, the world's beenwatching. Florida's basically driving
(12:50):
itself off a cliff undersupermajority Republican control
right now. We've become a homefor the rich and the reckless. We
have an affordability crisis,a crisis in our schools, a crisis
of corruption in Tallahassee.And remarkably, we have an open seat
for the governorship in 26,which provides for an intriguing
dynamic. The generic ballot ischallenging in Florida. Republicans
(13:10):
have increased their strengthand you know, two years ago DeSantis
won reelection by 19 points.Now that was a bit of an outlier.
We were used to two or threepoint races, but this past November
was still strong Republicannumbers. I mean, it was a 13, 14
point win for Donald Trump andfor, for Rick Scott's reelection.
So it raises some questions.What does a coalition in Florida
(13:33):
look like to bring us backfrom total Republican control? I
think there's some hardquestions whether or not a Democratic
nominee in Florida could winin 2026. But could an no party affiliate
in Florida and NPA, could anNPA build a coalition that allies
with strong Democrats andbuilds a coalition for the state
of Florida that could toppleRepublican control? I'm actively
(13:56):
looking at that and I ThinkFlorida Democrats are doing a lot
of soul searching as well. ButI can tell you going around the state
and frankly around the countryon this, the level of intensity and
activism among Democrats isreal right now. People are angry
and I think we could see areally disruptive election in next
November, particularly at thenational level with Democrats likely
(14:19):
taking back Congress andgetting some oversight control of
the administration. But all ofa sudden states like Florida could
come into play as well for astrong Democratic or NPA aligned
Democratic ticket for thegovernorship. So we're actively looking
at it.
That's terrific. I'm glad tohear that. And have you made any
announcement on that front oris this going to be news to our listeners?
(14:40):
It'll, it'll probably be news.I haven't hidden it, but I haven't
been working the press on iteither. So I've done a lot of, a
lot of Democratic meetings inFlorida and sharing it when asked.
So I think it's starting toget out there. But it's probably
the first media I've done onit. So you can break that.
Okay, cool. Well, we will. Wecertainly will. So what, what's it
take to get on the ballotthere, David?
(15:02):
So if you are an independent,it's not difficult to get on the
ballot. You can run all theway through November. You know, in
starting the new party, Ilearned about all the barriers that
the major parties put onindependent candidates. Primary barrier
in state of Florida is aroundcampaign finance. If you run as a
Republican or Democrat, youcan essentially take unlimited money.
Now that money has to gothrough the party. But as an independent,
(15:25):
I'm limited to raising $3,300a person in hard money for the candidate
and that's it. There is nopass through vehicle. If I were to
run as a Democrat, you canraise a 3,300, but you know, Joe
Smith could write a $10million check to the party for the
campaign of David Jolly and itpasses right through. And that's
how the major parties restrictkind of viable independent candidacies
(15:49):
and even minor parties fromnominating people in the state of
Florida. And look, I also, I'mvery sensitive to whether or not
I just, look, I want us towin. And when I say us, I mean the
coalition of Floridians thatare tired of super majority Republican
malfeasance and irresponsiblegoverning. I just want us to win.
Now that means I may be thecandidate, it might be somebody else.
(16:12):
I just want us to win. I thinkI'm in a strong position as a candidate,
but I gladly support astronger candidate should they emerge.
The second piece of that is,what does that coalition and strategy
look like? Is it running as aDemocrat but building the coalition
of independents with you, oris it running as an independent and
building the coalition ofDemocrats with you? It's really the
same coalition, but it becomesa real strategic question. Because
(16:35):
in either scenario, formyself, as a former Republican, now
independent, with a lot offree thinking in politics, the theory
of the case is the same. Thecandidacy has to break through the
brand of either today'sDemocratic party in Florida or of
the independent movement.Right. You really need a breakthrough
moment where a majority ofFloridians can see it and say, you
(16:55):
know what? This is thecoalition that I feel at home in,
and I want to go in thatdirection. The question of the vehicle
or the vessel becomes one ofdata and strategy. Is it smart to
lead this coalition as anindependent or is it smart to lead
it as a Democrat? I'm anatural ally of today's Democrats.
I fought alongside them thelast six or eight years. And I think
(17:17):
their fundamental convictionsare right for the future of the state
and the country. So we've gotto figure all that out by, really,
June 1st of this year. I'dhave to make that decision.
Well, I. I hope you run. Ihope you run as an independent. We
figure out how to work withDemocrats down there. You know, we
have similar impediments herein North Carolina. I looked at running
as an independent out here inwestern North Carolina, and I had
(17:40):
to get signatures to even geton a state senate ballot.
Right.
And that's tough. That'sreally tough. So my, my advice on
winning in Florida is, is puttogether the lower your insurance
rates party. I ran, I also ranstatewide for insurance commissioner.
Got my ass kicked. But, man,North Carolina is close to emulating
(18:04):
what's going on in Florida.What would you do as governor to
help folks with theirinsurance rates and get those down
in rate?
Well, you probably don't knowthis, David, but I actually authored
national Catastrophic Planwhen I was in Congress. And the idea
at the national level and atthe state level is to have a national
catastrophic fund or a statecatastrophic fund. And ideally, you'd
(18:26):
have both. You'd have thenational cat fund, backstopping state
cap funds that essentiallyabsorb and take off of private underwriters,
the high natural disasterperils, the highest natural disaster
peril. So hurricanes in thesoutheast, wildfires in the west,
ice storms, flooding in theCarolinas, you name it. The idea
(18:46):
would Be fund it througheither a doc tax on every real estate
transaction, a stamp tax.There's been some proposals that,
you know, you could add apoint or two to property tax bills,
but basically fund a robuststate catastrophic fund that absorbs
the natural disaster perils,the natural disaster risk and high
(19:08):
risk corridors, and allowsinsurance companies, private insurance
companies, to simplyunderwrite the traditional risks
of home ownership. But you'vegot your thumb on something we're
experiencing in Florida,California, certainly Carolina. Now,
this is going to spreadbecause as the incident rate of natural
disasters rises, it pushesprivate insurers out. And so I talk
(19:29):
about in Florida really threethings they're all largely attached
to. An affordability crisis isthe umbrella. But we have an insurance
crisis that needs to get fixedbecause it's leading to an affordability
crisis for homeownership, forrentals, and frankly, for just the
cost of living. In the stateof Florida, we got a crisis in our
public schools. We have chaseda voucher school choice program,
(19:51):
but it is not school choice ifon one side you have well funded
private schools and on theother side you have underfunded public
schools. That's not a choicein the name of school choice. We've
starved our public schools.And I think Florida should have the
best public school system inthe entire world. And we need to
reinvest in more schools andmore communities with more teachers
making more money. And thatcontributes to what is also part
(20:12):
of the affordability crisis,because families feel like they've
got to go pay for privateschooling now in the state of Florida.
And then the third leg of thestool is we've got a corruption crisis.
Our campaign finance laws, Imentioned one of them already in
terms of how they, how you canrun candidates with unlimited money.
But we essentially allow ourelected leaders to have slush funds
(20:32):
that corporate Florida paysinto with very little oversight.
Our governor right now isstill taking corporate checks into
a political action committeethat has complete control over, but
he's not a candidate foranything. And the amount of money
from going in from regulatedindustries, going to the regulators
and the politicians is acorruption right now. That you could
make an argument it's a fullcircle has contributed to the insurance
(20:55):
crisis and affordabilitycrisis we have right now.
You know, when people ask mehow we got in the state that we're
in now, I think, you know, twothings that always cite are, you
know, first was the end of thefairness doctrine back in 1987 because,
you know, before that youcouldn't have a Fox News or really
an MSNBC when, when networkswere required to, to give both sides
an opportunity to expresstheir views and then follow that
(21:18):
up with citizens united in2010 in this influx of money, which
for, I guess for Elon Musk,you know, that, what, $290 million,
he's getting a good return onhis investment. But if you combine
those two things, I think thatin large part kind of led us to,
to where we are today. Andwhen you're in Congress, you. You
tried to push through a billthat would ban members of Congress
(21:40):
from directly solicitingcampaign contribution. That's right.
How do we get the corruptinginfluence of money out of our politics?
We have the most corruptcampaign finance system in the modern
world. I suppose there arecountries that it's just pure graft
where you can pay off people,but ours is really, really bad. And,
you know, I listen. I, broadlyspeaking, my political journey, one
(22:02):
of my colleagues and at timesnemesis in politics, Charlie Chris,
most people know who he is,changed parties a few times. And
he would used to say that Ididn't leave the party, the party
left me. I don't one, I don'treally believe that when he says
it, but, but that's also notmy theory. And in my political journey,
I test a different theory,which is I've changed my mind. And
(22:22):
is it okay to change your mindin politics? And that's on a lot
of issues that's on, on thefundamentals of Roe v. Roe v. Wade,
for instance. I, growing uppro life was mistaken to think that
pro life meant you had to beanti Roe. And it took serving and
representing and reallyworking on the issues to realize
in my personal politicalbelief, I think Roe v. Wade's the
(22:42):
exact right framework and weneed to bring it back on guns. That's
another perfect example whereI grew up thinking if you're a Republican,
you've got to be for, youknow, unlimited Second Amendment
rights, there should be noregulation. But I quickly realized,
no, there has to be. And theSecond Amendment isn't outside the
reach of regulation and weneed more regulation around firearms.
