America's Talking - Episode 76: Arizona Senator Leaves Democratic Party, Declares to Be Independent

Episode Date: December 9, 2022

Join The Center Square’s Executive Editor Dan McCaleb and D.C. Bureau Chief Casey Harper as they discuss Arizona Senator Leaves Democratic Party, Declares to Be Independent. WNBA star Britney Griner released by Russia via prisoner swap. COVID vaccine mandate for troops may finally get the axe via military budget. Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/america-in-focus/support Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the America In Focus podcast, powered by the Center Square. America InFocus is the production of America's Talking Network. I'm Dan McAulb, executive editor of the Center Square Newswire Service. To support great podcasts like this one, please donate by clicking the link in the show description. Joining me again today is Casey Harper, the Center Square's Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief. How are you, Casey? I'm good, Dan. How are you? Doing well. We are recording this podcast on Friday, December 9th.

Why don't we just jump right into it, Casey, with a developing story that just broke this morning. U.S. Senator Kirsten Cinema announced today that she is leaving the Democratic Party and filing as an independent, excuse me. That throws some doubts on Democrats laser-thin majority in the Senate. What's going on here, Casey? Yeah, this is, I mean, definitely the story of the day, probably the story of the week. In my mind, this came out of nowhere. I mean, you weren't seeing a lot of speculation about this.

Democrats have been kind of annoyed by cinema. for a bit now because she has been unafraid to challenge the president, particularly on inflation. She's been in West Virginia Senator and Democrat still Joe Manchin's camp on that. But even then, Manchin has really taken the blunt of the criticism. He has been more outspoken and, you know, cinema has been opposed, but more behind the scenes. And so if you had asked me yesterday, you know, if a Democrat was going to leave the party and the Senate, who would it be? or you asked anyone, most people would have told you Joe Manchin. I mean, he is in a, you know, a tough state to be a Democrat. And he's been, you know, more right-leaning on some votes. But this time it's cinema. So it'll be really interesting, as you said, for this majority. I think a lot of Democrats breathe the sigh of relief when Raphael Warnock beat Herschel Waka in Georgia in Georgia because I was like, okay, we have 51 Senate votes. That means that we don't have to beg Joe Manchin to do everything we want. We can afford to. lose Joe Mansion and still

pass something. But now cinema's probably not going to totally change ideologically. She might often side with Democrats, but it's not a sure thing anymore. And so Democrats were only able to enjoy that newfound security for a couple of days before cinema

ripped it from them. Yeah. So heading into this morning before cinema's announcement with Warnax win on Tuesday, hard to believe it's Friday. And they had a election was only a few days ago. But with Warnock's win over Walker on Tuesday, we thought Democrats had a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate. What's unclear is whether Cinema is going to caucus

caucuses with Democrats. As, for example, Bernie Sanders, who's technically also an independent, he caucuses with Democrats. That's what gave them the 51. But Cinema hasn't said if she will caucus with Democrats. So is it now 50-49? If she caucuses with Republicans and no one is saying she is, not saying that. But if she were to, that would make it 50-50. Of course, Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat would still have the tie-breaking vote there. But that does put a little bit more pressure. Maybe gives Joe Manchin out of West Virginia, Democrat out of West Virginia, as you talked about earlier, another critic of many of the president's policies, puts a little pressure on it, maybe gives him a little more power?

Yeah, I mean, I think it does somehow. I mean, Manchin, like you said, on Tuesday, he lost a little bit of power. But I think cinema is doing what she does best, which is keep things interesting. I mean, she wears bright colors. She sometimes dresses like no one else on, if you see in the Senate, wearing really, you know, bright, hot pink or something like that. And now politically, she's made it even more interesting. You know, it's worth noting both her and Joe Manchin come from states that have really tiracy. So it might be easy for California or New York Democrats to be shocked or appalled by this.

But if you're in a state like West Virginia or Arizona, which has these really tight races that come down to the wire, it's just a different political landscape. You know, you can't have California and New York policies all the time when you're running in a much more of a purple state. And I think that, you know, leadership in both parties are a lot of Americans who come from states that are really red or really blue forget that there are, are states where it really is purple. And these lawmakers have to walk a different kind of tight road. Let's just talk briefly about her reasons for leaving the Democratic Party. She has been much more centrist than many Democrats. She has opposed some of President Biden's policies. But essentially, she said in both an op-ed that she wrote for the Arizona Republic that published this morning and on Twitter that both parties have become too radicalized and don't represent the best interests

of America. Tell us a little bit more about that. I think most Americans would honestly say amen to that. I mean, people as a general rule don't have a lot of faith in political parties, even their own. Of course, they hate the other one and they tolerate their own. They often have their favorite couple of legislators or, you know, policy ideas, but it's really easy to blame political parties because they do all the dirty work. So when it comes to attacking political parties, I think this is a growing thing. We've seen Andrew Yang has started this attempt at a third party called the Forward Party. Of course, Sinema made no indication that she's going that way.

