Episode 194: The Controversial Guardians of Truth? Or Protectors Of Lies?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, there's no better way for you and I to
slack than to bring in a guest.

Speaker 3 (00:12):
Okay, yeah, because I can kind of relax, I'm going to
get kicked back back here.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Yeah, I know You're good, Exactly.

Speaker 3 (00:17):
Because usually when there is another newsie on here.
I don't have to say much.
I just let you two banter itaway.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
I just kind of sit here as like a prop.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Well, no, we're going to wind up.
Jeff Tucker, AlbuquerqueJournal Editorial Board, a guy
who is well known for being veryadroit at endorsing candidates
and endorsing the rightcandidates.
That's right Now you were 0 for2 endorsing me, but don't blame
us.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
We endorsed Ron Kenney.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
I'll tell you.
I will say this During thecampaign, the best endorsement I
got was from the journal in thegovernor's race.
It was comprehensive and it wasincredible.
I still have it because theysaved it.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
It's one of the few things they saved.
I have to give my former boss,Deval Westfall, a lot of credit
for that.
She wrote the final version.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Yeah, it was great.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Well, we appreciate that, but I have a feeling you
guys got a little grief for that.
Would that be a fair assessment?

Speaker 1 (01:06):
We catch grief from time to time in our endorsements
, but who else is going toendorse someone other than the
established Democratic candidate?
Yeah, and in your case I thinkyou were treated rather unfairly
.
Overall.
The TV weather guy you knewyour issues.
Overall the TV weather guy heknew your issues.
You took a bold move movingfrom chief meteorologist at a

(01:29):
major TV station, put it all onthe line.
I always respected that.
I thought that was a reallybold move and when you came in
the race well, the first one inthe Senate race you proved that
you knew the issues.
You were on top of things andI'd like to tell your viewers
how I found out I was the firstone you were going to run for
Senate.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Yeah, yeah, go ahead I just find out.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Well, I pieced it together.
I was in Hobbs at the time andI guess I can name names Claire
Chase yeah, told me thatmeteorologists from Albuquerque
may be running for the US Senate, so then I started trying to
piece it together.

Speaker 2 (02:07):
I'm like, well, I don't think that's going to be
Joe Diaz.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Although Joe is a pretty fiery political guy.
Yeah, he does get fired.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
Very well known.
Probably he may have had a goodchance.
Yeah, so then, after that, Istarted poking around and one of
your cameramen at KRQE, trevierGonzalez.
He told me that there was amock debate that you had stood
in for, steve Pierce.
I don't know if that's true ornot.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
Yeah, I may have.
When we were doing cameraangles and stuff like that,
playing around Sounds like thesecond piece that put it
together.
Okay, that's not reallyconnected, but okay.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
Well, he's got a Republican lean, he'll stand up
and take the Republican side ofissues.
Sure, yeah, you bet.
And I talked to a couple otherpeople that didn't know each
other in Roswell, where I workedbefore I went to Hobbs before I
came here, and two of themindependently told me that you
were going to run for Senate.
So I was in transition at thetime, moving from the Hobbs News
Sun to the Albuquerque Journal,and I really didn't have a

(02:58):
paper to write, for I firstheard you were going to run in
October of 2019.
Right, and I really got someconfirmation in December and I
told Trevier.
I said, man, you've got to walkby his office and just ask him
to call me.
I know he's not going to beable to say anything he's under
contract and everything else butI'm pretty sure he's going to
run for US Senate Yep.
So my very first editorialboard meeting at the journal, I

(03:21):
think it was January 6th of 2020.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
The day before I announced.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Yeah.
I said hey, mark McCuddy'sgoing to run for the Senate.
And one of the board memberssays why would he want to be in
the state Senate?
I said no, no, no, no, no, he'srunning for US Senate.
And then all of a sudden it wasTV weather guy running for US
Senate.
Right, like don't rule this Now.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
we made a good run at that one.
But yeah, interesting, Look atyou.

Speaker 3 (03:44):
Oh, I think you knew before me, then if he knew in
October of yeah, well, you did.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
Well, we were thinking about it.
Obviously you knew before.

Speaker 1 (03:50):
I did.
That's what I first told me,yeah.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
Okay yeah.
I wasn't part of thoseconversations.
I guess, yeah, I brought you inwhen I felt like you needed to
know.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
No, no no, no, that's amazing stuff.
Well, I will say the thingabout the journalists and and
the reason we want to have youon is because, if you go back,
even over the past couple ofyears, but really the past five
plus years which I know you'vebeen there, yeah, you guys have
been kind of the bulwark againsta orthodoxy now where we don't
have a media pushback in thestate.
It just doesn't exist.
You see what the televisionstations do and you watch it and

(04:21):
go, okay, you see what thetelevision stations do and you
watch it and go, okay, this is arubber stamp.
They're ill-equipped to evenask questions anymore because
for a variety of reasons, butone of those reasons is they
don't want to.
And then you guys, even on yournews pages, I'll tell you,
sometimes I read your news pagesand I have trouble accepting a
lot of it.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Some people say they got whiplash reading our news
stories and then reading oureditorial.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
You guys like the.

Speaker 1 (04:43):
Wall Street Journal.
I say, hey, that's a whole idea.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
It gives me another perspective on things.
Yeah, yeah, no, it'sinteresting.
So where do you think we are asa state as far as holding
powerful accountable?

Speaker 1 (04:54):
We're in a very poor situation now.
Every office occupied byDemocrats, total control of the
legislature.
Just really not caring whatparts of the state believe.
Shoot.
Here in Albuquerque, more than40% of the people are
Republicans.
You wouldn't know that We'vegot to do a good job.

(05:17):
If there was something thathappened I know we're going to
talk about, like the Bidenhealth situation, Do you think
we'd report that?
No.
We'd be the last ones to know.
I'm not talking about the Bidenhealth situation.
Do you think we'd report that?
No, we'd be the last ones toknow.
Yeah, I'm not talking about thejournal there.
I'm just talking about themedia in general, the general
environment.
We're just not aggressive withthose in power and people are
getting on me all the time.
Why are you so harsh on thegovernor?

(05:38):
Why are you so harsh on MelanieStansbury and Martin Heiner?
Because you're the ones inpower.
You don't even want me to writeabout Coey Griffin and Steve
Pierce week after week.
It would be senseless.
And who wants to read that?
You need to hold the peoplethat are in power accountable,
and that's what I've taken greatpride in doing at the journal.
I'm so proud that they've givenme the opportunity to do that.
We've won awards and we'vetaken all kinds of things and

(06:03):
arrows on it.
That's been the most rewardingpart about this job in
Albuquerque has been able totake on people in power and call
out, like Martin Heinrich'sPuerto Rican Status Act and how
that could cost the state.
It's one of its house members.
No one.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
It's unreal.
No one asked him that about hisbill ever.
Yeah, and really, what thatgets back to is what he's
advocating for is additionalSenate seats going to places
like DC and Puerto Rico Houseseats, excuse me.
And then that would effectivelybring us down to five electoral
votes and two members of theHouse versus three.
Well, we have five electoralvotes.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
Now If Puerto Rico became a state, they'd
automatically get four and theHouse would temporarily increase
until the next census.
Then it would go back down to435, which means those four
Puerto Rican representativeswould come from other states.
There's no other way of lookingat it.
They'd come from somewhere elseand who knows if New Mexico is

(07:00):
kind of on the bubble of losinga House seat.
It probably is not going tohappen after the 2030 census,
but it would if Puerto Ricobecame a state, more likely.
But the point is that no onewas willing to say hey, how's
this going to work out with thereapportionment?

Speaker 2 (07:19):
It's so egregious that he should never consider it
because of how close we are tolosing a seat.
Well, since I wrote that column, he hasn't.
Yeah, yeah, no, I haven'tmentioned it again.
Oh, it's unbelievable, itreally is.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
It's something a senator from New York or
California, or a senator from astate that can't lose a House
seat, like Wyoming?
Yeah, you know, that's aminimum three.
So if the House were to expandit in Puerto Rico, they wouldn't
be affected?

Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah, because they have one House member and two
senators.
Yeah, yeah, and I think onething that's interesting.
So we're going to get into allthese different issues and we'll
get into the national stuffhere in just a second on Biden,
I'll let you do that in a second, christy, but one thing I

(08:05):
thought was interesting Ilistened to a little bit,
himself as the carrier of thisnew book.
Alex Thompson and Jake Tapperhave put out a book called
Original Sin talking about allthe cover-up for Biden and
trying to keep him in office,keep him upright, keep him out
of a wheelchair.