(23:04):
But on the issue of money,that's another great example. I would
have made the argument as ayoung Republican getting trained
up in, call it Republicanschool, that money is speech and
speech should be unlimited andthere shouldn't be any restriction.
Now I'm for public financingand campaigns, and I think we should
prohibit just about everycontribution that's made today to
politicians. Now, you're rightabout the courts, Mo. The courts
(23:25):
have recognized that mostrestrictions don't pass constitutional
muster under this currentjudiciary. So what I did in Congress
is I tried to work within thelaw and the Constitution as it's
seen to see where could we putsome real handcuffs on the most corrupting
influence. And so I introduceda bill called the STOP Act. It was
only two pages and we, wemurder boarded it for months to make
(23:47):
sure we had it really tight.And all it, all it would do is prohibit
a city member of Congress fromdirectly soliciting a campaign contract.
And it comes at the issue twoways, obviously. The first is the
corrupt corruption angle. Getmembers of Congress out of being
the telemarketers and ask themfor money. But the second is time.
Members of Congress on allsides of the aisle spend 60 to 70%
(24:10):
of their time raising money,not legislating. So my idea was if
we prohibit them from doingthe direct ask, from having to work
the phones all day and removefundraising from their personal activities,
maybe we'll get a full timeCongress in a full time world because
we don't have it right now.And a couple carve outs were your
campaign could still raisemoney, right? There wasn't really
(24:30):
a good way to say a campaigncouldn't raise money and still pass
constitutional mustard. Soyour campaign finance chair could
still raise money. Your staffcould, but it removed the member
from the process and from theask. And then the second, the rule
didn't apply to a challengerbecause my argument was if you're
a challenger, the opportunitycosts of going out and raising money
is a private opportunity. IfI'm a teacher who's also the more
(24:54):
time I spend running forCongress is taking away my time to
teach or practice law orconstruction, whatever I'm doing.
But that's not, I guess withteachers it's a public job, but you're
not holding the public trustlike a political office. But once
you get elected now you holdthe public trust. And if you're not
doing your job, it's aviolation of that public trust if
you're spending more timeraising money. So it didn't apply
(25:15):
to challengers. We got about10, 12 co sponsors and we got some
60 minutes coverage on it.What we knew all the time was it
would require another scandalbefore people will realize campaign
finance is really an issue Iwant to work on. We've got a long
ways to go on campaignfinance. But I promise you what we
all feel is absolutely true.There's a corruptive influence to
(25:38):
money in politics. Andunfortunately the current certainly
in Florida, current RepublicanParty. And I think you could take
some Hits on Democrats acrossthe country on this as well. They're
just fine with the system howit is because they benefit from it.
But at some point we've got tostand up and disrupt it and break
it up.
Yeah, when I ran in 2020, weraised about $2.3 million. And anytime
(25:59):
I think about running again, Iremember those hours spent begging
for money on the telephone.And it really deters me from wanting
to get back in. But if you getelected, particularly on the House
side, by the time you getsworn in in January, you're just
22 months away from facing thevoters again. And you've got to raise
100 to $200,000 a month tokeep your job. And that's right to
(26:23):
me, you know, raising thatkind of money is a job.
So it is a job. You're, it's afull time telemarketing job. And
you know the, the sad part ofthis, what might actually cure it
is also going to make itworse, which is because of the amount
of unlimited outside money.Many of these seats, particularly
these swing seats, have becomecommodities for special interest
groups with unlimited outsidemoney. So take your race, Mo. If
(26:46):
it was a truly, it maybe was,I don't know the RD makeup of it.
But if it was a true swingswing seat, the national special
interest groups would come inwith unlimited money and would outspend
you even as the candidate, 10to 1, 20 to 1. A good example when
I ran this was 10 plus yearsago. There was about $20 million
(27:06):
spent in 10 weeks. The twocandidates only raised three or four
of that. So another, so 16million or so was outside money that
we didn't control that definedboth of our candidacies. And they
just wanted a win for theirside of the aisle. So what might
cure the demands you wentthrough is the fact that the outside
(27:27):
special interest groups havethe power to outspend you even on
your side. Even the onessupporting you can outspend you 10
to 1. The ones opposing youcan outspend you 10 to 1. And eventually
the candidate doesn't matterin a campaign system like that. The
seat just becomes a commodityof special interests in the national
party.
We talked about fixingCongress. Let's talk about the Congress
that we've got recently. Yousaid in the interview it's a quote.
(27:50):
I don't think Republicans inCongress know what they're doing
right now. And you referred toit as a constitutional crisis. And
you said Congress is, I thinkyour term. You said they were meaningless.
I believe I don't get it what's.
The point in having Congressif there's going to be a rubber stamp
for the administration?
Yeah, Congress has collapsed.Look, I, I think, and I do believe
we're in a constitutionalcrisis because administration is
(28:13):
acting with lawlessness andthat underlies everything. Democrats
are shooting a lot of darts atthe board trying to figure out, are
we going to attack doge, arewe going to attack the cuts to veterans
and usaid, are we going toattack Social Security, Medicare
cuts? What underlies all this,and it's not too sexy, unfortunately
it should be, is a level oflawlessness. What Donald Trump is
doing, he doesn't have theconstitutional authority to do. But
(28:35):
it only matters if Congresssteps up and provides the accountability,
because constitutionally, thetwo checks on a lawless president
or the courts, which takestime, there's a latency to it. And
we sometimes see them work andsometimes we don't. But the emergency
firefighters in theConstitution or the Congress who
can rush into the fire withaccountability mechanism, putting
(28:57):
handcuffs on a president'sability to act, using statutes like
the Impoundment act to say youhave to spend the money that we're
providing, holdingcongressional hearings or even holding
impeachment hearings. We arein a constitutional crisis not just
because Donald Trump is actinglawlessly, but because the Republican
con has collapsed and doesn'tcare that he's acting lawlessly.
(29:17):
And I think that's an areajust. We're doing unprecedented damage
right now to the institutionof the Congress, but also to the
Constitution itself. Andperhaps it takes the crisis arriving
at the doorstep of everyAmerican home to realize that this,
this regime of Donald Trumpand Republicans on the Hill is really
tearing at the fabric of whowe are as a country and breaking
(29:40):
us down. I think the onlything that Donald Trump, the only
tool that could get him out ofthe mess he's creating is a white
hot economy next summer. If hehasn't built a lazing economy by
next summer, Republicans areheading to the ultimate accountability,
which are voters who's goingto, who are going to show up and
throw a lot of Republicans outof office.
Now, there's always hope.
Yeah, right.
(30:00):
So, so Representative Jolly,you, you were in Congress for what,
three terms?
No, just two. Two.
All right.
I ended up with about fourdistricts. And in three years, and
the last, the last district,that was all she wrote, I became
the most vulnerable member of Congress.
Well, it should have beenthree. So what's the weirdest conversation
you ever had on, on the floorand with whom?
(30:23):
Oh, that's a good one. Youknow, you end up getting to know
people on a personal leveland, and you make some good friends.
I'll tell you today, one of mygreat friends in politics is Mark
Sanford, and people know himfor controversy and the love gov.
And maybe you like hispolitics or you hate his politics.
But, but when you get to knowsomebody for their failings and their
frailty and you realize, youknow, their willingness to account
(30:47):
for their own failings, youget to see people in a way perhaps
you don't see them on tv. Atthe same time, you know, there's
some real clowns that serve inCongress. There's a bell curve to
it. And I, I think I had a fewdispiriting ones. And I'm just going
to take some targets, takesome shots at, at Republicans right
now. You know, we, I, I wasserving at a time Obama was in, he
was on his way out. And wewere attacking Obama for the pen
(31:10):
and the phone comment and forsome things that we said. He didn't
have the executive authorityto do it. Congress had to do it.
Particularly take immigrationreform. He doesn't have the authority
to use his pen and his phoneon immigration. We have that power
as a Congress. Well,Republicans would end the story there.
And I would always say, okay,well, then it's our authorities.
Now what are we doing to fixit? And I remember one night saying
(31:31):
to a member of leadership, themajority whip at the time, I said,
tell me when we're going toput immigration reform on the House
floor and I'll support you forleader. And he looked at me and he
said, do you know what theAmerican people would do to us if
we actually voted onimmigration reform? And it was the
moment when I realized, thefix is in. We're not doing any of
(31:52):
this. There was also, I tookan approach to sponsoring legislation
before it was perfected. WhatI mean by that is if it was a good
idea on the left or the right,even as a Republican, I'd put my
name on it to say, yeah, let'smove this forward. Let's get this
into committee. Let's get iton the floor and have the debate.
