Lovett or Leave It - There Will Be Flood (Live from DC!)

Episode Date: June 3, 2017

The US withdraws from the Paris accords. Spicer dodges questions on climate. CEOs are divided on advising Trump. And a new segment: "Too Stupid to be Congress." Recorded at the Lincoln Theatre on U Street, Jon is joined by CBS News White House reporter Jackie Alemany, Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden, and Campaign Zero co-founder Brittney Packnett.

Hey guys! That's very nice. That is exactly right. Thank you for being here. Look at these friends of the pod. It is so great to be back in our nation's capital knowing that it will be for three days it's a little dark out there guys i drove by the naval observatory on my way here and i was like i cannot believe that dead-eyed zealot

lives in that house now. I mean, just... doing an impression of the Ronald Reagan robot from Back to the Future Part 2-2-2-2. That could have been better. It's great to be here at the Lincoln Theater it's great to be here with all of you

because this is one of our DC shows I wanted to start with just one spin of the rant wheel I love the reaction every time the rant wheel. I love the reaction every time. Now, I don't really know where it's going to land, but just like, we'll see what happens.

Jesse, can we go to the wheel? For those at home, the wheel, here's some of the options, just to run through the rant wheel. Jared and Ivanka, Jared and Ivanka, Jared and Ivanka, Jared and Ivanka, Jared and Ivanka, Jared and Ivanka. Jesse, can we roll the wheel? Guys, it has landed on Jared at Ivanka. These fucking people. I vividly remember being told that Ivanka was going to be a moderating influence on her father. And if you guys remember, through a Muslim ban, through all of it, I said, I do not believe

that they are doing what they said they were going to do. I have no hope that they can wrest this administration from the clutches of the C-plus right-wing people that Trump has surrounded himself. And I don't believe that Trump has the mental acuity to kind of litigate an argument over the direction to take this country but I said I had one issue and it was fucking Paris

and Ivanka and Jared failed now partly it's because Jared is distracted by the crimes he seems to have committed but I think it's time to say we are done with Jared and Ivanka. You fucking dilettantes. You don't get to work in the White House

and then go to the parties in New York. They're going to look at you bad. They're not going to want you at the cocktail parties. It's done. You failures. Done. at the cocktail parties, it's done, you failures. Done. Either you don't care or you're too stupid to make a difference. And either way, we're not giving you the benefit of the doubt anymore. And with that, I'd like to bring on our panel. She is a White House reporter for CBS News covering the Trump administration and was a campaign embed during the 2016 campaign

in New Hampshire and Ohio, Jackie Alamany. Jackie, thank you for being here. Let's hug. We're supposed to hug, I think. I never know. I never know. She is the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and the Center for American Progress Action Fund. She served both Obama and Clinton. Don't shake my hand, Neera Tanden.

She was also my boss. Neera was also... Neera was my boss in 2008 when I was working on the Hillary campaign, Fool Us Once. She is vice president of the National Community Alliances for Teach for America, a co-founder

of Campaign Zero, and co-host of Pod Save the People with DeRay McKesson, Brittany Packnett. Brittany, thank you for being here. You guys are plugged in, and you are very enthusiastic, and it's great. I want you guys to know that earlier today,

Nira said, I'm really excited to go on Pod Save America. I want you guys to know that earlier today, Neera said, I'm really excited to go on Pod Save America. But I think, you know, I think this is good. Let's get into it. What a week. Obviously, President Trump announced that he was pulling the United States federal government out of the Paris Agreement. Yes.

The Paris Agreement was the first ever global pact between nearly all countries on Earth to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by setting national climate targets and submitting each nation's progress for international review. They were non-binding, but it was the commitment on the part of every country on Earth,

including the United States, but not Nicaragua, which was way ahead of the curve anyway, but not Nicaragua, which was way ahead of the curve anyway, and Syria. Those were the only two countries that didn't sign on to the pact. So he pulls out, obviously, it falls now to states and cities to keep their commitments. Very few of the rules put in place by Paris were at the federal level. It's why you saw the mayor of Pittsburgh put out a statement saying that Pittsburgh was going to stay in the accord.

I also noticed that Justin Trudeau of Canada... It doesn't matter that he's handsome. It doesn't matter. But he's handsome. It doesn't matter. But he is handsome. He tweeted that he was obviously disappointed that the United States federal government had decided to pull out of Paris. And that was, I thought, bittersweet

because on the one hand, it's recognizing that this doesn't speak for all of us. But on the other hand, we're like one step away from other countries referring to the Trump administration as a regime. And that's just... What's wrong with that? It's just... I've tried to refer to the various stages of the decline that America is currently going through. And America being referred to as having a regime is the full banana. That's the full banana republic. And I'm just not ready yet. I'm just not ready yet. Neera, I want to start with you. You are a policy expert. We worked

together when you were the policy director for Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008. We worked together on many energy-related speeches. Do you believe that Democrats have told the right story around climate change? Do you believe that Democrats bear any responsibility for our failure to make the case to the American people on this issue? So, I mean, Paris was actually, being part of Paris, taking action on climate are actually very popular things. It is not the case that it is deeply unpopular to take action on climate. The fact that the United States had made a commitment to Paris, and actually we were meeting our targets, actually we have greater job growth in the solar energy by solar jobs than at 10 times what we have in the coal-related industries,

is actually the true story. And I think the reality here is that, obviously, there's almost no thing that you could say Democrats couldn't do a better job. Sure, but this is an area in which the whole world actually saw it, and much of the country, a strong majority of the country, believes the United States should have stayed in Paris, should take bold action. You know, the exact argument, I have a hard time saying President Trump, so I'll just say Donald Trump. The exact argument Donald Trump made that there is a conflict between jobs and climate is false, and most people have already rejected it. I just want to follow up on the policy, because it does seem that, first of of all the targets were non-binding uh but regardless the united states is moving towards clean energy for a lot of market-based reasons

in addition to policy related reasons uh states and cities are are moving forward despite what trump does is it possible for us to meet the targets of paris even if we don't have a if we even if we continue to have a hostile president in the White House? I think we can. There are states in which federal action was prodding them along. The Clean Power Plan was an important tool that has been locked up in the courts. But, you know, I hope, like on a lot of issues, you know, the Affordable Care Act is actually more popular today because of the actions of the Trump administration trying to dismantle it. My hope on climate is that his

terrible actions will actually make more and more people, states, mayors, business leaders, actually do more because they know now it's really up to all of us to take action. I want to come back to the business leaders, but to Nira's point about people coming around to this issue, in Donald Trump's speech, you referred to this number, 2.7 million jobs are at stake if we sign on to Paris. This is an industry-funded study that's largely been debunked, that none of the assumptions in the study make any sense. I'm shocked he used a statistic. I'm shocked he used a statistic.