Speaker 1 (08:14):
Yeah, right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
And you see how egregious it was.
And it just gets worse andworse.
And we'll talk about his cancerthing here in a second.
But one thing that just struckme in listening to him was he
ran cover for so long, and somany of these guys did.
Had they not run cover forbiden, he would have been gone.
He would have been gone andthey would add another nominee,
they would not be in the spotthat they're in now.
They may have lost the election, but not like they did with

(08:37):
kamala harris.
So in a way their own behaviorled to the situation we're in
right now.
They they have themselves toblame A little poetic justice.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
Yeah, jake Tapper is one of the people that's on tape
defending going after LauraTrump for talking about Biden's
stutter.
Everyone that saw that debatesaw the kind of situation Joe
Biden was in and I wrote I thinkit was editorial at the time
saying he shouldn't just stepout of the race, he should
resign as president.
I think that was right.
Afterwards maybe July of lastyear Caught a lot of heck for

(09:07):
that.
Oh, what do you mean?
He's in great shape and thekind of argument was well,
you've got to keep Joe Biden,otherwise you're going to get
this evil threat to thedictatorship that's going to
come in here and take over thecountry and lose all our rights.
So they were just so againstTrump that they didn't want to
see what was right in front oftheir eyes, or they did and
didn't report on it.

Speaker 3 (09:29):
And now they'll get Pulitzers for it.
Well, and listening to theinterview that you're talking
about on Megyn Kelly with JakeTopper, he's kind of dancing
around it Like he'll say I'msorry, you know I have, I'm more
humble now.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
He said he's humbled, which I thought he would say
I'm humiliated.
I was humiliated by my cover.

Speaker 3 (09:46):
No, he doesn't say that.
He said humbled, which isinteresting.
He says I'm humbled and yetI've already addressed that,
megan, so let's go back tosomething else, like when she
gets him on the next thing andthe next thing and he's just
like there's so much right.
Well, I don't even know why hewould do her show.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
quite frankly, Well, bought the book.
It's sitting downstairs.
I'm gonna read it.
Yeah right, because I think I'm.

Speaker 3 (10:03):
I'm just interested to see what I'm a little
disappointed that you're givingjake topper some money, but uh.
But the other thing is you canattest to this.

Speaker 2 (10:09):
He has sources inside the democratic party.
That's who's got to tell thisstory?
All the republicans in theworld can't tell this story
because we don't know.
Well, he said.
He said you.

Speaker 3 (10:19):
he said you had direct contact with the white
house, I did not.
He he's like she said I havemore contact now with the Trump
white house than I did.
But he's like well, no, notreally, not really.
And she's like what are youtalking about?
You?
You know you were respected bythe white house under Biden, so,
anyway, it's a it's kind of anuncomfortable conversation, but
I'm glad that she's having itand I'm glad that he's actually
being put to some fire.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
Right.
Oh no, he should, I mean she.
And, by the way, for her ownaudience.
And this is part of thedifference with podcasts and
we're talking about podcastsbefore you came on that it's
sort of exploded and everybody'sgot a podcast and it's the
avenue to get information now.
Well, for your own audience.
For example, if I had MartinHeinrich on right and they were
sitting where Jeff is, I wouldhave to unload on Heinrich.
I could not sit here and bereally nice to Martin Heinrich

(11:01):
because our audience ouraudience would say what are you
doing?
Like you have them on here.
So that's part of this.
When your audience drives yourcontent, versus the other way
around, the audience doesn'tdrive your content at the
journal, you know what I mean.
News does and you can have foryour opinion, but but in, in, in
old TV audience used to notdrive content.
Advertisers did Right.
But now when your audiencedrives the content and you have

(11:23):
to gather the audience, they,they force you to stand up and
represent your audience whenyou're talking to people.
Sure you see that every nighton cable news.

Speaker 1 (11:30):
Yeah, exactly what it is the, when the holes can't
even be critical of the of theperson they're having on because
they agree with them.

Speaker 3 (11:37):
Yeah they have to agree with them yeah well, I
feel like that was an invitationfor martin hyren to join our
table.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
I feel like I can't wait to be here.
I think that he cannot wait toget here.
I just think there's zerochance he would ever do that.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
Yeah, I don't know.
Martin's not a bad guy.
We had an endorsement interviewwith Martin Heinrich and he was
nice and came in the office andhad a pleasant you know,
meaningful conversation, and Ilearned then that he's never
spoken to President Trump.
So he served throughout Trump'sfirst term and never had a
conversation with the president.

Speaker 2 (12:08):
So sometimes you learn things.
No, it's interesting, I mean,and you see the divisions and
he's very, he, just, I think allfive of our reps, senators, you
know, together are just they'repolitics first, which is a
bummer, Because we didn't usedto live in that kind of state
really I see a lot of realparallel between Martin Heiner's
third term in the Senate andMary Keller's going after a

(12:29):
third term here in Albuquerque.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
Who's excited about that?
Who sees them astransformational figures that
are really going to make adifference?

Speaker 3 (12:38):
I do not.
You're very vocal about that.

Speaker 2 (12:42):
And I think there was this thought too, that that you
know this was a five or sixpoint state.
You know, after we finished thegovernor's race it's not.
It's still a 10 plus pointstate, as we found out with
Heinrich.
So that you know you've got tomake up.
You know you don't justautomatically, and where the you
know you don't start rather isthe candidate where the last
candidate ended, like that's notquite how it goes and so we

(13:10):
have some work to do.
But I think, and I want to showyou just a quick thing here, as
long as we're on the local stuff, I, ava I want to hit a clip 17
real quick.
Um, the vote shift from 2020through 2024 in the country, and
we'll show you a little graphic.
And this is one of those thingswhere, as you look at the broad
nationwide graphic right, youcan see it's.
It's much more of a shift tothe right right Now.
You would expect that whenTrump wins the popular vote and
everything else.
But, ava, if you go in on NewMexico, what you'll notice is

(13:35):
New Mexico is shifting right inall but a couple of areas, and
you've got some interestinginformation, jeff, on where that
is most pronounced, especiallyif you look up to the center
portion of the state.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
Well, what I saw after election was a graph that
showed the Rio Grande Valley wasthe fastest growing Republican
area in the nation and kind ofinteresting Utah was the fastest
growing Democratic population.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
Yeah, because they have so many Republicans, Sure
right and they have the samething going on here we have just
in reverse.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
And there was a county in Texas, a famous county
, that Trump won, that noDemocrats won.
Well, I'm not sure how longit's been.
It's a predominantly Hispaniccounty that Trump was able to
flip along the Rio Grande inTexas, and we saw that in Las
Cruces.
We even saw it here inAlbuquerque.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
Yeah, you do, and it's weird, though the one area
you don't see it in Albuquerqueis up in the Heights.
The Heights is still trendingleft while the rest of
Albuquerque is trying to edge alittle bit right.
And then you're seeing down inLas Cruces area is interesting
North of Las Cruces.
Now you're seeing some veryclose house races there.
I think those areas you'regoing to see start to pivot.

Speaker 1 (14:39):
There was a really close one.
It would have been a little biteast of Las Cruces, I think the
candidate was Winter Rood.
Yeah, an unknown candidate thatalmost took a seat down there,
and that would have been a realsurprise, crazy, yeah.
But if Republicans are evergoing to take a house again in
New Mexico, they obviously haveto win in Albuquerque, because
this is where the Republicansare in numbers, yep, just not in

(14:59):
percentages.
Yeah, no question.

Speaker 3 (15:01):
And so, since we're talking about that, what are
your thoughts, initial thoughts,on the mayor's race with that
situation?
Because I get asked all thetime you know.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
Crowded field.
Darren White's an interestingcandidate.
Mel Keller never ruled him out.
He's never lost a race.
He knows what he's doing.
He does, he's got his base andI guess the question is how much
of that base can he holdtogether in a really crowded
field?
I guess the question is howmuch of that base can he hold
together in a really crowdedfield?
He's going to be hoisted by hisown batard here because he's
going to end up going to arunoff when the city council

(15:31):
could have got rid of runofflast year.
But he could end up regrettingthat.