So one of those examples wasthe estate tax repeal, the death
(32:13):
tax, Republicans like to callit. And I forget how much money that
particular repeal at the timeadded to the debt. And so my presumption
was, we're going to figurethis out, and before we vote on it,
we'll figure out how to payfor it. And so they scheduled it
for a vote on the House floor.And I went up to Paul Ryan, and he
was the chair, Ways and Meansat the time. And I said, hey, Paul,
(32:33):
I know we scheduled this vote.Have we figured out how we're going
to pay for it? And he lookedat me and he said, oh, we don't pay
for tax cuts. And it wasanother one of those moments. I thought,
oh, I get it, I get it. So,you know, those are the moments where
you realize, wow, this. Thereis a level of irresponsibility. Other
stuff, I'll tell you, alwayssurprised me. Votes after dinner.
(32:56):
There were certainly a numberof people who enjoyed their alcohol
at dinner. So you could seesome spirited arguments, or you could
see some people takingadvantage and getting some deals
done they couldn't get donewhen the other member was sober.
Maybe saw a couple come tofisticuffs a couple times. But, you
know, it. The House is like aplayground. I like to refer to it.
It's like a playground, and itcan be messy. I fundamentally believe
(33:19):
in the Congress. I grew upworking there. I didn't think I would
ever serve, but I did. But Iliken it to any baseball fans out
there. Serving in Congress waslike. Was like baseball. I woke up
every morning, it felt likespring training and your team could
make the series. I went to bedevery night, it was August and we
were 20 games back, but. But Iwoke up again the next morning thinking
(33:41):
it was spring training and wecould make the series. It's that
type of carousel in Congresswhen you serve.
Hey, David. You know, backyears ago, I was the head of Foreign
Affairs, Defense and Trade atCongressional Research Service. And
I had a guy that worked for methat Pat Tao, who had been a reporter
for CQ Roll Call for years.
Sure, sure.
And occasionally he and Iwould go over and sit in the gallery.
And I remember one time we'resitting there as a vote taking place,
(34:03):
and he said the thing to himthat really had degraded Congress
were cell phones. And that'sright. He said, watch as people would
vote. He said, you know,they'd go up and vote, then they'd
sit down, you could seethey're tweeting and, you know, doing
all their social media stuff.And he said, in the old days, you
know, a member would go up andvote, then they'd walk over and talk
to somebody else, and then agroup would form and you'd have conversations.
(34:24):
He said, watch them. Now everyjust goes to their own corner and
gets on their phone. And hesaid, they just don't have the relationships
like they did back in the olddays. I don't know how we get back.
I agree with you. And thereare a number of things, I think,
that broke down in parallel,you know, when you were there. There
also is committees actuallydid work. We had conference committees.
When legislation differed,appropriations and budgeting stayed
(34:46):
on an annual schedule. Andwhat happened over the years is as
members started to lose theirresponsibilities, leadership began
to take a greater control. Andultimately committees mean very little
when it comes to consequentiallegislation. The speaker's office
essentially writes it andpushes it down on the committees.
(35:07):
And then you go to the floor,there's never really much debate.
And this is on the left andthe right. I mean, I think there
were fewer open amendmentprocesses under Nancy Pelosi than
any other speaker. Butleadership really shuts down any
real debate. And so a lot ofthose members on their phones show
up with a card that says,these are the next eight votes. And
this is the way our side ofthe aisle is voting. And it's just
(35:28):
a matter of killing time inbetween votes because there's no
suspense to it. I, I just, youknow, I remember a couple speeches
I would give on the Housefloor. One of them that got picked
up was me screaming about a, Ithink it was an appropriations package.
And I remember screaming, wehad the votes to pass this last night.
If we drop the R's and the D'snext to our name, we actually had
(35:49):
the vote. And then the partiesgot involved. There also was one,
one particularly heartbreakingmoment. Many people remember the
shooting at the Pulsenightclub. And the one gun issue
that emerged from there wasthe shooter was on the no fly list,
but was still able to purchasea high capacity firearm. And so naturally,
(36:09):
most Americans would say, ifyou're on the no fly list, you shouldn't
be able to buy a gun. And theright threw up all these issues about
due process, about the no flylist. And they were right. Due process
on the no fly list, there'sinsufficient due process. So they
would say, you can't justprohibit somebody from buying a gun.
And that was it. That was theend of the debate. And I went to
the well, and I said, well,why don't we just add due process
to the purchase of the gunthen and put the burden on the government.
(36:33):
You can have a classified orcontrolled hearing in front of a
judge, but if the, if thegovernment is going to prohibit you
from buying a weapon, thenthey should have to satisfy the burden
of proof in front of a judgeas to why we can add due process
to this. And the moment I didthat. It was, you know, Republicans
were like, whoa, whoa, whoa,we can't talk about that. We're not.
That's not. It's not how wesolve this. We solve this by shutting
(36:55):
it down. And. And I think it.There's just such a lack of critical
thinking in Congress rightnow, and you could argue in our body
politics across the country,we've lost the ability to embrace
critical thinking. Butunfortunately, it has real consequences
for the world's most powerfullegislative bodies if it legislates
out of ignorance and leads usto the result we see today.
Well, you're a truth teller,David, and you're very articulate
(37:19):
as well. If there was oneunfiltered truth you could tell,
you know, every citizen andevery voter in Florida, what would
that be? I mean, and let's,you know, get down into your soul
here so folks can get to knowyou a little bit better. What's that
one unfiltered truth?
Look, I think all of ourpolitics today, I don't know that
this is profound, but is sohamstrung by our personal identification
(37:43):
with party. And GeorgeWashington warned us about it. George
Washington warned us aboutthis. And we approach politics today
through our party identity.And I don't think we realize how
much it restricts our ownability to think and to participate
effectively in our democracy.We almost restrict our own franchise
(38:04):
by thinking my job is to be aloyal Democrat or a loyal Republican,
and I think it's true in theindependent space as well, to immediately
be suspicious of Republicansand Democrats. That's equally shortsighted.
You know, if I were to run foroffice, I think there's. There's
smart ideas on both sides ofthe aisle. I. I have been public
in saying that I think today'sRepublican Party is going in the
(38:25):
wrong direction. But there aresome Republican ideas in Tallahassee
today that are good ones.There's a leading Republican fighting
for a rural Renaissance toinvest $200 million in rural communities
that continue to losepopulations. The investments would
go into access to healthcareand education and improved infrastructure
so that people across thestate could have opportunities like
(38:45):
we see in only certain wealthypockets. I think that's a fantastic
idea. My guess is mostDemocrats will reflexively oppose
it because it's introduced bya leading Republican. And I think
all of us have to be carefulabout reaching first for our party
identity or because we're anindependent, being suspicious of
the parties. If we can dropwhat we see as some type of personal
(39:07):
identity or affiliation of ourpersonal politics with a Major party.
I actually think most of uswant the same things. We want a government
that works for as many peopleas possible, an economy that grows
and empowers the most numberof people possible. Those are the
basics. A government thatworks in an economy that grows. The
moment we start relyingstrictly on one party or the other
(39:28):
to provide that for us, Ithink we've lost the plot.
You know, it seems like intoday's environment that DEI has
become code for the N word. Iwas looking at something you wrote
not, not too many years backwhere you're talking about celebrating
diversity. And you saidcelebrating diversity is about, quote,
communal strength that emergesfrom valuing everyone's individual
story, their personal beliefsystem, recognizing their truth with
(39:51):
equity. That.
That's right.
That doesn't sound very Republican.
You know, it's also somethingI don't think Republicans should
be afra of. Listen, I went toEmory University and as I mentioned,
a rural preacher's kid neverreally exposed to much diversity.
And my first week there, theytried to cram it down my throat and
I rejected it because I justthought it was. Honestly I just had
(40:15):
never experienced it. Right.And I thought, I grew up thinking
we all have the sameopportunities. We all, you know,
we're all born who we are. Whydo we make an issue of our differences
and why are we celebratingdifferences? We should just focus
on individual opportunity. Ithink from a policy perspective,
it's important to recognizethat equality of opportunity requires
(40:36):
changes in law because we'renot all born with the same opportunity.
