Morning Joe - James Talarico wins Texas Democratic primary for U.S. Senate

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

James Talarico wins Texas Democratic primary for U.S. Senate To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The number of independents and Republicans who voted in this Democratic primary is unprecedented. This is proof that there is something happening in Texas. Tonight, tonight the people of our state gave this country a little bit of hope. And a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing. That was Texas State Representative James Town. Calico, now U.S. Senate candidate after winning the state's Democratic primary last night against Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. But this morning, it's still unclear who he will face in November incumbent Senator John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton are officially

headed for a May 26th runoff after both failed to secure 50 percent of the vote in the Republican primary last night. That's big news. And I would just say it's an outside of observages. I don't know Ken Paxson. I've never met him. I know John Cornyn. I would just say the fact that a guy that has had as many problems as he has had in government to be like Republicans, the fact that he's even close to John Cornyn, given all of his legal problems and challenges, it's just absolutely amazing. I will say, though, most of the energy, Willie, on James Talarico, guy that has just sort of exploded onto the national stage a lot like Barack Obama. Yes, I will say a lot like Barack Obama did, who was a state senator with James Hilarico, you've got a guy that is not your

father's Democrat. He quotes the Bible an awful lot. He uses it to not preach hatred and vision. He uses it to preach inclusion. He uses it to talk about the importance of treating people decently, giving people hope. And as they're sorting through the numbers this morning, one of the reasons he won, of course, he was expected to win educated white voters. The question was, how would he do with Hispanics and his populist rhetoric, which wasn't radical populist rhetoric. It was, hey, there is a class war, and it's a billionaires that are winning that class war. But also talking about his faith really resonated in the Hispanic communities across the state of Texas, and that probably was the deciding thing last night in an extraordinarily

important race. And if Ken Paxton does win the Republican primary, expect Democrats to pour a ton of money into this race, it will be one of the great marquee races to see whether Texas stops being fools gold for Democrats. And finally, you have a Democrat winning statewide for the first time of decades there. Yeah, it has been fools gold for a long time. Everyone talks to the Democratic Party about flipping Texas and it just doesn't happen. It remains a red state except this candidate James Talarico, who, as you say, comes along, leads with his faith, speaks fluently on the issues, wins over. People like Joe Rogan goes into places that Democrats haven't always been great. And he ran a great campaign. And Jasmine,

Crockett has not yet conceded because of some irregularities, some problems they had in the vote in Dallas. But even with that, Tala Rico will hold on to win. He has declared victory. So you have James Talariko going up against, we will see, because now we get two and a half more months on the Republican side in this runoff between Cornyn and Paxton. As you said, Paxton, who has made a virtue of just being at Donald Trump's side through everything, has many, many personal problems. He has many, many legal problems. He has problems in government. He was there helping Donald Trump attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

So he was relying on his fealty to Donald Trump to carry the day. Did not quite get him there last night. So now we get a runoff, John Lemire. That will be fascinating. Tons more money going to be spent there. It'll be interesting to see now whether Donald Trump, he has not backed anyone in this race. If now he looks and says, okay, I'm going to listen to John Thune. I'm going to listen to Senate Democrats and get behind John Corny,

or does the loyalty of Ken Paxton win the day and earn his endorsement to then go on, take on Talarico in what really should be a competitive race in Texas? Yeah, on that point first, I was talking to some people close to the president yesterday about this decision and what will come. And I think we may learn sooner than later. There's two camps here. There's certainly those, I mean, Trump himself is fond of Paxton. They're more ideologically aligned. he appreciates Paxton's loyalty.

There's going to be a lot of pressure from the Senate itself, majority leader Thune and some in the West Wing in the White House political operations to get behind Cornyn and get behind Cornyn soon because it's idea of trying to hang on to the Senate. And there's a sense here. I mean, Democrats are openly rooting for Ken Paxton. They feel like they would have a much better shot

to beat him in November than Cornyn, the incumbent. So that's going to be a defining decision coming soon. but yes, it's very, very close. On the Democratic side, yeah, Tala Rico's obviously, you know, a star here, like a star in the making. You know, it's a rapid rise. He's been very good at media, not just Joe Rogan. He probably got a late boost in recent weeks because of the controversy about his appearance was going to be on Stephen Colbert.

And then Colbert said that the Trump administration stepped in to knock it down, Joe and Mika, so he wasn't allowed. You know, so Texas has been, as you just said, it's been the white whale. I mean, Democrats keep thinking they can get there, they can get there, they can get there. This, though, seems to be a path for as close as they'll come, particularly if, as we see right now, there's so much enthusiasm with Democratic side nationally, not nearly as much for Republicans. Well, John, and I'm so glad that you brought up what happened with Colbert. Here's yet another example, I swear.

