Links to stories referenced as well as my guest, Lawrence Haas, former speechwriter ot Al Gore!
- 49 Federal Contracts With Alleged Terror-Link Organizations: https://www.meforum.org/press-...
- Trump Admin Reviewing 55 million visas: https://apnews.com/article/tru...
- My guest Lawrence Haas's website: https://www.larryhaasonline.co...
- 49 Federal Contracts With Alleged Terror-Link Organizations: https://www.meforum.org/press-...
- Trump Admin Reviewing 55 million visas: https://apnews.com/article/tru...
- My guest Lawrence Haas's website: https://www.larryhaasonline.co...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Here's your host, Alex Garrett.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, well here on one leg of Alex. It
is a little bit of a news update, because look,
you could make a big deal about the Epstein files dump.
I certainly am going to look into this and report
back to you on it. If you want your own
thoughts and opinions, go for it. As a DJ has
released transcripts between the DJ and just Lain Maxwell, so
(00:32):
I encourage you to check that out. It is our
tax sellars put at work with this release, and I'm
not so tired about it today because there are a
couple other things I want to talk about. Before I
had my guest, Larry has who is a speechwriter for
VP al Gore back in the nineties, back in the
Clinton era in the White House actually, and we get
(00:56):
into what happened this week at the summit with the
Zelenski and the European leaders. But before that, did you know,
speaking of tax dollars being put to use, the US
Department of Homeland Security has canceled forty nine federal grants
worth millions of dollars for non profit organizations, and the
(01:18):
action followed report by the Mill's Forum saying twenty five
million dollars in grants were issued between twenty thirteen and
twenty twenty four. So this really was both parties here, right,
So twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen was Obama, then sixteen
to twenty was Trump, twenty to twenty four was Biden. Well,
(01:45):
Middle East Forum saying twenty five million dollars in grants
were issued in that time period to radical organizations alleged
links to terrorism. This cancelation was a response to a
study that claim DHS funding was being given to groups
with extremist affiliations. I don't care if you want to
(02:07):
put this on Obama, Biden or Trump won. This was
a bipartisan thing here where we were funding those that
had radical ties to terrorism. So we should be applauding
the fact that forty nine contracts have been canceled to
(02:27):
save US money firstly, but also to stop benefiting terrorist organizations.
The United Nations and other international bodies have adopted numerous
conventions to combat terrorism. This is a big deal. It's
a big deal that the Middle East Forum is saying
(02:47):
terror link groups had been given this funding and now
were denied funding because we as Americans should not want
to be funding terror period and all we as Americans
(03:09):
should not want to be funding organizations who have ties
to terrorist groups. So I'm glad that forty nine contracts
have been revoked because it saves us money and it
saves us possible funding of terrorism. And I only see
Fox News report on this. I wish other news outlets
(03:33):
would as well, because this is a big deal. While
I don't like all other all grants being cut in general,
when they focus in and cut the grants that need
to be cut, we should be applauding that. We should
be supporting that here on the One Leg Up Network,
and I certainly as heck M Now one other thing
I want to get to. So we mentioned that Fernando
(03:55):
import Washington was on a visa overstay, but it turns
out there's been a massive review of fifty nine million
US visas targeting violations like overstays, criminal activity, and fraud
for potential deportations, announced yesterday. This historic crackdown has already
(04:17):
resulted in six thousand student visa revocations, six thousand, amid
debates over enforcement fairness and its impact on immigrants, with
supporters praising it as essentral for national security. Look if
they can accurately pinpoint those that are overstaying to do
(04:37):
criminal activity, then yes, we should rightfully strip them of
their visas. I don't mind this site, this oversight of
the visa program. I've always thought that overstays have been
in the in too many numbers. But what I pray
for is that once these reviews are done, the good folk,
(05:00):
the good immigrants that are here not causing chaos but
simply trying to make a living like Fernando and being
part of the community like Fernando, are simply left back
into their realms. Until then, I do support a thorough
review as long as those who are doing right by
the country and paying their taxes are allowed to be
(05:22):
back on the streets of America and the communities of America.
And that's where I staying on that all right right now.
Larry Hass, the former speechwriter for VP Gore, joins me
on the One Leg Up Network to recap that big
summit and so much more. DC has been a buzz
this week with the White House Summit. I covered all
the different you know, the pre show, the pre meeting show,
(05:44):
and then the meeting itself, and then some postgame thoughts
if you will. Postgame will get made. But I have
Lawrence has On, who was the speechwriter for VP al
Gore and who's been to Ukraine, and we were talking privately,
but on my saying, and you are not impressive I
was with the summit. Tell us why.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Well, because I think the whole premise of the summit
was one sided on the side of Vladimir Putin for
reasons that escape me. I mean, Putin has really been
sort of dictating the terms of the discussions that are
going on now.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
He's made here was Zelenski there? You felt he dictated
about meeting on Monday as well?
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Oh, I absolutely did in the background because keep in mind,
Trump was very much influenced by what Putin was demanding.
And he's demanding territory at the very least, and he
wants not only territory that Russia currently controls in the
East of Ukraine, but he wants the entirety of the East.
(06:46):
So he's asking actually Ukraine to give up land more
than Russia is currently occupying. I don't think he should
be giving up any land just as a matter of principle,
but the demand is outrageous. But what happened was Trump
was in essence shaped by that demand, and there was
(07:11):
discussion about what would it take was Zelenski to come along. Now,
as it turns out, it doesn't look like Putin's terribly
interested in peace anyway, hasn't agreed to a meeting with Zelenski.
So I don't really know where all of this is going.
But I think it was really misguided from the start.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
That's very interesting, and I mean, look here, here's why
I was excited about the summit, because it felt like,
for the first time, Zelenski and Trump weren't going at
each other's throats, and neither was NATO going at Trump's start.
I mean, the fact we saw unity was was a
big step forward. But did you see it that way
at all?
Speaker 1 (07:49):
No question that the atmosphere was much better, no question
about it. Trump and Zolensky seemed to get along in
a way that obviously they did not in February when
you had that public blow up. Trump, from everything that
I could see, was gracious, not only to Zelenski, but
as you say, the European leaders who came to see him,
(08:10):
and the European leaders were some heavy hitters. I mean,
it was the head of the European Union, and it
was the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Most vocal critics, Macrone. I mean the fact that he
was there was a big deal.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
To me, absolutely right. So yes, I thought that was
a positive. And I thought that Trump did a pretty
good job in terms of representing the United States and
being gracious and understanding that these were allies. So all
of that was good, and I take your point, But
when it comes down to the specifics of stopping this
war on terms that I think would serve Ukraine and
(08:48):
would serve the West, which I think ought to be
the goal. After all, it was Russia that invaded Ukraine
did not do anything other than be victimized. When you
get into the substance of the discussion, I still do
believe that it was one sided based on the demands
that Vladimir Putin had previously made in terms of stopping
(09:12):
this war.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Now I know he did some aerial assaults nearby NATO
territory earlier today or earlier this week, which is just
pretty pretty damning. But I gotta ask, So there is
this picture of you know, President Clinton, President but they're
all shaking hands with Putin. But how is it that
Clinton was able to keep him at bay. Yet it
seems like presidents after him did not do as good
(09:35):
a job, like what did Clinton Gore do?
Speaker 1 (09:37):
Differently, I must say, I don't know if really that
was determined more by, you know, the brilliance of President Clinton,
even though I did serve him and I do admire him,
as it was the increasingly entrenched position of Vladimir Putin
(09:58):
over the years of different presidencies, starting with, as you said,
George W. Bush and going through Obama. I mean, keep
in mind, Putin has become more of a strong man
over the course of years. He's become more emboldened at home,
and I think because of that, he has felt more
(10:20):
emboldened to try to, in essence, in his mind, resurrect
as much of the previous Soviet Empire as he previously
as the Soviet Union previously existed. I mean, keep in mind,
he did say I believe this was back in the
around two thousand and seven, that the breakup of the
(10:42):
Soviet Union was the greatest political geopolitical catastrophe of the
last quarter century of the twentieth century. Whatever it is
he said, So he really does believe that it is
his mission to expand Greater Russia, and he's become more
in bold and over the course of time. I don't
(11:03):
think American presidents have dealt with him well. I don't
think Obama in particular responded in any way to other
than to appease him after he went in and seized Crimea.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Which set the stage I believe, right, I mean, yes, it.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Was, and it set the stage for what we saw
in twenty twenty two. I mean, after all, Putin saw
that he got away with taking Crimea. I don't think
he believed that the United States was going to do
anything if he invaded Ukraine wholeheartedly. He was surprised that Biden,
you know, in essence spearheaded the you know, the unity
(11:44):
of the West and the support that Ukraine has gotten.
I think it surprised him.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
However, when you say a small incursion like Biden did
in twenty twenty two that I'll never forget that moment,
and I played it on this podcast. Would you have
advised him to say that as a speech writer or
would you have advised him to say, let's not talk
about that. And then, because it almost like seemed like
he was accepting of this incursion, nothing, he would lead
(12:11):
to a war. That's where I think the first mistake
was me.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, you know, the first mistake was that he didn't
read in essence the sentiment in Ukraine, whether in Zolensky's
office or at the grassroots level. You know, keep in mind,
I mean he said to Zelenski, you know, how can
we usher you out of the country, And Zolensky said,
(12:36):
I don't need an airplane, I need weapons. So in essence,
I don't think Biden understood the resolve that the Ukrainian people,
at the leadership and people were going to show. But
once he understood the situation, once he saw that Ukraine
really wanted to fight, I think he did a pretty
(12:59):
good job. I if I were in that position, I
would have been quicker. I would have been more aggressive.