We're simply not. AndRepublicans are short sighted when
they say everyone's born withthe same opportunity. So we don't
need any laws. That's nottrue. Depending on what zip code
you're in, your opportunitiesare very, very varied. So one, I
think we have to recognizethat, that from a socioeconomic and
(40:56):
demographic perspective, we,as a result of willfulness or willful
negligence, millions ofAmericans today, through their party
participation, are okay with apermanent underclass. And I think
that's wrong. I think that'swrong. And so I think from a policy
perspective, it is importantthat we recognize diversity. But
(41:16):
I also think from a culturalperspective, we have the opportunity
to really grow the country andstrengthen the country. I want my
children to as many culturaldifferences, as many different fates
as possible to books that pushtheir boundaries, challenge their
religious beliefs andchallenge their intellect. And at
home we can orient our, ourfamily around the value set that's
(41:39):
right for our family. But Iwant them to be exposed as much as
possible so that when theyhave the opportunity to choose what's
right for them, they can dothat and they can celebrate it themselves.
I'm not afraid of dei. I thinkthe attack on DEI is understandable
because perhaps you couldargue it's been imbalanced in certain
places. But the worst thingthat could happen from it, from the
(42:01):
perspective of attacking DEIis to actually also attack diversity.
Well, that's a nice way to endthis conversation. Representative
Jolly, we really appreciateyour time and insights and service
to our country. You're aterrific guy. I'm a big fan of yours
and enjoyed getting to knowyou a little bit better today. For
our listeners.
(42:21):
I appreciate it.
Yeah, for our listeners. Wherecan they learn more about you? David?
You know, look, I've got awebsite, davidjolly.com that has
a mailbox. You could, youcould certainly drop me a note. But
I'm largely off socials. Ijumped that shark a year or two ago.
But to get in touch with me,just get onto davidjali.com and there's
a mailbox there.
Okay, cool. And Moe, why don'twe do another plug for your book?
(42:44):
Yeah, well, thanks. The book'scalled Sovereign Oak. It's a historical
novel. Interestingly, today inthe local paper there's a story about,
you know, the hurricane washedout the railroad and it's going to
be rebuilt. But it notes inthe article, in the article that
the railroad was built byAfrican Americans that were largely
arrested and convicted onbogus crimes to create a labor pool
(43:05):
to build the railroad. Sothat's one part of the of the book
is based on that story. Again,100% of the proceeds are going to
hurricane relief. And you canfind Sovereign Oak on Amazon.com
Terrific to our listeners.
If this conversation made youthink, if it gave you a new perspective,
share it. Please subscribe,leave a review and join us next Time
for another deep dive. Thishas been Muck you. I'm David Wheeler
(43:27):
and thanks to my friendColonel Moe Davis for co hosting
today. Please stay informed,stay engaged, take a moment to look
at the bigger picture. See younext time.
This has been Muck you cohosted by Colonel Moe Davis in Asheville,
North Carolina and DavidWheeler in Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
Thanks to our friend and guesttoday, Representative David Jolly.
You can learn more aboutRepresentative Jolly @ davidjolly.com
(43:50):
Muck you is produced byAmerican Muckrakers. Copyright 2025.
You can learn more atamericanmuckrakers.com and follow
us on X and Blue sky underAmerican Muck. You know who made
(44:14):
it.
Welcome back to mucu, folks,where we cut through the noise and
dig into the truth. No sugarcoating, no spin, just the raw, unfiltered
conversations that matter. I'mDavid Wheeler and always I'm joined
by my co host, the one andonly Moe Davis. Take it, Moe.
Hey, David, it's good to beback with you. And we got a great
guest today. Today that we'rereally privileged to have on. I'm
(00:29):
assuming most folks that arelistening to this podcast probably
spend more time watching MSNBCthan Fox News. And if you watch msnbc,
you've no doubt seen DavidJolly on there a number of times.
He's a former Republican,former member of Congress. He represented
Pinellas county, Florida from2014 to 2017 in Congress. And if
(00:50):
you're not familiar withPinellas county, it's St. Petersburg,
Clearwater area. I served onthe Appropriations Committee and,
you know, certainly sinceleaving Congress has been a regular
feature on, on CNN and more soon msnbc.
So David, really appreciateyou coming on today. Thanks for doing
this.
Hey, it's great to be with youguys. I appreciate the invitation.
(01:10):
Well, let's start out. You're,you're the son of a Baptist minister.
So how did you get from thegood Book to the cesspool of politics?
You know, people would say,where'd you learn politics? And I,
I'll say I learned it in thepulpit. I learned it in the church.
And sometimes the politics ofthe church, particularly those who
grew up in it, you'llunderstand, might just prepare you
(01:31):
for Congress. But, you know,it's a mode because I am wrestling
with a lot, as we all are inthe Trump era. And I left office
and the party in 17. You know,the truth is, I was never a good
enough Republican. Even when Igot in, I was kind of a Bush 41 Republican
living in a Tea Party era. Butafter the breakup, I didn't jump
(01:52):
into the Democratic arms. I'vebeen an independent for the last
seven or eight years. And atmy, I think what I have really discovered
in my political journey isthat my foundational beliefs are
really in progressiveevangelism. Now, I say that I didn't
grow up in a progressiveevangelical church. My father was
a Southern Baptist pastor inthe south in an era where conservatism
(02:13):
reigned and still does in theevangelical movement. But I think
my orientation in both faithand politics is what the label that
Jimmy Carter often had put onhim as a progressive evangelist.
And I think there are ways intoday's environment to actually empower
communities of faith tocelebrate people of faith, but to
do so within a constitutionalframework that gives freedom to everybody
(02:36):
and doesn't impose thosefoundational evangelical beliefs
into statute or into law. Andto be honest, however, you just start
to describe politics, I'm amoderate, I'm socially conservative
or socially liberal, whateverit is. I think the bulk of people
believe in the fundamentalfreedoms to celebrate your faith,
but also to practiceconstitutional law and framework,
(02:59):
if you will, in an area thatgives the most number of people the
most amount of freedom. And Ithink there's a thread there for
where our politics are, and Ithink it's why you see such great
unrest and what we're seeingcertainly on the right today, but
you could argue a little biton the left as.
Well, I guess, similar to you.My, I didn't grow up in, you know,
as the son of a minister, butI grew up with my grandmother, who
was a Southern Baptist Sundayschool teacher. One of the things
(03:22):
that burned into my memoryforever is When I was 15, I got arrested
for underage drinking. And Ihad. They called my dad, dad to come
get me, and he said, no, Ijust keep him. And my grandmother
had to come pick me up. AndI'll never forget that ride home
with her some, almost 50 yearsago now. But you mentioned Jimmy
(03:43):
Carter. I mean, it. It strikesme as ironic that the evangelical
movement, you know, the folksthat, you know, a lot of them in,
on, on social media, they noteChristian in their bio because you'd
never know it otherwise from,you know, what they post. But Jimmy
Carter, you know, he didn'tjust talk the talk, he walked the
walk. And he's been, you know,kind of demonized. And then the evangelicals
(04:04):
have embraced Donald Trump,who seems to be, you know, whatever
Jesus taught, he is theopposite of it. So how did we get
here?
Listen, I actually have amanuscript in my, my very first book,
if I ever get the courage andthe patience, might actually be on
exactly a topic like this.Let's just go to the raw politics
for a moment because this isfascinating. It is. It is remarkable
(04:25):
to me that the, the RepublicanParty and the Republican right and
the evangelical right haslampooned and rejected and demonized
two of the most religiouspresidents we've seen, certainly
in modern history, butarguably in the history of the country,
that being Jimmy Carter. AndJoe Biden. And Joe Biden. Consider
this. I mean, think about allthe presidents. Go, go through it
(04:48):
in your mind. All of themodern presidents who spoke about
their faith with greaterpassion Personal conviction, with
respect for others, more thanJimmy Carter and Joe Biden. And what
happened, I think the. Themachine behind evangelical politics,
the machine behind theRepublican Party, realized we've
got to. We've got to rejectthese two. We've got to attack these
(05:08):
two because they're shiftingthe power center to the Democratic
Party, and that can't be. Butit is easy to just beat up on. On
the party, the RepublicanParty, the evangelical movement.
My take is a little differentin this because I sit in the pews
on Sunday mornings with allthese folks. We worship the same
God. We believe in the sametenets of faith. I wish. I wish the
(05:29):
evangelical church would throwaway the crutch of politics that
they currently rely on. What Imean by that is I think the tenets
of people's faith, and thisapplies across all faiths, right?
From Judaism to Islam toHinduism to evangelical Christianity.
The calling of your faith isto win hearts and minds. The Great
Commission in the Book of Actssays, go build churches. It doesn't
(05:50):
say, go build a politicalparty. And I think the moment that
the church began to lean onthe Republican Party as a crutch
to advance a faith agenda, itweakened the church. And you can
see it in the numbers. You cansee it in people leaving the pews,
people leaving organizedchurch, organized religion. And I
think what has happened is theevangelical movement now relies on
(06:12):
the. On the Republican Partyas a crutch. And it's this mutual
aid society, this codependencybetween the two. And ultimately,
what it's doing is underminingthe faith community. And it's a reason
a lot of people today are whatI call church hurt that they can't
see themselves in the faithenvironment they used to see themselves
in because it's become apolitical rally. Too many of our
preachers sound more like FoxNews hosts than they do faith leaders.