I just wish these Republicans weren't so stupid. I wish that listened to me. I'm trying to help them out a little bit here just to make it a fair fight in the fall. But what did we say? What did we say, first of all, when they took Colbert off the air? You're going to pay for it. They did pay for it with South Park three or four days later, deciding they're going to lean in even harder, right?

And so here they try to keep Tala Rico off the show. What happens? They give them a boost. If you talk to Jasmine Crockett, she'll say the same thing. I was ahead until that controversy. So the very person they were trying to defeat, the very person whose message scared them, is the very person who they helped win this race.

It just keeps happening over and over. They think they can game the system. They think that somehow they're going to be able to win. And the end, voters have the final say. To that point, though, I do want to bring up one thing that happened last night before we move on. And I had a lot of Democrats that were that are campaign veterans, have been in campaigns over the past 20 years, reaching out to me last. last night saying, look what's happening in Texas right now. They've changed where people vote.

There's a lot of confusion. A judge said, okay, we're going to give you a two-hour extension, and so you can go vote in those two hours so nobody would be disenfranchised because of a change of polling places. Then the Texas Supreme Court steps in and says, no, no, no, we're not, if you voted, if you weren't in line at the time prescribed, even if there was confusion, it was the government's part, too bad your votes aren't going to be counted. So this is a really good trial run for Democrats. This is a sort of thing that the Democratic Party needs to be ready for because you're going to have Republicans trying time and time and time again between now. And I'm not talking about voter ID. This is something completely different. They're going to

try time and time again to confuse Democratic voters to try to do whatever they can to stop them from voting. You even have United States senators that are saying, hey, let's have I. hang out, you know, try to intimidate people from voting. It's really, Mika, it's a good test run. But at the end of the day, Tala Rica wins. The person Republicans feared the most and may possibly, especially if Ken Paxson wins his primary, may set up the Democrats' first decent chance of getting competitive of Texas in decades. And flipping it blue.

You mentioned dice. back on Capitol Hill Homeland Security Secretary Christine Nome got an earful from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Republican Tom Tillis, who repeated his calls for her to resign. He ticked through a long list of issues from her, quote, disastrous leadership to her false claims about two Americans

who were gunned downed by immigration officials on the streets of Minneapolis. Who does Tom Holman work for? you are the president? The president. Okay. Why is that? Because I believe the president recognized that you weren't getting it done in Minneapolis,

and you're putting us further away from pointing to this. We're beginning to get the American people to think that deporting people is wrong. It's the exact opposite. The way you're going about deporting them is wrong. The fact that you can't admit to a mistake, which looks like under investigation, it's going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Petty probably should not have been shot in the face. and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don't protect them by not looking after the facts. Not only should the FBI be investigating it, but every single law enforcement agency in that jurisdiction should be invited to it.

So our law enforcement officers do not have this pall cast upon them. One of the reasons why ICE officers are having threats and damn the people that threaten ICE officers, because so many of them are doing a good job, is because you've cast a pall on them by, acting like we should investigate things differently. Officer-involved shootings have a formula that we should go through every time. The road to Damascus, the chains fall off. Tom Tillis, not running for re-election, free to speak his mind. And boy, he spoke his mind yesterday. You know, for those who Alex had said this before, if you look at the transcripts of yesterday, it looks far more dramatic with a lot of the back

and forth. It's, Christine Nome, unlike Pam Bondi, didn't waver harm and yell in point and say really stupid things. Like, look at the stock market when they talk about her shooting her dog. Christine Nome pretty much stayed level through it. But it was one lie after another lie, after another lie, after another lie. And everybody in the room knew she was lying. Still, again, the fact, if she survives another day, it is such an indictment of this administration. and the fact that they're having some.

Listen, Tom Holman, again, it's like that scene from Fletch. Oh, good, the police. I mean, but Tom Holman is so much more competent than Christian Hohm. He should be running it. I mean, I have no idea how any administration can keep somebody that the planes and everything else, the execution style shootings in the streets. You just go down the list. So one lie after another, she would have been out of any other administration months ago.