Speaker 3 (15:35):
Yeah, absolutely, that was his decision.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
Yeah he vetoed the bill that passed.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Yeah, yep, so just so people know we're going to do
this so that you basically whatyou have to have now is 50
percent of the vote to becomethe mayor.
So therefore you could stillnot have a runoff, but, unlikely
when you have Ubiah's running,you have Keller running and you
have Darren Wright running,they're likely to split it up
enough so that no one's going toget to 50.
And so therefore, you have togo again six weeks later and you

(16:03):
have a turnout.
That will be what 15 percent ofthe population Of what it was
right.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yeah, so you have a very small, like the Corvallis
race last time.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
Yeah, that's why I think Darren has a shot.
I do think he has a shot to win.
We'll see what ends uphappening.
But overall, keller has amachine and when you do have a
machine and you shave down theelectorate, that tends to favor
that person.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Well, that's what they wanted.
They wanted to keep runoffs,they wanted to keep public
financing, and it causes allthese problems.
Yeah, the city council, though,is probably the most Republican
city council in the state.
Yeah, outside of maybe Roswellor a couple other areas.
So there you're seeing somepushback, but even then they run

(16:42):
into the veto of the mayor andthey can't override the mayor's
veto, and kind of same situationwe're in.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
Yeah, and then Luis Sanchez, one of the swing votes
on the city council as well.
He's running against Keller too, so we'll see what happens on
that.
But again, what's going to stopa lot of them?
We talked about this on ourlast episode.
If you want to check it out, weare.
So we had Darren White on.
We talked about the fact thatthere may be nine candidates in
the race.
They're not going to get enoughsignatures.
You're going to be down tothree or four candidates at the
most coming up here on.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
June 21st, because they're relying on public
financing.
Yep, yep, absolutely.
If that weren't the case, ifthey were out to meet with
people, to make your pitch andtry to raise money, they
wouldn't have these artificial,arbitrary thresholds that they
have to reach to be a candidate.

Speaker 3 (17:24):
Yeah, that's the amount of signatures the mayor
needs is almost as much as whatyou needed to run for governor
in a statewide race.
Yeah, it's crazy, that wascrazy.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
You know the one that surprised me in the race,
though, was Ebalio.
Yeah, this is our secondDemocratic US attorney that's
decided to run for politicaloffice, after Damon Martinez ran
for Congress.
It just seems odd to me thattwo US attorneys in a row
suddenly want to become publicofficials.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yeah, that is interesting, and then just
quickly.
But we'll just do one otherthing for you before we start to
run through the news here SamBregman any chance at all that
he wins?
I think Sam's odds on favorite.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
What For governor Get out of here?

Speaker 9 (18:04):
Oh, geez All right hold on here we go, here we go
Okay.

Speaker 3 (18:08):
And this is for the governor's race, for everybody
to listen to this.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
Sam will win outside the Metro, no doubt about it.
I'm talking about theDemocratic primary, not the oh,
me too, oh Sam's going to getjust we're going to put a bet on
this.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Okay, okay, all right , go ahead.
You go first.

Speaker 1 (18:29):
Sam will do well in Lee and Chavez and Eddie and
he'll do well in San Juan.
Holland's going to have herprogressive base here in the
Mitchell, Okay yeah, and if youget a third candidate or a
fourth candidate in there itmuddies it up a little more.
But right now, if it were justa two-person candidate, I would
go with Sam.

Speaker 2 (18:43):
Bradford.
Okay, that's the most ludicrousthing I've ever heard.
All right, so what you juststated was Sam's going to win
where basically there'stumbleweed and dirt and Deb
Haaland's going to win wherethere's actual votes.
So you've got Las Cruces.
She's going to destroy him.
So you've got Las Cruces.
She's going to destroy him.
She's going to destroy him inAlbuquerque and Santa Fe and the
race is over.

Speaker 1 (19:01):
I don't think so.
I don't think she'll destroyhim in Albuquerque.
Sam has some time here as thehe does.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
He does as the DA, but he's running as a moderate
Moderates don't win Democraticprimaries.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
Right, and that's where the outside of the metro
comes in.
More than a third of the votesin New Mexico are right here in
Albuquerque, Right, but that'sstill two-thirds.
You've got elsewhere.
And Deb Haaland is going to getdestroyed in Curry County, in
Roosevelt County, all throughoutsoutheast New Mexico where
she's seen as anti-drilling sheis For good reason and in

(19:36):
northwest New Mexico.
And Sam has some time under hisbelt as DA.
He's so well-known as alongtime public defender and he
certainly won't be out raised, Idon't think in the race.
Oh, she's going to blow himaway.

Speaker 3 (19:50):
Oh, I think she's going to destroy him.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
She's already raised $3 million.
She is a nationally.
She is a force raising money.
Now she wastes money likenobody.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
I've ever seen One reader put it well, she's also
got a very thin resume.

Speaker 2 (20:06):
Oh, she's here's the one reason you can't count
Bregman out, because she's awfuland Sam is, is good on his feet
and is a sharp candidate.
Sam is whoever you want him tobe.
Okay, I'm going to win thatdebate.
Oh, they're not debating youdon you debate him.
If you're her, you don't debatehim.
You don't debate him at all.
Now, if you're a Republican,you absolutely debate him and

(20:27):
you call him Showboat Sam andyou call him for the phony that
he is.
But that's different.
So her on the other hand, she'snever going to debate him.
You never go, unless it's theDemocratic Convention, wherever
they're holding it, coming up in26.
You briefly come in, you shakehis hand and he tries to wrestle
you onto the debate stage.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
Keep in mind a couple things.
Okay, Deb Haaland can raisemoney.
How much money does Sam give itto various candidates Sam
doesn't have?
Oh, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
Over the decades.
That's a lot of favors.
That may be, but remember she'salready raised $3.5 million.
He three and a half milliondollars.
He couldn't touch that.
He won't raise that until theyget well into the middle part of
next year.
He can't raise money on herlevel.
She goes nationally.
She is there.
She's a native American womantrying to be elected for the

(21:12):
first time in the history of thecountry.
She is the democratic party andshe is left of him.
You don't ever see the centristDemocrat win a primary.

Speaker 1 (21:19):
They don't win because that's not their
electorate.
The Rio Grande Valley is agrowing Republican area.
The state is gradually moving.
The pendulum is swinging backover.

Speaker 2 (21:28):
Not enough.
Trust me, those crazies inSanta Fe and in Albuquerque and
down in Cruces, they're going toblow away his numbers.
He's not going to get within 20points of her.
Oh.
How do you?

Speaker 1 (21:38):
like that.
That's a bull statement.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
That's a bull statement right there and Paul
Partney's hoping he doesn't,because he's a tougher general
election candidate.
There's no question.
Are you sure?
No question he is.
If he gets through the primaryhe wins.
I fully.
And I'm not saying he's not acompetent guy or a competent
candidate.
I think he's smarmy.
Smarmy, I do.
But at the same time I think hehas zero chance because of what

(22:01):
the Democratic Party is now,and it's super far left.

Speaker 1 (22:04):
All the money will go on the TV ads right, and that's
where the narratives will beformed.
You're not going to see DebHaaland on the stump talking.
No no no, she's probably noteven going to do newspaper
interviews?

Speaker 2 (22:17):
No, why would you?
No way I hired her.
If I'm her campaign, I shouldbe her campaign manager.
I'll hide her.

Speaker 3 (22:23):
Please do not be her campaign manager.

Speaker 2 (22:24):
By the end of the campaign you won't even know
what she looks like.
I won't have her anywhere.

Speaker 3 (22:27):
Oh no, you just have her like stoically standing with
the wind blowing.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
Oh absolutely, with the little dust in the hair,
overlooking the West Mesa.
That's all we're doing.

Speaker 1 (22:36):
And New Mexicans will say well, what is she going to
do for me?

Speaker 2 (22:40):
No, no, no, it doesn't matter.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
No, no, we're not doing that.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
No, I agree with you.
I agree with you.
You know you would think, butagain, she'll make a lot of
promises to people.
She'll it'll be a very surfacy,very veneer type campaign.
So that's why Sam does have achance, because she could
collapse.
She could absolutely collapse.
I'm just saying she's going tooutrace him three to one and
she's going to run to the leftof him and I've never seen a
case where the guy running tothe right of the liberal in a

(23:05):
blue state beats her.
It just doesn't happen.
If you're running in, if you'rerunning in Kentucky, that's
maybe different, right, and thenyou're Andy Beshear, that's
different.
That's not what this is.
We're not Kentucky and sotherefore, sam has nowhere to to
go.
If you're Sam and if I tell you, you're Sam's campaign manager
and I ask you, give me the firsthit you take directly at
Holland, tell me what it is,tell me the shot you take at her

(23:27):
.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
Thin resume.

Speaker 2 (23:30):
She was secretary of the interior.
She served under Joe Biden.
A member of Congress.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
She was chosen secretary of the interior.
And she did an unbelievableOver a more qualified candidate
by the name of Tom Udall she didan amazing job.

Speaker 2 (23:43):
Yeah, she.
She worked very hard for thepeople of this country.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
That's the first question I would ask is what did
you accomplish during yourtenure as a secretary of the
Senate?

Speaker 2 (23:50):
Well, you don't think she's going to come up with
some bureaucratic platter to sayShe'll say she took plans out
of public use.
No, she's going to say, yeah,I'm protecting she shut down all
the drilling.

Speaker 4 (23:59):
Come on, give me some more, give me some more, yeah
no, you're totally right, butgive me some more Like.