(06:35):
And it hurts people when theysee that. And, you know, early on
when I was in office, I wasone of the very few Republicans who
supported marriage equality,for instance. And my message to the
church was this. This tenet offaith to celebrate marriage, being
between a man and a woman. Ifthat's what someone chooses to practice
as a tenant of faith belongsin the church house, you should own
(06:55):
this as a. As a faithcommunity, as an institution of faith.
And if you believe it, youshould evangelize it. But the moment
you turn to government to putit into statute, to put it into law,
the church has actually lostits authority on what they consider
to be a basic biblical Tenet,because now you've handed over that
issue to politicians who willnever be as faithful to the cause
(07:16):
as a church should be. Now, Iwouldn't suggest that same sex marriage
should be denied in any case.Actually, I prefer to be a part of
a church community thatrecognizes God made everybody and
you should love who you wantto love. But the basic principle
holds through in so much ofour politics today, the church is
leaning on the RepublicanParty as a crutch party, is welcoming
it to do so. But in the end,the church isn't achieving much.
(07:40):
What they're doing is they'reundermining their own status as leaders
of faith in this country andaround the world. And I think it's,
it's broken a lot of hearts ofpeople of faith.
Yeah, it really has. I mean,where I'm, where I'm standing right
now, I'm literally five or sixmiles away from where Billy and Ruth
Graham lived over in, inMontre. And you know, Billy Graham
had a close relationship withpresidents of both parties. But if
(08:03):
you compare him to his son,Franklin Graham, who's become just
a.
That's right.
A right wing mouthpiece. And Ithink you're right. I think that's
the reason that participationin organized religion is falling
off. It's become so politicaland partisan and.
Yeah, well, Mo, we, I knowyour listeners may not want to get
all into religious. We can endit with this. But here's what I'd
say that Billy Graham did thatothers aren't. And I wish the church
(08:26):
today would do it. BillyGraham kept the main thing, the main
thing. And in Christianity,right, it's about the crucifixion
and the saving grace of theGod that we call our Christ. That's
the essential message ofsalvation. And that was all Billy
Graham ever wanted you toknow. Because the moment you got
off of that tenet, you gotinto places that you were losing
the audience, so to speak. Andhe knew that when he approached politics,
(08:47):
it didn't matter if you wereRepublican or Democrat. Billy Graham
knew. I'm going to pray foryou and I'm going to make sure you
understand the message ofsalvation that Christians believe
in. I share this with pastorstoday. If you can keep the church
focused on the main thing,whatever your church is, whatever
your religion is, focus it onthe main thing. You have a very tight
faith family there. But themoment you bleed into politics and
(09:08):
telling people how they shouldlive their life and what's right
or wrong and what party isright or wrong, you started to separate
people in a way that was neverthe calling of your faith, whatever
that faith might be.
You know, a couple of yearsback you were on Bill Maher's show
where you announced that youwere leaving the Republican Party.
And at the time you said thatthe two parties are not the solution.
And I'm just wondering whatyou meant by that and whether you
(09:31):
still believe it.
I believe then, I believetoday that the United States will
be better with multipleparties. And the data proves that
across western democracies, weare an outlier. In the United States
with having only two majorparties, most major democracies are
multi party democracy. Andwhat the data shows is voters have
greater participation, greatersatisfaction, there's greater policy
(09:52):
outcomes, there's greaterconsensus, there's more diversity
of representation. Multipleparties actually increase participation
and satisfaction among voters.The reason that we only have two
parties is because the twoparties write the rules in the United
States and they don't wantmore parties, they don't want more
competition. And I think whatoften we get wrong when we think
(10:12):
about the new party space isthat somehow there's this magical
center where everybody isactually a centrist and that's where
a new party could emerge. Ispent and have spent four or five,
six years on this. I helpedlaunch the Forward Party with former
Governor Christie, ToddWhitman on the right and Andrew Yang
on the left. And, and what Ilearned in that process is it's not
(10:34):
about centrism, it's actuallyabout pluralism. You know, we know
as a fundamental tenet of thecountry, the United States has embraced
pluralism, all types ofdifferent ideology. But I think within
each of our own personalpolitics, most of us are pluralists.
And what I mean by that istake the left, right spectrum rather
than just try to say, I'm atthis point on the spectrum on every
issue. I think most of us inour own politics are all. And so
(10:58):
for me, for instance, I'm forlower corporate taxes, but I'm for
stricter regulation offirearms. Now one of those puts me
on the left and one of thoseputs me on the right. And if I were
to try to sign up for a majorparty, they'd say, well, if you're
a Republican, we want you onlower corporate taxes, but don't
talk about firearm regulation.And Democrats would say, talk about
firearm regulations but don'ttalk about lower corporate taxes.
(11:20):
And, and so what I believewhen I made that statement to Bill
Maher, I believe today mostpeople want the liberation to simply
believe what they believe inpolitics and not to have to subscribe
to being in the same place onthe left, right spectrum on every
issue. Multiple parties wouldbe a cure to that. But the barriers
to entry are real. Andfrankly, the cost to launch a national
(11:44):
party starts at $100 million.And if there's a benefactor out there,
you know, a Bloomberg typethat's interested in a multi party
democracy, this is differentthan running an independent race
for office to build theinfrastructure of a party starts
at $100 million.
So what about an independentcandidacy somewhere in Florida? Anything?
Have you, have you thoughtabout that? Instead of doing, you
(12:06):
tried to start the party and Ithink you guys did a terrific job,
I mean, considering all theimpediments out there. But what about
Florida? What about Florida?Why don't you just run for something
down there, my friend?
Yeah, so listen, I, I didn'tdodge questions when I was in office.
I'm certainly not going tododge it when I'm out. I am actively
considering to run forgovernor of Florida in 2026. I have,
(12:29):
I considered at each of thelast two cycles and made the right
decision, likely to forego ateach of the last two cycles. This
cycle is very different. Youknow, my, my politics and my personal
life are in a different placetoday than they were four years ago
or eight years ago. But alsothe politics in the state of Florida.
You know, the world's beenwatching. Florida's basically driving
(12:50):
itself off a cliff undersupermajority Republican control
right now. We've become a homefor the rich and the reckless. We
have an affordability crisis,a crisis in our schools, a crisis
of corruption in Tallahassee.And remarkably, we have an open seat
for the governorship in 26,which provides for an intriguing
dynamic. The generic ballot ischallenging in Florida. Republicans
(13:10):
have increased their strengthand you know, two years ago DeSantis
won reelection by 19 points.Now that was a bit of an outlier.
We were used to two or threepoint races, but this past November
was still strong Republicannumbers. I mean, it was a 13, 14
point win for Donald Trump andfor, for Rick Scott's reelection.
So it raises some questions.What does a coalition in Florida
(13:33):
look like to bring us backfrom total Republican control? I
think there's some hardquestions whether or not a Democratic
nominee in Florida could winin 2026. But could an no party affiliate
in Florida and NPA, could anNPA build a coalition that allies
with strong Democrats andbuilds a coalition for the state
of Florida that could toppleRepublican control? I'm actively
(13:56):
looking at that and I ThinkFlorida Democrats are doing a lot
of soul searching as well. ButI can tell you going around the state
and frankly around the countryon this, the level of intensity and
activism among Democrats isreal right now. People are angry
and I think we could see areally disruptive election in next
November, particularly at thenational level with Democrats likely
(14:19):
taking back Congress andgetting some oversight control of
the administration. But all ofa sudden states like Florida could
come into play as well for astrong Democratic or NPA aligned
Democratic ticket for thegovernorship. So we're actively looking
at it.
That's terrific. I'm glad tohear that. And have you made any
announcement on that front oris this going to be news to our listeners?
(14:40):
It'll, it'll probably be news.I haven't hidden it, but I haven't
been working the press on iteither. So I've done a lot of, a
lot of Democratic meetings inFlorida and sharing it when asked.
So I think it's starting toget out there. But it's probably
the first media I've done onit. So you can break that.
Okay, cool. Well, we will. Wecertainly will. So what, what's it
take to get on the ballotthere, David?
(15:02):
So if you are an independent,it's not difficult to get on the
ballot. You can run all theway through November. You know, in
starting the new party, Ilearned about all the barriers that
the major parties put onindependent candidates. Primary barrier
in state of Florida is aroundcampaign finance. If you run as a
Republican or Democrat, youcan essentially take unlimited money.
Now that money has to gothrough the party. But as an independent,
(15:25):
I'm limited to raising $3,300a person in hard money for the candidate
and that's it. There is nopass through vehicle. If I were to
run as a Democrat, you canraise a 3,300, but you know, Joe
Smith could write a $10million check to the party for the
campaign of David Jolly and itpasses right through. And that's
how the major parties restrictkind of viable independent candidacies
(15:49):
and even minor parties fromnominating people in the state of
Florida. And look, I also, I'mvery sensitive to whether or not
I just, look, I want us towin. And when I say us, I mean the
coalition of Floridians thatare tired of super majority Republican
malfeasance and irresponsiblegoverning. I just want us to win.
