Morning Joe - Morning Joe 11/21/23

Episode Date: November 21, 2023

Joe: It's time fascism is called fascism and Americans know exactly what they're voting for

By the way, it's my birthday today and they can actually sign birthday. I just want you to know it's difficult turning 60. Difficult. This is the 76th anniversary of this event. And I want you to know I wasn't there in the first one. I was too young to make it up. These birds have a new appreciation of the word. Let freedom ring. President Biden with some age jokes during the turkey pardon at the White House.

Meanwhile, his campaign is facing calls from Democrats to become more active and aggressive against Donald Trump. Speaking of the former president, we have a lot going on this morning. We'll explain what happened yesterday in the gag order hearing for his federal election interference case. Plus, Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville's latest outlandish reason for blocking hundreds of military promotions. He can't help himself. He intellectually degrades himself every single day. Stop him before he humiliates himself again. That he stands by this. Please don't double down on dumb. Also ahead, we'll have the latest on the hostage negotiations between Hamas and Israel,

which appears to be centered on the pause in fighting in Gaza. We'll have the very latest on that. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, November 21st. We're getting closer to Thanksgiving. Getting really close. With us, we have the host of way too early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. U.S. special...

Jonathan also spared in the ceremony yesterday, thank God. Oh, right, yes. So he goes to work yesterday. It was part of it. Yeah, he was part of it. Poor Jonathan. He's not a turkey. No, I didn't say he was. That's why he was part of it. U.S. special course funded for BBC News County.

Brother Jackson. Also with us and president of the National Action Network, host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton. The one who does the barbing and the forgiving. Yes, he does. And the blessing. Okay. We're going to start on kind of a grim note

here. We have a lot to get to this morning. But Donald Trump's latest. You're talking about the lead. I mean, it's the lead of The New York Times today. And I've got to say, it's really important that that we're talking about the possible ending of democracy. And it's really important that these stories are in just about every day to, again, keep explaining to people. So if they decide they want to throw away American democracy and go toward autocracy, they can never say they weren't warned. That is true. Donald Trump's latest extreme remarks describing his political enemies as vermin that he needs to root out is sparking new concern about his authoritarian rhetoric. And that is the piece in the front page of The New York Times. And it notes this. He has insinuated that the nation's top military general should be executed and called for the termination of parts of the Constitution if he wins back the White House. He has said he had he would have no choice but to imprison

political opponents. The paper continues. Mr. Trump's rise to power was almost immediately accompanied by debates over whether his ascendancy and that of other leaders around the world with similar political views, signaled a revival of fascism. Fascism is generally understood as an authoritarian, far-right system of government, which hyper-nationalism is a central component. It also often features a cult of personality around a strongman leader, the justification of violence or retribution against opponents and the repeated denigration of the rule of law, said Peter Hayes. People say, oh, it's not fascism. And then you go down a list of fascist tendencies of past fascist leaders

and he ticks them all off. Except for one thing. And let's get to that. But keep reading. OK, past fascist leaders appeal to a sense of victimhood to justify their actions. They're all snowflakes.

The idea is we're entitled because we've been victimized. We've been cheated and robbed, he said. One expert who has researched political rhetoric tells The Times that Mr. Trump had wielded language as a chisel to chip away at Democratic norms. Normally, a president would use war rhetoric to prepare a nation for war against another nation, she said. Donald Trump uses war rhetoric domestically. And that, Katie Kay, is what's so frightening, that his focus is not in taking over other countries. It's in taking over this country, undermining American democracy, undermining the rule of law, calling for the termination of the Constitution, calling still

for the arresting and the imprisonment of his political opponent, something he did to me as a member of the media, something he did to the Biden family the last two weeks of the 2020 campaign when he was yelling at his attorney general to arrest the entire Biden family. But you look at it and here it is. I mean, the frightening thing is there are far too many Americans who seem disinterested in the degradation, not only of civility, not only of all of the character traits that their parents taught them growing up, that they learn in their communities, that they learn in their churches, but they seem completely disinterested in the fact that the leader they're following, well, he's he's an autocrat. He's talking like an autocrat and he has promised them he is going to rule like an autocrat, arresting political