Would I would have been.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Stop about the incursion. That's where I would have stopped them.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
But yeah, right right, it was an invasion, it was
an attempted conquest. Uh uh and uh. And I think
under Biden, the United States just gave the weapons to
Ukraine a little bit too gradually. I think Ukraine would
have been far more effective in its counterattack if we
had given weaponry that we eventually gave six months later,
(13:33):
a year later, two years later.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
And then those of Congression approval. I guess they were
slow rolling it almost in spite of Zelenski for a
while there.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Yes, exactly right. So while I think Biden gets fairly
high marks marks for you know, corralling the West and
creating unity and supporting Ukraine, I just think it was
done too slowly, and you know, in some ways Europe
pushed them, uh to move faster than he was moving.
So the West I think has performed fairly well. I'm
(14:07):
concerned about where we may be going now if Trump
starts really pressuring Zelensky to give up territory. But he
hasn't done it yet. So so far we're in a
good place. And the obstacle to peace is Vladimir Putin,
There's no question about it.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
But I agree with you. I think Trump has to
say that he's really saying Zelenski's in the way of this,
which I don't really understand. And he made that stupid
joke about upending the election if there's a war in
three and a half years, why would you even say that, Lawrence,
I think that was a dub mart.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Yeah, well, you know, sometimes when people say things in jest,
they it reveals their innermost secrets. But be that as
it may, I'll take it as a joke at this point.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
All right, Lawrence, I gotta ask you this, because I
do feel like NATO's become stronger, especially with Trump, and
obviouslyy've been a little more tougher. I didn't think that
was the case during the Clinton years. That's because Clinton
administration had a great rapport with NATO compared to NATA.
Is that what we're.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Seeing, Well, no question. You know, NATO did not have
to necessarily step up because it knew that Clinton had
its its, you know, backing, so there really wasn't any issue.
It's also the case that you know, NATO had an
opportunity to show unity led by the United States, and
(15:29):
it did so in the Balkans in nineteen ninety five
and in nineteen ninety eight. And I would say thirdly,
Russia was less of a threat back then, so there
was less for NATO to be concerned about. You know,
it's a whole different ballgame now you've got the combination
(15:49):
of much more Russian aggression and concerns about Trump's feelings
about both NATO and about Putin. I mean, unfortunately, President
Clinton seems to excuse me, President Trump seems to have
an affinity for strong men. He seems to admire them
(16:11):
rather than see the danger in them. It's not just Putin,
it's Urdigon in Turkey, It's the way net Yahoo's acting
in Israel. It's it's it's this kind of authoritarian impulse
that makes Trump admire Putin much more than he should
(16:31):
and oppose him much less than he should.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Oh my god, when he called him the boss, I
don't care the context, it was kind of it was
kind of a telling thing how he looked at Putin,
which was which was bothers And people have said to me,
why why are you pointing this out? I said, because
I had to be pointing out the way you talked
about him at the summit was a low bothers him.
What I have to say, Yes, but Lawrence, I have
to say, compared to that era in the nineties, I
(16:56):
don't know if NATA was totally concerned, but you're the
biggest negotiation you guys did actually was the Ireland. I mean,
I've read that book about how Ireland became United under Clinton.
What can the negotiating taxans from that, tactics from that,
you know, applied to here. I feel like there was
some negotiation you guys did there to get that done.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Well, certainly it was very tricky. I mean, keep in mind,
we had to figure out what to do with the
Irish Republican Army, which was a terrorist organization for most
of its existence, and you know, was had you know,
Britain as its target. I was a very dicey situation.
(17:35):
Eventually Clinton came around and allowed Jerry Adams to visit
the United States. Eventually there were meetings you know, Ted
Kennedy when all of them.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Were you in any of them or No, I.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Was not involved in foreign policy back then. I was
in the White House. Obviously I was quite aware of
what was going on, But no, I was not in
the meetings. But I know it was very important to
President Clinton. He spent a lot of time on this,
and his people spent a lot of time on this
National security staff, working with the Hill, working with you know,
(18:11):
our ambassador in Ireland, who happened to be Ted Kennedy's sister.
So you know, there were a lot of there were
a lot of moving pieces. I thought Clinton handled it
extremely effectively. I mean, keep in mind the troubles, as
they used to call him, which was the war in
Northern Ireland. I mean they went back to the late
(18:33):
nineteen sixties, you know, so you can think of thirty
years until we finally got the Good Friday Agreement of
nineteen ninety eight. I mean, it was really quite an
accomplishment on Clinton's part, and I think he considers it
one of his greatest accomplishments.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
All right. In that situation, George Mitchell really stepped up
at the time, and he was part of all this.
I feel like there's a peril here where a Rubio
could step up and that in this situation, I feel
like Rubio is gonna have to play a role here
is He's not really talking as much about it, but
he's probably in the background somewhat.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Right Well, Rubio has been very busy with lots of
different stuff. He's not only the Secretary of State these days,
but he's also the National Security Advisor. We have not
had a situation like that since Henry Kissinger. So, and
I don't necessarily recommend it. I mean, these are two
huge jobs. Sure, if it got down to a serious negotiation,
(19:33):
Rubio would be at the table, he'd be advising Trump,
He'd be you know, working with his counterparts, whether in
Ukraine or in Russia or in NATO and all the rest.
But you know, at the end of the day, I
must say, the Secretary of State is and has to
be a tool of the president. He can't have an
(19:55):
independent agenda. He can advise, he can advise aggressively, but
at the end of the day, the president runs foreign policy.
So this is going to wind up in the Oval
Office and Trump is going to have to figure out
what his bottom line is. Hopefully Rubio will push him
to be more supportive of Ukraine than he has been
(20:16):
so far. But we'll have to see. We'll have to see.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
All right, all the leaders thanking Trump was passing by
the way, just to make that note. It was amazing
all them like to thank him after all this. But
I gotta ask you this, because you've been to Ukraine.
What was since we last talked? Have you been back?
Speaker 1 (20:32):
I have not been back, but I do you know,
watch it pretty closely. There is fatigue in Ukraine over
this war, no question about it.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Well, there have been protests about against Zelenski. I've noticed
the streets being filmed. There were protesters very well.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Well, there are a lot of different issues. It's not
just the war. I mean, there is this corruption in
the government which started way before Zelenski. He's done a
a decent job in trying to root some of it out,
but he hasn't, you know, rooted it all out. So
that's something going on. He also hasn't allowed any elections,
(21:11):
and you know that's that's not something that is necessary
in a democracy. I mean, after all, you know, we
were at war. In nineteen forty four, we had our
presidential election. The incumbent, who had been there for twelve years,
Franklin Roosevelt, had to run for reelection. He wound up
(21:34):
winning with fifty seven percent of the vote. It was
his low it was actually his slimmest margin of his
four elections. But he stood for office. There's no reason
why Zelenski cannot stand for office. So as much as
I admire him as somewhat of a modern day Winston Churchill,
I do not support the idea that somehow, because they're
(21:56):
at war, you know, democratic you know, no maladies need
to be somehow frozen and we can't have an election.
So there's a lot of there's concern about Zelenski on
a variety of fronts, but there is I think far
more unity in this country over one thing, which is
(22:18):
they don't want to be ruled by the Russians. They
do not want to be ruled by the Russians. Russian
control or influence in Ukraine dates back one hundred years
to the beginning of the Soviet Union, and the Ukrainians
have had enough. They don't accept the fact that they've
(22:40):
lost Crimea. They believe that the current war started in
twenty fourteen, not in twenty twenty two with this invasion,
that it actually started in twenty fourteen. And I don't
see any indication that there is not continuing strong resolve to,
you know, oppose this attempt at conquest.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Well, it's gonna be very interesting, you went. I mentioned
that the Union Nations coming up in a couple of weeks,
so we have to see it that I mentioned that
for a reason. But I also think I remember in
eight before the Olympics began, George W. Bush, I think
it was an interviewed by Bob Costas ormever was about
the invasion of Georgia, I mean Russia's been at this
for a long time, and you think what happened in
(23:26):
O eight with Georgia. People would be woken up by them,
but just they were caught sleeping a lot of the time,
I felt, but bye by all this.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
You know, democracies are slow to react. I mean, look
at what happened in the nineteen thirties when it should
have been abundantly clear where Germany and Italy and Japan
were headed. It should have been abundantly clear. And yet
you know, ther England was very slow to rearm. There
(23:58):
was a real sense of in your of hiding your
head in the sand and hoping things don't get bad.
And frankly, there was a strong sentiment in the United
States that, yes, things may be getting a little dicey
in Europe, but Hitler is not that bad, Mussolini's not
(24:19):
that frightening, and after all, we don't want to be involved,
and we have an ocean between us and will be okay.