Now that means I may be thecandidate, it might be somebody else.
(16:12):
I just want us to win. I thinkI'm in a strong position as a candidate,
but I gladly support astronger candidate should they emerge.
The second piece of that is,what does that coalition and strategy
look like? Is it running as aDemocrat but building the coalition
of independents with you, oris it running as an independent and
building the coalition ofDemocrats with you? It's really the
same coalition, but it becomesa real strategic question. Because
(16:35):
in either scenario, formyself, as a former Republican, now
independent, with a lot offree thinking in politics, the theory
of the case is the same. Thecandidacy has to break through the
brand of either today'sDemocratic party in Florida or of
the independent movement.Right. You really need a breakthrough
moment where a majority ofFloridians can see it and say, you
(16:55):
know what? This is thecoalition that I feel at home in,
and I want to go in thatdirection. The question of the vehicle
or the vessel becomes one ofdata and strategy. Is it smart to
lead this coalition as anindependent or is it smart to lead
it as a Democrat? I'm anatural ally of today's Democrats.
I fought alongside them thelast six or eight years. And I think
(17:17):
their fundamental convictionsare right for the future of the state
and the country. So we've gotto figure all that out by, really,
June 1st of this year. I'dhave to make that decision.
Well, I. I hope you run. Ihope you run as an independent. We
figure out how to work withDemocrats down there. You know, we
have similar impediments herein North Carolina. I looked at running
as an independent out here inwestern North Carolina, and I had
(17:40):
to get signatures to even geton a state senate ballot.
Right.
And that's tough. That'sreally tough. So my, my advice on
winning in Florida is, is puttogether the lower your insurance
rates party. I ran, I also ranstatewide for insurance commissioner.
Got my ass kicked. But, man,North Carolina is close to emulating
(18:04):
what's going on in Florida.What would you do as governor to
help folks with theirinsurance rates and get those down
in rate?
Well, you probably don't knowthis, David, but I actually authored
national Catastrophic Planwhen I was in Congress. And the idea
at the national level and atthe state level is to have a national
catastrophic fund or a statecatastrophic fund. And ideally, you'd
(18:26):
have both. You'd have thenational cat fund, backstopping state
cap funds that essentiallyabsorb and take off of private underwriters,
the high natural disasterperils, the highest natural disaster
peril. So hurricanes in thesoutheast, wildfires in the west,
ice storms, flooding in theCarolinas, you name it. The idea
(18:46):
would Be fund it througheither a doc tax on every real estate
transaction, a stamp tax.There's been some proposals that,
you know, you could add apoint or two to property tax bills,
but basically fund a robuststate catastrophic fund that absorbs
the natural disaster perils,the natural disaster risk and high
(19:08):
risk corridors, and allowsinsurance companies, private insurance
companies, to simplyunderwrite the traditional risks
of home ownership. But you'vegot your thumb on something we're
experiencing in Florida,California, certainly Carolina. Now,
this is going to spreadbecause as the incident rate of natural
disasters rises, it pushesprivate insurers out. And so I talk
(19:29):
about in Florida really threethings they're all largely attached
to. An affordability crisis isthe umbrella. But we have an insurance
crisis that needs to get fixedbecause it's leading to an affordability
crisis for homeownership, forrentals, and frankly, for just the
cost of living. In the stateof Florida, we got a crisis in our
public schools. We have chaseda voucher school choice program,
(19:51):
but it is not school choice ifon one side you have well funded
private schools and on theother side you have underfunded public
schools. That's not a choicein the name of school choice. We've
starved our public schools.And I think Florida should have the
best public school system inthe entire world. And we need to
reinvest in more schools andmore communities with more teachers
making more money. And thatcontributes to what is also part
(20:12):
of the affordability crisis,because families feel like they've
got to go pay for privateschooling now in the state of Florida.
And then the third leg of thestool is we've got a corruption crisis.
Our campaign finance laws, Imentioned one of them already in
terms of how they, how you canrun candidates with unlimited money.
But we essentially allow ourelected leaders to have slush funds
(20:32):
that corporate Florida paysinto with very little oversight.
Our governor right now isstill taking corporate checks into
a political action committeethat has complete control over, but
he's not a candidate foranything. And the amount of money
from going in from regulatedindustries, going to the regulators
and the politicians is acorruption right now. That you could
make an argument it's a fullcircle has contributed to the insurance
(20:55):
crisis and affordabilitycrisis we have right now.
You know, when people ask mehow we got in the state that we're
in now, I think, you know, twothings that always cite are, you
know, first was the end of thefairness doctrine back in 1987 because,
you know, before that youcouldn't have a Fox News or really
an MSNBC when, when networkswere required to, to give both sides
an opportunity to expresstheir views and then follow that
(21:18):
up with citizens united in2010 in this influx of money, which
for, I guess for Elon Musk,you know, that, what, $290 million,
he's getting a good return onhis investment. But if you combine
those two things, I think thatin large part kind of led us to,
to where we are today. Andwhen you're in Congress, you. You
tried to push through a billthat would ban members of Congress
(21:40):
from directly solicitingcampaign contribution. That's right.
How do we get the corruptinginfluence of money out of our politics?
We have the most corruptcampaign finance system in the modern
world. I suppose there arecountries that it's just pure graft
where you can pay off people,but ours is really, really bad. And,
you know, I listen. I, broadlyspeaking, my political journey, one
(22:02):
of my colleagues and at timesnemesis in politics, Charlie Chris,
most people know who he is,changed parties a few times. And
he would used to say that Ididn't leave the party, the party
left me. I don't one, I don'treally believe that when he says
it, but, but that's also notmy theory. And in my political journey,
I test a different theory,which is I've changed my mind. And
(22:22):
is it okay to change your mindin politics? And that's on a lot
of issues that's on, on thefundamentals of Roe v. Roe v. Wade,
for instance. I, growing uppro life was mistaken to think that
pro life meant you had to beanti Roe. And it took serving and
representing and reallyworking on the issues to realize
in my personal politicalbelief, I think Roe v. Wade's the
(22:42):
exact right framework and weneed to bring it back on guns. That's
another perfect example whereI grew up thinking if you're a Republican,
you've got to be for, youknow, unlimited Second Amendment
rights, there should be noregulation. But I quickly realized,
no, there has to be. And theSecond Amendment isn't outside the
reach of regulation and weneed more regulation around firearms.
(23:04):
But on the issue of money,that's another great example. I would
have made the argument as ayoung Republican getting trained
up in, call it Republicanschool, that money is speech and
speech should be unlimited andthere shouldn't be any restriction.
Now I'm for public financingand campaigns, and I think we should
prohibit just about everycontribution that's made today to
politicians. Now, you're rightabout the courts, Mo. The courts
(23:25):
have recognized that mostrestrictions don't pass constitutional
muster under this currentjudiciary. So what I did in Congress
is I tried to work within thelaw and the Constitution as it's
seen to see where could we putsome real handcuffs on the most corrupting
influence. And so I introduceda bill called the STOP Act. It was
only two pages and we, wemurder boarded it for months to make
(23:47):
sure we had it really tight.And all it, all it would do is prohibit
a city member of Congress fromdirectly soliciting a campaign contract.
And it comes at the issue twoways, obviously. The first is the
corrupt corruption angle. Getmembers of Congress out of being
the telemarketers and ask themfor money. But the second is time.
Members of Congress on allsides of the aisle spend 60 to 70%
(24:10):
of their time raising money,not legislating. So my idea was if
we prohibit them from doingthe direct ask, from having to work
the phones all day and removefundraising from their personal activities,
maybe we'll get a full timeCongress in a full time world because
we don't have it right now.And a couple carve outs were your
campaign could still raisemoney, right? There wasn't really
(24:30):
a good way to say a campaigncouldn't raise money and still pass
constitutional mustard. Soyour campaign finance chair could
still raise money. Your staffcould, but it removed the member
from the process and from theask. And then the second, the rule
didn't apply to a challengerbecause my argument was if you're
a challenger, the opportunitycosts of going out and raising money
is a private opportunity. IfI'm a teacher who's also the more
(24:54):
time I spend running forCongress is taking away my time to
teach or practice law orconstruction, whatever I'm doing.
But that's not, I guess withteachers it's a public job, but you're
not holding the public trustlike a political office. But once
you get elected now you holdthe public trust. And if you're not
doing your job, it's aviolation of that public trust if
you're spending more timeraising money. So it didn't apply
(25:15):
to challengers. We got about10, 12 co sponsors and we got some
60 minutes coverage on it.What we knew all the time was it
would require another scandalbefore people will realize campaign
finance is really an issue Iwant to work on. We've got a long
ways to go on campaignfinance. But I promise you what we
all feel is absolutely true.There's a corruptive influence to
(25:38):
money in politics. Andunfortunately the current certainly
in Florida, current RepublicanParty. And I think you could take
some Hits on Democrats acrossthe country on this as well. They're
just fine with the system howit is because they benefit from it.
