Morning Joe - Morning Joe 10/26/22

Episode Date: October 26, 2022

Oz, Fetterman face off in high-stakes Pennsylvania Senate debate

It's beginning to look like we're going to have a nail-biter here because polls have the race tightening as Republicans gain momentum. But in what could be a good sign for Democrats, early voting turnout is breaking records, possibly, because of those signs outside of polling stations, democracy closing, everything must go. The midterm's now less than two weeks away. It was a huge debate night in key races across several states last night, including Pennsylvania, where Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman struggled as he recovers from a stroke suffered five months ago. We'll have the highlights from that debate and others. Plus, concern for House Democrats in several races they should have, they believe, locked up by now,

including the seat of their campaign chief. We'll have that new reporting. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, October 26. Along with Joe and me, we have former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department's Elise Jordan, the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico and author of the bestseller The Big Lie, Jonathan Lemire, professor at Princeton University, Eddie Glaude Jr., and co-founder of Punchbowl News, Jake Sherman. He's an MSNBC political contributor. Mika is under the weather this morning. We hope to see her tomorrow. Joe, so we'll start in Pennsylvania. Just your first impressions of what you saw there from John Fetterman and Dr. Oz. Yeah, first of all, Mika being under the weather.

Weather actually means she's going to probably only run seven miles this morning instead of nine. So her definition of under the weather is a little bit different than ours. You know, it's very interesting. Last night I wrote something that was very obvious. Dr. Oz is a very slick guy who doesn't happen to fit Pennsylvania. He made some statements that I know cause great concerns to people in Pennsylvania, especially where, in the words of Charlie Pierce, he wanted the parks and recreation people to make decisions on the local level for abortions.

I don't know how that's going to play in Scranton. Probably not well. And then you had, of course, Fetterman, who's who's struggling. He's struggling with the effects of a stroke that he suffered in May. And, you know, I said it's very obvious that he is impaired. His ability to communicate is impaired. And and the question is, you know, Pennsylvania voters have a couple of choices. And I'm curious, Jake Sherman, what you think. Just a quick snapshot. I know that David Axelrod said said that he was concerned with the performance last night. But you have a ton of Democrats, again, talking about Dr. Oz not fitting the state. What was your takeaway? I think the overwhelming takeaway that I heard, and I think this is a fair, fair thing to say, is people are questioning why he went into this debate, why he did this

debate. Now, of course, if he didn't do this debate, Joe, it would have probably raised more questions and people would have been on him for that, saying you can't run in a critical Senate race in a critical year where the Senate is kind of balancing on a pinhead. You can't not debate. But I think overwhelmingly people will watch that and see that he's still struggling from the fallout of his stroke. I think that that much is obvious. I mean, obviously, Dr. Oz, as you indicated, said some things that are not fitting for Pennsylvania. This is a race that will be won as both as both men kind of indicated in the suburbs of Philadelphia and the suburbs of Pittsburgh, kind of the the suburban vote that has carried races like this for a long time.

And the question is, will people think that Fetterman is up for the job, able to serve? And will Dr. Oz's views on things like abortion kind of scare or concern those suburban voters? But I think there's it's undoubtable. It's completely legitimate to say that he's still struggling with his ability to speak. And you would expect that. But I think we saw that on display last night in a way that we have not seen it on display, Joe, in rallies and in other appearances that he's had. Right. I remember Dasha Burns getting in trouble a couple of weeks ago with with people on the left and even some mainstream voices saying that he had trouble with small talk. Well, it was very obvious last night. And of course, he he underwent a major had a major stroke. And so, again, the question, Willie, is not whether he is going to be able to serve. The question is, how impaired is he? And that's something that the voters of Pennsylvania are going to be sorting through, even if people on the left don't want to pretend that it doesn't exist.

It does exist, but doesn't mean he can't serve as senator. That's just up to the voters of Pennsylvania. Exactly. It's not up to us talking on TV. It's not up to people writing on Twitter. It's up to people who go into those booths less than two weeks from now. Fetterman's campaign says he has trouble processing what he hears. We heard that around Dasha's interview with him a couple of weeks ago. So as we told you yesterday morning, there were two monitors placed behind the debate moderators, one with the debate questions and another with Oz's answers. So you can see that video there. So Fetterman could read it and respond. Fetterman could read it and respond. Fetterman used his first response to address his health, what he called the elephant in the room.

