Morning Joe - Morning Joe 10/2/24

Episode Date: October 2, 2024

The Morning Joe panel discusses key moments from the VP debate.

Walls and Vance, they stuck to the issues. They showed each other a lot of respect. It was, it's very boring. I'll be honest. I like these better with Trump. I really do. I don't know that anyone's vote was changed tonight. Watching a vice presidential debate, it's like taking your kid's apple picking. About halfway through, you're like, okay, you know what? This sounded like it was going to be fun, but what's the point? These two men were both a heartbeat away from being interesting this evening. About halfway through, you're like, OK, you know what? This sounded like it was going to be fun, but what's the point? These two men were both a heartbeat away from being interesting this evening.

It was a vice presidential debate. One of these men will lose and we'll never hear from him again. And the other one will become VP and we'll never hear from him again. And 41-44. All right. All right, a look at the late night takes of vice presidential nominees, Tim Walz and J.D. Vance, the Minnesota governor and Ohio senator largely kept things cordial in last night's debate, focusing most of their attacks at their running mates at the top of the ticket. We're going to go through the big moments from what could be the final face-off between the campaigns before Election Day. And we'll bring you a live report

from the Middle East following a major escalation by Iran launching a massive ballistic missile attack on Israel. We'll have the very latest developments just ahead. Two major stories this morning. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, October 2nd. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Fair Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, MSNBC political analyst, Elise Jordan. She's a former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department, the host of the podcast On Brand with Donnie Deutsch. Donnie Deutsch is with us, as well as professor at Princeton University, Eddie Gawd Jr. And MSNBC contributor and author of the book, How the Right Lost Its Mind, Charlie Sykes.

A great group to start us off this morning. A lot of news. I want to start with you, though, because as I was nervously preparing to watch the debate, you kept reminding me vice presidential debates usually don't matter that much. After watching last night, do you still feel that way? I do. I do. Vice presidential debates don't matter. If they did, then Michael Dukakis would have been elected in 1988. In this debate, though, several interesting things occurred, even though vice presidential debates don't matter. Polls show that Midwestern nice actually worked despite Waltz's shaky start, despite his stumbles on the China answer, which I have no idea why he didn't have an answer ready for that. Other than saying I'm a knucklehead.

I'll remember that. And and just generally you had you had with J.D. Vance, you had the elitist, the guy that went to an Ivy League school who smoothly knew how to how to answer all the questions, smoothly knew how to how to work the format. And I think most people would say he did much better last night stylistically. But interestingly enough, and I've always found this with debates, you never know how something's going to come across. And when I saw the CNN poll last night that came out, it shows that Midwest Nice really worked for Waltz. Tim Waltz's favorability jumped up 13 points. It has a 59 percent favorability rating after the debate, a 22 percent unfavorable rating before the debate. This is I don't care if you're on Fox News, if you're AON, if you're on Newsmax, you just have to look at these numbers and you have to say that that's extraordinary in modern American politics. For all of us watching, for all the elites watching this, I looked too nervous at the beginning. Oh, he was some there's something that viewers like that undecided voters like that registered voters liked about Tim Walz.

Maybe that's something that we'll be sorting through over the next few weeks to figure it out, even though it won't have a big impact on the election anyway. And J.D. Vance, you know, his number, yes, he's upside down, 41 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable. But he also showed a side of himself that he has not shown before. And that is he tried to be more likable. He tried to be more agreeable. The people that knew him before he decided to be a Trumper said that he was a nice guy. He was a charming guy. And he tried to show a lot more of that last night because it's almost as if he got a sense

that this election may end and he doesn't want to completely tie himself to Donald Trump. He's 40 years old. He has a future. And while Trump likes going to war nonstop against everybody, you've got a sense that J.D. Vance decided, hey, you know what? I'm going to I'm going to try to salvage my political career, even if Donald Trump goes up in flames. And so that would have all been fine and dandy. And there's no doubt this morning there's going to be consternation in Mar-a-Lago because everybody's saying that J.D. Vance should talk for the rest of the campaign and Donald Trump should shut up because J.D. Vance is so much better at this than Donald Trump. It's not even a close call. I mean, Donald Trump lying. Donald Trump is a

boy. He's just smoother. Donald, if you want to say smooth, you can't. But Donald Trump, though, I mean, he's getting old. He's he's you know, they're not even letting him do 60 minutes because they know he's just not capable of doing it because he can't answer policy questions. But still, J.D. Vance, Willie, J.D. Vance was stylistically better. He told a lot of lies about ACA. He told a lot of lies about other issues. But I will say this. J.D. Vance was very clarifying at the end of this debate. And he told viewers everywhere that was watching, if you hate American democracy when things don't go your way, vote for me. If you hate everything that James Madison put together and Alexander Hamilton put together in the Constitution.