Or rather that his staff used the incorrect statistics to sway him one way or the other. So the president gives this speech. David Roberts, who's an excellent climate reporter, basically said, I'm going to let you guys know when he says something true. Did not. Did not end up coming up.

So obviously the president giving a speech on pulling out of Paris is important. It is almost impossible to fact check every inaccuracy along the way. What strategies, what should reporters who want to look at this issue in a nonpartisan way, what strategy do they take when, I think it's fair to say that one side of this issue is, which is an isolated side, there's plenty of Republicans who believe climate change is a real threat too now, is using so many inaccuracies. What's the media's responsibility there to you?

Well, I actually, like we were talking about backstage before we came out here, I was saying, and sort of in the vein of what you were saying, I don't even think it's necessarily about whether or not Democrats have been able to make this palatable and have painted this issue in the right way. I do believe that there is a scientific consensus around, based on facts, that has turned this into a nonpartisan issue. I mean, aside from,

like, the Michael Savage show today, most outlets were, you know, pressing on, pressing the president and this administration, every single person in this administration, and whether or not the president embraced, you know, this scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change. And I think also every single poll that's come out, it's like one in five people believes that the U.S. shouldn't have pulled out of the agreement. There's also a consensus in America that, you know, we need to do something about climate change. It's from every single angle, from Pope Francis, every single leader in the free world. Trump really went against the advice of the entire world on this just to win a very small ideological war here. And, you know, this decision is, it feels very Trumpian to me. This decision is, it feels very Trumpian to me.

I'm not necessarily sure, you know, this is even a partisan debate anymore. Although, you know, I think that coming into this week, Republicans have been really frustrated about the lack of, to say this diplomatically, just the lack of action coming out of the White House. And they needed a win. They were pushing for a win. People were tossing around the idea of infrastructure, jobs, June is jobs month.

I'm not sure a lot of people anticipated, though, that this was going to be the big decision to move the ball forward. And Michael Savage show, that's your favorite show. Which is funny. You just keep up with that. That's your sort of... Sorry. I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, so you say that this is... And sorry, just because while we're

on the Michael Savage Show, I also think it articulated the conservative view on this really well, too. It wasn't necessarily... No one was touting all the coal jobs are coming out. What people were praising was, you know, that Leonardo DiCaprio was sad and that the gas-guzzling CEOs of America and the globalists were, you know, all crying and sobbing in their SUVs driving to their fancy European salons verbatim.

Yeah, but so, yes, there is a strange rise of conservative politics and policymaking by dint of what makes liberals sad, which is... It's like vengeance. It's just like vengeance politics. It's like you don't have an argument. You're only going to figure out how you feel about something by what the opponent thinks. And if the opponent is upset that you've decided

to help destroy the planet, that makes you happy. It's very weird. It is. It's weird. It's something that is weird. I'm just not sure how much more of an argument Democrats could put forward other than, like, what about the lives of your grandchildren? Right.

Right. Which, and I'm not a reporter, right, but as a reader of people who report things, I read in multiple ways. The stories that I would really love to see are ones that not only connect this with people's real life, but also connect with this with these proposed budget cuts, particularly the cutting of the Civil Rights Department in the EPA. We talk about how this will affect everyone from communities of color in urban America to white folks in rural America and a lot of folks in between. People are not yet reading that story because they're reading the story about Leonardo DiCaprio. And that is what I hope to see reported. Now that this is going to move to the state and local level, do you see anything that makes you hopeful about how we're responding to this? Do you see things that what Trump is doing is not something that's

irreversible, that the American people can kind of do something to respond? Yeah, so three things. One, none of the opinions I express are reflective of my 501c3 organization. Oh, that's exciting. Me too. You either? The same, right?

Like all across the board. I do represent the views of crooked media. That's the life. That's where I'm trying to get. So that's the first thing. Two, I've been thinking a lot about Flint in this conversation, which still, let's be clear, does not have any clean water. But the people's response to Flint is what continues to give me hope. Right.

And, you know, let's be very clear when some people's president and I know I get in trouble for saying that, but he's not mine. Some people's president. When some people's president got up and was like, you know, we're going to we're going to negotiate a new big deal. Right. got up and was like, you know, we're going to negotiate a new Bigley deal, right? And my thing is, like, in your 120 plus days or whatever it's been, folks in Flint still don't have any clean water. So I, A, don't trust you for anything, but B, I trust the people with the

whole lot. The question is, are we going to pay attention when things are not trending? The question is, are we going to pay attention when Flint is not a number one hashtag? But I still put my hope in the people, right? We created ourstates.org in order to help direct people toward the things that were happening in their community every single day at the local and state level. I'll also say, and I would agree with you, I'm very hopeful about what courageous leadership has the opportunity to look like right now. And I think the Pittsburgh mayor showed that, right? He was like, you talking about me? Oh, no, baby, what is you doing? Not over here. Because in Pittsburgh, we care about breathing clear air. And so I think

our push as the people is to remind our elected officials that they derive their power from us. And this is the time where they need to be as courageous as possible. So just to build on that really quickly, I mean, the way this is going to operationalize itself is that it will be in full effect. His action to pull out of the Paris Treaty will be in full effect in November of 2020. So that is another... I think that date is maybe familiar for another reason. Yes.

Right? I have a calendar already on my wall. But I think that's another... I mean, in another way, it's really up to us to make sure Paris is on the ballot in 2020, to make sure Paris is on the ballot in 2018, to make sure Paris is on the ballot in 2018, to make sure that we actually ask in these races, in congressional races, in governor's races,

where do you stand on this? I mean, I think a little bit for the last eight years, we had the assurance that we had a rational adult as president of the United States, and we're in the whole new world where we are dealing with cray-cray constantly and it's up to us. It really is up to us

to hold our leaders accountable, hold our mayors, city councils, governors, senators, members of Congress. That is what Paris is about. It's action at every level to address the global scourge of climate change. One more point about that, because I think Jackie's right that there is a changing consensus

that this isn't the same divide that we've always had, but that's not necessarily true in Congress. There are Republican members of Congress, somebody's going to know the name of the guy from South Florida who's been pretty good on this issue. Carbello. I was here for you too, Benny. Okay, the fourth person who yelled Carbello, you get nothing. You definitely heard someone else say it. But there are profiles in Courage here.