Oh, my God. Yeah, the Tom Tillis haranguing, as it appeared to be, was called a performance evaluation, a 10-minute performance evaluation. You just saw a sliver of it there. It was blistering, and it all came from other Republicans on the committee. Senator John Kennedy went down other avenues to challenge Christy Noem. And then you had Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota in a moment. but we'll show our viewers just a little bit later where she said,

do you regret effectively calling Alex Pready a domestic terrorist? Do you regret using this terminology immediately when it was clear from video that none of what you were saying was true? And she couldn't bring herself to apologize to the family and kind of tried to back away somehow from things that she said out loud, calling him indeed a domestic terrorist. So it is interesting, Joe, that the one thing that usually compels President Trump to make a change is if someone's making him look bad if someone's hurting him. And she is, and she has been now for months and

months and months and yet for whatever reason, he will not make that change when, as you said, you have Tom Homan sitting there capable of running this policy that Donald Trump wants to continue to see. Yeah, we've been saying it day and day out. She is hurting Donald Trump. She's hurting his poll numbers. She's destroying his numbers on immigration, which was always the strongest suit. Now you look at his numbers on immigration. It's upside. It's upside. down despite what's happened at the southern border. It's an easy call. I don't understand why the call is not being made, but it's not. And the administration will continue suffering until they decide to make the obvious call. But yeah, she was lying yesterday time and time again. She couldn't say

she was sorry. She lied saying that she never blamed Stephen Miller for everything, you know, for blaming Stephen Miller. And then they have quotes over blaming Stephen Miller. Again, this is, It's, you know, it's amateur night and Dixie, as fantastic Mr. Fox would say. We also have a new reporting in the situation with Iran. The U.S. government is urging Americans in the Middle East to leave as the war with Iran enters its fifth day. However, many are having trouble finding a way out. And the American embassies in Jerusalem and Qatar say they are unable to help citizens evacuate. So far today, Israel has announced.

it is carrying out a, quote, broad wave of strikes targeting Iran's infrastructure. Israel has also continued to carry out strikes against Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the head of United States Central Command said last night that the American military continues to carry out strikes in Iran 24-7. Admiral Brad Cooper said the U.S. and Israel have jointly struck nearly 2,000 targets with more than 2,000 munitions since the start of the war. This comes as President Trump pushed back yesterday on claims that Israel has led the United States into the war with Iran. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested the U.S. faced an imminent threat because Israel was

going to attack Iran and Iran would then hit back at U.S. forces. Here's how the president responded. When asked about that yesterday in the Oval Office. Did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran? Did that in the United States into this war? No, I might have forced their hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack.

If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. And we have great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully. and have done it all their lives very successful. And based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first. And I didn't want that to happen.

So if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand. But Israel was ready, and we were ready. And we've had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out now. All right, let's bring in columnist and associate out of the Washington Post, David Ignatius. David, first of all, it seems like the initial attack has ended. We seem to be moving into the next phase of this war.

What does that next phase of this war look like based on your reporting? So, Joe, I talked to intelligence veterans, people who are close to the White House to try to get a sense of what that next phase is. And I'll share with you a few of their comments. First, President Trump said yesterday in the Oval Office that we're moving into the big scale hitting phase. What does that mean? It means going after regime's security forces, the Basij Militia, the IRGC Corps, the special units of the police in Iran, who do so much of the repression, who killed so many of the protesters

in January, to quote one of my sources, we can now destroy any target of our choosing in the country, and we use this opportunity to destroy their strategic nuclear and missile programs. The reason he expresses that confidence is that the U.S. and Israel have basically managed to take out Iranian air defenses. President Trump said that. It appears to be true. so they have pretty much an open shot at targets they're going after. Trying to explain what that means in Iran, this intelligence official said, imagine being an IRGC or a Ministry of Intelligence Officer in the field. You have no orders, no pay, perhaps a different boss or a different regime next week.

That kind of thing is important. So that's a sense of how on the U.S. side, despite the continuing confusion in explaining what the trigger for this war was, people have a fairly confident view of what's next. Just to add one additional caution, several sources that I talked to who were very much in the middle of this say, there is no evidence yet of regime fragmentation. That's what you look for if you're thinking about regime change. You look for fissures at the top of the regime that suggests that you can pull people away into something different. To quote again, one of my sources, the regime is a fabric. Trump has yet to unravel that weave. I thought that was a very clear statement of how Iran, despite all the pounding they're taking,

it still remains integrated at the top. Yeah, and you know, David, you are right. The administration continues to change their message from reason for the attack nuclear, then it was a ballistic missiles, then it was regime change, then it was Israel, sort of moved back to regime change. We're going to play the Marco Rubio clip in a little bit. He actually gives one of the most cogent answers to why they moved yesterday after blaming Israel the day before. I want to ask you about something that, that as much as I scoured news accounts, it's hard to get my arms around exactly where we are on missile counts, missile expenditures. And I feel like so many of these news reports, the reporters, not do any fault of their own. They're doing what you do, what I do, what we all do. They're trying to get information. But a lot of it sounds like spin coming from different governments, coming from different sources. And even if you get the missile count, right. The missile expenditure percentage is right. You then have the crude drone warfare,