If you hate the tradition of peaceful transitions that really, really define and ensure American democracy. If you hate that, if Donald Trump doesn't win every election, vote for me. It was one of the most clarifying moments in any presidential or vice presidential debate we could ever see, because he clearly said that he was going to continue the lies of Donald Trump and not even answer the basic question, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? And yes, that will work very well for a lot of hard right people on the internet and maybe on X and other social media platforms. But he defined himself. He defined his campaign and he defined the choice in this election. I am not a Democrat. I doubt I will ever be a Democrat. I'm an independent. And I'm one of those people that's looking at both of

these guys. And I'm and, you know, people ask me, why? Why don't you support the Republicans? J.D. did my work for me last night because one side is anti-democratic. The other side is pro-democracy, pro-constitutional republic, pro-James Madison checks and balances, pro-peaceful transfer of power. Pro-women's rights. And well, you can debate that. I can. That's been part of the debate since 1973. What has not been part of the debate has been whether we continue with a constitutional republic where

there are peaceful transitions of power. And last night, J.D. Vance refused to answer whether he supported the peaceful transfer of power, really. And as Robert Frost would say, it's either Robert Frost or Horschak. And that made all the difference. Yeah. I mean, after a strong debate performance that had, I agree with you, what you're hearing had Republicans saying either he is J.D. Vance is the future of the Republican Party, or I wish he were at the top of the ticket because he is so much better at this than Donald Trump. The mask slipped there at the end when he was asked a very simple question from Tim Walz, who turned to him and said, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? He did not answer that question. And by the way, leading up to that, he said again

and again, we had a peaceful transfer of power. OK, maybe in that one hour on that one day in January 20th, it was peaceful. As by the way, the Capitol was ringed with security fence so nothing could happen because of what did happen on January 6th, trying to rewrite history. Here was the exchange at the end that Joe's talking about. Would you again seek to challenge this year's election results, even if every governor certifies the results? I'll give you two minutes. Well, Nora, first of all, I think that we're focused on the future. We need to figure out how to solve the inflation crisis caused by Kamala Harris's policies, make housing affordable, make groceries affordable. And that's what we're focused

on. But I want to answer your question because you did ask it. Look, what President Trump has said is that there were problems in 2020, and my own belief is that we should fight about those issues, debate those issues peacefully in the public square, and that's all I've said, and that's all that Donald Trump has said. It's really rich for Democratic leaders to say that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on January the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country. This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump's inability to say he is still saying he didn't lose the election. I would just ask that. Did he lose the 2020 election? Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation? That is a damning non-answer.

What I'm concerned about is where is the firewall with Donald Trump? Where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his vice president's not going to stand to it? That's what we're asking you, America. Will you stand up? Will you keep your oath of office, even if the president doesn't? And I think Kamala Harris would agree. She wouldn't have picked me if she didn't think I would do that, because, of course, that's what we would do. So, America, I think you've got a really clear choice on this election of who's going to honor that democracy and who's going to honor Donald Trump. Donnie, plain and simple, Governor Walz turned to J.D. Vance and said, did he lose the 2020 election? As 63 courts decided, as everyone around Donald Trump knows and

has said since that he lost, as Donald Trump has slipped several times and said he lost, couldn't answer the question. So for as smooth as J.D. Vance was, for as fluent as he sounded on policy, we'll get into some of the contradictions on the Affordable Care Act, claiming that Donald Trump tried to save it when, in fact, the exact opposite is what happened. His own record misrepresenting his own record. J.D. Vance on the question of abortion. There's a whole lot to comb through, but he was good last night. That moment that crystallizes the whole thing. You can't even say that you're running mate lost the election.

Eighty eight minutes. He was good. I mean, he was too slick, maybe, but he was he certainly was not the kind of despicable character that we've kind of seen in clips. So I thought it was a draw up until that point. And I think that that was disqualifying. I think that's disqualifying in the election, if you can't say that. I mean, I think that that's the issue that whenever I get into debates with anybody, I go, well, democracy, duh, kind of on the docket. I want to go back to Kimmel's joke at the beginning that it was boring. And I was thinking the whole time, this is going to be a referendum on what people want going forward.

I think the big theme of this thing was that it was very congenial and it was not a blood sport. It was not UFC. It was more like boxing. And is the American public, your intuition says, well, the American public is ready for that. They want that. But then I kind of says to myself, is there's a sick, twisted thing that people are addicted to the sick entertainment value of Donald Trump and that they were kind of disappointed. I was enjoying it, but they were just like, oh, no, that's that's no fun. Are we going to go back to that now? My better angels in me say, no, people are ready for that. But it's an interesting question. Final thought, going back to what Joe said this morning at Mar-a-Lago, what's going on is that people are going up as they're getting their Danish and their and their bun cake at Mar-a-Lago.

They're going up to Donald and saying, boy, Vance was great last night, wasn't he? Wasn't Vance great? You know, and that's going to bother him. That's going to really bother him that he was better than Donald Trump, that he could litigate the case better than Donald Trump. And Donald Trump, you're going to see he's going to be very dismissive of J.D. Vance in the coming weeks. But Donald Trump is not happy this morning because J.D. Vance showed himself to be a superior candidate without. I mean, that's just an objective truth. Put the two side to side. Vance is much,

much better at this. And Trump did praise him on social media last night. You did get the sense watching J.D. Vance last night, Jonathan Lemire, that he was aware of his likability being in the dumps of Donald Trump, being this abrasive, caustic figure that people want to look away from, that they're sick of, and to present in those 90 minutes anyway, a reasonable alternative. Now, you could only think that if you only watched last night and hadn't seen everything else he does on the campaign trail day to day in support of Donald Trump. Yeah, Vance definitely put forward his best version of himself yesterday and frankly, aided by Governor Walz, who the two men were so civil that Walz almost normalized Vance. He never used the word weird. That was that Tim Walz is on the ticket because he kept