Speaker 2 (24:02):
If you're Bregman, what else do you say?
You have nowhere to go?
She hits Bregman.
She's like you're a Republican.
That's what she's going to sayabout Breg it.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
But he's a district attorney and that's always a
good credential to have.
That is a good credential.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
It is a good credential, but he's.
But realistically, crime is outof control and she's going to
step in and help where SamBregman hasn't.
I mean you should can actuallyliterally hit him with his own
issue on that, because he'sactually in office and this
place is still one of the mostviolent cities in the world.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
Yeah, Well, and according to Mayor Keller,
that's a good point and we aremaking progress, although the
governor is like no, wait aminute, we'll get into that, I
know.

Speaker 3 (24:47):
We have told you We've gone off the rails for 24
minutes, let's just move it onto whatever you want to talk
about.
Let's start with, let's gothrough the Biden stuff with you
and kind of work our way around, so just you kind of sit in and
you can kind of bat this stuffaround with us.
Well, I mean, honestly, this isnot a shock to any of us,
because we've had a little bitof time to be like wowed and

(25:08):
amazed about this Biden Bidenhaving cancer story.
I think it's not shocking toknow that this was well hidden
during his tenure as president,probably even before he ran for
2020 election, which is kind ofcrazy that he knew this far back
.
But let's take a listen here,because you know our buddy Joe
morning Joe.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
Yes.

Speaker 3 (25:25):
He's struggling with this one because, you know, I
think in some ways I don't knowif he's trying to get back some
clout, media credibility is hisbrothers, with Rahm Emanuel, who
was the mayor of Chicago, bigDemocratic politician, and Ari
Emanuel, who's the huge agent inLA, right.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
So Zeke Emanuel is like this long line of
Democratic power players.
He's a doctor and he's anexpert in this stuff and he's
like, yeah, guess what?
Biden knew he had this Like.
This is not something new, solisten to what he had to say on
Morning Joe.

Speaker 10 (26:03):
Incredibly respected .
You believe that it is likely,just for those just tuning in.
You believe it is likely, ifthis prostate cancer has spread
to the bone, that he could havehad it for up to a decade, but
certainly it's likely.
Would it be fair to say it'slikely to have had this for at

(26:27):
least several years?
Oh, more than several years youdon't get prostate cancer.
Again, I just want to stop you.
So this is not speculation.
So this is not speculation.
If you have prostate cancerthat is spread to the bone, then
he's most certainly.

(26:47):
You are saying, had it when hewas president of the United
States.
Oh yeah.

Speaker 6 (26:50):
He did not develop it in the last 100, 200 days.
He had it while he waspresident.
He probably had it at the startof his presidency in 2021.
Yes, that I don't think there'sany disagreement about that.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
OK, so interesting stuff there.
So we want to go to one otherclip on this too and we're going
to skip clip five.
We'll go to clip six and it'sDr Stephen Quay and he brings up
an interesting point on Bidenthat is it possible that some of
the issues that we saw withBiden are a result of his cancer
and not necessarily a result ofjust pure cognitive decline?

Speaker 10 (27:29):
Considering that he was getting presidential care
doctor.
I mean it's really strange thatwe didn't know about this from
PSA tests prior to this.

Speaker 8 (27:40):
Yeah, I mean I guess I would consider it malpractice
if I was a White House physiciannot to test a PSA in a male US
president.
I think there's another aspecthere that might be interesting
to talk about and speculateabout, which is the treatment
for this kind of cancer.
Adt, as it's called, actuallyhas as major side effects both

(28:01):
falls about 37% of men will havea fall within 12 months as well
as cognitive decline, and soI'm speculating that we may have
been watching some of the sideeffects of treatment during his
presidency Interesting.

Speaker 1 (28:15):
What do you guys think?
I saw that yesterday when DrDrupinski was talking about that
treatment, how it caused acognitive impairment, and that
would explain a lot.
It would explain the on and offgood days, bad days, falling
down.
Some days remember his State ofthe Union, how amped he was
during that, yeah and then otherdays he's falling asleep and

(28:36):
can't put together a sentence.
It's just amazing, though, thatI think the question is going
to be who, what did you know andwhen did you know it?
And that's going to linger forthe Biden people for years to
come.
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (28:49):
Well, and I mean, what is your take here?
That cause, now you know thebig the, the democratic basis
kind of coming in and sayingthis is really inappropriate for
for us to be talking about hishonesty and all that.
I mean this guy's fightingcancer, for crying out loud.
Where's your sympathy?
Basically, is what we'rehearing.
What's your thoughts on that?

Speaker 1 (29:06):
As President of the United States, Drew Penske said
yesterday, you have a right toknow what the condition of the
pilot on the plane is.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
Yeah, I think, If he's falling asleep.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
He's muttering.
Yeah, I get it.
Biden should have resignedmidway through his term.
It's just amazing that theywere able to keep this out of
the press for so long, that hehad cancer and that this
treatment is actually on aday-to-day basis, impairing his
ability to leave the countryit's.

(29:35):
And then we talked about themedia.
And then where's the where'sthe media and all this?
And why weren't we asking thequestions?
Well, jake tapper is one of thepeople that said don't, how
dare you ask questions aboutthis?
This is elder abuse.
You can't ask this.
Well, joe biden decided to runfor president.
He put your big boy pants on.
Then you've got to answer somequestions.
Trump wouldn't take a cognitivetest.
He wouldn't do that, uh, buthow can walter reed?

(29:57):
Certainly, they haven't knowabout this.
They have to know about this.
They have to know?

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah, agreed.
And I think part of this, too,is that you don't know that your
president has cancer.
I mean that is that's crazy.
I mean that's absolutely.
It's the biggest.
We talked about it last week.
It's the biggest politicalcontroversy in our lifetimes by
far.
This takes Watergate and blowsit out of the water.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
It really does.
It's a big blow to us in themedia because everyone well, why
didn't we report on this?
We don't have an answer.
Our answer is we didn't ask, wedidn't press.
People in his camp knewAbsolutely.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
He did promise transparency on his medical
records.
He said he would give them outwithin like a month of getting
elected, and he didn't even doit, then he had to deliberately
hide this right, I mean this PSAhistory.
It's pretty easy to get a holdof right.
So are they going to release?
It.
That's the big question.
My guess is there's no way thatthey're going to release this.

Speaker 1 (30:56):
The co-author of that book with Jake Tapper.
He was on recently and he saidhe's the one that got the tapes
the Herd tapes, the Bideninterview and so he was asked
well, how did you get the tapes?
He said I asked.
They said well, we'll look intoit.
And he followed back a weeklater and said okay, we got them
.
So all you have to do sometimesis just ask for the information

(31:17):
.

Speaker 2 (31:18):
Well, and you like IPpres and things like that too,
like pulling emails, like youlook at local media.
Now they don't do that likethey used to.
I mean, there's so much of thisstuff that that never gets
looked into and it's just gone.
And so JD Vance talked a littlebit about this too, and I think
he did a good job here oflaying out the case for
transparency in who you electand making sure that people

(31:39):
around those that we elect can'tpush them forward, stand them
up, basically, and force theminto a job that they absolutely
physically cannot do.

Speaker 9 (31:49):
Former president's health and you know it sounds
pretty serious, but hopefully hemakes the right recovery.
Like I will say, whether theright time to have this
conversation is now or at somepoint in the future, we really
do need to be honest aboutwhether the former president was
capable of doing the job andthat's, that's no.

(32:10):
You know that you can separatethe desire for him to have the
right health outcome with therecognition that, whether it was
doctors or whether there werestaffers around the former
president, I don't think he wasable to do a good job for the
American people and that's notpolitics.
That's not because I disagreedwith him on policy.
That's because I don't thinkthat he was in good enough
health.
In some ways I blame him lessthan I blame the people around

(32:32):
him.
And why did the American peoplehave a better sense of his
health picture?
Why didn't the American peoplehave more accurate information
about what he was actuallydealing with?
This is serious stuff and thisis a guy who carries around the
nuclear football for the world'slargest nuclear arsenal.
This is not child's play and wecan pray for good health but
also recognize that if you'renot in good enough health to do

(32:53):
the job you shouldn't be doingthe job.

Speaker 1 (32:55):
And I think now the question becomes well, who was
in charge of the auto pen forall these years?
Who was running the auto pen?
The pardons who came up withthe names?
Who decided when to releasethose and sign those, and are
they even valid?
And are there any other actionsyou took, the executive order
that stand that can now becalled into question because it
wasn't personally involved withit.

(33:18):
So I think this story is goingto play out for quite some time.
Yeah, that can be a story thatDemocrats really want to talk
about.

Speaker 2 (33:23):
Well, it's also.
You talk about five names.
The one name that has to be inthere, Valerie Jarrett, no, no.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
I was like Eric Holder.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
No.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
I think it's Obama right.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
No, I think it's Joe Biden.
Now I don't know about how muchpolicy was she making?
I think a good bit, but I thinkshe's obviously clearly the
biggest villain in this wholestory.
Yeah, history is not going tobe kind to her for letting her
husband go through this.