opponents and deciding for himself what new shows stay on television and what new shows don't. So over the last few years, you've had a lot of Trump supporters kind of hide behind this idea of seriously, but not literally, right? Or literally, but not seriously. It's all kind of a joke when he says this sort of thing. It's the press saying,

getting their hair on fire and saying, this all sounds very autocratic. But a couple of conversations I've had recently with people close to the Trump campaign, it's exactly that that they point to as one of the first things they'll do is this idea of political retribution and remaking the judicial system both to protect Donald Trump and to get vindication for perceived wrongs. I mean, when you ask them, well, you know, one interview I had, what changes in Trump's second term? The first thing that I was told is Mark Milley goes to jail and then Tony Fauci goes to jail. And it is this idea of using the system of government to defend one person. I mean, you

know, literally subverting the whole of government to do that and taking the Justice Department kind of inside the White House. So I think, you know, Dan Boltz wrote this in The Washington Post just this week. It's now time to take him both seriously and literally because the plans are there. I mean, the plans are already being laid out. And the number of historians who are now students of autocracy who are saying you need two things for an autocratic regime to thrive. One is the normalization of violence in kind of language. And we have seen, you know, some of that happening. And then the denigration of your opponents and treating them as not human words like vermin, for example. So you have got

this kind of toxic situation at the moment where the groundwork is being laid from the campaign, but also from Trump supporters to kind of create a situation where it's normal to think of using violence somehow to justify political ends. And then it doesn't take very long for that to start spiraling out of control and both sides start seeing that as something that is justified. Well, and Jonathan O'Meara, it's what we heard from people that were, I guess, just too offended or are maybe perhaps too delicate to call a fascist a fascist or to call fascism fascism for years. People say, oh, yeah, but, you know, we don't have the violence component. We despite the fact Donald Trump throughout the first campaign time and again kept saying, beat the hell out of my opponents

and and I will pay your lawyer's fees. Praising a congressman, as we said, for beating the hell out of a news reporter for asking a question, for asking a question about health care reform. Charlottesville, good people on both sides trying to justify that. January 6th then comes. There's really there's really no ambiguity there. It's like Mussolini going after government buildings with violence, taking over government buildings with violence on his rise.

Then we have January 6th. We have the example of Paul Pelosi, a guy, a speaker of the House, his husband, speaker of the House that he calls deranged and crazy and all these other things, dehumanizes. And then he he still he still revels in an 82, 83 year old man having the hell beaten out of him. So the violence component of fascism is there. I just want to go through again this New York Times article and let's just let's just go through them, because it's time that fascism is called fascism. And Americans know exactly what they're voting for. And, you know, I've heard people poo poo this. Oh, people on the far left. Now, I'm I'm I'm a conservative. I'm on the right. I there's a difference between conservatism, radicalism and fascism this is fascism this is this is the times uh quotes an expert on the topic fascism is generally understood and this is boilerplate stuff

really for what fascism is fascism is generally understood as an authoritarian for-right system of government in which hyper nationalism is a central component check it also features a cult of personality around a strong man leader. Check. The justification of violence or retribution against opponents. Check. And the repeated denigration of the rule of law. Check, said Peter Hayes, a historian who has studied the rise of fascism. Past fascist leaders appealed to a sense of victimhood to justify their actions. Check. We're entitled because we've been robbed. We've been victimized. We've been cheated and robbed. Check, check, check. The whining, the snowflakery coming from the Trump people. I mean, a snowflake falls on their shoulders and they're victimized.