And as we're saying, he clearly struggled at times. Hi, good night, everybody. I'm running to serve Pennsylvania. He's running to use Pennsylvania. Here's a man that spent more than $20 million of his own money to try to buy that seat. I'm also having to talk about something called the Oz rule, that if he's on TV, he's lying. He did that during his career on his TV show. He's done that during his campaign about lying about our record here. And he's also lying probably during this debate. And let's also talk about the elephant in the room. I had a stroke. He's never let me forget that. And I might miss some words during this

debate, mush two words together, but it knocked me down, but I'm going to keep coming back up. My doctors, the real doctors that I believe in, they all believe that I'm ready to be served. Follow up. I didn't hear you say you would release your full medical records. Why not? You have 30 seconds. No, again, my doctor all believes that I'm fit to be serving. And that's what I believe is where I'm standing. There is that 2018 interview that you said, quote, I don't support fracking at all. So how do you square the two? Oh, I do support fracking and I don't, I don't, I support fracking and I stand and I do support fracking. Administration overspent. And if so, where do you think spending should be cut?

You have 60 seconds. Now, here's what I think we have to fight about inflation here right now. That's what we need to fight about inflation right now, because it's a tax on working families. That is, again, the rule. That is just not true. You know, here his family's company was levied the largest fine for ingratiated hiring of immigrant illegals. And I think you should sit this one out about in terms of what a secure border. How exactly, Mr. Fetterman, do you propose doing that to make it more affordable for families? I just believe, I just making it that much more, it costs too much and I believe providing

the resources to reduce the tuition to allow families to be able to afford it. 51% of Pennsylvania voters disapprove of the president's job performance. You have publicly supported many of his policy positions. Are there any that you disagree with? 30 seconds. I just believe he needs to do more about supporting and fighting about inflation. And I do believe he can do more about that. We're going to have a bunch more from the debate, including Dr. Oz's answers in just a moment. But at least you talked to many, many voters in Pennsylvania. We've been watching your

focus groups and they did express concern about John Fetterman's health. So the question will be what they watched last night, the pauses we saw. Some of those were him reading the prompter that was behind the moderators waiting for the question to be transcribed. Will that influence their vote? Will they go in and pull that curtain and say, you know, I don't know if I love Dr. Oz, but I'm worried about John Fetterman's health? You know, we spoke to swing voters in Bucks County and Pittsburgh who were hesitant and they might not be happy with the Republican choice in Dr. Oz, but they had serious questions about John Fetterman's recovery and the aftermath. And they said they were going to be watching this debate closely to see what his recovery had been like. And, you know, we have footage of those voters watching the interview that NBC's Dasha

Burns conducted with John Fetterman, and they were hesitant. And, you know, we did so much work with these focus groups and did an hour long survey with the participants we ended up bringing into the group. And so some of them in these groups would say that they were leaning Oz, but they wouldn't necessarily admit it in the group dynamic. So already, I wonder if there's a little bit of kind of Trumpian embarrassment, 2016-esque with the Oz vote. And this certainly is not going to help John Fetterman, his performance last night. You know, Eddie, your humanity immediately kicks in when you watch that. Anybody who's known somebody in their family or a friend who's had a stroke, it's very difficult to watch. You kind of know what John Fetterman's going through there. On the other hand, he's running to become a United States senator, and there will be voters who have doubts after watching

last night. Yeah, it was hard. And it was hard in the context of the very superficial nature in which our politics takes place today. Right. So voters don't have the patience to make a distinction between his ability to articulate his thoughts and his cognitive abilities. And there was a wonderful op ed in The New York Times this morning about from Jill Taylor about she's a neuroscientist. She had a stroke and what it takes that how the brain heals itself that he's perfectly capable. But it was hard to watch. And given the way in which our politics, the image, the glitz, the performance often stands in for substance. It was it's a hard it's a hard hill to climb, it seems to me. Yeah. so that was what stood out most, just watching that. But then there was the policy, and there were questions about abortion, for example.

Here's what Dr. Oz said when asked about a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not. As a physician, I've been in the room when there's some difficult conversations happening. I don't want the federal government involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, local political leaders leading the democracy that's always allowed our nation to thrive, to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves. Local officials. Elise, would you want a county commissioner making life and death decisions about you and your family? That was the most heinous, atrocious answer that Dr. Oz could have possibly uttered last night. And I can only imagine how the women swing voters who were already not completely happy with how he'd him hauled on it and the Republican Party writ