Speaker 1 (33:47):
How could she let yeah?

Speaker 2 (33:48):
I mean honestly, with everything that guy went
through.
And then you look at going backto 2016 when Obama says, yeah,
it should be Hillary.
That should have been it,because there are plenty of
people Mark Halperin, one ofthem, ran across him in 2017
said oh, 2017, this was going on.
I mean, you could see it.
You could see that, you couldsee the deterioration and and it

(34:08):
was very clear- so how did theyprop him up to run in 2020?

Speaker 3 (34:11):
Like, I guess that's what I'm confused about is if
the party if Remember something,2020 was COVID.
I mean, that's when all that,but he's your choice, like
that's what I'm saying as aparty you knew he was sick and
ill.

Speaker 2 (34:25):
No, that's what I don't think everybody knew at
that point.
I do think there was lessknowledge there.
And then the way COVID playedout that once he hit Super
Tuesday, I remember SuperTuesday, we were running on
Super Tuesday, we were drivingin Silver City listening to
Biden win state after state, andthe minute he got and
everybody's everything wasshutting down and everything
else.
And the minute he got throughSuper Tuesday, it was like

(34:47):
everybody galvanized and said wegot to shut this down.
And this is now their habit.
Right, this is what they do.
Now they shut it down.
So, in other words, you shutdown 2020 or you really shut
down 16.
So, bernie, you bounce him out.
Right, right, that was thewhole point.
Make sure Bernie doesn't win.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (35:02):
Everyone drops out, everyone drops out.
Bernie gets screwed twice right, 16 and 20.
Biden takes over and then theystomp everybody else out in the
primaries in 2024 to lead Bidenthrough.
I mean, this is their habit now.

Speaker 3 (35:16):
Okay, but you're telling me that they had enough
of a secret going on thatputting him up for reelection.
There was only a handful ofpeople that knew how bad he was,
in how bad of shape he was.
In no way.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
If I were to run this down, I would look at the June
debate.
That debate was way early inthe presidential cycle.
You think they set him up?
Well, we had a columnist thatsaid that.
Basically, why would you have adebate in june when the
election's not even untilnovember?
no agree, I think he absolutelywas set up, and I would want to
know who decided to have thatdebate in june, because I think

(35:47):
that was the okay, mr biden,this is your dance.
You prove you can do this, orwe're gonna, uh, come after you
and someone else is going toreplace you.
Who was behind that june debate?
And I think all trails lead toChicago.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
No, and that could well be.
It could be Obama absolutely,and that makes sense.
But at the same time you'reright and really it was smart
from Obama's perspective in therespect that if they were going
to get him out in enough time tohave a mini primary, they had
to do it in June.
Because if they had done it inAugust or September, the
primaries are still going on inJune.

Speaker 1 (36:18):
Yeah, when they have it.
I think it just ended like aweek earlier, or maybe there was
one more state.

Speaker 2 (36:24):
Well, yeah, if you wait until September, trump wins
another, probably three statesat least, and probably captures
seven, eight million more votes.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
Maybe one to.

Speaker 2 (36:34):
Mexico even.

Speaker 1 (36:34):
Yeah, he could have done it he could have done it
the way it was trending kind ofmy job as an opinion editor of
the journal.
They come at you from alldifferent directions emails,
speak-ups, letters and you hearfrom everyone and over time you
start to put together kind of alittle picture of what's going
on.
And at that time New Mexico wasturning against Joe Biden for
president in late summer of lastyear.

(36:56):
So I think if he had stayed inthe race Trump probably would
have won in Mexico.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
Yeah, he could have Trump got within six.
I mean, that's a realpossibility.
So, all right.
Is it possible, then, that wewatch Joe Biden tell the truth
in 2022?
Listen to this.

Speaker 4 (37:14):
And because it was a four-lane highway that was
accessible, my mother drove usrather than us being able to
walk, and guess what?
The first frost.
You knew what was happening.
You had to put on yourwindshield wipers to get
literally the oil slick off thewindow.
That's why I, and so damn manyother people I grew up with,

(37:34):
have cancer, and why can't?
For the longest time, delawarehad the highest cancer rate in
the nation.

Speaker 1 (37:42):
I'll say that this is the same guy who said his uncle
was eaten by cannibals in NewGuinea.
So that's why no one believedanything he said at the time.

Speaker 2 (37:49):
That is a fair point.
That is a fair point.
But it does seem like he justkind of was like yeah, I got
cancer.
Yeah, he just said it.

Speaker 3 (37:55):
But he was a guy that always blurted things out and
said stuff.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
Oh, a barrel of gaffes.

Speaker 2 (37:59):
Yeah, yes, so I say you have cancer, when you don't.

Speaker 3 (38:03):
Well, I mean he messed up all the time about his
son's death.
He talked a lot about differentthings that happened at
different times.
I mean, he was kind of known asthe guy that would just say the
wrong thing at the wrong time.
I think he does lose a lot ofinformation.

Speaker 1 (38:18):
What did Barack Obama say?
Never underestimate Joe Biden'sability to F things.
Yeah, yeah, no, I think thatwas an example of that tape
where he blurted it out.

Speaker 2 (38:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (38:27):
I think you got to ask your mom your mom's in the
studio right now.
She's making a little commentright now.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
Oh, he did have skin cancer.
That's a good point, but Idon't know if you're referring
to what he's talking about withwith oil and and in pollution
and then skin cancer.
It wasn't like he was like, hey, I had my shirt off and corn
pop was going after me on thebeach in Delaware, right, like
that's different.
Then I'd be like, yeah, theskin cancer.
You're right, mom, my mom'sjumping in.
Parents are in town for Ava'sgraduation Tip of the cap to Ava

(38:55):
, by the way producing today.
Yeah, Ava, congratulations.

Speaker 7 (39:01):
Time flies.
I'm thrilled about it.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Okay, that's good, you're doing great, and we'll
have you step back in with alittle story here at the end, I
have a story of my own that I'mvery excited to share.

Speaker 7 (39:08):
Okay, all right, very good, we'll do that.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
We're getting close to it, so okay.
So a few other things here.
First of all, we talk about themedia learning lessons, about
this whole story and abouteverything that happened.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
The rule number one in the media is if your mom says
you love you, check sources,check it out.

Speaker 2 (39:27):
No, it's true, and our media owes that to everybody
, and they'd be so well servedfor it, but now they don't.
They're advocates Really, ahuge portion of them are but so
now Scott Jennings on CNN goesafter one of these Democratic
strategists who doesn't seem towant to accept how big a story
this truly is and that theDemocratic Party could actually
pivot from this, learn somethingfrom it and say wait a minute,

(39:48):
we got to really change becauseof this, and it doesn't look
like that's going to happen.
Are you arguing that Joe Bidenwas fine during?
This I'm not arguing that hewas fine.
I'm arguing that you keeppivoting back to.

Speaker 9 (39:59):
Trump, who's clearly fine.
I'm just asking if you'rearguing that something was not
wrong with Joe Biden.

Speaker 5 (40:03):
I'm so glad you asked that question because Joe Biden
is no longer the president.

Speaker 2 (40:06):
But he was, and that's the story tonight.
Well, no, actually, Donald,stop, stop, stop.

Speaker 6 (40:12):
Let me finish what I'm saying.
Hold on, guys, let me finishsomething.

Speaker 5 (40:15):
Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
I would dearly love to see acognitive test from him because,
as somebody who's lived in theNew York media market for the
last 40 years, I can tell youthat the Donald Trump that I
knew in the 80s is not theDonald Trump that I hear today.

Speaker 2 (40:27):
So your answer to the cover up is Trump.

Speaker 10 (40:29):
My answer is my answer.
The cover up is the story tothe president.

Speaker 5 (40:34):
Yes, the cover up is also the president of the United
States, who happens to beDonald J Trump today is not.
Yeah, you could laugh all youwant.
I am definitely laughing.

Speaker 9 (40:41):
You know why you're laughing.
We're going to, we are laughing.
No, no, no, we're not laughing.
You don't want to answer thequestion Scott.

Speaker 3 (40:50):
You're president, what question?
I'd love to see his cognitivetest.
I'd love to see his physicaltest.

Speaker 2 (40:54):
I'm sure he'd be fine , dr Grasso, I'm sure he would,
okay, so not really dying toaccept what is a massive story,
massive cover-up and a media andpolitical partnership that blew
up in their face in epicproportion.