But it could be that we're seeing a growing push for some kind of real third party or departure from the old Republican Democrat two-party system. I think even a few days ago, that might have seemed a lot less probable. But if someone like Cinema could do it, you know, maybe Mansion follows suit. I think that there are other lawmakers, you know, especially in the House who might be interested in this. We could see some of these traditional power structures start to crumble. But at the same time, this is just one person. And I don't know if, you know, I don't, no one has really talked much about this,

but this could be the kind of thing for someone who wants to be a vice president or even a presidential candidate. couple of years. Interesting. Interesting thought. Of course, the next presidential election is two years away, 2024. This is a developing story. So check out thecentersquare.com for future developments on it. Another big story this week, Casey, just broke yesterday at WNBA star Brittany Griner, who's been held in Russia since earlier this year for essentially having cannabis oil in the country. illegal there. She was released yesterday, Thursday, December 8th, after a prisoner swap arranged by the Biden administration. Tell us about this. Yeah, Dan, this is a good warning for you not to take any of your favorite recreational products to Russia because it may not end well for you. But Griner was

fortunate this time. I mean, we have Americans, as was pointed out by a lot of Republicans. We have had Americans there a lot longer. But Griner, you know, the Biden administration and President Biden, to his credit, was able to secure this deal with Russia at a time when when away we're fighting a proxy war in Ukraine with them. So I really, you know, I was a bit surprised to see this just because of the war in Ukraine. If it weren't for the war in Ukraine, I think this is a lot more doable. But given that we're funding Ukraine when Russia is at war with them and then we're able to pull off some kind of deal, I think that is really noteworthy. And I know people were pretty tough on Biden about this. I think maybe a little bit of

too tough. Of course, the criticism is that he gave up a guy called the Merchant of Death. It was like a Russian arms dealer. And so, you know, a lot of more right-leaning Republicans were saying that, you know, how is this a fair trade? One, you know, one of a WMBA player for the merchant of death, literally the merchant of death. So I don't know. I mean, if you saw that kind of criticism, I went back and forth on that. Yeah, I did see that kind of criticism. A merchant of death, arms dealer, who essentially provided weapons to terrorist organizations. So, yeah, I mean, there needs to be some questions answered about that. Was it a fair trade? And then there's the other part of this story is that American Paul Whelan has been jailed in Russia for years now.

now, why wasn't he part of the deal? Yeah, you're referring to the Marine Paul Whelan, who is accused of espionage. I mean, the Biden administration said that Russia basically told them, you can have Griner or you can have nobody. Who knows really what went on as negotiations? I mean, the administration's representation of private conversations, world leaders. I mean, you never know how much you can trust that kind of thing regardless of party. But that's what they're saying, that they didn't have an option.

It was either get Griner home. or nobody. Whelan's family did release a statement saying, you know, it's better to get Griner than no one. And so I think they were very mature about it and really kind and generous in their response to this. Of course, I'm sure they're personally mourning that Whelan is still over there. So, you know, even did you see, I don't know if you saw, but Elon Musk is becoming increasingly political and tweeted at Biden, you know, never leave a Marine behind or something to that effect. So this is, that criticism is getting traction. I think this strikes me as one of those stories that, you know, lives for a week or two. But ultimately, people are probably, you know, well, we got our WNBA star back. I don't know who this Paul Wheeling guy is.

And they move on to the next story. Well, hopefully the Biden administration can negotiate Paul Wheelan's release and return home. Of course, we're happy that Brittany Griner is now free. She is back in the United States arrived early this morning. Happy for her, happy for her wife and her family and friends and the entire basketball community, but there's certainly more work to be done here. Another developing story, Casey, that you've covered at thecentersquare.com

had to do with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for military troops. It looks like the vaccine mandate for troops might be going away. going on here? That's right. This is a story, of course, you and I have been talking about for a while. I think we've done a great job covering COVID and the ensuing mandates and shutdowns of all kinds at theCenterSquare.com. But this is particularly interesting because as we talked about recently on the podcast, even as mandates have trickled away as even the most stringent governors and lawmakers have backed off of some of their mandates and their rhetoric, you know, against people. people who oppose the vaccine. Even as they back down, there's been one institution that has