They're victimized by history books on Hank Aaron. They're victimized by kids books on Roberto Clemente. They're victimized by tweets. They're victimized. You name it. They are victimized by everything. They are such weak snowflakes and they're using that victimization to justify violence against their opponents, Jonathan. Yeah, this is such an important conversation to call out what we're seeing clearly and plainly. Reminds me of 2015, 2016, a lot of media organizations struggled to characterize some of the things he was saying. We'd come up with phrases like racially tinged. And instead of eventually where we got, where we simply called things racist when they were racist. And I think that's where we are now, too, where

it's time to say these things are fascist. Use the word. And I know we've been doing that on this show for a while, but it does seem like media organizations, others are starting to really do the same and make clear what is happening here, what Trump has done before and what is threatening to do. And I actually was at a journalism conference over the weekend. Our friend Molly Jung Fast was on a panel with me and we talked about how we should be approaching this candidate, this campaign as journalists, how we should say he is an insurrectionist candidate. And yes, while of course there will be focus on the day-to-day developments, there'll be focus on polls, there'll be focus on policy. One thing that I said there and we endorsed as a panel is the idea of we need to focus on the stakes of this election. It's not

just the day-to-day events, it is the stakes. And frankly, the stakes are our democracy itself. When we hear Donald Trump put forth his plans for what a second term would look like and embrace this fascist rhetoric and policy. Right. Another thing that fascists do is they obliterate norms. And in Trump's case, he's coming at this country with so many different problems, with so many different, whether it be racist, fascist, cruel, just sick tendencies that you can't keep up with it. And you pointed out one, quite frankly, relatively shouldn't be small example, the Paul Pelosi example, where he was brutally attacked by a man inspired by Trump in his home. I just want to put a frame around this. He's still making fun of it, insinuating it was coming to him. And there was something with his life that this is a guy who was inspired by Trump, who broke into his home and beat him, I believe, with a hammer. Yeah. And imagine, I don't know, when Steve Scalise was shot. If any one person.

Not just any one person. If Barack Obama. Anybody. Let's make that. Let's let's let this. This isn't somebody on a back bench. This is the leader of the Republican Party. So it would be as if Barack Obama continued mocking Steve Scalise for getting

shot while practicing baseball. For years into the future, my God, what would happen in the press? What would happen? What would Republicans say? There would be rightfully a meltdown. Now there's silence because this is Donald Trump who is is glorifying the beating up of an 82, 83 year old man. And the Republicans who don't speak out to that and the people in the audiences.

I'm sorry. Don't be sorry. That's funny. They're they're they're propping it up. You are failing this country and you will only find out when it's too late, when you realize that a moment for a laugh

or, oh, he's just kidding and glossing over all of this has been at the peril of the United States. It's not an exaggeration. It's not hyperbole. It's not overstating it. This is where we are when you let a man behave that way. And when you look at these cases that he's dealing with in the courts, I know the law moves slowly, but there are even, you know, concepts and conversations about, you know, special treatment for this former president because he is a former president. I think all of that happens at our peril. At some point, this man must face accountability or we all suffer. It certainly does. And people in the media have a responsibility to really to tune out the voices of the haters, of the people that are constantly double and triple checking and shilling for him and suggesting that

somehow they're being biased, bending over backwards, treating him like a normal candidate. He's not a normal candidate. He is running to end American democracy as we know it. He's an authoritarian who a court in Colorado two days ago ruled that that he led an insurrection against the United States government. He's charged with leading schemes to help overthrow the United States government. So if they want to frame it that way, that's fine. If you want to be fair, if you want to be fair, then you will frame this as Joe Biden being the candidate that supports American democracy. And Donald Trump, a candidate who supports a new form of government here, that's authoritarian. It's really that simple. And by the way, Reverend Allen, people go, oh, you can't compare him to past Nazi leaders.

You can't compare him to this past Nazi leader or that past fascist leader because he hasn't done that. Well, what hasn't he done? He hasn't done the things that the American judicial system did not allow him to do last time, but may very well allow him to do this time or. and ran over by Donald Trump to create the greatest constitutional crisis of our lifetimes. Just because he hasn't done it yet doesn't mean he won't do it when he gets a chance to do it. And if he is voted into office, then a lot of these people that are talking about literal or figurative or whatever the hell they're saying. You're going to look like idiots because he will do, he will get away with, he will imprison, he will execute whoever he's allowed to imprison, execute, uh, uh, uh, drive from the country. Just look at his past. It's not really hard to read. Again, the only thing that stood

between him and the destruction of American democracy was the federal judiciary. No doubt about it. And I think that when we talk about framing this race, he has framed it. He has said out loud what you and I and others that have known him have been trying to say for a long time. He says, let's remove all doubt. This is what I'm about. And when they say you can't compare him to past dictators, he's embraced present dictators. He was a sitting president talking about writing love letters to the dictator in North Korea. He had kind words to say about dictators all over the world. We're not taking him out of context or interpreting him.