talking about how J.D. Vance and Donald Trump and Republicans are weird. And he never used that last night to Donnie's point about maybe Trump's mixed feelings about the debate, though he praised Vance's appearance. He also, at one point, mid debate, started tweeting about Pete Rose starting to be in the Hall of Fame. So perhaps his own attention was sort of lost. But at least I was also struck that the governor did. He sort of took a pass on some what could have been some pretty devastating attacks. He didn't mention the weird issue. He never brought up childless cat lays, just never came up. He didn't talk about Ukraine and Ukraine, where Vance has made clear he has no interest

in supporting Kiev. He only brought up Project 2025 once. And that's an issue that's been so effective for Democrats. That said, that final minute in January 6th, about January 6th, was Walz's best moment. And the Harris campaign has already cut an ad. Democrats, that said, that final minute in January 6th, about January 6th, was Walls' best moment. And the Harris campaign has already cut an ad. It was the best moment, but it was at the end of the debate, a little late. I was disappointed. I felt like the reasons that Kamala Harris chose Governor Walls didn't really come out

last night. The Governor Walls, who was joking, who was free flowing in interviews, who was kind of, you know, that guy in your hometown, who's, who's a local leader and he's a lot of fun, but he can be serious. I just saw someone trying to be who he wasn't and it allowed JD Vance to just skate through. It was disappointing too, that Walz just didn't have a better answer for why he had said previously that he was in Tiananmen Square when he wasn't. You know, and it's something easily he could have easily said. I misspoke. I'm sorry. But instead, he almost made it worse. I agree with you, Elise. I was surprised by that moment.

I was surprised by a number of moments like that. But we'll take that one as the example. By the way, I don't think it matters how late the great moment was, because unfortunately, we TV people, we're not that important anymore. People take nuggets online on social media. It's the truth. I mean, it's going to be all about the clips and about what's put out here and there. And so he can still win the day. And and it's showing the reaction is not bad to Tim Walz. I will say, though, to that Tiananmen Square answer, I was waiting for what are you talking about? I misspoke and I'm sorry about that. This guy lies every day about legal migrants. He dehumanizes legal migrants. The governor of Ohio is begging for J.D. Vance and Donald Trump to stop

doing this to our community. And they continue lies about January 6th. He's lying about the 2020 election. I misspoke 23 years ago. You can talk about what he said six hours ago. These guys lie for a living. That would have been my answer. It would have been a lot of people's answer. There's no doubt that despite the fact, if you look at the numbers, Waltz won this debate. If you look at the CNN poll polling, it shows Vance a slight advantage. But in terms of favorability, again, his favorability rating went up 59 percent, unfavorable, 22 percent. Vance, 41 percent. That's good. Well, you know, as you're looking at that number, it's really interesting.

You look at that number, Eddie, and I go back and let's keep that up for a second. I go back to what Elise just said. He's a guy in your hometown. Yeah. And that's the effect he gave off. Yeah. And he was nervous last night. He started out nervous. He found his footing.

But it was an uneven performance at best. And I'm reminded what Andy Card said about George W. Bush. He said the thing that elites make the most fun of, the fact that Bush talks the most fun of that, that the fact that Bush talks like a regular guy, that Bush is smooth, is not a smooth talker. His syntax is a little off said what the elites right at the New York times and the Washington post don't understand is that's why regular guys like Bush so much. And you can say the same thing about Joe Biden.

But you look at the favorable unfavorables after the debate and you just kind of wonder if they're looking at the Ivy League guy and seeing what a smooth talker he was. And then the regular guy who who, again, stumbled around a little bit was nervous. But they're thinking, yeah, who wouldn't be nervous? And maybe that's why his favorabilities went up so much. I don't know. I mean, it's kind of like when you and I talk. You're an Ivy League guy, very smooth.

Every time. I'm a country lawyer. I struggle getting through a sentence. I struggle getting through a sentence. It's kind of like when I was at Gettysburg and I was there. Oh, I'm getting through a sentence. I struggle getting through a sentence. It's kind of like when I was at Gettysburg and I was there. Oh, I'm a knucklehead. You just go ahead and answer the question. You know, Joe, I think I think you're right. I there are moments where I wanted I was rooting for it. I said, come on, come on, Governor. Come on, come on, make it. And so that

empathetic kind of experience of of wanting him to do better may help us explain it. I think you're right. He was nervous in the very in the very beginning. He found his footing, especially on the issue of health care, abortion and Jan six. Remember that? Remember that line? He said that's the only reason why Mike Pence is not standing here. Right. Because of what he said. And I thought that was one of the more powerful lines of the night when he basically said that JD Vance is only here because he would allow Donald Trump to basically undermine Madisonian democracy. Right. But I also think that he was coached in such a way, Joe, that he did not hold Vance accountable. He allowed Vance to cosplay as a reasonable guy. He allowed Vance to reinvent the Trump agenda. He didn't paint him, tattoo him with Project 2025.