But at some point we've got tostand up and disrupt it and break
it up.
Yeah, when I ran in 2020, weraised about $2.3 million. And anytime
(25:59):
I think about running again, Iremember those hours spent begging
for money on the telephone.And it really deters me from wanting
to get back in. But if you getelected, particularly on the House
side, by the time you getsworn in in January, you're just
22 months away from facing thevoters again. And you've got to raise
100 to $200,000 a month tokeep your job. And that's right to
(26:23):
me, you know, raising thatkind of money is a job.
So it is a job. You're, it's afull time telemarketing job. And
you know the, the sad part ofthis, what might actually cure it
is also going to make itworse, which is because of the amount
of unlimited outside money.Many of these seats, particularly
these swing seats, have becomecommodities for special interest
groups with unlimited outsidemoney. So take your race, Mo. If
(26:46):
it was a truly, it maybe was,I don't know the RD makeup of it.
But if it was a true swingswing seat, the national special
interest groups would come inwith unlimited money and would outspend
you even as the candidate, 10to 1, 20 to 1. A good example when
I ran this was 10 plus yearsago. There was about $20 million
(27:06):
spent in 10 weeks. The twocandidates only raised three or four
of that. So another, so 16million or so was outside money that
we didn't control that definedboth of our candidacies. And they
just wanted a win for theirside of the aisle. So what might
cure the demands you wentthrough is the fact that the outside
(27:27):
special interest groups havethe power to outspend you even on
your side. Even the onessupporting you can outspend you 10
to 1. The ones opposing youcan outspend you 10 to 1. And eventually
the candidate doesn't matterin a campaign system like that. The
seat just becomes a commodityof special interests in the national
party.
We talked about fixingCongress. Let's talk about the Congress
that we've got recently. Yousaid in the interview it's a quote.
(27:50):
I don't think Republicans inCongress know what they're doing
right now. And you referred toit as a constitutional crisis. And
you said Congress is, I thinkyour term. You said they were meaningless.
I believe I don't get it what's.
The point in having Congressif there's going to be a rubber stamp
for the administration?
Yeah, Congress has collapsed.Look, I, I think, and I do believe
we're in a constitutionalcrisis because administration is
(28:13):
acting with lawlessness andthat underlies everything. Democrats
are shooting a lot of darts atthe board trying to figure out, are
we going to attack doge, arewe going to attack the cuts to veterans
and usaid, are we going toattack Social Security, Medicare
cuts? What underlies all this,and it's not too sexy, unfortunately
it should be, is a level oflawlessness. What Donald Trump is
doing, he doesn't have theconstitutional authority to do. But
(28:35):
it only matters if Congresssteps up and provides the accountability,
because constitutionally, thetwo checks on a lawless president
or the courts, which takestime, there's a latency to it. And
we sometimes see them work andsometimes we don't. But the emergency
firefighters in theConstitution or the Congress who
can rush into the fire withaccountability mechanism, putting
(28:57):
handcuffs on a president'sability to act, using statutes like
the Impoundment act to say youhave to spend the money that we're
providing, holdingcongressional hearings or even holding
impeachment hearings. We arein a constitutional crisis not just
because Donald Trump is actinglawlessly, but because the Republican
con has collapsed and doesn'tcare that he's acting lawlessly.
(29:17):
And I think that's an areajust. We're doing unprecedented damage
right now to the institutionof the Congress, but also to the
Constitution itself. Andperhaps it takes the crisis arriving
at the doorstep of everyAmerican home to realize that this,
this regime of Donald Trumpand Republicans on the Hill is really
tearing at the fabric of whowe are as a country and breaking
(29:40):
us down. I think the onlything that Donald Trump, the only
tool that could get him out ofthe mess he's creating is a white
hot economy next summer. If hehasn't built a lazing economy by
next summer, Republicans areheading to the ultimate accountability,
which are voters who's goingto, who are going to show up and
throw a lot of Republicans outof office.
Now, there's always hope.
Yeah, right.
(30:00):
So, so Representative Jolly,you, you were in Congress for what,
three terms?
No, just two. Two.
All right.
I ended up with about fourdistricts. And in three years, and
the last, the last district,that was all she wrote, I became
the most vulnerable member of Congress.
Well, it should have beenthree. So what's the weirdest conversation
you ever had on, on the floorand with whom?
(30:23):
Oh, that's a good one. Youknow, you end up getting to know
people on a personal leveland, and you make some good friends.
I'll tell you today, one of mygreat friends in politics is Mark
Sanford, and people know himfor controversy and the love gov.
And maybe you like hispolitics or you hate his politics.
But, but when you get to knowsomebody for their failings and their
frailty and you realize, youknow, their willingness to account
(30:47):
for their own failings, youget to see people in a way perhaps
you don't see them on tv. Atthe same time, you know, there's
some real clowns that serve inCongress. There's a bell curve to
it. And I, I think I had a fewdispiriting ones. And I'm just going
to take some targets, takesome shots at, at Republicans right
now. You know, we, I, I wasserving at a time Obama was in, he
was on his way out. And wewere attacking Obama for the pen
(31:10):
and the phone comment and forsome things that we said. He didn't
have the executive authorityto do it. Congress had to do it.
Particularly take immigrationreform. He doesn't have the authority
to use his pen and his phoneon immigration. We have that power
as a Congress. Well,Republicans would end the story there.
And I would always say, okay,well, then it's our authorities.
Now what are we doing to fixit? And I remember one night saying
(31:31):
to a member of leadership, themajority whip at the time, I said,
tell me when we're going toput immigration reform on the House
floor and I'll support you forleader. And he looked at me and he
said, do you know what theAmerican people would do to us if
we actually voted onimmigration reform? And it was the
moment when I realized, thefix is in. We're not doing any of
(31:52):
this. There was also, I tookan approach to sponsoring legislation
before it was perfected. WhatI mean by that is if it was a good
idea on the left or the right,even as a Republican, I'd put my
name on it to say, yeah, let'smove this forward. Let's get this
into committee. Let's get iton the floor and have the debate.
So one of those examples wasthe estate tax repeal, the death
(32:13):
tax, Republicans like to callit. And I forget how much money that
particular repeal at the timeadded to the debt. And so my presumption
was, we're going to figurethis out, and before we vote on it,
we'll figure out how to payfor it. And so they scheduled it
for a vote on the House floor.And I went up to Paul Ryan, and he
was the chair, Ways and Meansat the time. And I said, hey, Paul,
(32:33):
I know we scheduled this vote.Have we figured out how we're going
to pay for it? And he lookedat me and he said, oh, we don't pay
for tax cuts. And it wasanother one of those moments. I thought,
oh, I get it, I get it. So,you know, those are the moments where
you realize, wow, this. Thereis a level of irresponsibility. Other
stuff, I'll tell you, alwayssurprised me. Votes after dinner.
(32:56):
There were certainly a numberof people who enjoyed their alcohol
at dinner. So you could seesome spirited arguments, or you could
see some people takingadvantage and getting some deals
done they couldn't get donewhen the other member was sober.
Maybe saw a couple come tofisticuffs a couple times. But, you
know, it. The House is like aplayground. I like to refer to it.
It's like a playground, and itcan be messy. I fundamentally believe
(33:19):
in the Congress. I grew upworking there. I didn't think I would
ever serve, but I did. But Iliken it to any baseball fans out
there. Serving in Congress waslike. Was like baseball. I woke up
every morning, it felt likespring training and your team could
make the series. I went to bedevery night, it was August and we
were 20 games back, but. But Iwoke up again the next morning thinking
(33:41):
it was spring training and wecould make the series. It's that
type of carousel in Congresswhen you serve.
Hey, David. You know, backyears ago, I was the head of Foreign
Affairs, Defense and Trade atCongressional Research Service. And
I had a guy that worked for methat Pat Tao, who had been a reporter
for CQ Roll Call for years.
Sure, sure.
And occasionally he and Iwould go over and sit in the gallery.
And I remember one time we'resitting there as a vote taking place,
(34:03):
and he said the thing to himthat really had degraded Congress
were cell phones. And that'sright. He said, watch as people would
vote. He said, you know,they'd go up and vote, then they'd
sit down, you could seethey're tweeting and, you know, doing
all their social media stuff.And he said, in the old days, you
know, a member would go up andvote, then they'd walk over and talk
to somebody else, and then agroup would form and you'd have conversations.
(34:24):
He said, watch them. Now everyjust goes to their own corner and
gets on their phone. And hesaid, they just don't have the relationships
like they did back in the olddays. I don't know how we get back.