John McCain is someone who's talked about climate change. But Paul Ryan put out a statement saying... You guys aren't fans of Paul Ryan, huh? Does he even lift? Leave it there. We don't even know if he lifts. But where there is a consensus on the economics and the importance of climate change is amongst business leaders. And there have been this group of top executives in the United States who have been on various advisory councils for the Trump White House, and they've been under a lot of

scrutiny. No sound effects. They've been under a lot of scrutiny. No sound effects. They've been under a lot of scrutiny. Elon Musk of Tesla left the White House advisory councils. Bob Iger of Disney left the council over this. Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty, and Intel CEO Brian Krasanich have stayed. But I want to talk about these advisory councils because I think it raises a larger question about this notion that there are adults, rational adults, that view it as their moral obligation to stay connected to the Trump administration in some way because they believe that they can influence policy. I think that extends to the CEOs who have their own, who obviously say they have a vested interest in what their company does and

want to retain their sort of corporate relationship to the White House. But even beyond that, there are people like H.R. McMaster, Dina Powell, Gary Cullen. These are, you don't have to like what they're doing, you don't have to agree with them, but they're adults, they're serious people, and they're inside. Is there any justification at this point for these people to say that they're doing good from within, or is the time for them to go? I think it's been obvious for a while, but isn't it now sort of beyond obvious? I'll take this one. I, you know, I think

the answer is just clearly no. I think all of these people are essentially, they are cover for the most radical right agenda. I mean, I think during the campaign, you know, there was language that he was good on trade, or he believed in social security, or believed in Medicare,

Medicare for all. People actually latched on to those issues. And you look at this budget, which Brittany raised, it is the, it is a budget that would come out of a far right administration from like over years ago. It is the, I've, I've never seen anything in its, in my time in Washington that's so not, not just a viscous, like goes after poor people, right? And, and on every issue, whether it's climate or anything else. I mean, at the end of the day, what these people are doing, Dina Powell is doing is helping the Trump administration. She's putting a she's putting a clean veneer on things that hurt women, hurt the vulnerable, hurt children, hurt our planet. And you have to say enough is enough.

I think there's no. Honestly. I mean, it is like you are collaborating with terrible things that are happening. The question I have for Democrats, though, is would you rather have Ivanka, for example, the one person in the White House who has Trump's ear, whether or not that's effective. Whether or not that's effective is a different story, but she is one person in the White House who was advocating for climate change. I hear you, but she never wins.

So would you rather have her inside or outside the White House? I mean, I don't think it matters. This is my view. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't think it matters. I think it's like, I don't think it matters. This is my view. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't think it matters. I think it's like, I don't think it actually helps. I don't know why reporters cover her that much. I don't understand it. It's like, it is this thing that we're going to hope

that she's going to have some effective policy. What was her number one issue? Women and the treatment of women. They created a just joke paid leave policy that will do nothing, that is literally cover for a budget that cuts food for women, infants, and children. I mean, it was a program that actually dramatically cuts programs that give new mothers food. Okay?

And she wants people to believe she's like a person who supports women. I think it's ridiculous. I mean, that's where I come down. So I'd actually take things further because, as I want to do. Not only do I think there is no honor in sitting at that table, I also am clear that there are lots of other tables that we're not talking about anymore. So let's take criminal justice reform, for example.

How many of our corporations, the grocery stores that we shop at, the gentrifier neighborhoods, like this one, are... Sorry. How many of corporate interests are benefiting from private prison practices, right? So folks can step away from one table and still sit at another and continue to benefit from the political choices of this administration. So it's up to us to not only push this conversation about what you're talking about, but to continue to push things further. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sympathetic to what Jackie is

saying. Obviously, I agree with that. But I'm sympathetic to what Jackie's saying, because there is a part of me that says, I'm glad that there are a few adults in the White House, because as much as I want them to leave and blow the whistle, I'm also terrified a world in which Trump is completely unmoored, where there aren't, there isn't anybody like that in the room. I come down on thinking that these people should leave and say what they saw, and that that will expedite an end to this. But the end to this, I don't know where it is. I don't know when it is. I don't know how it happens, but I am very, very scared about the period of time when there's no one reasonable around Donald Trump and he's still the president.

Yeah. I look, I would say we don't know what the alternative is. I mean, I guess it could be worse than it is if they weren't there they may be doing much worse but on issue after issue he does seem to take the crazy wrong radical right I mean on Paris just think about where we are it's like he went to Europe and he

was like these people aren't that nice to me so I'm going to give the world the middle finger by essentially pulling out of Paris. Like, at the end of the day, you're supposed to be the president of the United States and represent us, not your ego. But at the end of the day, none of this should be a surprise.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump was, like, lamenting the horrors of using hairspray that was a pump instead of spray because it because look at his tribute to climate change so you know no that's exactly right yeah none of us should be surprised none of us should be surprised none of us should be surprised but this is the this is the issue right there is this thing why. Why does Javanka get covered so much? Why? It's like there's a need to think there's some rational adult there

that we all grasp onto. And I guess my view of it is let's just be honest. Let's just see what it really is. There's Bannon runs everything. Stephen Miller runs everything. They win all of these decisions they have a much better win rate than anybody else

and just from a media standpoint here obviously those palace intrigue stories are juicy AF but I think as the reader I recommend that you click on this story about social security disability insurance a great story.

And about the heroin epidemic. And stay focused on the issues and the impact that all of these things happening in the White House have on real people. So I'll just

say, because I give the press a hard time, Jackie just did a great story on SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance, and who is actually impacted by Trump's real cuts, dramatic cuts on programs that actually affect people with disabilities. So shout out to that. And I think we'll leave it there. When we come back, OK, stop. Don't go anywhere.

This is Love It or Leave It, and there's more on the way. And we're back. Now for a segment we call OK Stop. Here's how it works. We will run a clip and we can pause as we go. Just say okay stop and comment. Today

both Scott Pruitt and Sean Spicer addressed the briefing. Guys you guys know what you think about a lot of stuff. This is a series of questions that both Scott Pruitt and Sean Spicer were asked about what the president believes or does not believe about climate change. Let's roll the clip.

Just hoping you can clear this up once and for all. Yes or no, does the president believe that climate change is real and a threat to the United States? You know what's interesting about all the discussions we had through the last several weeks have been focused on one singular issue. Is Paris good or not for this country? That's the discussions I've had with the president. Does the president believe today that climate change is a hoax? That's something, of course, he said in the campaign when the pool was up in the Oval Office with him a couple days ago.