And it was really a great effort on FDR's part
in the starting in the late nineteen thirties to try
to educate the American people on what was coming. But
it was quite a challenge. My greater point is This
(24:41):
is nothing new. Democracies are slow to react. Now when
they finally react, they tend to be on the winning side,
because frankly, democracy is a stronger form of government than
authoritarianism at the end of the day. But I'm not
surprised that somehow we didn't get the message in two
thousand and eight, or we didn't get the message in
(25:02):
twenty fourteen. I'm not terribly surprised, based on history and
based on how democracies tend to act.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
And I think we want to see the good in
all these countries, even the bad ones. I hate to
say that, but I just feels like that too. Lawrence.
I gotta ask you this. You were writing for Vice
President Gore, Yes, did he address NATO? Tell us about
the times you wrote for him to address the international community.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Well, he was terribly involved with regard to foreign policy
on a whole bunch of fronts. The negotiation with North
Korea to reign in their nuclear program, US relations with
South Africa and other countries. I will tell you the
one time when I really was very close to the
(25:49):
action on negotiations. Vice President Gore flew to Israel in
nineteen ninety eight to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the
establishment of the state. He was representing the United States.
We flew over on Air Force too, and he used
that trip as an occasion to try to move along
(26:12):
Middle Eastern peace efforts. So we were in not just Israel,
but we were in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the
West Bank. And he spoke to Arafat, and he spoke to,
you know, the heads of the other countries that I mentioned.
(26:34):
And while we did not obviously get to Arab Israeli
peace or Israeli Palestinian peace, he was heavily involved in
those efforts. And when you see it up close, you
realize how human of an experience this really is. This
(26:55):
really has a lot to do not just with geopolitics,
but it has to do with do I trust this
person sitting across from me at the you know, across
the table. Interestingly enough, the head of the Palestinian side
was Yasa Arafat yep. The head of the Israeli side
(27:15):
Benjamin Netanyahu. That was his first term as Prime minister.
So the more things change, the more they remained the same. Right.
That was a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Well, right, and I tell you I feel old now,
because when I was three or four years old, we
saw Arafat rolling into the EU N which was kind
of a big deal at the time that he was
in the States for that, but it had to be complicated.
And I'm sure because you were involved with that, you
want to see peace. And this is my next question.
Then could whatever happen here, if there is a true
(27:52):
peace deal, be the blueprint for what happens in Israel
and Palestine five point h I feel like we've been
through five generations of all this, right, Could this be
the blueprint for that piece deal next?
Speaker 1 (28:02):
I would love to say yes, but I cannot in
all honesty say yes. The issues are so different. Here.
You have Russia that wants to resurrect greater Russia in
the Middle East. You have got Israel on one side,
and Iran and the terrorist organizations it it's access of
(28:28):
resistance on the other side. And we we saw over
the last couple of years the first direct confrontation, a
military confrontation between Israel and Iran. And until there is
some resolution of that greater conflict, I don't see how
(28:48):
we are going to get Israeli Palestinian peace. I mean,
we still have Hamas as the ruling entity in Gaza,
and everybody said as the following Hamas needs to be disarmed.
But do you notice the passive tense Hamas needs to
be disarmed? Who is going to if you're not gonna
(29:11):
let Israel do it? Who is going to disarm Hamas?
And no one is volunteering one else until somebody, until
somebody steps up and says, okay, we've had enough. It
won't be Israel We're gonna go in. Who's it gonna
be the United States, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Who's gonna
do it? Until we answer that question, I don't see
(29:34):
prospects for peace.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Now does that mean we all don't want to see
the continual bombing of gods? But does that mean you
support Netaw's efforts to get Hamas if no one else
is gonna help them get them? Or how would you
go about getting them if no one else gonna step
up here?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Okay, So I think we have to make a distinction
between what's the end goal and what are the tactics.
I do not support the idea of reinvading Gaza. I
do think there is a strategy that might be a
little bit savvier, which is that you keep the pressure
(30:10):
on Hamas Uh, and there are ways of doing that.
I mean, no intelligence operation is better than Israeli intelligence.
Nobody is better than covert operations than Israel. So I
do think there is room for a narrower effort to
keep the pressure on Hamas and at the same time
(30:32):
relieving the suffering to a great extent of the Palestinian people.
So I'm with him on the end goal because I
think only Israel can disarm Hamas fully. But I'm troubled
by this wholehearted strategy of reinvading Gaza, calling up sixty
thousand of reserves and all the rest.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
By the ways being of reserves. I know that there
were Americans that were not identity. We're helping Ukraine, but
sort of on the down low, so it wouldn't look
like Americans we're helping Ukraine in the efforts. I know
Trump doesn't want troops on the ground. We are going
to get there though, or no, we're not going to
get to that point out.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
I don't think we're gonna get the troops on the ground,
and I don't think we're gonna get to European troops
on the ground hopefully there will be peace and there
will be real security guarantees that will be backed by
the United States and the leading powers in Europe, maybe
through NATO, maybe not. I think these guarantees have to
(31:35):
be believable though, and they mostly have to be believable
in Moscow.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
I know. And when he got invited to Moscow, I
don't even start. I'm like, don't take the invite, do
not take the invite. That's that's taking the bait. But
you're in DC now, still, right? Or where are yes?
Speaker 1 (31:50):
Well? I mean we're speaking from my home in Potomac, Maryland,
but that's right outside of DC. And yes, my work
continues to be real and in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
All right, let me throw a theory out there for
you then. So I was there in March and I
didn't really feel unsafe. I felt like we were fine.
But are you on the daily when you're there, do
you see issues that warranted the National Guard? And then
let me ask you this, because this is my big
theory of the week. I think he called them into
what to clean up DC so that these European leaders
(32:24):
don't look at us and say, boy, what a mess
this town is. Is there a correlation to that that
we didn't even realize till Monday.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
I don't think so, and I do not think that
the takeover Washington, d C. Was warranted. It is not
the case. Look, obviously, there are crime problems in Washington,
just like there are crime problems in every major city,
and more suburbs than and rural areas than you might think.
(32:54):
But there there. We are not in a moment when
somehow crime is out of control in Washington. It's just
not the case. If anything, crime is going down, whether
based on murders or robberies or other types of crimes.
So no, I don't think it was warranted in any way,
and it troubles me because it's again an example of
(33:15):
an authoritarian type of impulse that troubles me greatly.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
It felt weird, but then I started to put two
and two together and that was how I correlated. But no,
I love DC. I love going there to see the capital.
It was fun. It did not feel unsafe in my
view anyway. So I guess I'm not out there every day, though, Lawrence,
I gotta ask you this. You know, next year is
going to be thirty years since they won reelection, which
is just crazy to think about. When did you join
(33:43):
the Vice president Corps? Was it term one, term two?
When did you jump into the fray there?
Speaker 1 (33:48):
So I came to the administration on l essentially Labor
Day of nineteen ninety four, so almost two years in
before the midterm elections. I first served as communications director
of the Office of Management and Budget, and I did
from Labor Day of ninety four through nineteen ninety seven,
(34:12):
so into the second term. And then I was with
Vice President Gore for all of nineteen ninety eight, so
again in the second term, so all together in the
White House. I was there four and a half years.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
All right, So you were sort of in there when
that re election campaign was going on and he was
I did.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
I did a little bit of work on it, you know,
from the outside, obviously as not part of my official position,
but you know, I was on campaign strategy calls, you know,
every morning and all the rest. It was really quite
exciting because President Clinton had really kind of caught his
stride in a sense in ninety six, and the speeches
(34:54):
he were giving getting great audiences, thousands and thousands of
people coming out to see him, and after all, he
hit a great record by that time, I mean, the
economy was booming, and it is much easier to run
for reelection when you've got a booming economy. And as
Clinton used to say, and he was right, everything that's
(35:16):
supposed to be going up is going up. Everything that's
supposed to be going down is going down. He was right.
We had great growth, job creation, investment. At point in time.
Drug use was going down, team pregnancy was going down,
crime was going down. It was really a good time
to be an American.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
All right, How do we get back to those days?
Because I feel like when Trump wants to go towards
some things that are in alignment with the you know,
Clinton era, the Obama era when it comes to immigration,
this generation of Democrats don't like it. So how can
they learn from those that came before him to say, hey, yes,
there are some things that Trump's doing that's right, like
(35:56):
fixing up immigration. Clinton was a big proponent of that
lawrence right.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
So, one of the things that I think most troubles
me about our current situation is that the Democratic Party
has been largely taken over by the progressive left. And
the progressive left seems to believe that if they just
yell a little bit louder, they will convince people. And
(36:24):
I think what President Clinton understood as the ad vice
President Gore, and this is what made them effective, is
that the country is essentially centrist. And Clinton may progress incrementally,
not in radical terms, not in revolutionary terms. The Democrats
need to acknowledge problems on their watch and they need
(36:49):
to come up with solutions that are practical that people
can digest, that make them believable. But you know, turning
your head away and saying inflation isn't that bad, or
turning your head away and saying the border isn't out
of control, or turning your head away from a variety
(37:09):
of other problems is not a formula for gaining trust,
the trust of the American people. So, you know, how
do we get back to that? I hope that the
Democratic Party goes through an evolution where the centrist elements
come to the surface and begin to exert more influence.
And that's what happened in the years before President Clinton
(37:33):
was elected in nineteen ninety two.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
Well, yeah, and maybe we'll get back there, But for now,
it's almost like we all have to worry about Mamdani
now being elected in the city that's how crazy it's gotten. Yes, Laurence,
so it's pretty well all right. I want to give
a couple of more parallels here, because I'm watching Putin,
Trump and Putin and whatnot, I can't help but think
of Reagan Gorbachev. Is there a similarity? There is there
any big differences? Like because Reagan kept heb chop and check.