large on abortion, how they would respond to that. So many women that we've spoken to and heard from on abortion, it's not that they love the idea of abortion, but they don't want government involved and they want to keep government out. And literally what he proposed was bringing it down to the local level, the most invasive form of, you know, bringing in local government officials. It's just. Yeah, that's I mean, I mean, you look you look, Jonathan O'Meara, at the state legislatures and what they've done. They're passing legislation that makes 10-year-old girls flee a state who have been raped. You've got actually a Michigan gubernatorial candidate saying that a 14-year-old girl getting raped by her uncle is a perfect example of why there can be absolutely no exceptions for rape or incest. And that's on the state level. Now you have Dr. Oz talking about wanting local officials to make

decisions, life and death decisions about 10-year-old girls getting raped, 14-year-old incest victims. You go down the long list. All of the horrific things that were imagined before Roe v. Wade was overturned. Well, it appears that a lot of state legislatures are making those imagined horrors actually a reality for so many Americans. And now Dr. Oz says he wants to get it to the local level, which which really shows something much, much larger here. And this is a guy who voted in Turkey last election. This is a guy who has lived in Jersey, who has his mansion in Jersey and houses all over the place. He didn't look Pennsylvanian. I mean, I've been to Pennsylvania a lot. This guy doesn't look like he's from Pennsylvania. He doesn't talk like he's from Pennsylvania. And when he starts talking

about people in the water management district making decisions about life or death decisions on rape, incest, life of mother. That's somebody that doesn't think like most Pennsylvanians I've talked to either. Now, and certainly nothing Oz did last night will dispel the charge that he's a carpetbagger and he does seem to be embracing this extreme position on abortion. And that's what Democrats are trying to say. That's where if Republicans win, if they win the Senate, if they win the House, if they were to take the White House, that they will be so far out of step with where the rest of the country will be. And just in terms of the context of the debate,

Oz's comment there sort of acted as a lifeline for Democrats who were, of course, concerned as to how Federman was doing, who was so obviously struggling. It's going to spark new questions about his health. And as everyone else has been saying, difficult to watch at times last night. But I do think we need to keep in mind this is a debate that's happening late in the cycle. A lot of people have already made up their minds. We don't know what the audience was last night. It's unclear how much of an impact this will actually have. But certainly it didn't help Fetterman. And we already know this was a race that was tightening. I spoke to some senior

Democratic officials. Their internals the last couple of days had Fetterman, who had been up 16, who had been up 10 or 12, now up more like four or five. That's still a lead. That's outside the margin of error. That's likely going to tighten that much more. And the stakes can't be overstated here. There's a real chance that the control of the U.S. Senate is going to come down to this one race and the margins likely to be razor thin. So, Jake Sherman, when you talk to Democrats on Capitol Hill, when you talk to the leadership and people running these campaigns, what is their sense of this race? Maybe not after last night, unless you've talked to some of them in the last few hours. But generally speaking, where do they believe Pennsylvania is going? I agree with what John said. I mean, senior

Democrats have seen their polls tighten from from the double digits down to the single digits. I mean, the assumption among Republicans is just like 1994, just like 2010, just like 2006, in an election where that has the potential of being some form of a wave. We don't know how big of a wave that will be. These races tend to break Republicans' way. That doesn't mean it's going to. Tend to. When the president has between a 38 to 42 percent approval rating, when the wrong track is in the 70 percent range. That just means that the mood of the country is sour. The generic ballot has Republicans up anywhere from a couple points to five or six points. So, you know, that seems to be the general theory of the case, that in a year like this,

is what Republicans say, close races break Republicans' way. And we've seen that historically. Remember, there's a theory out there, I'm not saying I subscribe to it, to not overcomplicate this. You know, unless absent some massive mess up by a Republican, Republicans will tend to win some of these close races. Jake Sherman, Punchbowl News. Jake, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, President Biden shares his thoughts on the state of democracy and what is on the line this election now just 13 days away. Meanwhile, a former top advisor to former President Trump gives testimony to the January 6th committee. We'll tell you who that is.

Also ahead, we've spent a lot of time in the Senate race in Pennsylvania, Ohio. Also a toss up at this point. We'll be joined by the Democratic nominee, Congressman Tim Ryan. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. As a physician, I've been in the room when there's some difficult conversations happening. I don't want the federal government involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that's always allowed our nation to thrive, to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves.

What's so disconcerting about that is he says he's a doctor, and then he says he wants local political officials to make medical decisions on life and death, moral issues, religious issues. We're putting that in the hands of water management district people or parks and recreations. I don't understand what it means by that. And I'm sure and recreations i i don't i don't understand what what it means by that and i'm sure a lot of other people don't you know i want to circle back to something jake sherman said before uh and it's something that others have said over the past couple days if you just look at the numbers if you just look at the numbers and and and you look at history and you just do the basic math, as we've been saying for a year, should be a red tsunami.