And let's remember, Joe, when you talk about he and the New York Times talked about he saying that he would go after his opponents and his critics and try and criminalize them and prosecute them. This is a man that sat in the White House and watched for hours an insurrection he incited like he was watching some drama that he was addicted to. He enjoyed it. You don't think he would be sitting in the White House if he were given the chance and watch his critics, his opponents being arraigned in court, eating popcorn, enjoying it. That's who he is. And it's not about framing it. It's about accepting the framing he's given himself. If somebody tells you that's who they are, that's who they are. Stop trying to put a different frame on an ugly picture. Well, and again, just look to his past, you know, the past is prologue. Look to his past. Liz Cheney always said the most most chilling thing about

Donald Trump's behavior on January the 6th was that he was going back and forth with his DVR and rewinding and watching in the Oval Office the most violent parts of the attacks while his friends, well, he has no friends, while his acquaintances, while his family members, all of his lawyers, while everybody in the White House was telling him, call it off. He was rewinding, rewinding the most violent parts of the riots, the parts where the police were getting bludgeoned and brutalized and watching it gleefully over and over again. And, Caddy, going back to the New York Times article, I want to read one part that Reverend Al just just basically referenced again. So shocking that it's from people that used to be well, that are members of a party. I used to be a member of in another lifetime, in another lifetime.

Let me read this. Crowds of Mr. Trump's events have generally affirmed his calls to drive out the political establishment, destroy fake news media. Supporters do not flinch when he praises leaders like Mr. Orban, Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia. And these very people, these very dictators, the most bloodthirsty dictators on the face of the earth are the very people Donald Trump praises the most. And crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and the Republican Party cheer his praises of the worst dictators on the face of the earth. That's always been one of the most, you know, odd things about the Republican Party's following of Donald Trump on this in this way, because this is the party that up and, you know, I'm thinking of George W. Bush just very recently in American history, Ronald Reagan, of course, much more forcefully

taking on authoritarian regimes. I mean, Bush's second inaugural address was all about how America would stand up for people who were promoting human rights and democracy around the world in the face of authoritarianism. It wasn't that long ago that the Republican Party saw itself as the global champion of democratic rights and was and and the and the voters in the Republican Party, the people who would call themselves rank and file members of the Republican Party, were firmly on the side of taking on autocracy and taking on autocrats. They would have seen Vladimir Putin as America's enemy. Xi Jinping is America's enemy. Certainly Kim Jong-un is America's enemy. And and is America's enemy. Certainly Kim Jong-un is America's enemy. And I think that's been the shift almost that's most remarkable in the

ideology of the rank and file of the Republican Party as it follows Donald Trump wherever he wants to go. Well, and that is a crazy thing, that Republicans have long considered themselves champions like Reagan of Western democracy, of Western liberalism, of pushing back against communist tyrants. And now they embrace them because Donald Trump embraces them. They embrace Orban of Hungary. No, Donald. No, Donald. He's not in Turkey. That's another guy.

But Orban of Hungary, who has bragged about destroying Western democracy, who proudly says he's an illiberal and no Western democracy is practiced in Hungary. And these Republicans are praising that illiberalism. It is the total antithesis of everything the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan believed in and fought for his entire life. Still ahead on Morning Joe, Speaker Mike Johnson is following Kevin McCarthy's footsteps. We'll have new reporting on the meeting at Mar-a-Lago between the new speaker and Donald Trump.

Plus, polls show President Joe Biden losing support among key group for Democrats. We'll tell you who it is and how his campaign is responding. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Beautiful shot of sun coming up in New York City just before 6.30 a.m. here on the East Coast.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals looks poised to at least narrow the gag order against former President Trump in the federal election interference case. Trump's defense team had argued that the gag order, which stops the former president from discussing witnesses and prosecutors in that case, they believe it violates his constitutional rights. NBC News is reporting that the judges didn't immediately issue a decision, but they indicated in their questioning that they could leave the gag order in place while narrowing its scope. The panel questioned the Trump team's argument that the former president's speech could not be pared back at all, regardless of possible threats, simply because he's a presidential candidate. I don't hear you giving any weight at all to the interest in a fair trial.