He refused to answer. So I'm wondering if you can speak for him. You know, I did answer the question because I said the discussions the president and I have had over the last several weeks have been focused on one key issue. Is Paris good or bad for this country? Okay, stop. If you're not going to answer the question, you don't have to say you did answer the question. You can just keep not answering.

You don't have to insult us twice. That's first of all. Second, the audacity to pretend that this is some unrelated question. I want to imagine a world where we were debating whether or not to send people to the moon, and half the people in the debate did not believe in the moon. And then you turn to them, and you

say, do you believe that the moon exists? And they're like, that is like an unrelated, that's like an unrelated question. We just think going somewhere is expensive, and as I've said before, we're focused on jobs and not whether or not it is worth expensing the money to go to the place that you refer to I believe as the moon applause applause White House reporters

were literally told yesterday that asking about climate change was off topic off it was off topic to ask whether the president believes in climate change for real girl seriously Off... It was off topic to ask whether the president believes in climate change. For real, girl. Seriously? Matt Nussbaum from Politico asked.

Not me. It was off topic. Let's keep going. A lot of people from the White House are not willing to answer this question of what the president's view is on climate change. So let's talk about your personal views. In March, you said there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of human impact, and you would not agree that it's a primary contributor to global warming. Would you agree that human activity contributes at all to global warming?

In fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it in some manner. Measuring with precision, from my perspective, the degree of human contribution is very challenging. But it still begs the question, what do we do about it? Okay, stop. All right. We have bigger fish to fry, but that's not how you use beg the question. And it doesn't really matter. And I feel like I've lost that battle and we've lost a lot of bigger battles lately. But that's not what it means to beg the question. Honestly, you're focused on beg the question.

I said we have bigger fish to fry. This is a very small fish, but it is a fish. While we still have fish. While we still have fish. Before the earth is gone. Limited time supply, my friend. Fish.

You'll miss them when they're gone. An existential threat, as some say. You know, people have called me a climate skeptic or a climate denier. I don't know what it means to deny the climate. I would say that they're climate exaggerators. What does the president? Okay, so I just, that sucks. That's a, first of all, I think Scott Pruitt knows we don't think he's denying that there is weather. Like that's not that, that's not the axis of this debate.

Like I think Scott Pruitt is a very bad person, but I do believe he recognizes that there is rain and sun and wind. Like we're not that far gone. Also... Give him time! Give him time! We'll get there. Weather is a hoax. I think we're basically there. Climate change, does he still believe Weather is a hoax. I think we're basically there. Climate change, does he still believe it's a hoax?

Could you clarify that since apparently nobody else in the White House can't? I have not had an opportunity to have that discussion. Does the American people deserve to know what the president believes on such an important issue? The administrator pointed out that what the president is focused on is making sure that we have clean water, clean air, and making sure that we have the water, clean air, and making sure that we have the best deal for the American workers. The Press The EPA Administrator said today that he does feel there is some value to the studies

that say the Earth is warming somewhat. Does the President share the EPA Administrator's thoughts on this topic? And why has the administration sort of backed away from using the words climate change? I don't, I have not, as I mentioned, as you guys have not had an opportunity to specifically talk to the president about that. Okay, stop. Does he always seem out of breath to you? Maybe it's just me. It's like so many lies to keep up with.

It's just Melissa McCarthy does it better. up with. It's just Melissa McCarthy does it better. Can I also just, this is another point that just wasn't there. It's like they had the talking point, we want clean air and we want clean water, right? Like this is like part of the thing. I'm going to destroy our American leadership on Paris and climate change, but we want clean air and we want clean water. Why do you propose a budget that slashes the EPA at the highest it's ever been? Do you know how we get clean air and clean water? We have, I'm sorry to say it, regulators who check that.

When you fire a third of them, we have less clean air and less clean water. So it's all bullshit. we have less clean air and less clean water. So it's all bullshit. My question is, since this is the biggest issue in the world right now, why is no one in the White House at the time to ask the president

whether or not he believes in climate change? I think someone has that question for Sean in a moment. He hasn't talked to the president yet about whether he still believes that climate for Sean in a moment. He hasn't talked to the president yet about whether he still believes that climate change is a hoax. Would it be possible for you to have that conversation with him and then report back to us at the next briefing? If I can, I will. I love that. First of all, I love that even in that moment, Sean's like, I'll see what I can do.

But I'm pretty sure I'm not going to find the time to do that. Because I keep reading stories about how he's asking people on the phone whether they should fire me. Could you imagine how shitty a fucking boss would call a bunch of people about you, reporters, and say, you think I should fire Jackie? I don't know. What do you think? You going to report on it? Oh, you're going to report on this because you're a reporter? Yeah, I think I should fire Jackie? I don't know. What do you think? You gonna report on it? Oh, you're gonna report on this because you're a reporter?

Yeah, I think I may fire Jackie. I'm not sure. I'm trying to feel it out. And then you'd have to go to work the next day. That wouldn't be great. When we come back, a segment called Too Stupid to be Congress. And we're back.

This is a segment called Too Stupid to be Congress. It's a DC version of a game we play. This week, we have three bills. Two of them are real bills currently before Congress. One of them is a fake bill that I wrote. Are there any congressional staffers here? I would like to ask a congressional staffer to play the game. I'm going to go with...

She's holding your arm up. Stand up. Stand up. You've been chosen. They're going to come and bring you a microphone. While that's happening, Jackie, Neera, Brittany, underneath your chairs,

you will find a card. Two of these bills are real. One of these bills is fake. What is your name? Margaret. Margaret. And you work on the Hill? I do. And you're familiar with the fact that the bills that pass are terrible. The bills that don't are worse.

Sometimes, but not always. But I'll let you make that generalization. That was very diplomatic. And insulting. Which is our vibe. Which is the vibe of the show. Yeah. Margaret, are you familiar with some of the bills that get introduced every day?

A little bit. Okay. So it's going to be your job to identify which one of these, which two of these are real and which one is too stupid to be your job to identify which two of these are real and which one is too stupid to be Congress. Let's start with Jackie, who has a bill about man's best friend. House Concurrent Resolution 46, National Purebred Dog Day. Whereas there is currently no day set aside to celebrate and acknowledge

the contributions of the purebred dog, and each breed is indelibly etched in history. We wish to designate a day to expressly recognize those contributions. Indelibly. Etched in history. Margaret, how do you feel about that?