You have obviously you have a White House in power that the opposing party always does well in all of your elections. You have a president who struggled with low approval ratings over the past six months. They're a little higher now. You have inflation up. You have gas prices up. And the right track, wrong track numbers are going in the wrong direction. So you add all of those up and that's really bad for the party in power. So when you have all of those things going in one direction, it takes an issue or it takes something else to disrupt history. And at least there are a lot of Democrats this morning who believe an answer like that from Dr. Oz is one of those things that could disrupt historical trends.

I don't know if it is. It looked like it might three months ago. Not so sure that it is now, but some people are still telling me they believe that the early voting numbers suggest that there's something out there. But you talked to the voters in Pennsylvania about abortion. What did you find? Joe, Dr. Oz's answer was basically exactly what those voters would not want to hear, especially women who are sitting on the fence. And they said they weren't going to be single issue voters on abortion. But if they felt there was going to be a local board giving women a yes or no, yay or nay on their medical choices. I don't think that would go over too well. Let's hear from some of those voters now. And I think it'll just be illustrative to give you a sense of how voters are dealing with this complicated issue. And these are groups that we conducted prior to the debate. And let's just take a look.

Could you see abortion being completely banned in Pennsylvania in the near future? You know, not to make it a race issue, but a lot of Caucasian women would fight. They are the strongest proponents against this. I don't have or shouldn't have the right to, you know, comment or tell a woman, you know, what she can do or not do with her body. So as far as the time frame, as a man, I feel like it's, you know, I don't really have that much of a say. I don't think men should be making non-decisions about women.

How many of you think that it was a bad thing to overturn Roe versus White? So everyone, is anyone unsure or on the fence about it? It's so hard because I see both sides of it. Again, I understand a woman's right. God, you know, don't tell us what we can or can't do. But I also see the right of people that want to save that child. So it's such a, it's just such a hard decision. But I don't think anyone has any right to take anything away from a person's individual

choice. I don't like the idea of saying, oh yes, absolutely, you can have an abortion with, you know, whatever. But at the same time, like, I'm not the one that has to live with that. So I don't think I can say, oh no, we shouldn't have restrictions, or yes, we should. And if you let the government start restricting things, I worked for the government for 35 years. They can change the rules on the drop of a dime. Who's in charge changes the rules. You know what I mean? Everything changes the rules.

If there's, you know, and right now all we have is democrats or republicans if the democrats are in you had these rules and then the republic comes in wants to change all the democrats rules and if they start doing that with my body or my daughter's body or my grandchild's body that that is not their business that's my business does anyone oppose a third trimester abortion of course none of us feel good about abort oppose a third trimester abortion? Of course, none of us feel good about aborting a third trimester baby, but we all understand that it is situational and it's not for us to say. None of us feel good about it, but nobody should make that decision except the mother. Do you feel like Democrats have done enough to protect reproductive rights from women?

It's not just them. It's Congress and the House itself. Honestly, I feel like they've done some to hurt it because they've made so much of it about women's reproductive rights and abortion. And it's the, you've made it such a huge focus that now people are saying, oh, we have to fight this with everything. They think that's how to win votes, but like make it maybe not so much of a focus. And then people will lighten up about it and like the far-right

Republicans that are oh we have to ban everything will disappear because suddenly they're not having to challenge the oh everybody has to have a right to an abortion even the day before the babies do. Do you describe yourself as pro-choice? Anyone? Show of hands. Pro-life in most... Does Show of hands. Pro-life in most cases. Does anyone describe themselves as pro-life? I am pro-life. Okay, so how many people pro-life?

I am pro-life. Okay. I don't put either label on myself because I have such mixed opinions about it. There should be the ability for choices to be made under certain situations. What are the exceptions that, even though you consider yourself pro-life, that you believe should be permitted under the law? Do you support an exception for rape? Yes.

Everyone, show of hands. What about life of the mother? Absolutely. Incest? 100%. So even though you describe yourself as pro-life, you are willing to have these exceptions under the law. Contraception itself should be much more readily available to everyone than it is now. As in over-the-counter or available without parental consent?

As in even more severe than that, having surgeries such as vasectomies, tubal ligations, that should be more readily available. Let's do a show of hands. Did anyone think it was a good thing, the decision? I believe abortion is murder. I'm a Catholic white man. I mean, I'm not going to make any bones about it. But at the end of the day, you're not standing in front of me to be judged.