And am I right that you don't? That simply because the defendant is a presidential candidate and he wants to speak on anything he wants to speak and he basically indiscriminately wants to post on social media, that there can be no restraint of his speech. Because any restraint, no matter how tight a nexus to protecting a fair trial, is overcome by his campaign interests. I emphasize two things in response to that question. One is that the speech at issue

and the criminal trial are deeply intertwined. Let's bring in former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Glenn Kirshner. He's an NBC News legal analyst and was in the courtroom during yesterday's hearing. Glenn, how is that deeply intertwined? Him insulting people, him insulting judges, him endangering clerks, him attacking everybody, him attacking the process. How is that deeply intertwined with the judicial process inside that courtroom?

You know, good morning, Joe and Mika. Even if it is intertwined, it can be unraveled. And in fact, judges, trial court judges have not only the power, but the responsibility to try to unravel it, to preserve the due administration of justice, to protect the witnesses. And, you know, Donald Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, was essentially a one note wonder. He kept playing to his client. He kept saying over and over again, like it was some magical incantation because everything Donald Trump says and posts is core political speech. In his estimation, there can be no prior restraint, no gag order, no limitation on it. And the judges weren't having it. Both Judge Millett and Judge Garcia made identical observations. They said there's a clear pattern here. Donald Trump says something,

posts something, and witness threats follow. So it seems pretty clear that it was a wholesale rejection of Trump's lawyers' argument, and we're likely to see some sort of a somewhat narrower gag order approved by the appellate court than perhaps Judge Chutkin put in place in the first instance. Let me ask you about your feeling about where this goes with, let's say, a Roberts Supreme Court. The Roberts Court has actually been very unsympathetic to Donald Trump on certainly any questions surrounding January 6th, most questions surrounding his appeals regarding criminal trials and civil trials against him. I'm curious, do you think that would hold up here, that he would, that the Roberts court would,

for the most part, defer to the trial court judge? I think the Roberts court is keenly interested in the due administration of justice, at least in as much as it applies to criminal trials, maybe not so much as it applies to their own financial conflicts and entanglements. But, you know, I have long maintained, Joe, that I don't think the Supreme Court is all that interested in doing anything that would facilitate the return to the Oval Office of an aspiring dictator, because there's one thing an aspiring dictator has no interest in, and that is a Supreme Court, perhaps an inferior court, inferior to the chief executive. So I think, you know,

that the Supreme Court has been holding in one respect. They have not given Donald Trump much play, right? They didn't even accept review of any of this election challenge cases. So I think that this is one where the Supreme Court, if only by default, may get it right. So if the gag order is narrowed, just how much of this decision is based on Trump's past actions and violence that has been potentially or arguably or is being litigated as incited by him into violence? You know, I think all of this is driven by the judge's recognition, the appellate court judge's recognition that Donald Trump intends the natural and probable consequences of his action. That is a saying that actually made an appearance during yesterday's appellate court argument.

Donald Trump knows precisely what he's doing and he takes advantage of it. You know, his attorney, Mika, said the only thing that you can prohibit are true threats. Well, guess what? True threats already violate the federal law against witness intimidation. So the judges kept saying there have to be more restrictions that can be imposed, you know, other than to guard against true threats. So I think you're going to see the judges who struggled yesterday with the idea of, well, what about if a public figure like Bill Barr criticizes Donald Trump? Shouldn't there be some leeway for Donald Trump to respond? Or must Donald Trump stand mute because Bill Barr is a likely witness at the future trial against Donald Trump?