Speaker 1 (41:10):
Well, joe Biden may not be president today, but
Anthony Fauci is free because ofJoe Biden's pardon, same thing
with Liz Cheney, same thing withBenny Thompson, same thing with
the rest of them.
So you can't just say the Bidenlegacy is behind this, it
doesn't matter anymore, becausethings he did are there in fact.
So the diversion, I don't buyit.

Speaker 3 (41:28):
Yeah oh, just it's gonna be trump.
Everything is it's trump'sfault.
It's trump's fault, um, it'sjust.
That's the wrong approach.
I can't even believe that thatshe said that honestly no, it's
unreal.

Speaker 1 (41:38):
It's unreal.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
It's a conversation they're gonna have to have right
yeah, whether they want to ornot, they're gonna have to
address it, just address it yeahat some point.
Yeah, agreed, agreed sooner thanlater okay, let's get to your
opinion piece.
You wrote last week um aboutself self deportation and I know
you took some shots, uh,because you wrote this and
everything else.
I mean, I could read a portionof it, but I'd rather have you
just kind of give us the broadview of how you you know what

(42:00):
you were talking about and andwhy you see this as an avenue
that at first people look and gothat's crazy, who would do that
?
And then you see this as anavenue that at first people
would look at and go that'scrazy, who would do that?
And then you look at it and gowell, wait a minute, there is
some logic here.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
What's your thought?
I'll use the example of aroommate I had in college named
Muhammad, and how he hadoverstayed his student visa and
how he had to work at a liquorstore after college because he
couldn't get a job.
And he ended up getting marriedand was able to stay here.
But imagine to stay here.
But imagine if you were here onan overstayed visa, how anxious
you'd be.
They'd come for you any minuteand, as Trump said when he

(42:29):
announced this, if you'redeported by the government,
you'd give up everything, allyour property, everything.
How could you live like that?
So the idea of self-deportation, I think, is humane, also
appropriate to enforce the law,to give people some peace of
mind and hope to come back.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
And is there a documented history and I know
there is of people who have donethis and then ended up coming
back?

Speaker 1 (42:58):
No, according to the Trump administration, the first
time this federal government hashad a self-deportation program.
So basically, they either comeand get you or they leave you
alone.
So this would be a voluntary,proactive way, right?
And then you get a stipend,right $1,000.
Which isn't, you know, no moneyin South America or somewhere
else.
But again, this goes back toJoe Biden opening the doors,

(43:24):
reversing state, back to JoeBiden opening the doors,
reversing the state of NewMexico policy, of Trump and
other border policies and we'vegot the situation.
So what are we going to do?
Deporting 10 to 20 millionpeople?
It's not going to happen.
It'd be very expensive.
But this is a way that peoplecould own up to it and rectify

(43:47):
it and maybe do some communityservice, maybe pay a fine or
something like that, and bereadmitted back.
But you can't just go intoanother country and stay.
That's illegal, that's criminal.
We wouldn't do it.
I don't think.
I don't think we should allowit as a country.

Speaker 3 (44:05):
Do you think that self-deportation will be a
popular choice?

Speaker 1 (44:09):
I thought so.
I thought by summer we'd beseeing people in the airports
who wouldn't take advantage toget just the anxiety removed
that they could be swooped up atany time.

Speaker 2 (44:19):
Well, you mentioned this in the article that the
political winds have shifteddramatically in the Trump era.
Americans aren't repeatingstale calls for Democrats for
the comprehensive immigrationreform.
They instead want comprehensiveimmigration enforcement.
That is a you are.
I mean, this is not a 50-50issue anymore, it's a 70-30
issue and it's amazing how thenumbers have moved in the Trump

(44:40):
era.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
I quoted one study and then it said two-thirds were
for.
But there was another pollafter that.
Fifty-three percent ofAmericans were supporting all
illegal immigrants, not just thecriminal, most criminal illegal
immigrants, but all of them.
So the ones that definitelyshifted New Mexico were kind of
late to get on that train, butit's coming here one way or

(45:03):
another.
Trump is going to be thepresident for the next three and
a half years.
I think it's irresponsible forDemocrats to just resist and to
tell people here who are herewithout authorization don't
worry about it, you'll be fine,we'll take care of it.
Here's what you say.
They have to have a benchwarrant, not an administrative
warrant.
Don't open the door.

(45:24):
I mean, come on, who wants tolive like that?

Speaker 3 (45:26):
Well, I mean they have those forms, by the way,
going out to school children.
Okay, so it's in theirbackpacks because I have them
sent to me.
Public schools here.
Just a normal drill, normalelementary schools with those
instructions If somebody comesto your door, you don't open it.
You ask if they've got awarrant.

(45:47):
You do all these steps.
Print it out for elementary andmiddle school children to take
home.

Speaker 1 (45:49):
If you join the Little League team, don't put
your name on the back of thejersey, whatever you do.

Speaker 9 (45:53):
This is just ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (45:54):
Yeah, it is, you should be able to live out of
the shadows legally.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
Well, it's cruel.
That approach has always beencruel.
The open borders approach iscruel.
People don't talk about it, butthe amount of trafficking and
drawing vulnerable people to anuncertain future where they
spend the rest of their liveslooking over their shoulder
isn't kindness isn't compassion.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
I think Catholic Charities has aided and abetted
human trafficking and sexualexploitation of girls by aiding
and abetting and helping.
The cartels have relied onpeople on our side of making it
possible.
Yeah, all the way from thePanamanian gap up to here and
including the famous case withAbreu Garcia Right.

Speaker 3 (46:37):
Yeah, it's horrendous .
I think it's hard because Ithink you get into the world of
Christians and Catholics tryingto do what they believe Christ
would have them do, right.
So it is that blend of likethey want to be a good person,
they want to help people out,and then it kind of it's it's
getting blurred.

Speaker 2 (46:51):
Yeah, but you have to have an understanding of of
what that policy is.
If you're an illegal.

Speaker 1 (46:56):
I mean you're paying someone $7,000 a sneak in the
country.
Where's that money going?
You have to know what yourpolicy is, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
Yeah, okay, all right , so let's get to the, let's
let's border, let's get towhat's going on with this tax
bill.
What's interesting about thetax bill to me?
And the wall street journal,you know, calls it out.
And we, we talked about it lastweek, right, we?
We talked about the fact thatthe reality is Trump is either
going to have to break one oftwo promises.
One promise is you don't, youdon't touch, you know, medicare,

(47:23):
medicaid, any of that, right?
Or you really don't bring downthe deficit like you've got one
or the other Like, becauseotherwise you have to address
those other issues, probably ina bipartisan way, structurally,
like they just have to beaddressing it.
So they're not going to do that.
So therefore, it looks like thedeficit is is not going to go
down anytime soon.
Deficit is not going to go downanytime soon.

(47:44):
And a couple interesting thingshere.
It says House Republicans pushPresident Trump's big, beautiful
tax and spending bill as a keyhurdle, and they pushed it
through on Sunday night with thelast minute, grappling and then
colliding with a stark reality,and that is that the plan will
not reduce federal budgetdeficits and would make
America's fiscal hole evendeeper.
So where do you see this rightnow?
Now, obviously, the Trump taxcuts from 2017 were incredibly

(48:09):
effective across the boardLow-income families got them,
middle-income families got them,high-income families got them.
So, therefore, if you don'textend those, it's a disaster.
Right, they have to extendthose.
So, therefore, they're likelygoing to kick the can down the
road.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
Yeah, our national debt is just going to go up.
That's just a fact.
It's a sad reality that we havea Republican president, a
Republican-controlled Congress,and yet our debt is going to go
up by another $4 trillion underthis bill, more and more our
budget will be spent onservicing the debt and not going

(48:44):
to programs or going to peoplebe spent on servicing the debt
and not going to programs orgoing to people.
By the time this airs tomorrow,we should have an answer on
exactly what happens withassault and what happens Well.
One provision I saw in therewas it would borrow federal
funding for sex changeoperations for minors.
So you got all these.

Speaker 2 (49:03):
Oh, it's a huge bill when they talk about the big
beautiful bill it's got andthat's just the Trump.

Speaker 1 (49:07):
But Trump wants a deal.

Speaker 2 (49:08):
There'll be a deal, and we were actually, and Dad
and I were talking about thisearlier today.
What you start to see more andmore now is these massive bills
that have everything thrown intothem.
It's the only way they can doit.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
Yeah, I mean because the individual bills now you
can't get through the culture inthe senate.
You need 60 votes foreverything, unless it's budget,
yeah, unless it's budget relatedyeah.
So you're gonna pack everything, and democrats do the same
thing when they're in power.
They can't reach the 60 votethreshold either.
Yeah, yeah, I have been withlujan one time.
What do you want to scrap the,the senate filibuster oh yeah,

(49:41):
it depends on how the electioncomes out.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
Yeah, right exactly funny how that's not being
talked about at all.
I don't know where that went.
But okay, let's get to theKeller issue with Michelle Lujan
Grisham and, of course, theNational Guard.