So that's not my decision to make. But I really do think it should be legal. I think as murderers, I do think it's hurt. So, Elise, we've seen you do focus groups with voters in Georgia, in Pennsylvania. You know, we'll we'll run a day of Trump voters saying something. Everybody's hair will fall. Right. And then the next day you'll ask them questions on abortion. And of course, it's very ambiguous for them. And they consider themselves pro-life. But I've noticed in Georgia with Trump voters that were espousing conspiracy theories, I always talk about that man who said, hey, I'm a man. It's none of my business.

And that's the thing we keep hearing. And so here's the great irony about the most divisive issue of the last 30 years. It now appears to be the single unifying issue with people, whether they're in downtown Philadelphia, if they're black voters in downtown Philadelphia or they're white Trump voters in western Pennsylvania, there is a real reluctance to say, let's be ideological on abortion. I just again, I find that striking. What a huge gulf between politicians in Washington, D.C. and in state legislatures and voters on all sides on this issue of abortion. I'm not saying they're all pro abortion. I'm not saying they're all, you know, taking the Democrats position. I'm just saying they are so more nuanced about it than state legislatures. Joe, voters look at the issue with much more complexity and they see the shades of gray in a way that politicians, when they discuss it, it just doesn't come across.

And I think your point about how you have a Trump voter in Atlanta, Georgia, saying, I'm a man, I shouldn't have anything. This isn't my choice. And the same thing is echoed by a Democratic man in Philadelphia. And so men have certainly gotten that memo. American men, maybe just not, you know, male politicians. But this issue really seems to be hurting Republicans if they're completely draconian. No exceptions whatsoever. Look at what happened in Kansas. Look at how the Oklahoma governor's race is in play. It is not a good issue for Republicans to just say no abortions ever, no exceptions. And if I the John Fetterman campaign, I would clip that ad immediately of what Dr. Oz said last night in the debate. Yeah, the line is local political leaders is what Dr. Oz said. What he probably meant to say was leave this to the states. But

even that, if you look at the primary, he said, I'm 100 percent pro-life, 100 percent pro-life. And now during the general election, he said, well, there should be exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. But also, he says, it should be left to the states. This should not be a federal issue. Interesting, though, looking at some polling, Eddie, we thought after Kansas, after Dobbs, that this might be a voting issue that could propel Democrats here into the midterms. In the state of Pennsylvania among Catholic voters, even

only 10 percent say abortion is their number one issue and 60 percent say it's the economy, which seems to be true across cross sections of voters. Right. I think that there was a moment where it activated the Democratic Democratic base. It activated women and Democrats found, you know, they fueled it supercharged in some ways the summer. But I think, you know, they fueled it, supercharged in some ways the summer. But I think, you know, we have to be clear that there are complex of issues that are facing voters in this midterm. What's interesting that there's an underlying continuity among voters across the ideological spectrum is that Americans tend to have a libertarian streak, right? Whether you're on the right or the left, there are some moments where you just leave me alone. And I think it doesn't have to be articulated in an ideological way. You don't

become Rand Paul. But there is something about this particular place called America where just just at some point back off and let me be who I am. And I think that's showing up in some of this some of this sports. Heard that in those focus groups. We're going to come back to Pennsylvania in just a moment. We'll also be joined by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer after she squared off against her Republican opponent, Tudor Dixon, last night. Plus, we're looking at the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Our next guest has new reporting on a secret deal by the White House to boost oil production.

But Crown Prince Mohammed bin Laden had different ideas. We'll explain when Morning Joe comes right back. Live picture, 639 in the morning of washington dc joe we've got some important stuff to get to here on saudi arabia on democracy in america on some of the debates last night but we do want to begin here as we cross the bottom of the hour with an update on richard haas's facial hair or lack oh my god the beard is gone joe the beard is gone. America had fallen in love with the beard, and for reasons that remain unclear, Richard Haas has abandoned it. Perhaps it was the playoff beard for the Yankees, and it was time to go.

What Richard Haas had told me, and I didn't want to share it with everybody else, was he said that while the Yankees were still in the playoff, he believed it would be good luck if he would not shave and not change his underwear, which is why we hadn't had him on set until after the Yankees were eliminated from the playoffs. We wanted to keep him on Zoom now safely.

You know, he's shorn. He's a little cleaner than he was before. So there you go. But, Richard, my condolences on the Yankees. They had an incredible season, a historic season. But I haven't let you crow about the New York Giants. And let's also crow a little bit about the Jets. I, you know, since I'm an Atlanta Falcons fan,

I have to sort of pick and choose teams to cheer for week in and week out. I've always suffered also with the Jets because, you know, I loved Joe Namath, an Alabama boy. But the Jets and the Giants, they don't have great teams. Right. But they just and this is my highest compliment for a football team. They just get the job done. Well, thank you, Joe. Thank you for your sensitivity this morning. It's it's welcome. Look, Giants and the Jets, well-coached teams, Giants watching what their quarterbacks doing.