In fact, Vance wrote the preface to it. But Vance didn't have to defend it outside of the question around abortion. So I thought that Minnesota niceness was, I guess, endearing to some. But the danger that the Trump-Vance ticket presents required a little bit more aggression, it seems to me, Joe. Yeah, Charlie, it seemed to me like what I was saying the morning after the Biden debate, just so many missed layups, so many easy layups that Joe Biden just didn't make. We saw the same thing again last night, not to a disastrous effect for Tim Walz. I mean, he survived it. But man, it seems that the Harris campaign has been in neutral over the past week or so. Would have been good for them to have somebody turn to J.D. Vance. You're just lying.

I got you. You're just making this up and bring up all the things that has defined J.D. Vance's campaign up to this point. That just didn't happen. No, and think about what's been going on this week. Look, J.D. Vance won on style points, but this is not figure skating. Could we just put this into some context here? You know that. And I guess that that was my reaction was not only the lost opportunity, but but the whole debate and Walls' performance had the effect of sane washing, normalizing and housebreaking J.D. Vance. But the reality is that J.D. Vance is slick and smooth, but he is still a bullshit artist. And ultimately, he was defined by that last couple of minutes where he refused to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the election. And that is disqualifying. But to your point about the missed opportunities, I mean, in the last few

days, Donald Trump came to my home state of Wisconsin and engaged in an hour of pure, unbridled hatred against immigrants, continues to lie about immigrants. Just yesterday, insulted American soldiers saying that they just had headaches after they were they were attacked by Iranian missiles. Who has who has lied about the the disaster recovery efforts of Helene, all of that. And you have to pull back the lens a little bit and say this is not a normal presidential campaign. And yet the conceit of the debate last night is, well, let's have these two guys and they're going to talk about a policy. Well, no, you know, this is this is not a normal campaign. And J.D. Vance, the J.D. Vance you saw last night is very, very different from the J.D. Vance that you've seen on the right wing podcast. The J.D. Vance who talks about the childless cat ladies, the J.D. Vance who has lied about the Haitian immigrants.

So I do think that it was a lost opportunity. But let's keep coming back to the fact that J.D. Vance was exposed in that final disqualifying non-answer. He really was. I say, though, I mean, I'm just saying as a politician, if I'm going up against J.D. Vance, I'm thinking like a politician. What do politicians think about? Politicians think about their constituents. Politicians are they should. They should think about how do I help my constituents how do I make their lives better how do I make their children safer how do I make the street safer how do I make small businesses thrive and Mika I would have started that debate yeah and I would have gone back to it every single question I would have circled back to an Ohio politician lying about an Ohio town to such a degree that the governor in your own party and the mayor of that Ohio town had to call you out as a liar.

And I would have said, J.D., you you represent the people of Springfield, Ohio. And your lies, your lies have made the lives of your constituents less safe. Your lies have damaged the lives of school children. Your lives have undermined the workers of that town. Your lies have caused family businesses to shut down. Your lives have made the lives of school teachers in Springfield, Ohio, more dangerous. You lie about cats being eaten, dogs being eaten. And then you say, oh, you just you wanted to make up a story. So you wanted to bring attention to this issue.

So you basically made up a story about it. And it is a story. So you wanted to bring attention to this issue. So you basically made up a story about it. And it is a lie. And everybody in your own party. But Donald Trump says it's a lie in the state of Ohio. The fact that he didn't start, finish and end with that, I think was a missed opportunity. Well, and I'm trying to think of the counter here because he did bring up those things very politely. And he did mention what he did mention with the dehumanization, dehumanization of legal migrants in Springfield kindergarten, kindergarteners having to be escorted to school by police. And I just wonder if people who have been students of this Trump nightmare like us for a long time perhaps were frustrated. But maybe Americans who are just cluing in now, there might have side, the truth at times for the to counter J.D. Vance. I just I wonder if we were frustrated, but the the viewers out there perhaps were getting a sense of what the two positions were, because there wasn't so much hype and so much screaming and so much what we would have done. I definitely would have been like going on him, on J.B. Vance

very, very, very aggressively about his lies and disinformation and his entire background with Donald Trump. But I'm not sure how this is going to play out. I'm not sure it's going to be as negative as as as you were saying. No, I said at the beginning, it's not going to be negative at the end of the day. It's not going to be negative because, first of all, vice presidential debates don't matter. But secondly, let's show the poll again. And I want to go back to Donnie for a second. Donnie, you know, it's almost like Dean Smith was coaching him. The legendary North Carolina basketball coach said, you know, we're going to go into the four corners here, boys. We're going to we're going to just pass the ball around. You're going to have a chance to, like, you know, dunk the ball and shatter the backboard.

Now, just do a layup, go down and, you know, and set up on defense. You look again. We, we're being critical. We think Tim Walz should have executed the case far more aggressively. And yet you look at those numbers and I challenge anybody that's watching, give me over the past five years, a politician on the national stage

that has a favorability rating as high as Tim Walz's right here. 59% after the debate favorable, 22 percent unfavorable. J.D. Vance, 41, 44. He's upside down. But even he went up here. It seems to me if the goal is to make Tim Waltz your neighbor, your Midwest neighbor, a nice guy, actually, despite all the things we're saying this morning, it's mission

accomplished. And Tim Walz got exactly what he needed out of this. And so did Kamala Harris. Yeah. Tim Walz was very on brand. And going back to Mika's point about the decaying of linear media, all that's going to come historically out of this debate is that last two minutes is the back and forth about January 6th. And at that point, Tim Walz was both a good guy, but confrontational, but in a constructive, not in a demeaning way. And I think that's what will be remembered from this debate. And I go back to the point that I made earlier. I wonder, as people are watching this, are people ready for civility or are they is this weird hero with Donald Trump that they're oh, my God, give me more of that. I hope it's the former.