remained steadfast in implementing these mandates and not backing down at all. And that's the U.S. military. And there at this point have been thousands of service members who have been discharged from the military because they refuse to get the vaccine. Now, of course, when you sign up for the military, you kind of surrender a lot of your rights. And U.S. service members are forced to get a lot of different vaccines. I think this one was different because there was just not nearly as much data or testing. The vaccine was so new. It was, of course, rushed. In real time, we were being told different things by health officials about what was safe, what wasn't. We were initially promised that the vaccine would keep you from getting COVID and definitely keep you from

transmitting it. And of course, neither of those things turned out to be true. So I think this vaccine is different because it was so new because we didn't have the research. Because the research we had was changing in real time. And so because of that, lawmakers and the American people are in particular a lot more sympathetic to service members who want to opt out of this versus some other more established vaccine. So there have been a lot of legal battles. In particular, the U.S. Navy SEALs have taken the Department of Defense to court and gotten a lot of press attention favorably as well on this issue because Navy SEALs, of course, occupied this kind of place in the American imagination is heroes and deservedly so. They are some of the most admired warriors

in the U.S. military. And they have been getting kicked out. And it takes a lot of money to train a Navy SEAL. They're the best of the best. You know, not just anyone can qualify. This isn't your rank and file soldiers. So to have someone qualified to be in the Navy SEAL but then get kicked out, I think has been, you know, that has hit the American mind in a different way. And that's why they've been a good poster child for this anti-vax movement or anti-vax mandate movement within the military. So there are cases there, but as you reference, this is kind of a long-winded route I've taken to get to the NDAA budget. So there's an annual budget that funds the military. It has to get past every year.

Often it gets passed in the summer and they say this is how much money we get for these planes and this and, you know, all the different things, hundreds of billions of dollars. But this time around, a lot of Republican lawmakers are pushing very hard to use the NDAA as an opportunity to include a provision that prevents the military from doing these vaccine mandates. And so this is given new life to the movement and new hope to those service members who want to stay in. Now, it doesn't seem to me that those who've been discharged would be able to just be undischarged. But there's a lot of people who are still in processing who might get new hope because of this NDA. effort. Two facets of the story. I just want to explore a little bit further with you. One is the reason that some military members don't want to get the vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccine. It's the same reason that many Americans who have refused to get the vaccine or declined to get the vaccine don't

want it. It's for religious purposes. The vaccine was developed using fetuses, using stem cells from fetuses that were aborted, folks who are, you know, against abortion or whatever, they say, for religious reasons, they said that it's against their religious beliefs and they shouldn't have to get it. Federal law does require the government, in this case the military, to honor and respect individuals' religious beliefs, but the military was essentially just those military members who filed religious objections to getting the vaccine, they were just largely blanketly rejected by the military,

even though the government is supposed to give each individual their own specific hearing, hear them out, etc., that did not happen. And the other side of it, or the other FAS that I want to talk about, is, you know, there is a war going on in the Ukraine. The U.S. is helping to fund it. And all branches of the U.S. military have struggled to meet recruitment numbers. Which element of the story do you want to jump on there first? Well, we've talked about this a little bit, but I think the recruitment thing is really important.

And you've seen some people in the defense world raise the alarm about this, about the difficulty, the increased difficulty recruiting people and some of the reasons for that. I mean, we've talked about some of the CRT and different things that have been in the military. But we can take it from whatever angle you want. I mean, getting rid of Navy SEALs certainly doesn't make us more ready to fight battles overseas. Creating a negative public image of the military doesn't make it easier to recruit, especially at a time when, sadly, it's very possible that we could get pulled into some kind of conflict, larger-scale conflict with Russia, let alone China and Taiwan. So we're in a more precarious position right now internationally that we have been in a while.

And so that just adds another element of complexity and seriousness to these discussions. Thank you for your insight, Katie. Casey, now let's turn to the Twitter files. If you're not familiar with the Twitter file story, then you must have been off vacationing in a cave somewhere. But Elon Musk, who owner of Twitter, has been releasing a series of documents, internal Twitter documents that reveals essentially conversations between Twitter's top executives and the Biden campaign, the Department of, excuse me, the Democratic National Committee,

the FBI. In particular, I'm focusing on the Hunter-Lyden laptop story, essentially censoring that story. Now that Elon Musk has started releasing those internal files, there's no. many Republicans in Congress who say there's going to be investigations and there's accountability is coming was the headline that was on your story this week. What's going on here? Yeah, this is definitely a story that's not going to go away. I think the Hunter Biden laptop story has really persisted in particular because it's one