I mean, that sounds real. Okay. Okay. Okay. Neera has a bill related to truth in advertising and food safety. HR462.

The Fast Food Reliability Integrity and Safety Act or FRIES Act. A bill to require any restaurant chain with more than 100 locations to use unaltered food products and ban artistically enhanced sandwich presentations in any consumer-facing advertisement or commercial. And I just need to say, I don't know what that means. I don't know what it means either. I think it means you can't use fake-looking tacos and burgers.

I think that there was some very disgruntled member of Congress, perhaps, who was sick of the Arby's roast beef sandwich not looking like what he thought he was going to get when at 3 in the morning he couldn't sleep because of the choices that he had made. And decided to stuff his face to get out of the depression.

Exactly. Brittany, you have a bill related to make it possible I believe to make it easier for hunters to shoot tigers in New Jersey. Indeed I do. HR2603, ironically named the SAVES Act,

to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that non-native species in the United States shall not be treated as endangered species or threatened species for the purposes of that act. Mine got the most applause. And I think that's great. So, Margaret, we have purebred dogs. We have truth in fast food advertising. We have allowing hunters to target endangered species on American soil.

Where's your head at? It's not as easy as you thought it was going to be, is it, Margaret? It's not. My number one question is, do I get the parachute gift card, regardless of my answer? Margaret. You do. Woo! If you get it right.

What kind of celebration, what are you, spiking the football. What is this, what is this, October 2016? Oh. Oh. Oh. Face it. Too fucking soon. Face it. Denial is getting you nowhere.

We're going to face what happened, and we're going to do it together. Hi, Margaret. Okay, so even though there is nothing that Congress loves more than an acronym, I'm going to go with Nearest Bill. You believe the FRIES Act is fake? You believe I came up with that this afternoon? Perchance. The FRIES Act is fake. Margaret, thank you so much for playing. There is a parachute gift card with your name on it. Thank you so much.

I say Margaret, run. We need Margaret to run. parachute gift card with your name on it. Thank you so much. I believe we have... We need Margaret to run. We need Margaret to run. Just so you guys at home know, the Save Act was introduced by Louie Gohmert. Again, not... Ted Yoho.

I think that we should not be booing National Purebred Dog Day. I think that's something we can all get behind. In these divided times, celebrating the contribution of a purebred canine is something that we can do together. Thank you, Margaret. And thank you guys for helping us play Too Stupid to Be Congress. When we come back, the rant wheel. Hey, don't go anywhere.

There's more of Love It or Leave It coming up. And we're back. Now it is time for the rant wheel. You know how it works. We spin the wheel. We rant about the topic that pops up. Today, we have the so-called Manila terrorist attack. We have Tim Lohman, who was involved in a shooting, a police officer involved in a shooting who was fired.

We have Trump's budget cuts. We have Hillary's loss, something that she's talked about. We have audience choice. We have Daryl Issa on the roof. We have audience choice. And honestly, against my better judgment, it does say covfefe on there. But honestly, I think we're sick of it

but we'll see what happens when we spin the wheel I don't think Brittany had any idea what this show was going to be but I'm very glad to be here it has landed on Daryl Issa on the roof. I don't think we have much to add to this story except that if you really don't want to talk to your constituents, there are many other places to hide.

You can stay indoors. You can not go to your districts. You can avoid having town halls and then blame the protesters for it, something that he has done. I'd like to think that the image of Daryl Issa on the roof as his constituents are protesting will be something that we look back on fondly as a moment that made clear that we had the energy and enthusiasm to take the house back from these craven people. Daryl Issa hung on by the skin of his teeth,

and we are coming for that seat. Daryl Issa is also somebody who said he was not prepared to vote for the Health Care Act. He said he couldn't do it. It wasn't there. He didn't approve of it. It wasn't good enough. He then gets nothing. He's not just a, he doesn't just, he's not just craven. He is bad at his job because he said he couldn't vote for the thing. They go back and they renegotiate it. Do the people from districts who are afraid to lose, do

they get anything? Do they get anything? No. The Freedom Caucus gets things. It got worse. It got worse. It got worse. The bill got much, much worse for his constituents, for California, and for the country. And then he decided to vote for it. It's ridiculous. We're going to get him out. Yeah.

We are going to get him out. And that's it. Let's spin it again. Okay, we're good. Neera didn't know what the show was either. I had no idea. Okay. It has landed on Hillary's loss.

Now, I put it there for a reason. I put it there for a reason. I didn't know where it would land. I want you guys to know that the rant wheel is real. I do not know where it's going to land. That's important. That's a purity that I adhere to, sincerely. I'm glad it would land. I want you guys to know that the rant wheel is real. I do not know where it's going to land. That's important. That's a purity that I adhere to, sincerely. I'm glad it's there. You know, Hillary gave an interview this week, and she said something, which is that she didn't

run a perfect campaign, but that's not why she lost. I think that's a paraphrase, but that gets at it. And then she faced a barrage of attacks, that she doesn't get it, she's blaming everybody else, and honestly honestly there is some truth to that but the thing that i keep coming back to is this election didn't happen to hillary clinton it happened to us and honestly it doesn't matter why hillary clinton thinks hillary clinton lost it matters we have to learn why our country came to a point where donald trump could be president and that so many cascading failures made this possible. And the idea that this is a morality tale starring Hillary Clinton is fucking bullshit.

You know? And I, you know, look, we're going through something. We are going through a national emergency, and it is traumatic, and I don't think we fully appreciate that even on a given, in any given day. But there is a part of us, I feel this sometimes, where I get mad that Hillary doesn't, I don't know, take more responsibility. I do, I think that. And then I think, what does it matter? What does it have anything to do? Why is getting a different kind of answer out of Hillary Clinton important? It doesn't change what we have

to do in 2018. It doesn't change what we have to do in 2020. So... Don't you think it's a coping mechanism? Absolutely. I think it's a coping mechanism. I mean, I think it's like everyone's fault in some ways, right? It's the press's fault. It's Hillary's fault. It's Comey's fault. It's Russia's fault. It's a lot of people voted for him's fault. It's a lot of big problems that came together that created this disaster. And you know what's weird about it is I feel guilty. I mean I wasn't on the campaign, I feel guilty because it's such a traumatic thing that's happened. All these, it's not you know it's not one terrible thing, it's five terrible things before 8 in the

morning every single day that we have to deal with. And so I, it is terrible. It's like I just think it's like we should recognize a huge number of disasters and fucking fix them, fix them and move on, you know? But it's like the crazy spiral. And I'll just say this. It's like, there is a debt spiral that's been going on for two decades between Hillary and the media of like, who hates who more? Okay? The media needs her to like crucify herself for losing and she's like angry and it's like, okay, enough. Move on. Is this a media

Hillary Clinton thing? I mean, don't you think coping is better done in the woods and out of... I think Democrats need to work on their message. Is this contributing to sharpening that message? I'm all for members of the media who think that Hillary Clinton is taking too much airspace to actually go interview Kirsten Gillibrand and put her on TV.