But, Joe, on your idea there a moment ago, that four corners offense, I will say there are some Democrats who are voicing that's the concern that the Harris-Walls team is taking right now. And they're pushing them to be more aggressive. You know, this is maybe to last night, the VP debate will be that inflection point. But right now, there's also a series of outside events that was happening in the Middle East, which we're about to get into the strike in the ports up and down the east and Gulf Coast, obviously the aftermath of the hurricane. Outside events have a way of negatively impacting the party in power. That's Vice President Harris through no fault of her own. That's how that's going to play out more than likely. But Jonathan, let me ask you, though, what what is because I'm

hearing from Democrats, too, that are asking, where where are they yeah they it seems to me that you know she she came out of of uh you know her launch was i think most people on both sides was that one of the most extraordinarily extraordinary launches uh in in modern uh presidential campaign history i mean you looked at one event after another, 15,000 screaming crowd all over. We saw it day after day after day. We saw other events. There's this palpable energy. And then the debate. And there seemed to have been a silence.

It's about to be in 60 minutes. She's going to be on 60 minutes and Donald Trump's not. So, yeah, go team. I'm just saying what Democrats are saying. They want to see more of Kamala Harris. They want to see more of Tim Walz and I guess higher profile events. Maybe this is just Democrats being Democrats and complaining because I'm sure Kamala Harris and Tim Walz would tell you that they're they're working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But underline what you were just saying, Jonathan. Yeah, Joe, I could not agree more. And I'm

hearing from Democrats the exact same idea. And some of this is, yes, Democrats are anxious. Some of this is 2016 flashbacks. We know the Clinton campaign took their foot off the gas there at the end. But there is this sense here that Harris and Walls need to be out there more. She was filling arenas there for a couple of weeks. Now she has really scaled back those events. She's had a few rallies lately, but not as many. Tim Walls got the job as her running mate because he was everywhere doing national TV interviews. He stopped doing those. Some of it last few days, understandably debate prep. But otherwise, there's a sense they're just being too cautious. And Democrats are telling me they're acting like they're way ahead when they're not.

In fact, the race is tied. At most, the Harris-Walls ticket is up slightly, certainly in the margin of error. They need to stay aggressive. And I think this is going to be a major storyline from Democrats in the days ahead, urging the Walz and Harris campaign to pick up the pace and close really strong. I just don't understand the strategy of keeping them so closeted. Free Tim Walz, free Kamala Harris. Let them speak. OK, Charlie Sykes, Eddie Glaude Jr., Donnie Deutsch, thank you all very much for being on the show this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, a lot to get to. There's the major escalation in the Middle East as Iran launches a missile attack against Israel, drawing vows of retaliation from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

We'll get the very latest from Lebanon when Morning Joe comes right back. Welcome back now to the major developments out of the Middle East, where Iran launched a ballistic missile against Israel. Yesterday, Iran fired about 180 missiles into Israeli territory. The attack forcing millions of people to take cover in bomb shelters. With the help of U.S. forces, most of the missiles were intercepted and no deaths were reported in Israel. One civilian did die in the West Bank. A small town in central Israel was also hit, damaging a school building. No one was injured in that attack. Iran claims it targeted three military bases, including an air base in the desert. The IDF says that the attack had no impact on the Air Force's operational capabilities. Iran says the strikes were in response to the killings of

two militant group leaders and an Iranian commander. Israel has taken responsibility for the deaths of Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, but has not yet commented publicly on a July attack that killed the head of Hamas's political wing in Tehran. Now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is vowing to retaliate, saying Iran, quote, made a big mistake and it will pay for it. Iranian officials are warning against any retaliation, saying Tehran will hit Israel's entire infrastructure if it takes any more action. The White House, however, is in support of, quote, severe consequences for Iran. Obviously, this is a significant escalation by Iran,

a significant event. And it is equally significant that we were able to step up with Israel and create a situation in which no one was killed in this attack in Israel so far as we know at this time. We are now going to look at what the appropriate next steps are to secure first and foremost American interests and then to promote stability to the appropriate next steps are to secure, first and foremost, American interests and then to promote stability to the maximum extent possible as we go forward. Let's bring in NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley live from Beirut. Matt, what's the latest? Yeah, well, as you can see, we're right on the coast here. And actually, for the past two weeks, we've had a front row seat to the neighborhood of Dahia

and a terrifying view of what is the continuing Israeli assault against this Shiite-majority neighborhood in southern Beirut or just in the suburbs of it. This is a Shiite, this is a Hezbollah stronghold. And this is where we saw on Friday the enormous explosion or series of explosions from those 2,000 pound bunker buster bombs that killed Hassan Nasrallah and according to the Israelis, about 20 other top officials of Hezbollah. And we've been hearing of all of these bombardments that have been going on all across the country. We're back at that familiar point where it looks as though the Israelis are continuing to attack Hezbollah, Hezbollah continuing to fire into Israel.