Dan Jones, what Saquon Barkley is doing. Giants are fun. They find a way to win despite the injury. Same with the Jets. I think MetLife Super Bowl. That's what we're moving towards, Joe. Oh, whatever. It only took me 10 seconds to lose you there. Just like the Subway series we predicted.

Yeah. Just like the Subway series. And Willie, one other thing before we get into, obviously, much more important stuff. We never really we didn't have a chance to talk about Tom Brady. Like Tom Brady losing to a one and five Panthers team. Guy's got to be saying, I came back for this. I mean, I'm serious, too. And he lost Giselle over it.

Well, I know. Well, we don't know. Well, we don't know. We don't know. It could just be wild rumors. But at some point, Willie, and I'm dead serious here, why doesn't he just say, hey, I got to go home? If I could lead these guys to the playoffs, I would. That ain't happening.

I need to go home, take care of things there. He's still Tom Brady. He doesn't have a lot of things there. He's still he's still Tom Brady doesn't have a lot of weapons there. He had a press conference the other day where he said he's just going to keep playing until he's 50, if he feels like it's AARP man. But you're right. He may be having some second thoughts about his decision to come back, given how tumultuous it's been for him on and off the field. But it is disorienting, I have to say, when these power rankings come out this week. They have the Giants number five. The Jets are like number seven.

That just does not happen. I thought you were referring to my not having a beard or being disorienting. Thank you for moving on, Willie. I appreciate it. You're a real friend. So, Jonathan Lemire, how are you handling the Tom Brady year? I know you've got a life-size portrait of him on your ceiling that you actually take wherever you go.

Hotel rooms in Washington, your home in New York. How are you dealing with the fall of, well, your teen idol? Teen, 20s, 30s, 40s-year-old idol. He is still the guy. uh yeah it has been a tough season he also has gotten like really skinny like to the point of where he almost seems gaunt we're all worried about tom but here's the thing the buccaneers they've struggled his his stats are actually pretty good he's had a decent year but they are three and four but that's the worst division of football joe as you well know as an an Atlanta Falcons fan, they're under.500.

They're probably still favored to get in the playoffs, even if it's just 9-8. It likely won't go anywhere. But he is still going to play. He has suggested that he's not ruling out playing beyond this year. We'll see. But I'm also more concerned about the Monday Night Football New England Patriots disaster. We can't pick any quarterback there. They both played. They both played terribly on Monday.

And it is disorienting to see. I've been very blessed with 20 years of football success, the Pats, Brady. And now to see the Giants and Jets succeed is, frankly, just hard to stomach, I will say, Richard Haas. Did he get mugged in New York or something? Why is she so anti-New York? I've never met anyone with a bigger chip on their shoulder about New York than Jonathan. Jonathan, do you have a bad experience here?

Want to talk through it a little bit, Jonathan? Do you need therapy? I have lived in New York for decades and love New York City. In fact, growing up in Massachusetts and then moving to New York, being surrounded, living in the Lion's Den and being surrounded by all the New York fans has only deepened my distaste for them, I'm sorry to say. So that's where we are right now. We need to work on that.

But I think we can all at least... But Richard, I also will say, you look, the lack of beard is disappointing this morning. You look great, but I miss the beard. So John's hatred for New York drove him into the arms of the D-backs in 2001 and the cheating Astros now here in 2020. Now go Phillies. We have found the common thread.

We do both. We are all rooting for Philadelphia. We're all for the Phillies now. America's team. All right, let's get back to the news here. A new report in The New York Times offering an in-depth account of what went on behind the scenes between the Biden administration and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia over the summer as the U.S. secured what it thought was a deal to boost oil production. Instead, earlier this month, Saudi Arabia and Russia worked to guide OPEC plus to slash oil production by two million

barrels a day. The move shocked the Biden administration as the Times reports has led the White House to reassess America's relationship with the kingdom. Joining us now, the co-author of the piece, Washington investigative correspondent for The New York Times, Mark Mazzetti. So, Mark, walk us through this a little bit. What was the deal that the Biden administration thought it had in place before Joe Biden went over and fist bumped the crown prince? And how was the rug pulled out from under them? Well, recall the controversy before the trip, the idea that President Biden, after having committed to treating the Saudis as a pariah during the campaign,

makes the decision to visit Saudi Arabia. And some of his aides who saw benefits of the trip started having discussions with Saudi officials about whatides who saw benefits of the trip started having discussions with Saudi officials about what they could get out of this trip. And one of the things that was foremost on the table was this idea to increase oil production as a means of lowering gas prices. Of course, this was something that was contributing. High gas prices were contributing to inflation and also the fortunes of the Democratic Party in the November elections. So essentially what was in place that was reinforced in Jeddah in July was that the