And go interview Steve Bullock in Montana who won on Election Day and state that Trump won by 20 points, he won by 4. And go interview Kamala Harris from California or Cory Booker. So I'm fundamentally clear that the perfect storm that created this moment didn't start last year. It didn't start the year before that. It started when founding fathers of this country enslaved folks on their property and built a country on stolen land with free labor. Right?

Like, this is... I said it on Pod Save the People. This administration is not the virus. it's the symptom, right? This is, this election was clearly problematic and people are in increased amounts of danger, right? And there is a culture of hatred that is clearly emboldened. But this is not the virus, it's the symptom. Which means that if we're going to fix it, then yeah, it's about 2018. And yeah, it's about 2020, but it's about tomorrow and the day after that. And it's about 2021. And it's about every single tiny municipal election that nobody

pays attention to. It's about more women getting out there to run for office. Shout out to Rise to Run, which I'm very proud to be a board member of. Getting progressive grassroots women and women of color to run for office. It's about people of color running for office. And it's about all of the rest of us who don't ever decide to run for office holding those folks accountable to every single thing that they promised us in every single campaign. Let's spin it again. Okay, it's landed on Tim Lohman.

I know this is something that Brittany was passionate about. Okay, it's landed on Tim Lohman. I know this is something that Brittany was passionate about. So Tim Lohman was, at this point, a police officer from Cleveland, Ohio, who was guilty of killing a 12-year-old young man named Tamir Rice. Tamir was carrying a pellet gun. He was playing in a park on a winter day, and someone in the neighborhood called the police. When that person called the police, they said the gun probably isn't real, but apparently that information was never passed to the officers.

Tim Lohman's partner pulled up onto the scene, almost hitting Tamir Rice, and it was less than two seconds. That's not hyperbole, less than two seconds between pulling up and Timothy Lohman opening fire and killing Tamir Rice, 12 years old, carrying a pellet gun. Timothy Lohman was fired by the police department this past week, not for killing Tamir Rice, but for lying on his job evocation in 2013. What also happened recently is that a police officer in another part of Ohio was sentenced to over 40 years for apparently having some part in a robbery and killing a police dog. So a black 12-year-old's life is of less value, right? You know where I'm going with this. Ohio is also an

open carry state. So even if he was carrying a gun, there was still no reason why Timothy Lohman should have opened fire on him. And I wanted to have this up here because I think in all of the calamity, we have forgotten that people of color are still endangered in this country. all of the calamity we have forgotten that people of color are still endangered in this country and that doesn't mean that all of the other phobias that we are dealing with are not important because they are islamophobia is important and we have to face it homophobia transphobia deeply important we have to fix it like all of those things matter but it was as if suddenly everybody realized we were all on a sinking boat that people wanted to start to pay attention and protest right and it was like hi

welcome we've been out here we're glad you're here but we have been out here and so I wanted to bring that up because this constant saga is is being played out for for um for young people across the country, for young people of color across the country, and it is impossible for us to open up the news and not see something like this. And so, yeah, I don't have a clean bow to tie that on. I just didn't want Tamiya Rice and Mike Brown and Sandra Bland and so many of these other victims

to keep getting lost in this conversation. No, I think that's really important. And the one thing I'd add to that and, you know, is, I don't know, this does not tie a bow on a course, but we've seen a new energy around protests. But what I've noticed even myself going to the airports during the Muslim ban to the marches is a lot of the protest is built on an architecture that Black Lives Matter has built, that the unions have built that Occupy has built

the mid-century civil rights movement what you see is actually that there are people who know how to protest and they know how to organize and that's really helped I think get us faster to a point where we have millions of people showing up on the mall and millions of people who maybe never protested before getting involved for the first time. And at the end of the day, I don't care how you got woke.

I just care that you stay woke, right? Everybody's had a first protest. If it was yesterday or 10 years ago, I'm glad that you've had one, and I hope that you have 20 more, right? But the important thing is to remember, A, to keep at it, and B, to recognize when you are being selective in your privilege about what you protest. Because I saw, I was at the Women's March, I believe deeply in that day and that cause,

and I have friends of mine that organized it and did an incredible thing. I also saw a lot of women who wouldn't even utter the name Sandra Bland and that's painful, right? And so I want us to remember that our freedom is tied up with one another. You're not free until I'm free. And so if we're going to get out there, then let's get out there for all of it. Let's spin the wheel one more time. It has landed on Trump's budget cuts. I wanted to put this here because, Jackie, you worked on a story about Trump's Social Security disability cuts that are part of his budget and that are pretty draconian.

I carry his budget around in my purse. You do? Is that like a zip drive? It's upstairs. It's upstairs. You know, Trump made a lot of promises, obviously, but one of them is that I won't cut Medicare, I won't cut Medicaid, and I won't cut Social Security. Then, of course, he puts out a budget. Obviously, the health care bill cuts Medicaid drastically, and his budget has dramatic cuts to Social Security, disability insurance, and what they said is, oh, that's not main Social Security disability insurance. And what they said is, oh, that's not main Social Security.

And, of course, the reason they say that is because they've sort of carved out these larger programs and left them aside, but that means that to get the massive cuts that they put in their budget, it exposes the rest of our government to impossible, ridiculous cuts from the State Department to the EPA to Social Security disability benefits. I mean, Nir, correct me if I'm wrong, but this budget makes $1.74 trillion in cuts to the social safety net. So that's TAMF, that's SSS Supplemental Security Insurance.

That's food assistance. Yep, and food assistance. Welfare programs. All of the above, anti-poverty programs. And I know a lot of the rhetoric around this was this budget is dead on arrival, like whatever. There's accounting errors, whatever. At the end of the day, this budget does set the president's priorities, and these are his priorities. He's made the priorities loud and clear, and I think it's important to really understand that and understand how it affects people. And it does, it, you know,

hurts people who need the government's help the most. And I think what's also problematic about the budget, according to a lot of experts I spoke with, I'm a journalist, is the way that this administration talks about the people that they're making these cuts to. So the way they view people with disabilities, that they are choosing not to work, not that they physically can't work. So there's a lot of details that really haven't been articulated about they're going to make huge cut to Social Security disability insurance by $49 million, I think, by trying to wean people back into the workforce.