Now we just got a report from Hezbollah saying that they have actually engaged Israeli troops within Lebanese territories over the blue line. This means that it looks as though there is this actual, you know, a real expression of that ground invasion by the Israelis. And that is something that everybody is looking at. Could this get worse? The Israelis have said that Beirut is not on the table for a ground invasion. So it looks unlikely that we're going to see Israeli tanks rolling through the streets of Beirut as they did during the civil

war. But guys, you know, this is a situation that absorbs the rest of the Arab world and the Middle East. Lebanon, this small, beautiful, diverse country, it rarely affects other countries so much as it takes the blows of what's going on elsewhere. And during last time, when we saw all of those Iranian missiles going over into Israel, we caught one glimpse of one from here. But what we really saw was celebratory gunfire being fired from this neighborhood of Dahia into the sky, tracer fire, that showed that the people here who support Hezbollah were so cheered by what they saw as Iran punishing Israel, even though, as you said, that punishment didn't really land. Now the situation here is just one of waiting. It's kind of reached an impasse for Lebanon and for the rest of the Middle East. The ball is now

in Israel's court, but whatever they decide to do, the problem for Lebanon is that there is likely to be an effect here. This is where Hezbollah is based, Iran's cat's paw in the Middle East that faces Israel. There is so much fear here that what they've already endured is about to get so much worse. All right, NBC's Matt Bradley reporting live from Beirut. Thank you for that reporting. Let's bring in now President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack, and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News.

Thank you both for being with us. Admiral, we are we are surrounded by arm shared warriors who who sit and drink their lattes in Manhattan offices and write editorials on their Apple laptops or maybe with their Mont Blanc pens, saying when it comes to nuclear retaliation by Russia after Vladimir Putin threatens nuclear war, they go, don't worry, be happy. It's OK. Go all the way to Moscow. Don't worry about that.

Oh, they'll never use that. And now here we have Wall Street Journal editorial page saying that now is the time for Israel to invade. Now is the time for Israel to invade Iran, start a regional war. And if they don't start a regional war, and if they don't start a regional war, and if the United States doesn't join them in a regional war in the Middle East, it means somehow that Joe Biden is weak. A summation that only the Wall Street Journal editorial page could come up with. That if Net Yahoo does not start a regional war, it's because Joe Biden is weak. You know, you've known war, actually. What are the consequences of a regional war between Iran and Israel? They're enormous. Let's start with the economics. If I'm in Tehran and the Israelis, quote,

go big, unquote, one thing I'm going to consider is closing this trade of Hormuz. 30 percent plus of the world's oil goes through there. Secondly, Hezbollah, although battered, still has an inventory of over 100,000 surface to surface missiles that could be unleashed at Israel. And Iron Dome is quite good, but it can be overwhelmed. Thirdly, Iran launched about 180 ballistic missiles, about twice what they did in the April strike. The Israelis, with some help from the Admiral, says U.S. Navy destroyers were able to shoot those down. Iran still has 2,000 ballistic missiles.

That's the strongest part of their arsenal. So I think the idea of rushing into a, quote, go big, unquote, conflict with Iran on the part of Israel, a nation of, let's say, 10 million, 7 million Jews. Iran's population is 90 million. It's a big country with a lot of capability. So my advice would be exercise some caution here and work along that spectrum of response that kind of goes from cyber, non-kinetic, special forces, cruise missiles, nautical, go after the energy infrastructure, but do it in a defined, precise way. A wider war is going to crack the global economy, for starters. I'm not sure that's in anybody's interest. And final thought, you know, I'll quote from the greatest book of leadership ever written, Joe, you know, it's The Godfather by Mario Puzo. Of course. And in it, the Don says, don't make the

mistake of hating your enemies. It clouds your judgment. This is a time for real judgment. So Richard Haass, that Wall Street Journal op-ed effectively says, if not now, when that Iran has opened itself up to attacks on its nuclear facilities and military targets inside the borders of Iran. What do you suspect after the attack of yesterday from Iran sending those rockets into Israel? What comes next? I believe Iran basically made a fateful decision. They decided that not acting would be costly. They may have tried to thread the needle like they did in April, do just enough so they can say retaliate and not enough to trigger an Israeli response. But look, I take people at the word. I think the Israelis will respond. And a minimum, I think, to go after storage sites,

maybe production facilities, a lot of the systems that Iran is producing, either for themselves or for Hezbollah and others. My expectation is the United States will probably push back, maybe against attacking oil facilities, in part because we're not anxious to see a larger energy-related war, for example, or the Admiral correctly said about the Straits. They could also, like in the past, go after the Saudi oil facilities. I don't think that's something that could be ruled out. To me, the real question, really, is whether the Israelis use this as an opportunity

to go after the nuclear program around. Some of it's exposed, some of it's not. That's a big issue. And if they do go after Iran, let me just make another guess. You know, I don't think regime change is something that's easily brought about. The prime minister of Israel is talking about it. History suggests probably not. But one interesting question is if Israel attacks Iran, as I think they will, will that persuade the Iranians that now is the time they really do need a nuclear weapons program in order to prevent such things in the future? So I actually think we're at what could be seen in retrospect as a massive turning point for the Middle East. So, Richard, you mentioned the April attack, which was perceived as sort of showy, you know, playing the Iran plan, your domestic audience, but relatively easily