Saudis month by month would push OPEC to increase oil production through July, August, and then critically, September through December, 200,000 barrels a day for each of those months. And that started to work. And you started to see elements of this deal in place through the summer. The Saudis started boosting production. But then slowly over time, that commitment started to erode. And then we saw last two weeks ago was OPEC and Russia doing the opposite, slashing oil production, which, of course, infuriated the White House. And so, Mark, this, as you report in the story, the White House now, the Biden administration says because of this and other things, it's reassessing the relationship with Saudi Arabia. What does that mean exactly? What are they willing to stop doing and stop engaging with Saudi Arabia on? You know, it's a good question and it's yet to be seen. You

saw a lot of angry statements from the spokesperson at the White House about this reassessment. They were clearly angry about the OPEC decision. There's certainly been movement in Congress to dial back military aid, economic ties to Saudi Arabia. But as yet, the White House hasn't articulated what exactly is going to happen. And it's certainly possible over time that, you know, cooler heads prevail and less happens than we would have thought a couple weeks ago. What White House officials say is that what's really critical as a next step is December, the next OPEC meeting. At that time, the Russian sanctions are going to kick in in Europe. Russian oil will be coming off the market. And they say if the Saudis at that time again vote

to slash oil production, effectively they're casting their lot with the Russians. So they're looking ahead to December. As for what they're going to do in the meantime, it's yet to be determined. And yet gas prices have continued to go down, even with this announcement. Richard, what I find to be so fascinating and disturbing about the Saudi decision is that even other members of OPEC were begging them to not cut production, saying we have a deal with the United States. This is not in our best economic interest. We're already at $80 a barrel. You cutting production even more may not be supported by the markets. Don't do it. And even hearing this from other OPEC nations who were saying this made no sense, the Saudis moved forward anyway. So do you have any insight

since this has happened, why they may have done something that was not in their best geopolitical interest, was not in their best economic interest? That's question number one. And question number two is, what does Congress do? Do they look at some of those weapons deals that have been described as sweetheart deals for the Saudis and freeze those programs? On the first question, Joe, it wasn't economically necessary for Saudi Arabia to do this. Oil wasn't going below $80 a barrel. The administration offered to buy up oil if necessary to prop up the price in order to refill the strategic petroleum reserve. So this is not about energy prices. Let's just put that aside. What we don't know is how much it was motivated by a desire on the

Saudis to do something in favor of Russia. I think more it was to stick it to the Biden administration. The Saudis truly dislike the Biden administration. They feel that the Biden administration has mugged them over a human rights issue, over Adnan Khashoggi and that whole, Jamal Khashoggi, that whole set of issues. But Richard, can I stop you there for a second? This is what I don't understand. The Saudis, since their leader, Lord Khashoggi, tortured him, chopped him up into a thousand little pieces and buried him. A Virginia resident, by the way, who was an op-ed writer for The Washington Post, their government's been trying to figure out how to get out of the corner.

Biden went over to Saudi Arabia to help MBS get out of the corner, asked him to do what was in his best economic interest, and he slapped Biden in the face. So the question is, why would they hate the Biden administration when Biden did what few other leaders would do? Well, again, they still felt there was way too much pressure on human rights.

They disagreed with the Biden administration fundamentally on what was the desire to get back into the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. A lot of legacy issues. A lot of these people worked for the Obama administration, bad blood there. I think a preference for the Trump administration, a preference for what that represented. So I just I just think this is a Saudi calculation. And again, the fact that this happened a couple of weeks before the midterms, the expectation was it was going to affect the price of oil in ways that would make a difficult situation worse for Democrats. Right. Look, you can believe in coincidence. It is, Joe. I don't

believe in coincidence. Now, I know. But Richard, one other thing, too. I Iran. Their biggest enemy is helping Vladimir Putin kill civilians in Ukraine. They have allied themselves with their biggest enemy. And by the way, we know how this story ends. If Iran moves on Saudi Arabia or does something dramatic against Saudi Arabia, who the hell are they going to call Russia? No, they're going to call us again. So, again, this makes no sense. We're the guarantors at the end of the day of the Saudis not facing dire consequences. Do they think Luxembourg is going to come save them? Do they think Russia is going to come save them? Do they think China is going to? No, it's us. So this is how they act towards Biden.