that sort of the asymmetrical attacks where Iran could cause disproportionate damage to U.S. facilities based on, again, the level of weaponry. Tell us where we stand this morning on any sort of missile counts you have, missile expenditure, the concern of asymmetric warfare, the ability for Iran to attack U.S. positions and allied positions throughout the Gulf. So, Joe, obviously, these are guesses. We do know, just from what we can see, that Iran reacted to the initial attack with a real spasm of missile and drone attacks on countries across the Gulf. There were many, many missiles scores over several hundred fired at the UAE, many, et cetera. many at Saudi Arabia and gutter, Kuwait.

So we know that there was a lot of volume of firing in terms of specific estimates. Here's from one official in the Gulf that I spoke with this morning. The number of Iranian missile launches appears to be decreasing. There were 350 missiles launched on day 1, 175 on day 2, 120 on day 3, and 50 yesterday. They still have capability, in other words. There were reports this morning from Israel that both Lebanon and Iran had fired missiles into Israel today this morning. So there's still obviously some left. But those numbers give you a sense of what people in the field think is the decreasing missile capability of the Iranians.

Let's bring into the conversation contributing editor at the Financial Times. Kim Gattas. She is live this morning in Beirut. Kim, thanks for being with us. Let's talk about the angle of the story where you are right now before we broaden it out to the wider Middle East, Israel attacking Hezbollah targets. It says inside of Lebanon and the outskirts of Beirut where you are right now. What is the scene like there this morning? It's really quite tense because this is a different scenario from a year and a half ago when there was also a war between Israel and Hezbollah and where there was a sense that despite the fact that it came as part of a larger conflict as well with war in Gaza and, you know, an episode of war and missiles between Iran

and Israel, there was still something that felt more contained at the time, particularly in the targeting. Right now, the targets that Israel is striking are not only in southern Lebanon, but also in the southern suburbs of Beirut and as well in the Bekar Valley, all of which we have seen to continue over the last year, despite the ceasefire. But now it's reaching in other parts of Lebanon. There are warnings for Iranian diplomats in Lebanon to leave the country. And this morning, a warning for all residents of southern Lebanon up until the Latani River, that's 40 kilometers into Lebanon to leave that area. So we expect to see probably a ground incursion, a fairly large ground incursion, maybe incursion, maybe not all the way up to the river,

but certainly into Lebanon and then, you know, pushing people out with further strikes. I think that, you know, mostly people expect the infrastructure of Lebanon to still be the airport, etc. to be to be safe but it is feeling very different this time because it is part of this larger conflict which you know feels a little bit like armageddon from where we're sitting and it's important to note that there's a lot of anger in Lebanon including within the shia community hasbalah's constituency for them having launched the first salvo of missiles against Israel and having dragged Lebanon yet again into this conflict. And let me just explain why there is anger specifically this time.

Over the last year, Israel has continued to strike Lebanon despite a ceasefire being in place. And it has killed members of Hezbollah and it has killed civilians. And Hezbollah never retaliated, luckily for Lebanon. But it chose to strike Israel to avenge the death of Ali Khmer. the Supreme Leader of Iran. And this is really a moment where the constituency of Hezbollah is thinking, what on earth are you doing? Without warning, without telling us your supporters that you're about to embark in this war,

you dragged us and now we've lost our homes. We're refugees. We're sleeping on the street, etc. And I want to wrap up this answer by referring to a comment made by Lindsay Graham, who said yesterday, calling on the U.S. US to participate in this war alongside Israel and avenge the Marine barracks bombing from 1983 when 241 Marines were killed. This feels to me like a cycle that started in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and this invasion collided with the Islamic Revolution of Iran. Hasbullah was born

And 47 years later, we're seeing this play out with Lindsay Graham calling for avenging the Marines and Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, who was at the time in 1982, a deputy ambassador in Washington for Israel, saying that this war is something that he's drunk of for 40 years. And the majority of Americans, most Americans, a diametrically. opposed to Lindsay Graham and Benjamin Netanyahu's vision of an expanding war across the Middle East. They do not want it. Lindsay Graham may want it. Benjamin Netanyahu may want it. But the Americans who are going to decide who's going to be running Congress next year do not want this. Independence by a large margin are opposed even to what's happened so far. So Kim and David Stand By will have more with Kim Gattas and

David Ignatius on the ongoing war with Iran after a quick break. We'll be right back. Just moments ago, Israel reported its military successfully shot down an Iranian jet over Tehran. The dogfight involved in Israeli F-35 fighter jet, marking the first shootdown of a manned aircraft by an Israeli F-35 in history. The Times of Israel reports, it's also as the first time in about 40 years. The Israeli Air Force has engaged in air-to-air combat with a manned aircraft. traffic, again, shot down an Iranian plane over Tehran. We're back with our conversation with columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, David Ignatius, and contributing editor at the Financial Times, Kim Gattah.