defeated. There were some some echoes of that yesterday. After April, President Biden told Prime Minister Netanyahu, take the win, take the win, that the U.S. helped you defeat this attack. You know, don't overdo it. And Israel launched an important but strategic attack response, but relatively limited. We know right now that they're debating what to do next. But if the president, Biden, tries to urge them again, take the win, be modest, be cautious. Do we have any sense that Prime Minister Netanyahu will listen? Short answer, it's unlikely. And indeed, Jake Sullivan wasn't saying take the win. I actually thought what was interesting about the administration, which has sent a lot of mixed

messages about seeking ceasefires and Lebanon and all that, the Israelis are not looking for a ceasefire in the north. They're going to continue to go after the inventory of Hamas. They've already probably reduced it significantly, but they got a long ways to go. And I don't think they're prepared to take the win. They don't see it as win. Iran has now attacked Israel twice. Neither time with great effect, but that is probably a precedent the Israelis have decided they can't live with. So I think the real influence of the administration is shaping potentially the attack and agreeing on what the scale and the target set. But I don't think this time it's likely the Israelis essentially swallow what the Iranians did. So, Admiral, Richard said, talked about nuclear weapons.

If you were advising the president, I'm wondering if you would say the same thing that I would say if I were advising the president, which is Iran is scared. They're running scared right now. And yes, while some in the West may celebrate that, they've already made the decision, have they not, that they have to have that nuclear program so they can never be as vulnerable again as they are today, where their leaders are going into hiding, where they can't even shelter their own terrorist allies without them getting blown up in safe houses. Don't you think, Iran, wouldn't it be logical to assume Iran's already made the decision? We have to finish this out. We have to go the final five yards and get nuclear weapons. I agree with that. And let's let's put ourselves in the in the shoes of the mullahs of Tehran. They have three

principal proxy groups. They've got a few other minor league teams, but they've got Hamas, who has been effectively crushed by the Israeli defense forces. They got Hezbollah to the north, which is being crushed by the Israeli defense forces. And they have the Houthis down on the Red Sea who are trying to shut down shipping, who are going to be crushed sooner or later by a combination of the Israelis and the international community, because we can't just continue on with the Suez Canal effectively closed. So, yes, the supreme leader is in an undisclosed location somewhere in Tehran. You're watching your three principal proxies either beaten down, getting beaten down,

or you know they're going to get beaten down. And you start to say to yourself, hmm, a nuclear weapon looks like a really good option for me at this point. And I think, therefore, Richard is correct that this is going to move them further down that stream. And thus, if I'm advising the Israelis, I think a very tempting set of targets now would be that nuclear set of facilities to send the signal. Not only are we going to sit here and watch ballistic missiles rain down on us, we are also not going to let you develop nuclear weapons in the future. I think you can do both those messages without ending up in a wider war in the region. Richard, do you agree? Short answer is yes. I just don't see how any

Israeli prime minister could allow Iran to get much farther down that path. They're probably 90, 95 percent of the way there, Joe, given the history of the Jewish experience, shall we say. Bibi Netanyahu also has been able to rally the country. It's divided as Israel was and is about Gaza. It's united about Hezbollah and it's united about Iran. So yes, I think this is likely to happen. I think there's a legitimate strategic reason.

Why would you trust the Iranians, if you will, to self deter? It seems to me there's very little reason to do so. President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass and retired four star Navy Admiral James DeVritas. Thank you both very much. The admiral's new book, The Restless Wave, a novel of the United States Navy, goes on sale next Tuesday, October 8th. And coming up right here on Morning Joe, we'll bring you more big moments from last night's vice presidential debate, including Senator J.D. Vance's claim Donald Trump saved Obamacare. Wait, wait, didn't he didn't he continue to mock? He kept promising McCain even after John McCain had passed because John McCain saved Obamacare when he wanted to kill it. And he said he would have an alternative in two weeks.

Morning Joe will be right back. Here's Fernando Tatis. He swings, sends one high and deep to left. He's watching, so are 44,000 others. Oh, what a start for the Padres as Tatis leaves the building, and this place is on its feet. Padres lead it 2-0. A bomb from Fernando Tatis Jr.

In his first playoff start, gets the Padres an early lead last night, a towering two-run home run into the second deck. Right-hander Michael King struck out 12 in seven scoreless innings of work on the mound. Padres shutting out the Atlanta Braves 4-0 in the opener of their best-of-three NL wildcard series. Game two is tonight in San Diego. Remember, these are best-of-three. The Padres can close it out. In Milwaukee, the New York Mets carrying their momentum into the postseason

with a win in their playoff opener. That was in Milwaukee against the Brewers last night. A five-run fifth, including that go-ahead two-run single by Mark Vientos to beat the Brewers 8-4. Mets can close it out tonight in Milwaukee in game two. How about that? Over in the American League, Kansas City Royals superstar Bobby Witt Jr. driving in the only run of yesterday's game

against the Orioles, a two-out single in the sixth, helping the Royals return from a nine-year postseason absence with a 1-0 win over the O's. Game two of that best-at-three wildcard series today in Baltimore and in Houston. America's team, at least for these three games. Detroit Tigers got to Fran Bervaldez early, scoring three on a flurry of singles in the third inning to hand the Astros ace another postseason loss after he went 0-3 in the third inning to hand the Astros ace another postseason loss after he went 0-3 in the playoffs last year. Meanwhile, Tigers lefty Tarek Skubal continuing his stellar season. Six scoreless innings yesterday as the Tigers beat the Astros 3-1 for their first playoff win since 2013. Game two is this afternoon in houston mike barnacle joins the table mike this is just

what a day you can't make a better day for elimination morning noon night you get baseball all day and again today i was surprised this morning coming in here early there was a vice presidential debate last night because i was watching tatis and the Padres. I did note on our group text, John, you and I were talking about the debate and he'd say Tatis just went deep. Yeah. So what did you like about what you saw last night? I mean, it's fun to watch road teams really pushing these division champions to the limit here. I loved watching Tarek Scouble and the Tigers. Everybody loves the Tigers, as everybody ought to love the Lions because of Detroit. I mean, the great