of the clearest examples of this kind of thing a lot of Republicans have been chasing, which is Democrat election interference, you know, quote unquote, stealing the election or something. they've been hard pressed to come up with a lot of evidence for that when it came to, you know, voting machines or different things. But there's plenty of evidence that the federal government interfered in the 2020 election via federal law enforcement and quenching this Hunter Biden story. So, you know, what we know from these files, and not all of this is new information, but what we know from these files is the FBI met with Twitter weekly ahead of the 2020 election and basically warned them that some kind of, you know, disinformation story was coming. And then when the Hunter Biden story broke about Hunter Biden's laptop, how there was

foreign business deals that may have compromised the Biden family, all kinds of things. Really big story right before the election. These social media companies shut it down. Facebook shadow band it basically and Twitter banned it all together. And now, you know, over the last two years, more and more reporting has shown like that the story for the most part is. true, or at least a lot of the key details. I mean, some things haven't been dug into enough yet as far as like what actually happened with some of these overseas deals. But the laptop is real.

A lot of these, you know, emails are really troubling and worthy of investigation. But because of the FBI working with these social media companies, they cast enough doubt on this story to give the mainstream media cover to not report it or to call it even misinformation. A lot of people call it misinformation or disinformation ahead of the election, which who knows how many voters that swayed. And then later it turns out that the FBI was working on this, that turns out this story was a lot more true than we were led to believe. So there's there's the one angle of how this impacted the 2020 election. How can we keep that from happening again? There is this ongoing another angle, which is, man, it sure seems like every time we get any kind of internal documents,

federal law enforcement is controlling social media companies. I mean, we've seen that Department of Homeland Security just created this disinformation. board where they're, you know, working directly with big tech and social media companies to basically silence information, especially around the vaccine that they don't agree with. So we've seen multiple examples of this. And it raises a First Amendment question because, you know, all this stuff about, hey, social media companies can't ban people who are conservative. We have free speech in the First Amendment.

The comeback to that has always been, well, private companies can do whatever they want. You know, you can't force, like if you go into a coffee shop, they don't have to let you stand on a chair and say what you want. It's a private company. But what we're seeing now is that argument doesn't hold as much weight because it's not just a private company. It's federal law enforcement working with this private company to silence speech. So now that the federal government is involved in silencing speech, I think there is a much more real First Amendment argument to be made here, which is the federal government is silencing speech. So that's, you know, those are two of the big angles that we're seeing, of course, I think the third.

one on quickly is the mainstream media has really taken a lot of fire for how I think they've really bungled this coverage. I mean, from the beginning, they miscovered it. They've downplayed it. And I think this is one of those stories that has really contributed to the corrosion of America's trust in the mainstream media, which has really been going on since even, you know, before the Biden administration, probably really began with the poor reporting that led us into the Iraq war. and then biased coverage of Obama. And it's just been going on since then. But this is another chapter in that story of eroding trust in the media.

And with Republicans taking control of the U.S. House in January with a slim majority, do you expect hearings, investigations? What do you think is going to happen there? Yeah, I mean, I think there will be hearings. I think there will be press releases. I think I'm a little more pessimistic. Maybe there's some people on this because lawmakers have a way of having hearings and, you know, TV, media appearances and fundraising emails on topics like this without anything actually ever happening. I mean, how many Benghazi hearings did we sit through without anybody really ever getting held accountable, hardly for anything?

I mean, there's just been different hearings. The Mueller investigation would, you know, kind of turned out to be fake. But we see congressional hearings. So I think for any real action to happen on this, on the Republican side, whoever the 2024 nominee is is going to have to make this an issue and it's going to have to come from the top. Because when you have accountability at such a high level, I think it almost has to come from the president. You know, a few members of the House, they can keep the story going. They can reveal new information to put pressure on things. But if something's really going to change, I think it will have to come from the top on this issue.

And we also expect Elon Musk to release more internal Twitter documents about killing various stories, et cetera. Any insights there? We just have to wait and see what else comes out. I'll say keep an eye on Elon Musk. I mean, this guy is breaking news every day. It's very interesting. Twitter is one of the most important social media companies in the world. It's one of the most viewed websites in the world. So it's no small thing to have somebody like him doing this. I'd say just keep an eye on and we'll see where it goes. Thank you, as always, for your insight, Casey, but that is all the time we have this week.

For our listeners, you can catch Casey Harper's reporting at thecentersquare.com. Also a reminder, you can find all of the Center Squares podcast in America's Talking.com. Take a look. Please subscribe. There is no cost. This has been the America in Focus podcast for Casey Harper. I'm Dan McHale. We'll talk to you next week.