(38:01):
I don't feel like Trump's gotten there yet with Putin.
Maybe he can. But but Kenny and ge what Reagan did.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
Well, you know, President Reagan, who've come to admire in
recent years, had this expression that I think he took
very seriously when it came to the Soviets. This is
at the time they wore the Soviets. The Soviet Union
didn't crack up until about nineteen ninety one. He used
to say, trust but verify when it comes to arms
(38:32):
control or anything else with regard to relations with Soviet Union,
trust but verify. I think President Trump is far too
much on the trust side and far too little on
the verify side. So he takes Putin at his word,
even though history shows that Putin is a you know,
(38:56):
an almost pathological liar that he doesn't follow through on
his commitments that he will pretend that he wants peace
even though he wants continued war. I mean, anyone who
believes that there's going to be you know, peace for
the long term with Vladimir Putin in power in Moscow
is delusional. If there is a ceasefire, if there is
(39:20):
a peace, it'll just be a time for Russia to
re arm, regroup and launch the next effort to conquer Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
And that's what I feel like with hamask too, because
I feel like Hamas would would would take that would
actually not agree to the ceasefirebal Israel would. I feel
like that's how that would go. So I agree with
you in that context, yes of that.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
And you know the other thing about the media which
drove me crazy is they were sympathizing with Russian and
shoulders soldiers who were duped. Meanwhile, they criticize every American
soldier that goes in saying why are you doing this?
What a what a hypocrisy?
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Right?
Speaker 2 (39:59):
I mean, just side with the Russian soldier and say
how bad poor them? It didn't make sense to me
at the time.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
Well, not only that, but keep in mind with regard
to their conduct of the war. I mean, Russian soldiers
have committed some of the worst human rights abuses that
we have seen in recent memory. When I was in Ukraine,
I visited the town of Bucha, which is right outside
the city of Kiev, and it was an area where
(40:26):
with the invasion, the Ukrainians blew up the bridges leading
into Kiev from Buka, which would have made it easier
for the Russians to roll their tanks in. So in response,
as a premeditated act, the Ukrainians blew up the bridges
so that the tanks couldn't roll well. The Russians then
(40:49):
went into Bucha and took retribution, and they committed some
of the worst human rights abuses on the people of
Bucha that, as I said, we have seen around the
world in recent decades. So I have no sympathy for
Russian troops. Obviously, there are good people in Russia that
(41:09):
did not want to serve in this war. That's fine,
and I empathize with them. But as for the Russian
army as a whole, I don't have much sympathy.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Absolutely not, you know, And I gotta say the corporations
that fled Russia after the war, well, why are we
there in the beginning. I don't understand why these corporations
ran tail. Hey, you partner with a you know, a dictatorship,
stick with them through it? Why not?
Speaker 1 (41:32):
You know, well, you know you can say the same
thing about the dictatorship in Beijing. You know, I mean
we're doing I understand our economies are intertwined with with
China's economy, so it's you know, it's more complicated. But
having said that, you know, it goes back to that
issue that we talked about before, and you said it,
(41:53):
and I think you're right. We want to see we
in the West want to see the good in people.
We want to trust that everybody thinks the way we do.
So after the crackup of the Soviet Union, we were
very hopeful that Russia will turn into a democracy, and
you know American corporations went in there, the famous McDonald's
(42:15):
opening up in Moscow and all the rest. But you know,
business leaders are just as naive as political leaders, and
you know they should have read the writing on the
wall as well. But they see an opportunity to make
money and they're going to go.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
And you can't forget that puts a KGB agent through
it all. I mean there's no doubt that still lingers
in his brain.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
No question about it. Very savvy, very tough, really very
much of a.
Speaker 2 (42:42):
Thug, oh one hundred percent. He gets his own opposition
out and kills him. But that's the story because we
got to focus on getting Ukraine back up and normal
and running. Now, have the buildings been rebuilt because I
remember the war torn images, Have that any of those
buildings been rebuilt?
Speaker 1 (43:00):
Well, you know, the as many countries do. They're trying
to repair infrastructure as it gets destroyed. And in a
certain sense this has become particularly important because Putin has
been targeting energy, the energy sector, so you know, electricity
(43:21):
goes off in even other major cities from time to time.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
And actually Trump says that the signing of the Keystone Pipe,
that pipeline was really a disaster because it empowered Russia
a little bit more.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
Yes, that's exactly right. So, yes, Ukraine is trying to
rebuild as things happen. It's certainly not leaving country. You know,
buildings in uh in pieces of rubble. They're trying to
normalize life in Ukraine as much as they possibly can.
(43:53):
But it's very tough. I mean, the Russians are being
really tough, and they are targeting, as I said, not
just the energy sector, but also you know, residential buildings,
and it's a really rough situation over there.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
All right, I want to end on this because obviously
Clinton and Gore skillfully mastered both the national affairs and
the international affairs. What were some of because you were
dealing with both, what were some of the local things,
the statewide things that really you admired the way they handled,
both Gore and Clinton while dealing with the international scene.
(44:27):
So you being like domestic policy, yes, exactly, domestic policy.
There you go.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Well, you know, there were a lot of major pieces
of legislation that were reforming major systems or major industries. Obviously,
we had welfare reform in nineteen ninety six, We had
telecommunications reform in nineteen ninety six, we had immigration reform
(44:53):
in nineteen ninety six. Also, while the I had domestic implications,
you know, keep in mind, in one of his early battles,
and he was right about this. One of his early
battles was over what was known as NAFTA, the North
American Free Trade Agreement. There was a lot of populist opposition.
Organized labor was opposed to it, but economies grow through trade. Overall,
(45:19):
trade creates more high paying jobs than it costs the country.
Trade is a good thing. He went to bat for
NAFTA and he pushed it through Congress. So lots of
good stuff happened. There was healthcare reform, not of the
comprehensive level, but incremental health care reform. There were just
(45:41):
a whole variety of other things. And by the way,
it was the last time we balanced the budget. Bill
Clinton balanced the budget in nineteen ninety eight for the
first of four straight years, and it was the first
time the federal budget had been balanced in thirty years.
So I think his domestic achievements were really not just good,
(46:05):
but almost spectacular. And he was a very good He
was a very good steward of the international scene. So
pretty successful two terms.
Speaker 2 (46:15):
And I gotta say, now you mentioned that I feel
like Trump forgot about the UFC us MCA, Like I
thought that was gonna be the big deal where we
all got to alignment, which, by the way, speaking a blueprint.
NAFTA was a blueprint for that us MCA, if I'm
not mistaken.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
So it absolutely was. And the changes that we have
seen have been even though Trump pretends that they've been massive,
they've really been quite incremental. The guts of NAFTA remain
in place.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
Well, let's let's keep it that way and we can
go all day because it's just I love picking your brain.
Launch it's all. It's awesome. We got to connect. But
I will leave you with this notes being a NAFTA.
The tariffs are erasing the tax cuts in twenty twenty five.
I didn't think we'd hear about here it that way.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
While the tariffs are more, they are going to do
more than offset. They are going to overtime severely damage
this economy. Keep in mind, those tax cuts that were
enacted this year were mostly just an extension of the
tax cuts from twenty seventeen that were expiring under law
(47:25):
at the end of twenty twenty five. If we did
not extend them.
Speaker 2 (47:28):
I think they say codify. That was the word they
were using, is to codify those tax cuts.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
Make them permanent. But it's not as if people have
more money in their pockets. It's just they have the
same amount of money rather than facing a tax increase.
So the tariffs are an additional tax on tens of
millions of working Americans. Inflation is going to begin to
go back up. I think the economy is going to slow,
(47:54):
and I think we may be into some for some
rough times unless Trump reverses course on tariffs.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
I think he's got him fifty is getting insane. Actually, right,
one last thing, those who may be listening right now
and saying, hey, I know Lawrence from the Clinton era,
what are you doing nowadays? Tell people that might be
following your career, tell us what you're up to nowadays.
Speaker 1 (48:15):
Well, you know, I continue to make a living as
a public affairs and strategic communications consultant, but that's for us,
very boring. What I really love to do is that
I write a columns once every two weeks on foreign affairs,
and they appear in places like Newsweek and The National Interest,
(48:36):
And you know, I continue to write books of American history,
mostly post World War Two, mostly having to do with
America's role in the world. I do a lot of
stuff like this, appearing on TV, lots of lots of
appearances on Canadian TV actually, where I try to explain
(48:56):
America to the very worried Canadians. So variety of things,
and if people want to google me, all they have
to know is that my last name is spelled Haas
and I go by Lawrence with a W. And if
they see anything that I've written or said that they're
interested in, they should reach out to me.
Speaker 2 (49:15):
All right, we'll post your website in the links below.
But Lawrence always a pleasure, And we got to do
this again soon because America two fifty is coming up,
and you know what I wrote about it. I wanted
the right candidate for America to fifty and I did
not think Kalmala was going to be the right candidate.
I hope, I don't regret that. But we will get
to America two fifty, right, Like nothing's going to implode
(49:36):
in the next few months, right, we can pray now.
Speaker 1 (49:40):
Yes, I believe we will get there, but we are
going through some very funky times.