American city. I loved watching Tatis hit the home run. I think the Padres are very sneaky. Might be the best team in the field other than the Philadelphia Phillies, who I think have the best team, but they're not playing yet. They'll play this weekend. But the bottom line is,

baseball is such a gift to the country at this time of year. All these playoff games, you can watch the game. There's a terrific pace to the games, terrific results for the games. And today, four possible elimination games. It was all elimination games. Yeah, spectacular day of baseball. I mean, Scooble, not a household name, but maybe the best pitcher in baseball, putting the Astros to the brink of elimination. You feel bad for the Orioles. Their ace, Corbin Burns, gave them everything they could have wanted. Pitched into the ninth. One run.

Still loses. Michael King. That's right. He'd look good in a Red Sox uniform, Mike. We'll note that Michael King, who was so filthy for the Potters last night, ex-Yankee, part of the Juan Soto trade. And then, Joe, we heard you cheering for the Mets during those highlights. I know it's Mekas Mets.

And they continue to just roll. The momentum coming out of that series against the Braves. Who knew? And they fell behind early yesterday. The Brewers lifted their starter a little early, I'd argue. And the Mets just simply pounded the bullpen. I've just got to say, the Mets have had, I mean, man, two of the great days in their franchise history. Of course, nothing like 16, the 69 series with the amazing Mets.

But man, what a comeback against the Braves a couple of days ago. And what a huge win last night. I've always had a soft spot for the Jets and the Mets, which means I've seen them lose an awful lot. But, man, what a win. A couple of things, Mike, I want to talk about. First of all, that Mets game. You talked about how great that Mets game was

and how great the last two Mets games have been. Really unbelievable. Also, talk about the Padres. You think they might have what it takes to win it all. And finally, the team that I'm really excited about, it reminds me of the 2006 Cardinals who won 83 games in 2006 and won the World Series. 83 games, but they hit it right at the right time. And I'm just looking at the Tigers thinking, if I'm a Cleveland fan, I'm not really so sure I want the Tigers to bump off the Astros

because the Tigers are the hottest team in baseball right now. Oh, you want the Tigers to defeat the, you want the Tigers to actually humiliate the Astros. That's what you want. Okay. You speak for America, but go ahead. The idea that the Mets, that the Mets are still in it and performing very, very well under extraordinary pressure. The exhaustion factor in both the Mets and the Braves flying across country after playing a doubleheader the other day is amazing. It's amazing to watch. But again, it gets back to October baseball. Very few things in sports, to my mind, are better than October baseball. It's the last gift of summer before the leaves

fall off the trees and you put the storm windows on. This is it. This is it. Pay attention. Yeah. So we're at the start of this incredible. And again, it's just why we all love the playoff. You just don't know who's going to win it. Mike, who's your pick to go all the way right now? Philadelphia. I think the Phillies have the best team. I think in the end, they'll prove they have the best team. They have the best pitching staff, I think, of all the remaining teams in the playoffs, even the ones who haven't played.

Especially the Yankees have trouble pitching. So I think Philadelphia, in the end, they take home the World Series. What do you think, Willie? What did I say yesterday? I should say that again. You went with the Yankees. Yankees. I want to be consistent. I did go with the Yankees if they can pitch and if they can count on Luke Weaver as their closer in the bullpen. That's been it was a real shaky spot for them this season. But their lineup is outrageous. It's so good. It's all come down to pitching. So I'm going to go

with them. Mark DeRosa yesterday on the show agreed with you that the Phillies are going to win it all. E-Row. Yeah. Jonathan. I went with, yesterday, with Phillies-Orioles, so my American League pick is already on life support. Because of these two out of three series, I agree with Mike. I think the Phillies have the best lineup, too. It would be fun to see Bryce Harper get a ring.

He's one of the game's most signature players. I mean, the Orioles, that's a great ballpark, a great franchise, a great fan base. I'd love to see it, but they're in trouble now. They need to start hitting. They sort of limped to the finish, and they got a win today, or, well, my pick is really wrong. And you actually have to

feel sorry for the Orioles. They've had a great team the last couple of years, but man, so far, their playoff performance has just been absolutely dismal. I think we have a replay, Willie, of the last World Series that the Yankees won, 2009, the Phillies versus the Yankees. I mean, I think that'll set up as a great World Series. Okay, well, come on. Let's have a Subway Series where the Mets can take it Mets. That's a great World Series. Okay, well, come on. Let's have a Subway Series where the Mets can take it seven games.

That would be great. Boston fans calling for a Subway Series. Go Grants. That would be great.