She is live this morning in Beirut. So Jonathan Lemire, as we continue the conversation, just go back to the White House for a moment yesterday in that Oval Office session with the media, Donald Trump, effectively said a few things. Number one, he thought an attack was imminent. He said, in my opinion, an attack was imminent. U.S. intelligence officials have told us. and other news operations, that's not the case.

He also said it may be true that the person who comes in to lead Iran after the Ayatollah may be as bad as he was. He conceded that point yesterday. So has this White House landed on a rationale for this war and a plan for today, for tomorrow? Yeah, he said the worst case scenario would be someone as bad or as worse at the Iatola, and there's some reporting that perhaps his son might be favored now to take over. It just sort of raises questions as to how much planning went into this. There seems to be a lot of questions.

The rationale still unclear. You know, we had yesterday, we had President Trump sitting in the Oval Office next to one ally, the leader of Germany, but bash two others. He says he's going to try to start a trade war with Spain because Spain wouldn't let the U.S. use one of the military bases. He also had very sharp words for the U.K. and Kier-Starmur there. So there's lack of allies there. David, we talked about it earlier. There's certainly the munitions issue, the math, the logistics. like how much of these missiles do the U.S. still really have?

And then there's also, of course, the question of what is the end game? What is eventually the off-ramp? Because it has been so surprising to so many who know that President Trump favors these like one and done, big strikes, declare win, get out. Here he seems, at least for now, willing to entertain the idea of a much longer campaign, even his officials keep saying not ruling out putting boots on the ground. So, John, Jonathan, I thought he was. The president was still really roaring with the sense of power and determination.

He wasn't backing down on the campaign at all, talking about staying in it for weeks as long as it takes. And as I said earlier, speaking about a new phase in which the U.S. and Israel will have essentially unquestioned air superiority. In terms of planning for how you achieve real gains, what Iran and the middle of, least look like after this is over, I still don't hear any clarity. The only person in that session, the Oval Office, who yesterday talked about the day after was, in fact, the German chancellor, not Donald Trump. And he had some, I thought, thoughtful comments to make. I hear concern from former U.S. officials, from officials abroad about this lack of clarity about where things are going. This is going to be a big war. It's going to last a long time. It's going to be a long time.

take a lot of military power to reopen the Straits of Hormuz so that oil can flow out so that the supplies can flow in. It's going to take a long time for normal air traffic so that people who want to leave can get out. And so you need to have a kind of planning and clarity about the mission that so far we're just not hearing. And as I say, I do hear concern about that. Yeah. Kim, I want you to talk about whatever. you think is we need to know right now about what's going on. I am I am curious your initial thoughts on how you expect this war to reshape the Middle East. I won't say over the next generation or a decade. All you can guess is maybe over the next week or two. But but obviously

a lot of people have feared this for quite some time. Certainly, UAE, gutter, the Saudis, Lebanon, you name it, have feared this sort of regional war. What are you seeing thus for and where do you think we're going? So let me just first pick up on something that David was just saying. The concern is indeed that there is no planning for the day after. There's very deep planning for the war. I haven't really seen or heard very specific, detailed day-to-day running of this war. Obviously, you know, they wouldn't divulge all of that.

but you can usually tell more or less. And it just goes to show that yet again, America's track record and day after planning is not very good. You just have to think about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Second, I think this could still last a few weeks, three, six weeks, etc., longer, potentially. You could perhaps see the U.S. declare a kind of victory, suddenly President Trump, He wakes up in the morning and he decides that, okay, this is enough.

All prices are too high. We've lost a few, too many servicemen. I'm losing my MAGA base. And he could unilaterally declare that America has achieved its aims, whatever they are. Who fills that void? I mean, that's the fear. We saw what happened when the United States went into Iraq and then left Iraq. The void was filled by ISIS.