This is how they act towards the United States of America. Look, what do you want me to say? You're basically saying, why aren't the Saudis acting more strategic? Why are they not taking their own self-interest into account? Not just why are they not acting strategic? Why are they doing things that actually undermine their own self-interest? See, because that's what I don't get here. I understand when countries do things in their own self-interest that's not in the United States self-interest.

That shocks and stuns a lot of people. Never stunned people like you or Dr. Brzezinski. Nations act in their own self-interest. So when I see a leader and a country doing something that hurts his country geopolitically, that hurts his country economically, that raises larger and I would say more disturbing questions. Joe, I'd actually say the lesson of history is how often governments and leaders don't act in their own self-interest. Barbara Tuchman wrote her famous book about the March of Folly.

Just look at the world today. Saudi Arabia acting contrary to its own strategic self-interest. Putin in Ukraine. Look at how Xi Jinping has essentially rallied much of Asia, the Indo-Pacific, against him. We could just go around the world. That's what's so interesting. The United States at times has acted contrary to its own self-interest. I would argue we did that in Iraq and in Vietnam and other places. That to me is what history is about. In Saudi Arabia, what you also have is a decision making system that comes down to one person. There's no real input. There's no one pushing back. There's no checks and balances. You have a crown prince who essentially runs the show,

just like Vladimir Putin, just like Xi Jinping. So again, the idea that they would take positions that are impulsive, short-sighted, contrary to their own long-term national interest, I'd almost say that's what history says to expect from this sort of a system. Mark, incredible reporting and important reporting. There are still plenty of Americans who want retribution against the Saudis for 9-11, much less Jamal Khashoggi. And then now this. What are you hearing from your congressional sources about what the Biden administration might do, what Congress might do. Are they going to end some of these ridiculous weapons sales to Saudi Arabia? Do you think there might be a push? I think what you've seen in recent years is a ground shift in Congress in their, you know, attitudes towards the Saudis. There was always opposition to the Saudis in

Congress. But there was a pretty solid bedrock of support, especially in the Republican Party. That has started to change in recent years for a number of issues, the war in Yemen, the killing of Khashoggi. Even Republicans were opposed to how tight the Trump administration was with Saudi officials during those four years. So you could certainly see—obviously, we'll see what happens in the November elections and the makeup of Congress, but you can certainly see bipartisan efforts to do certain things, like, as you raise, dial back military aid, weapons sales, economic ties. I think that there probably could be bipartisan support for that.

And then to all of your discussions about the strategic interests of the Saudis, that then raises the question of what will the Saudis do next? Is it calling their bluff and saying, OK, go buy Chinese military equipment? Do you really want that? I think there's a feeling in Congress that you could start to call their bluff, dial back some of these military equipment sales, and then see what they do then. I certainly think there's an attitude of that in Congress. Last word, Richard.

Yeah, there is a model for this. It's called Turkey. Turkey is an ally, but we don't treat Turkey like an ally because it doesn't act like one. And it becomes a very transactional case by case relationship, this or that arm sale, whatever. That's where we're moving towards with Saudi Arabia. Won't be a breach. It won't be a total breakdown, but it's going to become a much more modulated, careful relationship. There's something of a partner, but there's also something not. So I think you're going to see what you might call strategic drift between these countries. The cap will get wider. It's not going to be a total breakdown, but it's going to become a much

more distant relationship. There's no respect. There's no trust between these two countries. You can't have a working relationship in the absence of trust. Mark Mazzetti of The New York Times, thanks so much for sharing your new reporting with us. We'll be reading the piece at newyorktimes.com. Richard Haas, thank you as well. And as we say goodbye to you, we say farewell to the beard. Here it is one last time. Wow. Do you pledge if the Giants make the playoffs to bring back the beard? We'll bring back the beard. Really? Wait, we have to. The Giants, well, Super Bowl or playoffs? No, if they make the playoffs. It's a playoff beard,

just like it was a Yankee playoff beard, which was terrible luck. Didn't work very well. Slept out of the ALCS. We need to get a commitment from Eddie that his beard is going nowhere. I think Eddie's working the goatee well. I think you've got it. No change. He likes right where he is. Exactly. Okay. We'll talk offline. All right, Richard. Thank you. Still ahead, we'll be joined by a number of Democratic midterm candidates. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer will join us following last night's debate with her Republican challenger, Tudor Dixon. The nominee for U.S. Senate in Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan, will join the conversation. And we'll speak with Senator Maggie Hassan about her race for reelectionelection in New Hampshire, one that is tightening. Morning Joe, we'll be right back.