But they don't even have a plan to try to get people back into the workforce. And the government has tried to do this for years. And it hasn't been successful, partly because it's so difficult to actually get Social Security Disability Insurance in the first place. We have the most stringent standards out of anywhere in the world next to Korea. They've also made massive cuts in this

to education, so I don't exactly know how people are going to be prepared to enter said workforce. I mean, you know what's... What I think is actually amazing about both the budget and the Affordable Care Act replacement, TrumpCare, AHCA,

is... We're going to call it WealthCare. I'm on board with that. Okay. I came up with it, and I think we should call it WealthCare. No one called it WealthCare before. John Lovett, that's totally right.

It's a joke. John Favreau on a show called Pod Save America started calling it wealth care, and I said we shouldn't call it that, but actually a while before I admitted it, I did think it was a good idea, but I'd kind of dug in, but I'm fine with calling it wealth care.

I don't mean to interrupt. It's a very serious issue, but it's serious, but we keep it light with some jokes. But I think just one point is that a lot of the people who actually voted for Trump are lower income folks who are actually going to bear the burden of these cuts. It's like just in the Affordable Care Act replacement, wealth care bill, the hardest hit is to a person who's 50 years old, lives in a rural community, and makes $25,000 a year, okay? They have an eight-fold increase in

their premium. SSDI, a lot of these programs are actually used, I mean, Mick Mulvaney may think it's only other people who live in cities, but it's rural voters who use these programs. And he just betrayed every single one of those voters with the way he's put this budget and health care bill together. Because the truth is, it was always BS. And one thing to add on the Social Security, on the disability benefits, is one of the reasons that conservatives have targeted for cuts is that there has been an increase in the use of disability. It's actually a huge trend. But rather than ask, why are we seeing this, right? What is the decimation, the decimation

in these communities of jobs? Why are there so many people who seem too disabled to work? Like, you know, this has to do with the opioid crisis, this has to do with the decline of manufacturing, it has to do with the decline of coal. Why are there so many communities where people are desperate to have disability insurance and, by the way, need it

because they're not physically able to do the jobs that are available to them? Rather than ask these big, hard questions, the fundamental, structural questions, which, by the way, gave Trump an opening to begin with, all they want to do is cut, which is despicable. That's it. I don't have anything to say about it. But just going back to the earlier point, like it's Mick Mulvaney and

Gary Cohn and all these people that some people think are reasonable adults that are the ones who are overseeing all of these efforts, right? So it's like, again, who's the unreasonable person when you get these kinds of things? I mean, this is like a libertarian budget on steroids. And, you know, it is not the kind of campaign he ran. And, like, those people will be victimized by what he's done. But as you said earlier, right, a budget proposal sets the priorities. And clearly, the priority is literally none of us right it is like super wealthy white cisgendered able-bodied men period that's the priority i want to round out the show by doing one more i want to do audience choice i'm just gonna assume it landed there i've just spun the

let's spin the wheel one more time spin the wheel one more time. No, no. I heard Chris Saliza and Kathy Griffin. So let's do both. I cannot believe Chris Saliza allowed himself to be photographed holding the severed head

of Donald Trump. I think that was deeply inappropriate. Honestly, I'd be like... But is it the worst thing he's done? No. I have to tell you. Sorry. I'm so sorry.

I single out Chris Eliza, but the truth is he's just a representative of a kind of journalism. He's just an exemplar of a kind of horse race coverage. He's kind of the worst, though, right? Neera, you exemplar of a kind of horse race coverage. He's kind of the worst though, right? Can I just say that? Neera, you want to say more about that? You live here. I think you probably bump

into him at functions. Yeah, I might. I've shared my views on Twitter. Chris Eliza is exactly the kind of political coverage that helps no one, is for no one. I just, I do not understand

who horse race political coverage is for. Because if the news is not for voters, if it's for pundits, right? You know, how does this play politically? Who is that for? How do I, how does that affect my daily life when you say this is going to really play well? You know, Paris, not Pittsburgh

is exactly the kind of voice that got Trump to worry, blah, blah, blah. I don't even know if Chris said that this week. He probably did. He did. He did. I missed it. Who is that for?

You know, this is something that sort of, this is like the water we swim in now. And I think it's actually one of the most quietly corrosive things in our politics, which is when all political news treats the people watching as some sort of disconnected observer, not citizens who will face the consequences of decisions, but some kind of alien pundit observing us from above, not only does it not help us

understand what's going on in our country, it does mean people turn to other sources. It's why I think we see declining viewership of young people of these various kinds of political news shows, despite the fact that there's been this kind of Trump surge. But it also, I think, the culture of punditry has changed the way we talk to each other. I think it's been one of the most damaging things we've seen. You know, when you ask somebody,

what do you think of a movie, I think you often hear in polling, I think it's going to do really well. It's actually easier to find out what people think in an election now. The polling question that's more predictive is not who are you going to vote for, it's who do you think other people are going to vote for.

But I actually think, I mean, I agree with everything you just said, but I think it's even more corrosive than that because, you know, what we're seeing is climate is a great example. The New York Times, the Washington Post, multiple outlets have actually cut back their coverage of climate over the last several years. And so to me, it was like the worst kind of statement to be like, oh, who are the winners and losers with this climate decision? Politically, not, oh, here's a loser, the planet, grandchildren, the fish, you know,

future generations. It's like, oh, he had a really smart line and that's why he won. And it's to me, it's like, the problem is too much of media is covering the easiest thing, which is, oh, this is a funny line. It's all theater criticism. I mean, as you're saying, it's all theater criticism. It's the spectacle. Chris Eliza is a theater critic. It's all the spectacle.

Here is what we have, though. On a topic like climate, feel some humility and embarrassment that you're not actually covering what it will mean for the planet instead of what it will mean for the applause lines and the Twitter followers that's where the one area

of the Twitter followers are important I mean it's sort of sort of my focus applause and Twitter followers kind of in my sort of my focus. Applause and Twitter followers. Kind of in my brand. What do you want to say, Nira? Well, you might rethink that a little bit. I'm bringing the show to a close

by lightening the mood a little. I want to hear the rest of your point, but I'm kind of getting us back up just because, man, it is hard out there. All right, I'm done. The moral is stay away from the big shiny objects. Yeah. Yeah.