Who fills the void in Iran if it's not the current leadership? Well, at this moment, it still looks like the current leadership, just, you know, a different face, you know, the son of Khmerenei or, you know, other members of the IRGC better or worse, more pragmatic or less pragmatic. But even if the U.S. decides that it has done what it wants to do, I suspect that Israel will continue strikes against Iran, against Lebanon and other countries. countries in the region. And what era we're entering after having been in a way in some extent Iran's Middle East, because that's how I write in Black Wave, that the moment of 1979 when the Islamic Republic came into being brought in this architecture, this regional architecture set up by, in large part, actually, Ali Khomeini. This was his pet project, much more so than Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, all these forward defense bases, you know, that is now coming

to an end. That doesn't mean that the Islamic Republic is coming to an end, but Iran's reach is no longer what it used to be on the ground. Of course, it can still inflict a lot of pain, but I think we're entering the era of the Middle East that is very much dominated by Israel's military adventures and expansionist view of, of, of, of its presence in the region and one that is supported by President Trump. And if I may just circle back to the idea of why President Trump entered this war, I think that Marco Rubio was probably being very candid and then regretted doing so. And if you go back to 1982, the reason why the U.S. came to Lebanon with the Marines

is because Israel had invaded and America felt that it had to come in. I know from reading the memoirs of George Schultz that they felt that America, that Israel had sort of sucked them into this war. And that's when America became a visible target in the Middle East. And 240 Marines died. Contributing editor at the Financial Times, Kim. Yes, ma'am. Give me one last, one last point. So I have a lot to say.

As you can see, it's sort of an intense time in this country. I do want to make clear, Joe and Mika, that there are many people in this region who are only too happy to see the end of Ali Khomeini, a man who ruled with, you know, an iron fist in Iran, who made lives miserable for the Lebanese, for Syrians who backed all these militias. If only the United States had actually come with a plan for the day after, that would benefit. the people of this region instead of just ushering in what looks to me like chaos. Exactly. Do things can be true at one time, as we always say. Yes, I think most of the region may be celebrating his departure at the same time. It could have been done in a way that was far more thought out and didn't break into a regional war. Contributing editor at the Financial Times, Kim Gattas, life from Beirut. Thank you.

Thank you. And David Ignatius, if you will, stay with us. I just on the other side of the break, I briefly want to ask you about Donald Trump choosing yesterday's press conference as an opportunity to attack NATO and to attack Zelensky as the PT Barnum of Ukraine at a time when the Ukrainians are making great progress against the Russians. And still ahead. One of our next guest says, Don't confuse the Iran war's mega critics with most Republicans. David Drucker joins us with that new Plus, former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina joins us on the heels of his Senate primary win last night. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from Acuethers, Bernie Rayno.

Bernie, how's it looking? Meek, it's dampened dreary across the Mid-Atlantic today from Harrisburg toward Washington, D.C., Baltimore, your exclusive ACU of the forecast shows clouds and limine, sunshine in New York City. some sun though in Boston and Portland with high temperatures in the 40s. Now, watch out for the thunderstorms here from Dallas toward Oklahoma City, toward Litter Rock. They'll be locally severe this afternoon. The rest of the southeast is just dry and warm. No big travel delays today, but watch the low clouds around Philadelphia this morning.

To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the AccuWeather app today. There are many files where Jeffrey Epstein seems to speak as though he does know you personally. He quotes, hey, Hillary Clinton is much prettier in person. This was Tuesday, September 20th, 2011. And then another, I'm not going to object to that. This F.C. didn't have a type. Where was that Hillary in 2016? I mean, you know, Willie.

was incredible. She was incredible. And what was amazing is the number of conservative voices that actually, I say conservative, they're not conservative, the number of MAGA voices that actually came out and would literally say, okay, I hate Hillary Clinton. By the way, why were you saying that? I hate Hillary Clinton, but she's right here. And man, when she's right, she's right, there were all of these MAGA voices actually that even came out saying what an incredible job she did again with a clown show that she had to deal with. Yeah, and because they know it was a clown show. And you can see there why Secretary Clinton wanted these hearings to be in public so everyone could see moments like that, but also the moments where she exposed and said, why isn't

Donald Trump sitting here? We got these release clips. People can watch the full deposition, but what a wasted trip to Chappaqua for those Republicans to go up there and just get, walk into a trap, which is Hillary Clinton running circles around them and giving her again the opportunity to say, Time to have Donald Trump sit. If you're going to have me sit, if you're going to have my husband, Bill Clinton, sit, time to get Donald Trump here. And now we're hearing from members of the Oversight Committee that they will, in fact, call Howard Lutnik. So some of this pressure and this story staying in the headlines and sticking around and all these people around the administration being in the Epstein files is now coming home to Roost. And you may actually get some of these people like Howard Lutnik sitting before the committee.

I mean, and we warned them. You know who else warned him? You know who else warned Comer? It's Chief Legal Counsel. Yeah. Well, there's that. Here we go, Arnie. So, um, Arnie, Arnie.