Speaker 2 (49:47):
Now that I know you're a history guy, we got
to pick your brain on that too. Next time. I'd
love to do that.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Good be delighted. Thanks for reaching out to me. I've
enjoyed it greatly.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
Thanks for another follow up with Lawrence Haas, the former
speechwriter for VP al Gore. Thanks again,
Here's your host, Alex Garrett.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, well here on one leg of Alex. It
is a little bit of a news update, because look,
you could make a big deal about the Epstein files dump.
I certainly am going to look into this and report
back to you on it. If you want your own
thoughts and opinions, go for it. As a DJ has
released transcripts between the DJ and just Lain Maxwell, so
(00:32):
I encourage you to check that out. It is our
tax sellars put at work with this release, and I'm
not so tired about it today because there are a
couple other things I want to talk about. Before I
had my guest, Larry has who is a speechwriter for
VP al Gore back in the nineties, back in the
Clinton era in the White House actually, and we get
(00:56):
into what happened this week at the summit with the
Zelenski and the European leaders. But before that, did you know,
speaking of tax dollars being put to use, the US
Department of Homeland Security has canceled forty nine federal grants
worth millions of dollars for non profit organizations, and the
(01:18):
action followed report by the Mill's Forum saying twenty five
million dollars in grants were issued between twenty thirteen and
twenty twenty four. So this really was both parties here, right,
So twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen was Obama, then sixteen
to twenty was Trump, twenty to twenty four was Biden. Well,
(01:45):
Middle East Forum saying twenty five million dollars in grants
were issued in that time period to radical organizations alleged
links to terrorism. This cancelation was a response to a
study that claim DHS funding was being given to groups
with extremist affiliations. I don't care if you want to
(02:07):
put this on Obama, Biden or Trump won. This was
a bipartisan thing here where we were funding those that
had radical ties to terrorism. So we should be applauding
the fact that forty nine contracts have been canceled to
(02:27):
save US money firstly, but also to stop benefiting terrorist organizations.
The United Nations and other international bodies have adopted numerous
conventions to combat terrorism. This is a big deal. It's
a big deal that the Middle East Forum is saying
(02:47):
terror link groups had been given this funding and now
were denied funding because we as Americans should not want
to be funding terror period and all we as Americans
(03:09):
should not want to be funding organizations who have ties
to terrorist groups. So I'm glad that forty nine contracts
have been revoked because it saves us money and it
saves us possible funding of terrorism. And I only see
Fox News report on this. I wish other news outlets
(03:33):
would as well, because this is a big deal. While
I don't like all other all grants being cut in general,
when they focus in and cut the grants that need
to be cut, we should be applauding that. We should
be supporting that here on the One Leg Up Network,
and I certainly as heck M Now one other thing
I want to get to. So we mentioned that Fernando
(03:55):
import Washington was on a visa overstay, but it turns
out there's been a massive review of fifty nine million
US visas targeting violations like overstays, criminal activity, and fraud
for potential deportations, announced yesterday. This historic crackdown has already
(04:17):
resulted in six thousand student visa revocations, six thousand, amid
debates over enforcement fairness and its impact on immigrants, with
supporters praising it as essentral for national security. Look if
they can accurately pinpoint those that are overstaying to do
(04:37):
criminal activity, then yes, we should rightfully strip them of
their visas. I don't mind this site, this oversight of
the visa program. I've always thought that overstays have been
in the in too many numbers. But what I pray
for is that once these reviews are done, the good folk,
(05:00):
the good immigrants that are here not causing chaos but
simply trying to make a living like Fernando and being
part of the community like Fernando, are simply left back
into their realms. Until then, I do support a thorough
review as long as those who are doing right by
the country and paying their taxes are allowed to be
(05:22):
back on the streets of America and the communities of America.
And that's where I staying on that all right right now.
Larry Hass, the former speechwriter for VP Gore, joins me
on the One Leg Up Network to recap that big
summit and so much more. DC has been a buzz
this week with the White House Summit. I covered all
the different you know, the pre show, the pre meeting show,
(05:44):
and then the meeting itself, and then some postgame thoughts
if you will. Postgame will get made. But I have
Lawrence has On, who was the speechwriter for VP al
Gore and who's been to Ukraine, and we were talking privately,
but on my saying, and you are not impressive I
was with the summit. Tell us why.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Well, because I think the whole premise of the summit
was one sided on the side of Vladimir Putin for
reasons that escape me. I mean, Putin has really been
sort of dictating the terms of the discussions that are
going on now.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
He's made here was Zelenski there? You felt he dictated
about meeting on Monday as well?
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Oh, I absolutely did in the background because keep in mind,
Trump was very much influenced by what Putin was demanding.
And he's demanding territory at the very least, and he
wants not only territory that Russia currently controls in the
East of Ukraine, but he wants the entirety of the East.
(06:46):
So he's asking actually Ukraine to give up land more
than Russia is currently occupying. I don't think he should
be giving up any land just as a matter of principle,
but the demand is outrageous. But what happened was Trump
was in essence shaped by that demand, and there was
(07:11):
discussion about what would it take was Zelenski to come along. Now,
as it turns out, it doesn't look like Putin's terribly
interested in peace anyway, hasn't agreed to a meeting with Zelenski.
So I don't really know where all of this is going.
But I think it was really misguided from the start.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
That's very interesting, and I mean, look here, here's why
I was excited about the summit, because it felt like,
for the first time, Zelenski and Trump weren't going at
each other's throats, and neither was NATO going at Trump's start.
I mean, the fact we saw unity was was a
big step forward. But did you see it that way
at all?
Speaker 1 (07:49):
No question that the atmosphere was much better, no question
about it. Trump and Zolensky seemed to get along in
a way that obviously they did not in February when
you had that public blow up. Trump, from everything that
I could see, was gracious, not only to Zelenski, but
as you say, the European leaders who came to see him,
(08:10):
and the European leaders were some heavy hitters. I mean,
it was the head of the European Union, and it
was the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Most vocal critics, Macrone. I mean the fact that he
was there was a big deal.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
To me, absolutely right. So yes, I thought that was
a positive. And I thought that Trump did a pretty
good job in terms of representing the United States and
being gracious and understanding that these were allies. So all
of that was good, and I take your point, But
when it comes down to the specifics of stopping this
war on terms that I think would serve Ukraine and
(08:48):
would serve the West, which I think ought to be
the goal. After all, it was Russia that invaded Ukraine
did not do anything other than be victimized. When you
get into the substance of the discussion, I still do
believe that it was one sided based on the demands
that Vladimir Putin had previously made in terms of stopping
(09:12):
this war.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Now I know he did some aerial assaults nearby NATO
territory earlier today or earlier this week, which is just
pretty pretty damning. But I gotta ask, So there is
this picture of you know, President Clinton, President but they're
all shaking hands with Putin. But how is it that
Clinton was able to keep him at bay. Yet it
seems like presidents after him did not do as good
(09:35):
a job, like what did Clinton Gore do?
Speaker 1 (09:37):
Differently, I must say, I don't know if really that
was determined more by, you know, the brilliance of President Clinton,
even though I did serve him and I do admire him,
as it was the increasingly entrenched position of Vladimir Putin
(09:58):
over the years of different presidencies, starting with, as you said,
George W. Bush and going through Obama. I mean, keep
in mind, Putin has become more of a strong man
over the course of years. He's become more emboldened at home,
and I think because of that, he has felt more
(10:20):
emboldened to try to, in essence, in his mind, resurrect
as much of the previous Soviet Empire as he previously
as the Soviet Union previously existed. I mean, keep in mind,
he did say I believe this was back in the
around two thousand and seven, that the breakup of the
(10:42):
Soviet Union was the greatest political geopolitical catastrophe of the
last quarter century of the twentieth century. Whatever it is
he said, So he really does believe that it is
his mission to expand Greater Russia, and he's become more
in bold and over the course of time. I don't
(11:03):
think American presidents have dealt with him well. I don't
think Obama in particular responded in any way to other
than to appease him after he went in and seized Crimea.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Which set the stage I believe, right, I mean, yes, it.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Was, and it set the stage for what we saw
in twenty twenty two. I mean, after all, Putin saw
that he got away with taking Crimea. I don't think
he believed that the United States was going to do
anything if he invaded Ukraine wholeheartedly. He was surprised that Biden,
you know, in essence spearheaded the you know, the unity
(11:44):
of the West and the support that Ukraine has gotten.
I think it surprised him.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
However, when you say a small incursion like Biden did
in twenty twenty two that I'll never forget that moment,
and I played it on this podcast. Would you have
advised him to say that as a speech writer or
would you have advised him to say, let's not talk
about that. And then, because it almost like seemed like
he was accepting of this incursion, nothing, he would lead
(12:11):
to a war. That's where I think the first mistake
was me.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, you know, the first mistake was that he didn't
read in essence the sentiment in Ukraine, whether in Zolensky's
office or at the grassroots level. You know, keep in mind,
I mean he said to Zelenski, you know, how can
we usher you out of the country, And Zolensky said,
(12:36):
I don't need an airplane, I need weapons. So in essence,
I don't think Biden understood the resolve that the Ukrainian people,
at the leadership and people were going to show. But
once he understood the situation, once he saw that Ukraine
really wanted to fight, I think he did a pretty
(12:59):
good job. I if I were in that position, I
would have been quicker. I would have been more aggressive.