Speaker 3 (49:53):
Yeah, I mean National Guard coming in and Michelle
Lujan Grisham very excited aboutthat, right, Because she's the
one that's kind of like, hey,this is my idea.

Speaker 1 (50:02):
Mayor Keller a little less so.
Mayor Keller a little less so.

Speaker 2 (50:04):
Yeah let's talk about this.

Speaker 3 (50:05):
Because we've had quite a bit of conversation
about what we think, why wethink she's done this.

Speaker 1 (50:11):
I've been digging into this myself.
I'm going to write about this alittle while.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Okay, so I think I mean this is just my.
Our opinion is she's doing thisto make Keller look bad.
Right, she brings in theNational Guard.
Then you have Medina comingback saying, no, no, no, I asked
for this, I asked for thisright, but then it turns into a
city council battle, right?

(50:36):
I mean, you saw that I'm surewhere you've got Medina going
into the city council saying no,no, no, I did ask for this, and
Luis Sanchez saying, well, whydidn't you come and address it
to the city council first andagain?
It's just, it's all a charade,because I'm telling you they
didn't know.

Speaker 2 (50:55):
They had no idea that she was going to sit in the
national.
This was designed to kneecapTim Keller period.

Speaker 3 (50:57):
Do you agree with that?

Speaker 1 (50:59):
Possibly.
Another theory is that thegovernor is still pushing for a
special session on crime.
So she wanted to raise thelevel of awareness here by
bringing in the guard.
But yeah, I think her hopes ofa special session on crime are
fading.
Yeah, I would agree, and Ithink there is a lot of friction
between Mayor Keller and thegovernor.
I think they have differentagendas, going different
directions and different timesin their careers.

(51:20):
Medina is an interesting one inthis.
He's the one in the middle.
So I asked Terrell.
I said, well, where did thiscome from?
So I asked the guard for help.
I sent him a letter basicallysaying you know, what can you do
for us?
And they got back to me.
Then he said, well, I'm notgoing to turn down help if help
is offered.
But I do wonder how muchinvolvement Mayor Keller had in

(51:41):
that request.
Because it seemed like this isjust a perfunctory request from
a police chief to the nationalguard African general.
Well then, all of a sudden, thegovernment says okay, let's
grant that and let's send in 71guards.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
Yeah, if, if he did make that request.
While his boss is going outsaying crime is going down, he
should never be allowed near apen again, because he is.
He has requested something thatis in direct opposition to what
his boss says is going on, andthen the governor is smart
enough to go okay, sure, andimmediately grants it, sticks it
to him, and that's where we areright now.

Speaker 1 (52:13):
We had really interesting back-to-back
editorial board meetings withMayor Keller and Chief Medina
earlier this year I think it wasJanuary and we asked Chief
Medina if he wanted to stay onas police chief if Keller was
reelected, Because the theoryhad been, he told us in the past
that he would serve until theend of Keller's term and then
he'd retire.
Well, in this editorial boardmeeting he said well, maybe,

(52:36):
Maybe.
I want to stay on.
I still have something to offer.
So Mayor Keller comes in thefollowing week and we ask him
well, what is this deal here?
Chief Medina is going to stayon a third term.
What is this deal here?
Chief Medina is going to stayon a third term.
He's going to be there on hisown terms and his own time.
There's quite clearly somefriction between Mayor Keller
and Chief Medina about whenChief Medina's career is going
to end, and I think that playeda part in this request.

Speaker 3 (52:59):
Well, and I'm sorry, if the governor really wanted to
shut down crime, would she nothave sent the National Guard to
our border where a lot of thecriminal activity, the drugs,
the human trafficking it'scoming up through the border?
I just think that if you reallywant to take down crime yeah,
no, I agree, I would have donethat, don't get me wrong.

Speaker 2 (53:15):
I mean that was part of your plan, yeah, but we were
going to do both.
We were going to send the statepolice into Albuquerque for a
prolonged period of time, putthe National Guard down at the
border, choke off fentanyl anddo a task force down along the
border with the feds.
But obviously those are thingsI agree.
We can disagree on that.
I think this is purely this isfor show.
This is all political now, yeah, because this is I mean.

(53:37):
Yeah, there's no doubt.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
What's the motive here?
Is MLG's career over?

Speaker 2 (53:41):
No, no no, I don't think.
No, not at all.
I think MLG's career is notover at all.
I think she wants to either beappointed or to be a senator, if
I'm guessing, not a seat open.
Not right now.
There's not Not right now.
But let's just things change.
Let's just say she, let's justI don't think that, I don't
think she's done, put it thatway and I think she wants Keller

(54:03):
to be done.
So I think she wants you, by us, to beat Keller clearly.
And then I think that basically, in all of this thing, it was
the gift of the kiss on thecheek and like you're finished,
kind of thing.
So we'll see what happens.
I don't know if this is goingto end up working in that way.
Plus, the National Guard isreally not the correct force to
be helping.

Speaker 1 (54:21):
You know, I've been looking into that, bringing up
71 guardsmen and 17 of them havea military occupational
specialty, so they're trainedpolicemen about 24 percent of
them and the guard is a lotdifferent today than it was 40
years ago.
They're not necessarily.
I don't want to be demeaning tothem, but when I was in the
Marine Corps we looked at theguard as old and overweight and

(54:42):
under-trained.
It's a different situation now.
Oh, no, no, no, old andoverweight and under-trained.

Speaker 2 (54:44):
It's a different situation now.
Oh, no, no, no, I just don'tthink.
If you look at how these thingsare laid out realistically, the
Guard has a lot lessflexibility than, say, the state
police, and they'rehamstringing them.

Speaker 1 (54:54):
They won't be armed, Right right, you're bringing a
lot of military police officers,trained guardsmen and women who
won't be armed, on the mainstreets of Albuquerque.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
Well, I mean a lot of these National Guard members
they called in.
They're teachers, so they hadto walk away from their teaching
positions, you know, threemonths before the end of the
year, to go and serve to try tohelp solve the crime issue in
Albuquerque.
It just seems weird, very odd,yeah, that was another thing.

Speaker 1 (55:19):
One of the criticisms is that when you activate the
guard, a lot of these guardsmenare active duty police and their
day jobs.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
So I checked on that.
So the 71 coming here, none ofthem are active duty police in
New Mexico.
Well that's good.

Speaker 3 (55:33):
They're teachers, those teachers are like yeah, I
definitely want to go down tothe war zone and help out a lot,
I can't wait without a gun orthey'll be running traffic down
there.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
We'll take what we can get.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
One of the last kickers here.
Just thought this was aninteresting funny story before
Ava's story, which Ava's storyhas broader implications for
potentially papers, and we'llhit with the papers here at the
end.
But by the way, guy drivingDoorDash, check this out.
He takes a wrong turn.
Let's go to the video Eve.
He takes a wrong turn at O'Hare, outside O'Hare, and ends up on

(56:06):
the tarmac.
The red car is a door dashdriver and that's the tarmac at
O'Hare and he's got likesomebody's Chili's order in
there.
The fries are getting cold andwe've got a United flight right
there.
It's unbelievable.

Speaker 3 (56:20):
Well, maybe the pilot was hungry.
I mean, have we stopped to askif the pilot got some dinner?
How do you even get on like?
Should there not be 15?

Speaker 2 (56:27):
fences you have to get through well, maybe no.

Speaker 3 (56:29):
I guess there's some signs he did drive through, so I
don't know.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
It said like do not enter things of that nature is
what I've heard yeah, yeah, okay, but what about a fence, like I
get the old suggestion like hey, if you don't mind, please
don't go here.

Speaker 3 (56:39):
I don't know and then you have the swarm of cops
coming after you.
It's like, like the Dukes ofHazzard, you've definitely you
got everybody out there tryingto swarm you.

Speaker 2 (56:46):
And you're just like I just have a pizza to give to
the pilot and you're like, if Idon't get this there, I'm not
getting my tips.
So we're not doing this.
Who knows, maybe it wassomebody on the flight, maybe it
was the plane from Qatar.
Yeah, yeah, we could be.
Yeah, we could have.
What's your story?

Speaker 7 (57:03):
All right.
So I'm notoriously against AIin news media because I think if
I pay for my news, I wantpeople to write it, not robots.
And this thing came outrecently.
It's a summer reading list.
It came out in the ChicagoSun-Times, it came out in the
Philadelphia Inquirer, it was ina lot of different newspapers.
It's this reading list here.
It's got 15 books on it.

(57:27):
Would you be surprised to findout that 10 of them are not real
books?
They're not real.
They are made up, fake books byfamous authors.
So there's a book on here byRay Bradbury that's real but,
like the Last Algorithm by AndyWeir, is not a real book.
Hurricane Season is not a realbook.
The Collector's Piece is not areal book.
Literally 10 of the 15.