Joining us now. Well, hold a second. I want to ask David Ignatius really quickly. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. David. David, yes, or there he is. There he is. Chief Legal Counsel for James Comer, who again, as I said, could be heard saying,

uh, screw this, fellas, I'm going home before they started interviewing Hillary. Arnold the pig knew. Smartest pig in Green Acres knew he didn't want to have any part of that. He was right, as always. David Ignatius, this is what they call in the business a hard term. I want to ask you, you know, a lot of times Donald Trump will do things. And you and I've talked about this where it looks crazy. And you go, yeah, crazy. But, you know, maybe it ends up being crazy like a fox in some moments when he does something for leverage. I can't even imagine what the justification would be for yesterday in the middle of a hot war where we don't know how this thing ends. He's attacking Spain. He's attacking the U.K. He's attacking our NATO allies.

And then takes this bizarre side swipe at Zelensky, a man who is holding fast, doing what nobody imagined. He will, whether Donald Trump and the administration likes this or not. He will be remembered as a Churchillian figure 30, 40 years ago. And you can talk about corruption. You can talk about corruption in Ukraine. You can talk about all that. But what the Ukrainians are doing is nothing short of extraordinary.

And they're pushing back against the Russians now. You know, the Trump administration will constantly tell people like you and me, oh, it's just a matter of time the Ukrainians are going to lose. They've been saying that for a year. And it's just not happening. The Ukrainians continue to hold on. And the reward for that for pushing against Russian aggression is for the President of the United States to call him the P.T. Barnum of Ukraine. Maybe you can give me some guidance on why he did that or what the impact of that is on our other allies.

I can't possibly. I just note the way that I think people were reacting to what they saw yesterday. So Donald Trump right now is a wartime president. There's a big war going on that is affecting the region. It's going to affect the American economy. It's going to have inflationary impacts, big deal. And President Trump was focused in moments in his explanation of what he's doing, but he would tend to jump from subject to subject, sort of manic darting back and forth,

attacking Spain, attacking Britain in language. We can't ever remember an American president speaking that way. And I think it tends to dilute the message that he's trying to give, which ought to be right now, assurance, clarity. We know where we're going. Don't worry about the inflationary impacts. We've got it taken care of. Actually issued a tweet after that press conference saying,

U.S. would escort ships through the straight of Hormuz. That's a good statement to make. The attack on Zelensky, again, These brave people fighting for their lives. I was there a month ago, Joe, and again saw the incredible Ukrainian toughness, a sense of resilience. You want an American president to be celebrating those qualities, especially in wartime. So I think that, as you said, there was some strong themes from the president yesterday. He's just, he's locked into this war, but just too much darting.

back and forth from subject to subject. Yeah, it'd be great if you could stay locked into the war and not attack the allies that we need and not attack Ukraine. And again, the preposterousness of attacking Zelensky for corruption when you have Vladimir Putin on the other side, it's pretty extraordinary. If they want the war to end, probably should have their arms more tightly wrapped around Ukraine as friends. David Ignatius, as always, thank you so much.

Greatly appreciated. Thank you, David. Let's bring in right now the senior writer for the dispatch and columnist for Bloomberg opinion, David Drucker. He has new reporting. I just, I couldn't agree with more. He's like, don't confuse the Iran war, MAGA critics with most Republicans. David, thank you for writing this piece.

Because, Meek and I had this conversation yesterday. She said, oh, well, John Thune supporting this war. I'm surprised it. I said, Mika, like this is, there are so many things. that Republicans have done, that have distorted their conservative viewpoints and world views, this is not one of them. Since 1979, conservatives have wondered why America hasn't been tougher on this terrorist regime. Of course, we can all debate the reasons why it, it, it, that was more my question. Yeah, we went in the wrong way that we should, yeah, we should have. Yeah, that was

reasoning. That was more meekers question. And the reasoning, we can debate all of that. But, but explain to viewers that how people like me, uh, that came of age in 1979 and saw the Iranians holding our people hostage, saw the Iranians killing, uh, our Marines in Beirut, saw the Iranians killing Americans at Cobar. So that, that really we can be twisted up about how Donald Trump is going about doing this. but not that Khomeini is gone and this regime is being rooted up. Yeah, Joe, and Mika, it's such a good point. You know, one of the arguments that so many Republicans had with Donald Trump,

as he sort of rose within the Republican Party in 2015 and 2016, is that he didn't believe in projecting American power abroad, concerns that he disfavored a muscular American foreign policy that was willing to use the military when Republicans felt it, was warranted. That just, it was such a part of Reagan republicanism. And to your point about how seminal Iran and its regime has been to Republican foreign policy thinking, you go back and this is even true, you know, for me as a young kid watching this, one of my first political memories is the 79 revolution in Iran, American hostages are taken, and how captivating that was