Would I would have been.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Stop about the incursion. That's where I would have stopped them.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
But yeah, right right, it was an invasion, it was
an attempted conquest. Uh uh and uh. And I think
under Biden, the United States just gave the weapons to
Ukraine a little bit too gradually. I think Ukraine would
have been far more effective in its counterattack if we
had given weaponry that we eventually gave six months later,
(13:33):
a year later, two years later.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
And then those of Congression approval. I guess they were
slow rolling it almost in spite of Zelenski for a
while there.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Yes, exactly right. So while I think Biden gets fairly
high marks marks for you know, corralling the West and
creating unity and supporting Ukraine, I just think it was
done too slowly, and you know, in some ways Europe
pushed them, uh to move faster than he was moving.
So the West I think has performed fairly well. I'm
(14:07):
concerned about where we may be going now if Trump
starts really pressuring Zelensky to give up territory. But he
hasn't done it yet. So so far we're in a
good place. And the obstacle to peace is Vladimir Putin,
There's no question about it.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
But I agree with you. I think Trump has to
say that he's really saying Zelenski's in the way of this,
which I don't really understand. And he made that stupid
joke about upending the election if there's a war in
three and a half years, why would you even say that, Lawrence,
I think that was a dub mart.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Yeah, well, you know, sometimes when people say things in jest,
they it reveals their innermost secrets. But be that as
it may, I'll take it as a joke at this point.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
All right, Lawrence, I gotta ask you this, because I
do feel like NATO's become stronger, especially with Trump, and
obviouslyy've been a little more tougher. I didn't think that
was the case during the Clinton years. That's because Clinton
administration had a great rapport with NATO compared to NATA.
Is that what we're.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Seeing, Well, no question. You know, NATO did not have
to necessarily step up because it knew that Clinton had
its its, you know, backing, so there really wasn't any issue.
It's also the case that you know, NATO had an
opportunity to show unity led by the United States, and
(15:29):
it did so in the Balkans in nineteen ninety five
and in nineteen ninety eight. And I would say thirdly,
Russia was less of a threat back then, so there
was less for NATO to be concerned about. You know,
it's a whole different ballgame now you've got the combination
(15:49):
of much more Russian aggression and concerns about Trump's feelings
about both NATO and about Putin. I mean, unfortunately, President
Clinton seems to excuse me, President Trump seems to have
an affinity for strong men. He seems to admire them
(16:11):
rather than see the danger in them. It's not just Putin,
it's Urdigon in Turkey, It's the way net Yahoo's acting
in Israel. It's it's it's this kind of authoritarian impulse
that makes Trump admire Putin much more than he should
(16:31):
and oppose him much less than he should.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Oh my god, when he called him the boss, I
don't care the context, it was kind of it was
kind of a telling thing how he looked at Putin,
which was which was bothers And people have said to me,
why why are you pointing this out? I said, because
I had to be pointing out the way you talked
about him at the summit was a low bothers him.
What I have to say, Yes, but Lawrence, I have
to say, compared to that era in the nineties, I
(16:56):
don't know if NATA was totally concerned, but you're the
biggest negotiation you guys did actually was the Ireland. I mean,
I've read that book about how Ireland became United under Clinton.
What can the negotiating taxans from that, tactics from that,
you know, applied to here. I feel like there was
some negotiation you guys did there to get that done.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Well, certainly it was very tricky. I mean, keep in mind,
we had to figure out what to do with the
Irish Republican Army, which was a terrorist organization for most
of its existence, and you know, was had you know,
Britain as its target. I was a very dicey situation.
(17:35):
Eventually Clinton came around and allowed Jerry Adams to visit
the United States. Eventually there were meetings you know, Ted
Kennedy when all of them.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Were you in any of them or No, I.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Was not involved in foreign policy back then. I was
in the White House. Obviously I was quite aware of
what was going on, But no, I was not in
the meetings. But I know it was very important to
President Clinton. He spent a lot of time on this,
and his people spent a lot of time on this
National security staff, working with the Hill, working with you know,
(18:11):
our ambassador in Ireland, who happened to be Ted Kennedy's sister.
So you know, there were a lot of there were
a lot of moving pieces. I thought Clinton handled it
extremely effectively. I mean, keep in mind the troubles, as
they used to call him, which was the war in
Northern Ireland. I mean they went back to the late
(18:33):
nineteen sixties, you know, so you can think of thirty
years until we finally got the Good Friday Agreement of
nineteen ninety eight. I mean, it was really quite an
accomplishment on Clinton's part, and I think he considers it
one of his greatest accomplishments.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
All right. In that situation, George Mitchell really stepped up
at the time, and he was part of all this.
I feel like there's a peril here where a Rubio
could step up and that in this situation, I feel
like Rubio is gonna have to play a role here
is He's not really talking as much about it, but
he's probably in the background somewhat.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Right Well, Rubio has been very busy with lots of
different stuff. He's not only the Secretary of State these days,
but he's also the National Security Advisor. We have not
had a situation like that since Henry Kissinger. So, and
I don't necessarily recommend it. I mean, these are two
huge jobs. Sure, if it got down to a serious negotiation,
(19:33):
Rubio would be at the table, he'd be advising Trump,
He'd be you know, working with his counterparts, whether in
Ukraine or in Russia or in NATO and all the rest.
But you know, at the end of the day, I
must say, the Secretary of State is and has to
be a tool of the president. He can't have an
(19:55):
independent agenda. He can advise, he can advise aggressively, but
at the end of the day, the president runs foreign policy.
So this is going to wind up in the Oval
Office and Trump is going to have to figure out
what his bottom line is. Hopefully Rubio will push him
to be more supportive of Ukraine than he has been
(20:16):
so far. But we'll have to see. We'll have to see.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
All right, all the leaders thanking Trump was passing by
the way, just to make that note. It was amazing
all them like to thank him after all this. But
I gotta ask you this, because you've been to Ukraine.
What was since we last talked? Have you been back?
Speaker 1 (20:32):
I have not been back, but I do you know,
watch it pretty closely. There is fatigue in Ukraine over
this war, no question about it.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Well, there have been protests about against Zelenski. I've noticed
the streets being filmed. There were protesters very well.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Well, there are a lot of different issues. It's not
just the war. I mean, there is this corruption in
the government which started way before Zelenski. He's done a
a decent job in trying to root some of it out,
but he hasn't, you know, rooted it all out. So
that's something going on. He also hasn't allowed any elections,
(21:11):
and you know that's that's not something that is necessary
in a democracy. I mean, after all, you know, we
were at war. In nineteen forty four, we had our
presidential election. The incumbent, who had been there for twelve years,
Franklin Roosevelt, had to run for reelection. He wound up
(21:34):
winning with fifty seven percent of the vote. It was
his low it was actually his slimmest margin of his
four elections. But he stood for office. There's no reason
why Zelenski cannot stand for office. So as much as
I admire him as somewhat of a modern day Winston Churchill,
I do not support the idea that somehow, because they're
(21:56):
at war, you know, democratic you know, no maladies need
to be somehow frozen and we can't have an election.
So there's a lot of there's concern about Zelenski on
a variety of fronts, but there is I think far
more unity in this country over one thing, which is
(22:18):
they don't want to be ruled by the Russians. They
do not want to be ruled by the Russians. Russian
control or influence in Ukraine dates back one hundred years
to the beginning of the Soviet Union, and the Ukrainians
have had enough. They don't accept the fact that they've
(22:40):
lost Crimea. They believe that the current war started in
twenty fourteen, not in twenty twenty two with this invasion,
that it actually started in twenty fourteen. And I don't
see any indication that there is not continuing strong resolve to,
you know, oppose this attempt at conquest.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Well, it's gonna be very interesting, you went. I mentioned
that the Union Nations coming up in a couple of weeks,
so we have to see it that I mentioned that
for a reason. But I also think I remember in
eight before the Olympics began, George W. Bush, I think
it was an interviewed by Bob Costas ormever was about
the invasion of Georgia, I mean Russia's been at this
for a long time, and you think what happened in
(23:26):
O eight with Georgia. People would be woken up by them,
but just they were caught sleeping a lot of the time,
I felt, but bye by all this.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
You know, democracies are slow to react. I mean, look
at what happened in the nineteen thirties when it should
have been abundantly clear where Germany and Italy and Japan
were headed. It should have been abundantly clear. And yet
you know, ther England was very slow to rearm. There
(23:58):
was a real sense of in your of hiding your
head in the sand and hoping things don't get bad.
And frankly, there was a strong sentiment in the United
States that, yes, things may be getting a little dicey
in Europe, but Hitler is not that bad, Mussolini's not
(24:19):
that frightening, and after all, we don't want to be involved,
and we have an ocean between us and will be okay.
And it was really a great effort on FDR's part
in the starting in the late nineteen thirties to try
to educate the American people on what was coming. But
it was quite a challenge. My greater point is This
(24:41):
is nothing new. Democracies are slow to react. Now when
they finally react, they tend to be on the winning side,
because frankly, democracy is a stronger form of government than
authoritarianism at the end of the day. But I'm not
surprised that somehow we didn't get the message in two
thousand and eight, or we didn't get the message in
(25:02):
twenty fourteen. I'm not terribly surprised, based on history and
based on how democracies tend to act.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
And I think we want to see the good in
all these countries, even the bad ones. I hate to
say that, but I just feels like that too. Lawrence.
