No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Fox hosts humiliate themselves protecting Trump after midterms

Episode Date: December 11, 2022

The Republican Party does an about-face on mail-voting with a remarkably pathetic "search for the guy responsible." Brian interviews Senator Tammy Baldwin about the historic passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, what it means for an openly gay Senator to see it pass, and how Republican Ron Johnson’s win in her state will impact her own upcoming race in 2024.Donate to the "Don't Be A Mitch" fund: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dontbeamitchShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about the Republican Party's about face on mail voting and how their search for whose responsible is going. And I interview Senator Tammy Baldwin to discuss the historic passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, what it means for an openly gay senator to see it pass, and how Republican Ron Johnson's win in her state will impact her own upcoming race in 2024. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So there's this meme that if you spend anything close to the ungodly amount of time online that I do, You've seen where there's a guy dressed as a hot dog saying,

we're all trying to find the guy who did this. We are living through the real-life version of that right now, with a bunch of conservatives now coming forward and lamenting the fact that Republicans lost this last midterm election cycle because they failed to embrace mail-in voting and early voting. And the argument is basically that Democrats have weeks of getting people out to the polls, whereas Republicans are banking on like 12 hours in one single day. And that's very clearly the right argument that they've been making.

This isn't a difficult concept here. and it's been a dumb tactic from the start. But here is the amazing part. Listen to Sean Hannity, try to start working through how they got here. I think Republicans have been unwilling, for whatever reason, reluctant, resistant, to voting early and voting by mail.

Do they have to get over that reluctance, that resistance? Sure, look, you have to play the game by the rules that are existing. That means, for example, Well, if you want Generation Z voters, you've got to be on TikTok even if, in fact, in the long run, we may abolish TikTok as a Chinese communist device. And that was Newt Gingrich going off on some stupid tangent about TikTok, but I'm not sure you could find a less self-aware postmortem than Fox's Sean Hannity saying, for whatever

reason, Republicans have been unwilling to vote by mail. Like, I can think of one reason, and it's the guy who that network has predicated its entire identity on. Like, my God, just say Trump. It's Trump. Trump is the reason. Trump spent months demonizing mail-in voting and then installed Lewis the Joy to sabotage the post office, and then every Fox host and anchor took their cues from him and also demonized mail-in voting. Here's a fun little experiment. This is Trump ally Maria Bardo just a few days ago. Yeah, you make a good point about the early voting, and that's what Kevin McCarthy said to me yesterday. Republicans need to find a way to trust the mail-in ballots and mail-in votes. And mail-in voting.

voting so that it can start before game day, if you will. And here's Maria Bartaromo back in October of 2020. Yeah, more than 2,000 L.A. County ballots printed, mailed without presidential election, without the presidential race on the ballots. I forgot to put my name with the ballots. The ballots are being thrown in the trash. Ballots are being sent to dead people. I have another story every day on this situation.

What are you going to do about it, Mr. President? If they cheated in 2016, they're going to. cheat again. How are you going to stop this and ensure that you have the wherewithal to fight back if it's all ballot lies? So yeah, one of life's great mysteries how Maria's audience was manipulated into believing the things that they heard right from Maria's mouth. Here's another. This is Fox and Friends just a few days ago. I'm interested to see whether the extent to which Republicans have learned lessons of the past and decided to really push early voting. They should. They have to Because a lesson of the last couple cycles is Democrats, largely using COVID emergency measures, know how to bank votes legally.

They go at low propensity voters time and time again. And then we count, Republicans count on election day to perm people out, which has a lot more variables for failure. And this is Fox and Friends back in July of 2020. He held up multiple reports in the so-called mainstream media with the problems of mail-in ballots, 1,800 Floridians, whose their mail-in ballot came after the deadline. Nevada, 6,700 ballots rejected because it didn't have signatures. Pennsylvania's primary last month, late ballots considered disqualified. I mean, in Wisconsin's primary, this is in April,

23,000 ballots were thrown out because they missed at least one line in the form. That was the margin of victory for Donald Trump in 2016. So if you're concerned about election integrity, you can see the train coming down the tracks of the problems. we will have if there are pushed mail-in ballots, and that's the point he's trying to make. Well, a lot of Americans don't trust the U.S. postal system because they've had budget cuts. They've had so many problems in the past, you know, decade or whatever or however long it's been. And everyone knows if you go in person to vote, you know your vote is counted.