Speaker 2 (57:45):
So this got printed.

Speaker 7 (57:46):
This got printed in multiple editions of newspapers
this morning and then the authorwas like I'm so sorry it was
partially written by AI, butit's totally my fault and I'm
like I don't know how youpartially write a list that ends
up being 75% AI generated.
But I just thought it was like.
I thought it was like salt andhoney by Delia Owens not a real
book.
Tidewater Dreams not a realbook.

(58:08):
The Rainmakers not a real book.
It's absolutely insane, and soI just wanted to post it,
because I think that this iswhat happens when you allow
ChatGPT basically to have itsown column in our newspapers is
we end up feeding real peoplewith information?
That's not true.

Speaker 1 (58:25):
So how did your new book Mark by Jake Tappernut make
that list?
I know?

Speaker 2 (58:30):
I know, I know I got it downstairs, though.
It came in today right on time.
But on a broader point, jeff,you've worked in the newspaper
world a long time.
What is AI going to do to thatworld?

Speaker 1 (58:40):
Well, there's a lot of fear, trepidation, about how
it's going to impact.
But, come on, you call somebodyup and you ask them a question.
Then you call somebody else upand you ask them a question.
You see if you get the sameanswer.
That's journalism.
You can't rely on AI foranything.
I don't, anyway.
A lot of people believe thatreporting will become dominated

(59:02):
by AI, but I don't see how youdo that.
I don't see how you cover ahigh school football game with
AI.
Yeah, reporting will becomedominated by AI, but I don't see
how you do that.
I don't see how you cover ahigh school football game with
AI?

Speaker 3 (59:07):
Yeah, yeah, no way, I mean, I teach part time.
It's a big debate and a bigdiscussion with us at the school
just on trying to encouragethese students.
Write your own material forcrying out loud Like you have to
be a critical thinker and thinkfor yourself, and if you're
just going to go in and see asummary of what other people
think, all the time, we have nooriginal thoughts anymore.
I mean.

Speaker 1 (59:26):
Oh, we were in school , we had the footnote and
everything right.

Speaker 3 (59:28):
Right, right.
That's still what we required.

Speaker 1 (59:30):
That's why we were reading other people's stuff and
piecing it together and sayingthis.

Speaker 3 (59:33):
author said that yeah , but we got in trouble for
copying the encyclopedia.
Do you remember that?
I mean, that's how old.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
I am.
We had verbatim and you didn'thave quotation marks around it.
You were plagiarized.
It was a tribute.

Speaker 2 (59:49):
Yeah, yeah exactly no no, you're right.
And and let me just we'll wrapwith this I and I have to ask
you this I do get the journalstill.
I get it digitally, but thankyou which by the way.
I mean price is a little steep,but I'm still doing it.
Um, but, but I do notice thesize of the journal, the car
article, you know.
Just it's not as expansive asit used to be.
Is the journal in trouble?
Are we going to lose theAlbuquerque Journal?

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
I think the journal will be okay.
I mean, you can't avoid theobvious we have fewer people,
we're going to be writing fewerstories about fewer topics.
It's just the nature of thedeclining newspaper industry as
a whole.
Our last editor, before ourcurrent one, tried to say that
we're going to cover everythinglike we always have.
Come on, we're not.
We're not going to have areligion editor anymore,

(01:00:32):
probably not going to have anarts and entertainment section
like we've had in the past.
Things are going to have to bedifferent, but if you stay true
to your core, you cover yourcity council meeting.
You cover your countycommission.
You cover your sheriff and youcover your city council meeting.
You cover your countycommissioners.
You cover your sheriff.
You cover crime.
People like you are going toread in Christie because you
want to know what's going on.
It's the smaller papers thatI'm really, really worried about

(01:00:55):
.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Well, you spend a lot of time in Hobbs.
Hobbs, I mean Hobbs has somegood financial backing.
But yeah, are you worried aboutpapers like that just going
away?

Speaker 1 (01:01:04):
Oh, espanola, I worked at the Rio Grande Sun up
there, that was an essentialpart of the community.
Up there was a paper would comeout, 10,000, 10,000 versions and
the people would sell them onthe sidewalk on Wednesday
afternoon.
And people read the Rio GrandeSun because they knew that's
where they were going to get thedirt on their local politicians
.
That's the bottom line.
They wanted to see what no oneelse would tell them, what the

(01:01:26):
people in power wouldn't tellthem.
Now it's owned by the AlredoMedia Group as well a bunch of
other papers.
I worked in Espanola, roswell,hobbs, and then here in
Albuquerque and then before thatin other states.
But who's going to cover theAlamogordo City Council meeting
if there's not a newspaper there?
Right, and what if somethingbig happens there?

(01:01:48):
You're on the TV side.
You know the TV stations arenever going to sit through a
city council meeting, yeah.
Or God knows a school boardmeeting that goes until 1 am,
yeah.
But that's where our powercomes from is being able to get
that information and share itwith people.
So the smaller papers Isuggested on Paul guessing show

(01:02:10):
that maybe the state should lookinto some sort of grant program
for the smaller papers.
Then I'm reminded of a editor Ihad in Indiana back during the
bailouts and he wanted ournewspaper to get a bailout and I
was like dude, you really wantto be accountable to the
government.
You want to send a report tothem every week about what we
reported and what we didn'treport.
So it's a double-edged swordthere if you ever take outside

(01:02:30):
money.
But I think as far as in termsof the journal and the TV
stations.

Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
No, they're definitely changing.
I mean, they are not the placesthey were, they're just,
they're not.

Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
Some of the biggest changes I've seen in these
papers are you don't see cardealerships anymore.
You don't see all the mainstays, the grocery stores, the
inserts.
It's just not there anymore.
But you still got a job to do,yeah, and you're the only one.

Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
Yeah, it is weird and it is.
I think television stationsbasically have followed.
You guys have been dealing withthis for a long time now 15
years or so really.
You've seen that contraction.
Tv stations Now feel it.
I mean, if you look at thenumbers now on it, cause we get
numbers for buying ads and stufflike that.
Yeah, Well and that's the onlytime.
Believe me, these stations,they, they, it's their lifeblood

(01:03:20):
, because that's the time theymake real money.
It really is Go watch atelevision station's revenue.
It goes like this Around theelection Because, election year,
non-election year.
Election year non-election yearAbsolutely.
And so what's happening is, ifyou look at the numbers on a 10
o'clock newscast now, you'll geta three.
Okay, when I was there from2006 to right around 2020, you

(01:03:43):
top out at nine or ten.
I mean you top out at nine or10, you know, I mean you're,
you're a third of where you were, you know, and sometimes even
less, and not as nothing to dowith me.
It has everything to do withwhat's happened to the market
and the digital, you know, inpodcasts and everything else.

Speaker 3 (01:03:55):
Just taking a piece of all these, Well, I also think
that I think that when mediadoesn't push back on our leaders
and our people in power and youkind of just see a regurgitated
message coming at you, you gettired of that as a viewer and
you say I'm done with that andI'm going to find news elsewhere
.
So I do appreciate the factthat the editorial board at the

(01:04:15):
journal has really had a strongvoice.
They stay strong.
You guys have not caved and Iknow you took heat for Mark,
which I appreciate personally.
So I appreciate that and youknow, I think I hope the journal
does not go away because I amold school, I like to read a
paper.
I obviously I read a lot ofnews on digital as well, but we

(01:04:37):
have to have new sources to findout information and find out
valuable, accurate information.
So I personally hope that itstays alive and well.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
I think we survive with our exclusivity of the
stories that no one else has.

Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
And it still does.
I mean the journal still doesset the tone.
It's the first thing I alwayslook at, like what stories is
the journal covering, which isvery true.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):
Now, I may not like other written all the time.
She does great investigativereporting.
Oh, she does yeah well, yeah,yeah she does.
That's something, somethingyou're just not going to find in
a different medium.

Speaker 2 (01:05:05):
Yeah, very true, very true.
Well, thank you, thanks forcoming in.
Thank you, it's a pleasure tobe here.
Good times.
Thanks, jeff, we appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (01:05:11):
All right, you guys.
You guys have a great rest ofyour week and we will see you
later on this weekend.
Take care.

Speaker 11 (01:05:17):
You've been listening to the no Doubt About
it podcast.
We hope hope you've enjoyed theshow.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it Podcast.

Speaker 10 (01:05:34):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 11 (01:05:37):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:45):
There is no doubt about it.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

The Bobby Bones Show

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 194: The Controversial Guardians of Truth? Or Protectors Of Lies?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

The Bobby Bones Show

All Episodes

Episode 194: The Controversial Guardians of Truth? Or Protectors Of Lies?

Dateline NBC