And the courts and the judges were struggling with that. But I think you're going to see something that is more narrowly tailored that still protects the due administration of justice, protects the witnesses, potentially protects the court staff. And hopefully the appellate court judges appreciate the need to do this quickly. So I think we may see something literally in the coming days or perhaps the next week or two from this appellate court panel. Glenn, even once this gag order issue is resolved, in this kind of tussle between the rights of the criminal defendant and the restrictions on a criminal defendant and the rights of a presidential campaign candidate,

how many more fights are we going to see of this nature around other things? I don't know, scheduling, jury selection, that kind of thing. Are we setting ourselves up for a whole election year of constant back and forth legal battles between Donald Trump and the courts? We're going to see endless fights, not only on issues of substance, but on issues of procedure and on issues of scheduling, because it's clear all along that Donald Trump's goal and his lawyer's goal has been to delay, delay, delay. You know, I was in the courtroom a couple of months ago when this gag order issue was being argued in the first instance. And when Donald Trump's lead defense counsel urged the court to push the March 4 trial date, Judge Chutkan could

not have been more definitive when she said, let me be clear, this trial date will not yield to a political cycle. So I think absent the Supreme Court perhaps getting its hands on one of these legal issues like double jeopardy or absolute immunity, both of which are laughable, and staying the trial court proceedings, I think this trial will proceed to jury selection beginning on March 4, which would mean we could see a verdict sometime in April. And with a little luck, that may open the eyes of the folks who are still choosing to support Donald Trump in the event of a felony conviction. And perhaps that begins to change the political landscape. NBC News legal analyst Glenn Kirshner, thank you very much for coming on this morning and coming up on Morning Joe.

We'll be joined by the former Israeli ambassador to the United States. We'll discuss the ongoing hostage negotiations and much more. Plus, a major show of support for Ukraine from the Biden administration amid fears that Congress will significantly cut funding for the war-torn country. We'll go through that just ahead on Morning Joe. Beautiful shot of Reagan National Airport. The sun's coming up over Washington. The day before. The day before. But look, it's busy. The busiest travel day of the year. It's already busy. Oh, I know it is. It's going to be really. If you're, man, if you're traveling today or tomorrow. It's going to be a lot. Godspeed. All right. So, so let's talk about these polls that taken a year out from the election that I would say don't really mean anything on who's going to ultimately win. But if I were. What are they? A snapshot into snapshot of where people are right now. the Biden campaign or any campaign that got these type of polls, I'd love them because I would be

using them to get everybody working from from top to bottom, get them working as hard as they can to double their efforts on these these areas that there's some we're seeing some softness again a year out. So these are actually somebody said this yesterday, and I'm sure Jim Messina and others who come on the show would say the same thing. Use these polls as a way to inspire your troops to work harder, work longer, campaign more, especially when you got an autocrat running against you and nothing short of American democracy is on the line. If that can't inspire you. I don't know what does. But go into professional bowling. The polling shows President Biden is losing support among black voters.

The White House is vowing not to, quote, make the mistake of underestimating a key group that helped propel Biden to victory in 2020. In a new interview with NBC News, Biden's principal deputy campaign minister acknowledged that for the president to win again in 2024, his team, quote, has to have a long, sustained conversations with African-Americans in their communities and can't simply, quote, parachute in around election time. No. This comes after a recent survey from The New York Times and Siena College showed Biden's seating support from black battleground state voters to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. For more on that, let's bring in opinion editor at The Washington Post, Alexi McCammond. Her latest piece is entitled Democrats Need to Get Real About RFK Jr.'s Strength with Black Voters. Alexi, where is it coming from?

Hey, well, thank you so much for having me. I mean, I think what Joe said is right. So a couple of disclaimers off the top. Polls are not gospel. It's a year out and black voters are not a monolith. But one thing that is clear in polling trends, focus group trends and otherwise is that black voters and other voters are looking for an alternative. Black voters have long felt and said and showed us that they feel taken for granted by the Democratic Party. We've seen the ways in which VP Harris hasn't been supported as much as some folks would like by the Democratic Party, by President Biden. And the real kicker with RFK Jr. and something that is particularly unique to him is that he taps into this deep-seated, deep-rooted medical skepticism