I gotta ask you this. You were writing for Vice
President Gore, Yes, did he address NATO? Tell us about
the times you wrote for him to address the international community.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Well, he was terribly involved with regard to foreign policy
on a whole bunch of fronts. The negotiation with North
Korea to reign in their nuclear program, US relations with
South Africa and other countries. I will tell you the
one time when I really was very close to the
(25:49):
action on negotiations. Vice President Gore flew to Israel in
nineteen ninety eight to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the
establishment of the state. He was representing the United States.
We flew over on Air Force too, and he used
that trip as an occasion to try to move along
(26:12):
Middle Eastern peace efforts. So we were in not just Israel,
but we were in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the
West Bank. And he spoke to Arafat, and he spoke to,
you know, the heads of the other countries that I mentioned.
(26:34):
And while we did not obviously get to Arab Israeli
peace or Israeli Palestinian peace, he was heavily involved in
those efforts. And when you see it up close, you
realize how human of an experience this really is. This
(26:55):
really has a lot to do not just with geopolitics,
but it has to do with do I trust this
person sitting across from me at the you know, across
the table. Interestingly enough, the head of the Palestinian side
was Yasa Arafat yep. The head of the Israeli side
(27:15):
Benjamin Netanyahu. That was his first term as Prime minister.
So the more things change, the more they remained the same. Right.
That was a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Well, right, and I tell you I feel old now,
because when I was three or four years old, we
saw Arafat rolling into the EU N which was kind
of a big deal at the time that he was
in the States for that, but it had to be complicated.
And I'm sure because you were involved with that, you
want to see peace. And this is my next question.
Then could whatever happen here, if there is a true
(27:52):
peace deal, be the blueprint for what happens in Israel
and Palestine five point h I feel like we've been
through five generations of all this, right, Could this be
the blueprint for that piece deal next?
Speaker 1 (28:02):
I would love to say yes, but I cannot in
all honesty say yes. The issues are so different. Here.
You have Russia that wants to resurrect greater Russia in
the Middle East. You have got Israel on one side,
and Iran and the terrorist organizations it it's access of
(28:28):
resistance on the other side. And we we saw over
the last couple of years the first direct confrontation, a
military confrontation between Israel and Iran. And until there is
some resolution of that greater conflict, I don't see how
(28:48):
we are going to get Israeli Palestinian peace. I mean,
we still have Hamas as the ruling entity in Gaza,
and everybody said as the following Hamas needs to be disarmed.
But do you notice the passive tense Hamas needs to
be disarmed? Who is going to if you're not gonna
(29:11):
let Israel do it? Who is going to disarm Hamas?
And no one is volunteering one else until somebody, until
somebody steps up and says, okay, we've had enough. It
won't be Israel We're gonna go in. Who's it gonna
be the United States, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Who's gonna
do it? Until we answer that question, I don't see
(29:34):
prospects for peace.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Now does that mean we all don't want to see
the continual bombing of gods? But does that mean you
support Netaw's efforts to get Hamas if no one else
is gonna help them get them? Or how would you
go about getting them if no one else gonna step
up here?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Okay, So I think we have to make a distinction
between what's the end goal and what are the tactics.
I do not support the idea of reinvading Gaza. I
do think there is a strategy that might be a
little bit savvier, which is that you keep the pressure
(30:10):
on Hamas Uh, and there are ways of doing that.
I mean, no intelligence operation is better than Israeli intelligence.
Nobody is better than covert operations than Israel. So I
do think there is room for a narrower effort to
keep the pressure on Hamas and at the same time
(30:32):
relieving the suffering to a great extent of the Palestinian people.
So I'm with him on the end goal because I
think only Israel can disarm Hamas fully. But I'm troubled
by this wholehearted strategy of reinvading Gaza, calling up sixty
thousand of reserves and all the rest.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
By the ways being of reserves. I know that there
were Americans that were not identity. We're helping Ukraine, but
sort of on the down low, so it wouldn't look
like Americans we're helping Ukraine in the efforts. I know
Trump doesn't want troops on the ground. We are going
to get there though, or no, we're not going to
get to that point out.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
I don't think we're gonna get the troops on the ground,
and I don't think we're gonna get to European troops
on the ground hopefully there will be peace and there
will be real security guarantees that will be backed by
the United States and the leading powers in Europe, maybe
through NATO, maybe not. I think these guarantees have to
(31:35):
be believable though, and they mostly have to be believable
in Moscow.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
I know. And when he got invited to Moscow, I
don't even start. I'm like, don't take the invite, do
not take the invite. That's that's taking the bait. But
you're in DC now, still, right? Or where are yes?
Speaker 1 (31:50):
Well? I mean we're speaking from my home in Potomac, Maryland,
but that's right outside of DC. And yes, my work
continues to be real and in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
All right, let me throw a theory out there for
you then. So I was there in March and I
didn't really feel unsafe. I felt like we were fine.
But are you on the daily when you're there, do
you see issues that warranted the National Guard? And then
let me ask you this, because this is my big
theory of the week. I think he called them into
what to clean up DC so that these European leaders
(32:24):
don't look at us and say, boy, what a mess
this town is. Is there a correlation to that that
we didn't even realize till Monday.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
I don't think so, and I do not think that
the takeover Washington, d C. Was warranted. It is not
the case. Look, obviously, there are crime problems in Washington,
just like there are crime problems in every major city,
and more suburbs than and rural areas than you might think.
(32:54):
But there there. We are not in a moment when
somehow crime is out of control in Washington. It's just
not the case. If anything, crime is going down, whether
based on murders or robberies or other types of crimes.
So no, I don't think it was warranted in any way,
and it troubles me because it's again an example of
(33:15):
an authoritarian type of impulse that troubles me greatly.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
It felt weird, but then I started to put two
and two together and that was how I correlated. But no,
I love DC. I love going there to see the capital.
It was fun. It did not feel unsafe in my
view anyway. So I guess I'm not out there every day, though, Lawrence,
I gotta ask you this. You know, next year is
going to be thirty years since they won reelection, which
is just crazy to think about. When did you join
(33:43):
the Vice president Corps? Was it term one, term two?
When did you jump into the fray there?
Speaker 1 (33:48):
So I came to the administration on l essentially Labor
Day of nineteen ninety four, so almost two years in
before the midterm elections. I first served as communications director
of the Office of Management and Budget, and I did
from Labor Day of ninety four through nineteen ninety seven,
(34:12):
so into the second term. And then I was with
Vice President Gore for all of nineteen ninety eight, so
again in the second term, so all together in the
White House. I was there four and a half years.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
All right, So you were sort of in there when
that re election campaign was going on and he was
I did.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
I did a little bit of work on it, you know,
from the outside, obviously as not part of my official position,
but you know, I was on campaign strategy calls, you know,
every morning and all the rest. It was really quite
exciting because President Clinton had really kind of caught his
stride in a sense in ninety six, and the speeches
(34:54):
he were giving getting great audiences, thousands and thousands of
people coming out to see him, and after all, he
hit a great record by that time, I mean, the
economy was booming, and it is much easier to run
for reelection when you've got a booming economy. And as
Clinton used to say, and he was right, everything that's
(35:16):
supposed to be going up is going up. Everything that's
supposed to be going down is going down. He was right.
We had great growth, job creation, investment. At point in time.
Drug use was going down, team pregnancy was going down,
crime was going down. It was really a good time
to be an American.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
All right, How do we get back to those days?
Because I feel like when Trump wants to go towards
some things that are in alignment with the you know,
Clinton era, the Obama era when it comes to immigration,
this generation of Democrats don't like it. So how can
they learn from those that came before him to say, hey, yes,
there are some things that Trump's doing that's right, like
(35:56):
fixing up immigration. Clinton was a big proponent of that
lawrence right.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
So, one of the things that I think most troubles
me about our current situation is that the Democratic Party
has been largely taken over by the progressive left. And
the progressive left seems to believe that if they just
yell a little bit louder, they will convince people. And
(36:24):
I think what President Clinton understood as the ad vice
President Gore, and this is what made them effective, is
that the country is essentially centrist. And Clinton may progress incrementally,
not in radical terms, not in revolutionary terms. The Democrats
need to acknowledge problems on their watch and they need
(36:49):
to come up with solutions that are practical that people
can digest, that make them believable. But you know, turning
your head away and saying inflation isn't that bad, or
turning your head away and saying the border isn't out
of control, or turning your head away from a variety
(37:09):
of other problems is not a formula for gaining trust,
the trust of the American people. So, you know, how
do we get back to that? I hope that the
Democratic Party goes through an evolution where the centrist elements
come to the surface and begin to exert more influence.
And that's what happened in the years before President Clinton
(37:33):
was elected in nineteen ninety two.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
Well, yeah, and maybe we'll get back there, But for now,
it's almost like we all have to worry about Mamdani
now being elected in the city that's how crazy it's gotten. Yes, Laurence,
so it's pretty well all right. I want to give
a couple of more parallels here, because I'm watching Putin,
Trump and Putin and whatnot, I can't help but think
of Reagan Gorbachev. Is there a similarity? There is there
any big differences? Like because Reagan kept heb chop and check.
(38:01):
I don't feel like Trump's gotten there yet with Putin.