I think that's right. And Twitter's horrible. Twitter's horrible. Twitter, of course, ends the debate. Twitter's horrible. I'll see all three of you on there later. Right, I was like... Can't stand Twitter. I was like, Twitter's horrible. I'll see all three of you on there later. Right, I was like... Can't stand Twitter.

Twitter is horrible, but tag me, though. Twitter is horrible. Tag me. I want to thank our panel. I thought we were going to talk about Kofeifei. You know what? I like that Kofeifei is on there, and we're never going to talk about it.

I want to thank Jackie Alomany. I want to thank Neera Tanden, I want to thank Brittany Packnett. I'm gonna stick around and answer some questions, but thank our panel. Hello, I'm sorry, what's your name? I am Rose Benson and I live in the district. And I wanted to know what your thoughts were on the future of briefing presidential daily briefing do you mean the press briefing

or the PDB well press press I feel like you winged it a little bit on the question I did look as long as somebody's willing to go out there and debase themselves by being donald trump's spokesperson uh i think that's newsworthy and i think that's valuable i think

even though sean spicer is just i mean he just wears his misery on his face at this point i think the fact that the press secretary has to go out there and say i can't say what the president thinks about climate change it is important um i think the number of times he's been caught in a lie has actually been politically useful. So I'm glad that this tradition exists. I think it's worth fighting for even if they're lying from the podium. You know, we can handle a lying press briefer. I think we can survive that. And I'd want to make sure that the practices continue. I mean, look, on so many things, we're not even there to start thinking about it, but there'll be a time after Trump,

and when that time comes, we're going to have to figure out how do we wrest back some of the institutions and norms and values that we had before. And that's why I think even if it's frustrating and even if it's ridiculous, I want to make sure that the reporters are there every day, you know, pressing Sean Spicer for answers, even if they never get them. Hi, John.

Hi. What's your name? John. Okay. But with an H, so a little different. On the pod, you guys talk a lot about purity tests and the Bernie-Hillary divide. And I feel like oftentimes the discussion is that the election is behind us, we need to just come together, and I feel like that tends to kind of favor the establishment, and I wonder when, if not now,

then when's the right time to take criticism from the left? Oh, I don't think, I think now is a great time. So when I say that we need to come together, it doesn't mean come together around the center left of the Democratic Party. I mean, come together as in we need to represent a diversity of views and we need to be humble and open to the failure that the Democratic Party is currently living through. And that does not mean silencing voices from the left. I think it's the opposite of that. I think you're seeing two things.

First of all, you're seeing an incredible solicitousness on the part of its establishment figures. You know, Tom Perez campaigning with Bernie, right? Look, that's about appearances, but it also represents something real, which is the establishment is terrified of the left wing of this party right now. And I think that's actually an okay place to be

given our losses, given the losses we've seen at the national level, the state level, and the local level. You know, one example also, I think you're seeing the establishment change, right? I think it's hard to imagine the next Democratic nominee of our party not being for some form of single payer, not being for $15 minimum wage. The thing that I care about, though, not being for a $15 minimum wage. The thing that I care about, though... First of all, so when I say that I think we need to come together, the thing that matters to me is that we recognize that this conversation never ends and is important,

and the conversation itself produces the policies that we get behind, that it's not an argument you ever truly solve. You come together and you fight it out and you try your best to win the argument within the party. And unlike our national politics, there is a sincere and substantive policy debate that goes on inside the Democratic Party. It's why we got to universal health care first. It's why you saw John Edwards in 2004 push the Democratic Party to left in a primary. And step by step, we've gotten to the place now where when I asked Senator Kamala Harris, are you for single payer? She says yes.

You know, when Beto O'Rourke is going to run against Ted Cruz in Texas, he's for single payer down there too. So that's sort of where my head at. You know, it's about, that's what I mean when I say come together, not silencing one side or another. Hey. Okay. Hi. Hi. Hi, I'm Leslie. So I was listening to Positive America the other day,

and you were talking to Elizabeth Warren, you were asking about what's the cohesive democratic message that would represent our foreign policy beliefs, and something that's kind of plagued me before, during, after the election is just kind of what's the cohesive democratic message for our economic policy? And like, how do we get the left, the center and like the more moderate Democrats to kind of get together? I want simple, bold answers. And I want us to not worry. I think that one of the mistakes Democrats have made is we're very responsible. We have that

responsibility gene. And so our proposals look like they've already been through some kind of budget reconciliation process. I don't think it's necessarily always about left versus center or center left. I think it's sometimes about simple and clear versus not. It's about ambition and vision versus what could pass today or what's too expensive. That's why I think it's important to talk about single payer. And,payer. And if Republicans want to come to us and say that you don't know how to pay for it, I think we should talk about why every single American deserves health care and we're going to fight for it

and we're not going to give one inch and everybody should have access and Medicare for all is the way to do it. And if they want, you know, we spend so often arguing on their turf and trying to put, this happened actually, I caught CNN for a minute after the Paris Climate Accords. This guy, Stephen Moore, who's just an absolute

hack, was spouting off some nonsense about climate change is going to wreck our economy. And Van Jones said, I want to say what I want to say, but first I got to deal with what you just said. And we spent a lot of time doing that. We spent a lot of time as Democrats not talking about what we want to do because we're so busy trying to figure out how to stop the nonsense coming from the other side. And I've said this before, but I think Democrats are very good at facts, but Republicans are a bit better at truths.

You know, they believe in smaller government and consequences be damned. Well, you know, we have some values that we care about. We have things that we believe about. And that's what we're fighting for. And if they want to come talk to us Well, you know, we have some values that we care about. We have things that we believe about, and that's what we're fighting for. And if they want to come talk to us about, you know, budget costs in the out years, if they want to fight on those terms,

we can push back on them. We can have that conversation. But we need to, I think, have simple, big, liberal notions about what we can do at a time in which, clearly, this is a frustrated, angry, and desperate country looking for something better. I think that's a good place to leave it. Thank you guys so much for coming. That is Love It or Leave It. This is a great show. I appreciate you guys coming out. And oh, and I'll see if you guys come to the mall tomorrow,

I'm gonna be speaking at the March for Truth. So I hope you guys come out and if you're hearing this and it's Saturday morning, you can go out and protest too. So really, thank you guys for coming out. Have a great night. Thanks to our panel. Let's get out of here. Bye.