that a lot of black folks across the country feel rightfully so. There has been medical racism going back to the 1800s through now. There is ample reason why folks might feel distrustful of their health care providers or of what even the government is telling us we should do with our bodies with respect to vaccines. Now, that is not to say that everything RFK Jr. says about vaccines is directly appealing to black voters. But when he talks about these things and brings up the idea that actually maybe they're lying to you or maybe you shouldn't take this vaccine, he's really trying to get at what other folks aren't saying to these voters, which is I hear you. I see you. I understand why you might feel this way. Rev, curious about your thoughts. I know you have a question for Alexi, but first, can you respond to that about about Kennedy playing into a deep skepticism that a lot of members of the black community have of the medical community? No, he has definitely played into that. And there is definitely a skepticism.

No matter how much we may feel that it is unfounded, people have real skepticism based on history. Tuskegee experiment just being one about vaccines. And Robert Jr. has played into that. He's also been one that has been a hero in the environmental movement, environmental racism that many of us supported his raising that prior to his running. But having said that, Alexi, the fact that a lot of the bizarre stuff, both politically as well as in terms of policy that Robert has brought out, has not been really confronted or counted by the Biden administration. So don't you think that some of what Roberts growing popularity or growing support among some blacks is because he's not been challenged by the Biden supporters on some of the things that he says that are completely out of line with the way a lot of blacks think? I think yes and no. Yes, because when he was briefly running in the Democratic primary against Biden, he was getting a lot of attention. We were all giving him a lot of attention for, you know, the things he was saying at private dinners and otherwise about vaccines, casting doubt on these things and about some of the more outlandish views he had.

And that obviously dipped support with some Democratic voters at the time. I think the smartest thing he's done is get out of that primary and run as an independent because it takes the heat off of him from the major parties. I know that Joe Biden's campaign doesn't even really want to take him seriously. They think and maintain that voters will see this as a two person race between Biden and Donald Trump. Everything suggests otherwise at this point, that voters are looking for alternatives, that they want it to be anyone but Biden and Donald Trump. Everything suggests otherwise at this point, that voters are looking for alternatives, that they want it to be anyone but Biden and Trump. And I think that, you know, black voters are hearing a lot from RFK Jr. about other things beyond vaccines. And I think that's the big issue. He's couching a lot of this stuff in terms of civil rights, as I'm sure you know, Rev. And he's also talking a lot like the like Milley, who was just elected in Argentina,

this sort of populist rhetoric that's painting a very hopeful vision for the future. And he's not really focusing on those other sort of outlandish things. And so to your point, sure, maybe if Democrats focused on those things, people would be more aware and maybe reconsider or think more holistically about who he is. But he's really staying away from those things. And the Biden campaign so far is sort of considering him as a nonstarter. Jonathan, let me hear a few things. First of all, there is the obstacle of Robert Kennedy Jr. getting on the ballot on a lot of states. We'll actually see as we move forward whether he's going to be able to do that or not. As an independent, he certainly has more time

to clear the hurdles if he decides that he wants to do that. But I find Alexei's reporting fascinating because you actually have Kennedy, you have two stories here, a tale of two stories. One, he takes away from Donald Trump more than Biden in many polls that we've seen, despite the fact he takes one of the most critical electorates. He takes a good chunk of one of the most critical electorates away from Joe Biden. That is black voters.

Of course, it is early. And and I suspect that what will happen this year is what happens every year. There can be a change that people come home, whether it's young voters, whether it's people of color. All of these outlandish predictions I heard going into the 2020 election ended up being outlandish. I suspect the same will be true here. But the Biden campaign does have to worry about this, don't they? Biden campaign officials are deeply worried about third party candidates. They don't though they don't want to give them much in the way of oxygen by talking about them, at least not now, still believing that many of them will eventually drop out between the between

now and when the ballots are actually cast. But you're right. RFK Jr. appeals to sort of the conspiracy theorist group that draws from Trump. But yes, maybe, RFK Jr. appeals to sort of the conspiracy theorist group that draws from Trump. But yes, maybe black voters from Biden. And of course, he's not the only potential third party candidate. Jill Stein, Cornel West, who might have some appeal to black voters. Joe Manchin is also considering getting in maybe under the no labels banner. So, Alexi, we know that the third party candidates are a threat, but there's also an issue about enthusiasm, particularly among voters of color. That's something that the Biden team has struggled with. You know, even in 2020, they ran behind what previous Democrats have done.