Maybe he can. But but Kenny and ge what Reagan did.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
Well, you know, President Reagan, who've come to admire in
recent years, had this expression that I think he took
very seriously when it came to the Soviets. This is
at the time they wore the Soviets. The Soviet Union
didn't crack up until about nineteen ninety one. He used
to say, trust but verify when it comes to arms
(38:32):
control or anything else with regard to relations with Soviet Union,
trust but verify. I think President Trump is far too
much on the trust side and far too little on
the verify side. So he takes Putin at his word,
even though history shows that Putin is a you know,
(38:56):
an almost pathological liar that he doesn't follow through on
his commitments that he will pretend that he wants peace
even though he wants continued war. I mean, anyone who
believes that there's going to be you know, peace for
the long term with Vladimir Putin in power in Moscow
is delusional. If there is a ceasefire, if there is
(39:20):
a peace, it'll just be a time for Russia to
re arm, regroup and launch the next effort to conquer Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
And that's what I feel like with hamask too, because
I feel like Hamas would would would take that would
actually not agree to the ceasefirebal Israel would. I feel
like that's how that would go. So I agree with
you in that context, yes of that.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
And you know the other thing about the media which
drove me crazy is they were sympathizing with Russian and
shoulders soldiers who were duped. Meanwhile, they criticize every American
soldier that goes in saying why are you doing this?
What a what a hypocrisy?
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Right?
Speaker 2 (39:59):
I mean, just side with the Russian soldier and say
how bad poor them? It didn't make sense to me
at the time.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
Well, not only that, but keep in mind with regard
to their conduct of the war. I mean, Russian soldiers
have committed some of the worst human rights abuses that
we have seen in recent memory. When I was in Ukraine,
I visited the town of Bucha, which is right outside
the city of Kiev, and it was an area where
(40:26):
with the invasion, the Ukrainians blew up the bridges leading
into Kiev from Buka, which would have made it easier
for the Russians to roll their tanks in. So in response,
as a premeditated act, the Ukrainians blew up the bridges
so that the tanks couldn't roll well. The Russians then
(40:49):
went into Bucha and took retribution, and they committed some
of the worst human rights abuses on the people of
Bucha that, as I said, we have seen around the
world in recent decades. So I have no sympathy for
Russian troops. Obviously, there are good people in Russia that
(41:09):
did not want to serve in this war. That's fine,
and I empathize with them. But as for the Russian
army as a whole, I don't have much sympathy.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Absolutely not, you know, And I gotta say the corporations
that fled Russia after the war, well, why are we
there in the beginning. I don't understand why these corporations
ran tail. Hey, you partner with a you know, a dictatorship,
stick with them through it? Why not?
Speaker 1 (41:32):
You know, well, you know you can say the same
thing about the dictatorship in Beijing. You know, I mean
we're doing I understand our economies are intertwined with with
China's economy, so it's you know, it's more complicated. But
having said that, you know, it goes back to that
issue that we talked about before, and you said it,
(41:53):
and I think you're right. We want to see we
in the West want to see the good in people.
We want to trust that everybody thinks the way we do.
So after the crackup of the Soviet Union, we were
very hopeful that Russia will turn into a democracy, and
you know American corporations went in there, the famous McDonald's
(42:15):
opening up in Moscow and all the rest. But you know,
business leaders are just as naive as political leaders, and
you know they should have read the writing on the
wall as well. But they see an opportunity to make
money and they're going to go.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
And you can't forget that puts a KGB agent through
it all. I mean there's no doubt that still lingers
in his brain.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
No question about it. Very savvy, very tough, really very
much of a.
Speaker 2 (42:42):
Thug, oh one hundred percent. He gets his own opposition
out and kills him. But that's the story because we
got to focus on getting Ukraine back up and normal
and running. Now, have the buildings been rebuilt because I
remember the war torn images, Have that any of those
buildings been rebuilt?
Speaker 1 (43:00):
Well, you know, the as many countries do. They're trying
to repair infrastructure as it gets destroyed. And in a
certain sense this has become particularly important because Putin has
been targeting energy, the energy sector, so you know, electricity
(43:21):
goes off in even other major cities from time to time.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
And actually Trump says that the signing of the Keystone Pipe,
that pipeline was really a disaster because it empowered Russia
a little bit more.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
Yes, that's exactly right. So, yes, Ukraine is trying to
rebuild as things happen. It's certainly not leaving country. You know,
buildings in uh in pieces of rubble. They're trying to
normalize life in Ukraine as much as they possibly can.
(43:53):
But it's very tough. I mean, the Russians are being
really tough, and they are targeting, as I said, not
just the energy sector, but also you know, residential buildings,
and it's a really rough situation over there.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
All right, I want to end on this because obviously
Clinton and Gore skillfully mastered both the national affairs and
the international affairs. What were some of because you were
dealing with both, what were some of the local things,
the statewide things that really you admired the way they handled,
both Gore and Clinton while dealing with the international scene.
(44:27):
So you being like domestic policy, yes, exactly, domestic policy.
There you go.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Well, you know, there were a lot of major pieces
of legislation that were reforming major systems or major industries. Obviously,
we had welfare reform in nineteen ninety six, We had
telecommunications reform in nineteen ninety six, we had immigration reform
(44:53):
in nineteen ninety six. Also, while the I had domestic implications,
you know, keep in mind, in one of his early battles,
and he was right about this. One of his early
battles was over what was known as NAFTA, the North
American Free Trade Agreement. There was a lot of populist opposition.
Organized labor was opposed to it, but economies grow through trade. Overall,
(45:19):
trade creates more high paying jobs than it costs the country.
Trade is a good thing. He went to bat for
NAFTA and he pushed it through Congress. So lots of
good stuff happened. There was healthcare reform, not of the
comprehensive level, but incremental health care reform. There were just
(45:41):
a whole variety of other things. And by the way,
it was the last time we balanced the budget. Bill
Clinton balanced the budget in nineteen ninety eight for the
first of four straight years, and it was the first
time the federal budget had been balanced in thirty years.
So I think his domestic achievements were really not just good,
(46:05):
but almost spectacular. And he was a very good He
was a very good steward of the international scene. So
pretty successful two terms.
Speaker 2 (46:15):
And I gotta say, now you mentioned that I feel
like Trump forgot about the UFC us MCA, Like I
thought that was gonna be the big deal where we
all got to alignment, which, by the way, speaking a blueprint.
NAFTA was a blueprint for that us MCA, if I'm
not mistaken.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
So it absolutely was. And the changes that we have
seen have been even though Trump pretends that they've been massive,
they've really been quite incremental. The guts of NAFTA remain
in place.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
Well, let's let's keep it that way and we can
go all day because it's just I love picking your brain.
Launch it's all. It's awesome. We got to connect. But
I will leave you with this notes being a NAFTA.
The tariffs are erasing the tax cuts in twenty twenty five.
I didn't think we'd hear about here it that way.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
While the tariffs are more, they are going to do
more than offset. They are going to overtime severely damage
this economy. Keep in mind, those tax cuts that were
enacted this year were mostly just an extension of the
tax cuts from twenty seventeen that were expiring under law
(47:25):
at the end of twenty twenty five. If we did
not extend them.
Speaker 2 (47:28):
I think they say codify. That was the word they
were using, is to codify those tax cuts.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
Make them permanent. But it's not as if people have
more money in their pockets. It's just they have the
same amount of money rather than facing a tax increase.
So the tariffs are an additional tax on tens of
millions of working Americans. Inflation is going to begin to
go back up. I think the economy is going to slow,
(47:54):
and I think we may be into some for some
rough times unless Trump reverses course on tariffs.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
I think he's got him fifty is getting insane. Actually, right,
one last thing, those who may be listening right now
and saying, hey, I know Lawrence from the Clinton era,
what are you doing nowadays? Tell people that might be
following your career, tell us what you're up to nowadays.
Speaker 1 (48:15):
Well, you know, I continue to make a living as
a public affairs and strategic communications consultant, but that's for us,
very boring. What I really love to do is that
I write a columns once every two weeks on foreign affairs,
and they appear in places like Newsweek and The National Interest,
(48:36):
And you know, I continue to write books of American history,
mostly post World War Two, mostly having to do with
America's role in the world. I do a lot of
stuff like this, appearing on TV, lots of lots of
appearances on Canadian TV actually, where I try to explain
(48:56):
America to the very worried Canadians. So variety of things,
and if people want to google me, all they have
to know is that my last name is spelled Haas
and I go by Lawrence with a W. And if
they see anything that I've written or said that they're
interested in, they should reach out to me.
Speaker 2 (49:15):
All right, we'll post your website in the links below.
But Lawrence always a pleasure, And we got to do
this again soon because America two fifty is coming up,
and you know what I wrote about it. I wanted
the right candidate for America to fifty and I did
not think Kalmala was going to be the right candidate.
I hope, I don't regret that. But we will get
to America two fifty, right, Like nothing's going to implode
(49:36):
in the next few months, right, we can pray now.
Speaker 1 (49:40):
Yes, I believe we will get there, but we are
going through some very funky times.
Speaker 2 (49:47):
Now that I know you're a history guy, we got
to pick your brain on that too. Next time. I'd
love to do that.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Good be delighted. Thanks for reaching out to me. I've
enjoyed it greatly.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
Thanks for another follow up with Lawrence Haas, the former
speechwriter for VP al Gore. Thanks again,
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com