I agree with you. And thereare a number of things, I think,
that broke down in parallel,you know, when you were there. There
also is committees actuallydid work. We had conference committees.
When legislation differed,appropriations and budgeting stayed
(34:46):
on an annual schedule. Andwhat happened over the years is as
members started to lose theirresponsibilities, leadership began
to take a greater control. Andultimately committees mean very little
when it comes to consequentiallegislation. The speaker's office
essentially writes it andpushes it down on the committees.
(35:07):
And then you go to the floor,there's never really much debate.
And this is on the left andthe right. I mean, I think there
were fewer open amendmentprocesses under Nancy Pelosi than
any other speaker. Butleadership really shuts down any
real debate. And so a lot ofthose members on their phones show
up with a card that says,these are the next eight votes. And
this is the way our side ofthe aisle is voting. And it's just
(35:28):
a matter of killing time inbetween votes because there's no
suspense to it. I, I just, youknow, I remember a couple speeches
I would give on the Housefloor. One of them that got picked
up was me screaming about a, Ithink it was an appropriations package.
And I remember screaming, wehad the votes to pass this last night.
If we drop the R's and the D'snext to our name, we actually had
(35:49):
the vote. And then the partiesgot involved. There also was one,
one particularly heartbreakingmoment. Many people remember the
shooting at the Pulsenightclub. And the one gun issue
that emerged from there wasthe shooter was on the no fly list,
but was still able to purchasea high capacity firearm. And so naturally,
(36:09):
most Americans would say, ifyou're on the no fly list, you shouldn't
be able to buy a gun. And theright threw up all these issues about
due process, about the no flylist. And they were right. Due process
on the no fly list, there'sinsufficient due process. So they
would say, you can't justprohibit somebody from buying a gun.
And that was it. That was theend of the debate. And I went to
the well, and I said, well,why don't we just add due process
to the purchase of the gunthen and put the burden on the government.
(36:33):
You can have a classified orcontrolled hearing in front of a
judge, but if the, if thegovernment is going to prohibit you
from buying a weapon, thenthey should have to satisfy the burden
of proof in front of a judgeas to why we can add due process
to this. And the moment I didthat. It was, you know, Republicans
were like, whoa, whoa, whoa,we can't talk about that. We're not.
That's not. It's not how wesolve this. We solve this by shutting
(36:55):
it down. And. And I think it.There's just such a lack of critical
thinking in Congress rightnow, and you could argue in our body
politics across the country,we've lost the ability to embrace
critical thinking. Butunfortunately, it has real consequences
for the world's most powerfullegislative bodies if it legislates
out of ignorance and leads usto the result we see today.
Well, you're a truth teller,David, and you're very articulate
(37:19):
as well. If there was oneunfiltered truth you could tell,
you know, every citizen andevery voter in Florida, what would
that be? I mean, and let's,you know, get down into your soul
here so folks can get to knowyou a little bit better. What's that
one unfiltered truth?
Look, I think all of ourpolitics today, I don't know that
this is profound, but is sohamstrung by our personal identification
(37:43):
with party. And GeorgeWashington warned us about it. George
Washington warned us aboutthis. And we approach politics today
through our party identity.And I don't think we realize how
much it restricts our ownability to think and to participate
effectively in our democracy.We almost restrict our own franchise
(38:04):
by thinking my job is to be aloyal Democrat or a loyal Republican,
and I think it's true in theindependent space as well, to immediately
be suspicious of Republicansand Democrats. That's equally shortsighted.
You know, if I were to run foroffice, I think there's. There's
smart ideas on both sides ofthe aisle. I. I have been public
in saying that I think today'sRepublican Party is going in the
(38:25):
wrong direction. But there aresome Republican ideas in Tallahassee
today that are good ones.There's a leading Republican fighting
for a rural Renaissance toinvest $200 million in rural communities
that continue to losepopulations. The investments would
go into access to healthcareand education and improved infrastructure
so that people across thestate could have opportunities like
(38:45):
we see in only certain wealthypockets. I think that's a fantastic
idea. My guess is mostDemocrats will reflexively oppose
it because it's introduced bya leading Republican. And I think
all of us have to be carefulabout reaching first for our party
identity or because we're anindependent, being suspicious of
the parties. If we can dropwhat we see as some type of personal
(39:07):
identity or affiliation of ourpersonal politics with a Major party.
I actually think most of uswant the same things. We want a government
that works for as many peopleas possible, an economy that grows
and empowers the most numberof people possible. Those are the
basics. A government thatworks in an economy that grows. The
moment we start relyingstrictly on one party or the other
(39:28):
to provide that for us, Ithink we've lost the plot.
You know, it seems like intoday's environment that DEI has
become code for the N word. Iwas looking at something you wrote
not, not too many years backwhere you're talking about celebrating
diversity. And you saidcelebrating diversity is about, quote,
communal strength that emergesfrom valuing everyone's individual
story, their personal beliefsystem, recognizing their truth with
(39:51):
equity. That.
That's right.
That doesn't sound very Republican.
You know, it's also somethingI don't think Republicans should
be afra of. Listen, I went toEmory University and as I mentioned,
a rural preacher's kid neverreally exposed to much diversity.
And my first week there, theytried to cram it down my throat and
I rejected it because I justthought it was. Honestly I just had
(40:15):
never experienced it. Right.And I thought, I grew up thinking
we all have the sameopportunities. We all, you know,
we're all born who we are. Whydo we make an issue of our differences
and why are we celebratingdifferences? We should just focus
on individual opportunity. Ithink from a policy perspective,
it's important to recognizethat equality of opportunity requires
(40:36):
changes in law because we'renot all born with the same opportunity.
We're simply not. AndRepublicans are short sighted when
they say everyone's born withthe same opportunity. So we don't
need any laws. That's nottrue. Depending on what zip code
you're in, your opportunitiesare very, very varied. So one, I
think we have to recognizethat, that from a socioeconomic and
(40:56):
demographic perspective, we,as a result of willfulness or willful
negligence, millions ofAmericans today, through their party
participation, are okay with apermanent underclass. And I think
that's wrong. I think that'swrong. And so I think from a policy
perspective, it is importantthat we recognize diversity. But
(41:16):
I also think from a culturalperspective, we have the opportunity
to really grow the country andstrengthen the country. I want my
children to as many culturaldifferences, as many different fates
as possible to books that pushtheir boundaries, challenge their
religious beliefs andchallenge their intellect. And at
home we can orient our, ourfamily around the value set that's
(41:39):
right for our family. But Iwant them to be exposed as much as
possible so that when theyhave the opportunity to choose what's
right for them, they can dothat and they can celebrate it themselves.
I'm not afraid of dei. I thinkthe attack on DEI is understandable
because perhaps you couldargue it's been imbalanced in certain
places. But the worst thingthat could happen from it, from the
(42:01):
perspective of attacking DEIis to actually also attack diversity.
Well, that's a nice way to endthis conversation. Representative
Jolly, we really appreciateyour time and insights and service
to our country. You're aterrific guy. I'm a big fan of yours
and enjoyed getting to knowyou a little bit better today. For
our listeners.
(42:21):
I appreciate it.
Yeah, for our listeners. Wherecan they learn more about you? David?
You know, look, I've got awebsite, davidjolly.com that has
a mailbox. You could, youcould certainly drop me a note. But
I'm largely off socials. Ijumped that shark a year or two ago.
But to get in touch with me,just get onto davidjali.com and there's
a mailbox there.
Okay, cool. And Moe, why don'twe do another plug for your book?
(42:44):
Yeah, well, thanks. The book'scalled Sovereign Oak. It's a historical
novel. Interestingly, today inthe local paper there's a story about,
you know, the hurricane washedout the railroad and it's going to
be rebuilt. But it notes inthe article, in the article that
the railroad was built byAfrican Americans that were largely
arrested and convicted onbogus crimes to create a labor pool
(43:05):
to build the railroad. Sothat's one part of the of the book
is based on that story. Again,100% of the proceeds are going to
hurricane relief. And you canfind Sovereign Oak on Amazon.com
Terrific to our listeners.
If this conversation made youthink, if it gave you a new perspective,
share it. Please subscribe,leave a review and join us next Time
for another deep dive. Thishas been Muck you. I'm David Wheeler
(43:27):
and thanks to my friendColonel Moe Davis for co hosting
today. Please stay informed,stay engaged, take a moment to look
at the bigger picture. See younext time.
This has been Muck you cohosted by Colonel Moe Davis in Asheville,
North Carolina and DavidWheeler in Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
Thanks to our friend and guesttoday, Representative David Jolly.
You can learn more aboutRepresentative Jolly @ davidjolly.com
(43:50):
Muck you is produced byAmerican Muckrakers. Copyright 2025.
You can learn more atamericanmuckrakers.com and follow
us on X and Blue sky underAmerican Muck. You know who made
(44:14):
it.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.