We you know, and I think there are real concerns about this time around as well. So in terms of Democratic officials you speak to, how worried are they and what can the Biden team do to energize young voters, but particularly young voters of color? Yeah, I mean, the statements from Quentin Foulkes and others from the Biden campaign show that they are keenly aware of what they need to do, which is not take them for granted and not parachute in, as he said, in the 11th hour. That is clear. I think the problem is, is that a lot of this is sort of baked in the cake. I mean, like you look at the relationship between Biden and VP Harris, and I know that a lot of black folks would have liked to see more support for her throughout this first term from Biden and other Democrats. And that's something you can't really undo. Biden also needs to give these folks a reason to be excited, a reason to vote for him.

And a lot of voters are sick of casting a throwaway ballot or what they say is a ballot for the lesser of two evils. And that's one of the big differences between, I think, 2016, 2020 and 2024. I think especially after the covid pandemic, people feel much more individualistic. They're much more concerned about themselves than they are with group affiliation. That diminishes Democratic Party loyalty. That diminishes loyalty folks might have had to Biden in the past, thinking he would do the right thing. So it's more than just saying the right thing. And I think, lastly, VP Harris has been the one, if you look at these same polls, who's keeping Biden in the game. I mean, she's getting support with younger voters, with voters of color, these constituencies that they need to win to keep that coalition together.

That was surprising from those polls. I know that a lot of folks, we were sort of thinking she wouldn't have a strong coalition, just as she didn't in 2020. But she's been going on these college campus tours and talking to these people that the Biden folks need to do a better effort putting Biden in front of. Opinion editor at The Washington Post, Alexi McCammon, thank you very much. Nice work. We appreciate having you on. Still ahead, new details surrounding the hostage negotiations between Israel and Hamas. What Israeli officials now say Hamas wants in exchange for the release of 50 women and children. Plus, NPR Steve Inskeep will join us on the heels of his interview with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Also ahead, we'll speak with Democratic Senator Chris Coons as Congress faces a fierce battle over aid for Israel and Ukraine. Morning Joe will be right back.

Fifty five past the hour time now for a look at the morning papers. The South Florida Sun Sentinel is covering a congressional visit to the site of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A bipartisan group of lawmakers visited Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School yesterday. The group met with victims and families and promised to continue the push for gun safety legislation. The Star-Ledger is reporting on a new rule in New Jersey requiring all new cars sold in the state to be electric by 2035. The mandate filed by the Department of Environmental Protection is part of a series of regulations aimed at enforcing emission standards.

California was the first state to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars. And finally, in Rhode Island, the westerly sun is noting a shift in holiday meal habits. Really? Following the growth in popularity of weight loss medications. Really? Experts and consumers alike say obesity drugs such as Ozempic are easing anxieties about festive meals and shifting the way people think about food. Many users have welcomed the shift in control over what they eat and how they eat. Jonathan O'Meara, I understand.

I mean, new age. And I guess I need to be a modern man and stop being a man out of time. But I'm not going to let any Ozempic medication or any of that other stuff stand between me and my Thanksgiving to Durkin. Ew. Turkey. No, to Durkin.

You know what that is? I do. Please don't. That is turkey, duck, to Durkin, and chicken. You stuff them all inside. And what I do, Jonathan, you need to fry each level. You fry the chicken. You fry the duck.

You put it in like an outdoor fryer. Yeah, but I, you know, it says fry them once. I fry each one individually. And then I double fry them again. Right? Is that what you do? That's just how you do it. And as much gravy as possible onto all of it.

That's the plan. John Madden referenced there with the turducken Thanksgiving tradition, to be sure. And look, to each their own, but my Thanksgiving eating strategy is simply one word, and that word is more. More turkey, more stuffing, more potatoes, more pecan pie. Exactly. You remember a couple years ago ago I tried frying the gravy? Yeah.

The whole thing blew up. Yeah. It was ugly.