for the American public and for many Republicans during the 1980 campaign. And Walter Cronkite would famously close out his news broadcast every evening marking and that's the way it is and this many days for the hostages in Iran. And this feeling among Republicans that it was the originator of the peace through strength

slogan, which was really designed to take on the Soviet Union, that it was that particular. rejected strength that forced the regime in Tehran to release the American hostages. Now, there's a lot of, there's a lot more to it than that in the hindsight of history, but that was a large part of it and certainly for many Republicans. So fast forward, you get to this, and you have so many Republicans, voters as well as Republicans in Washington, we're saying to themselves, after almost 50 years of diplomacy that hasn't

worked and it's good that we tried it. There's an argument for this and I'm glad he's doing it and it's something I can support. A lot of us are watching the very loudest voices, which these days are magnified on social media, something that didn't exist until relatively recently. And these seem to be the loudest voices. And they're not insignificant because they are part of this broader coalition that Donald Trump created that in particular helped him return to the White House in 2024. And if you want to look ahead to 2028, Donald Trump's a unique figure. He won't be on the ballot. It could cause Republicans' problems in terms of their desire to recreate this coalition

without him. In fact, it could cause them problems in 2026 because the stated policy strategy from Susie Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff, is to put Trump on the road and recreate that 2024 coalition turning out for other Republicans. But if you want to look at where the breadth of the party is on this war right, now, it's supportive. And according to my sources, and I checked with pollsters I trust and strategists, that includes Republican voters that identify with the MAGA movement specifically. And I think it's important for everybody to understand that if they want to understand the

politics of this inside the party. Yeah, and Willie, the overwhelming number of Republicans are going to support this for other reasons that David talked about. And he's right. It was an area-defining moment for those of us that came of age, 79th hostage crisis, Ronald Reagan running in 1980. But we do hear loud voices, you know, the sort of the loudest voices on social media. And it's very easy to look at and go, well, this is where the heart of the Republican Party is. No, it's not. I mean, it's an important part of the Republican Party. It was when I get there in 1994 to be skeptical of foreign engagements. And there's a long history of sort of this taft American firstism,

this isolationism. And that strain still runs down the side of the Republican Party. But, man, I don't think anybody should make any mistake thinking that rank and file Republicans are somehow offended that Donald Trump has gone into Iraq, Iran, because they're just not. Yeah. And it would be interesting that one distinction, David, to make is that this president over campaigns in 2016, 2020, and again in 2024, always talked about not getting America involved in what he called stupid wars, thinking about Iraq and Afghanistan going on for too long and criticizing both Republican and Democratic presidents for the way they got into wars and then got out of them in the case of Joe Biden. So is there any blowback among his supporters, among MAGA supporters

to the fact that he promised to be an America first president that we've heard from Marjorie Taylor Green in the last week or so going out very vocally and saying this is not what MAGA voted for, focus on what's going on at home, focus on immigration, don't get us tied up in these long wars. Is there any criticism and blowback on that point? Well, there is, and it is happening in sort of the strongest quadrant of the MAGA base, if you will, not the entirety of the MAGA base, but particularly online from influencers and from current and former Republican politicians that are populists in their nature and were attracted to Trump for these particular reasons.

And as I mentioned, it could cause Republicans' problems going forward, you know, with the coalition that they hope to recreate in the next couple of elections. I'd also point out that part of the problem the president is having here that you guys have talked about a lot, but it's important, is he hasn't made a case in the months leading up to this the way previous presidents would have that gives people something to hang their hat on. you know and and you know to the point about how this plays overseas he's not making a case and it's something when i interviewed george shultz about 10 years ago before he had died he said that ronald regan always understood that the foreign leaders he was dealing with in the west had voters

too right and there has to be more of a concern for how people think about this rather than just execute using power because you have it if you want people to not just be on board on day one, but day 100. And it's something where the president often gets himself into trouble. And I have voters telling me, you know, I can appreciate the underlying policy. I think he may have a point, but he's not explaining it well. I don't get it. And the execution seems like it's not working.

And, you know, this is where you have, you know, if he's going to keep this coalition together and assuage the critics, he's going to have to do that. The thing is, he doesn't do what he doesn't do. and he just doesn't do this. All right, David, Drucker, stay with us. We want to get your take on the results out of the Texas primary. A lot I had to talk about. We're also going to speak with...

David just described Donald Trump. We should put it on bumper sticker. He doesn't do what he doesn't do because he doesn't do what he doesn't do. And he doesn't do it. Okay. That does explain it. That would be it.