But if you try to mail something in, there is a big chance that it's not going to get to the folks who are counting these ballots. If you can get to Target, if you can get to Home Depot, if you've been doing your food shopping, tell me you're too concerned about your health to go to vote. And so now comes the part where all of these full-grown adults in the GOP walk around pretending that they don't know how it could have possibly gotten to this point. And, you know, I'm sure we'll get stories from the New York Times just gobbling up those talking points with some op-ed titled Republicans rack their brains to figure out how their

voters abandon mail-in voting. And all of this is just the daily reminder that these people within the Republican Party, and I'm including their media personalities like Hannity and Maria Bardromo and the Fox and Friends hosts are all just so deathly afraid of Donald Trump, which, by the way, makes all of these stories granting Ron DeSantis his role as the new leader of the Republican Party so ridiculous, like at least at this point, because everyone's just talking about how Trump's dead, but A, no one's really even thrown a punch, much less killed him, and B, they're all still afraid of him. If they weren't, they'd admit the obvious and say, man, this guy really

fucked us. He spent the whole year peppering the entire party with threats about how early ballots and mail ballots wouldn't count to the point where we have a massive built-in disadvantage now. And the irony in all of this is that the only reason he did it was because he needed an excuse to be able to point to to justify his loss. Like, he knew he would lose,

but mail ballots were what he landed on as a scapegoat. He needed to point to those as the culprit. And so because he wanted to overturn the election results, he basically sacrificed the entire week's long period prior to the election when Republicans could have been banking votes, all because he was looking out for himself and his efforts to cry foul. Which is just so perfectly prototypical.

Donald Trump screwed his own party over for the foreseeable future by sowing permanent distrust in early voting because he was looking to help himself in an election that he knew he would lose. Just peak predictability on that one. So will anything change? Probably not, for that exact reason I laid out. So long as Trump is the head of that party,

he will continue to pretend that mail voting is fraudulent because he has to. That's part of the story that he's predicated his entire identity on. He has no choice but to keep pretending that mail voting is bad. and no one else is really going to push back because, A, they were pushing that same bullshit as he was, and B, they're too afraid of Trump to really mount anything of an effective opposition to him.

And so they'll just stay in that cycle because it is a cult of personality, and they didn't bother to think about how joining a cult might not be too helpful when the cult leader decides to suggest drinking the cyanide lace Kool-Aid. So, you know, I'm sure that we'll hear these tepid little efforts by Maria Bardo and Sean Hannity to revise their

strategy, but the fact is that all they've done thus far is train their audiences to listen to Trump. And Trump isn't going to tell these people to start voting early. So these people aren't going to start voting early, which is not to say that they can't win because, you know, look at the Ohio Senate race, look at Florida, look at New York even. But it is clear now that they're operating from a weaker position, all thanks to one guy's very obvious and self-serving scam. And it really does show the extent to which hitching your wagon to Donald Trump is just a never-ending kick in the balls. Next up is my interview with Senator Tammy Baldwin.

Today we have the U.S. Center from Wisconsin. Tammy Baldwin, thanks so much for taking the time. It's a delight to join you. Thanks for having me. Now, you were a lead sponsor for the Respect for Marriage Act. It was passed by the Senate and the House and it will be signed into law by President Biden, possibly by the time people are watching or listening to this. So congratulations is in advance for getting it done. Thank you. It was such a joy to see this both history-making, but also difference-making legislation advance.

You made history as the first openly gay senator to be elected in 2012. What does it mean for you to see a bill like this, which doesn't have everything but still protect same-sex marriage to the extent that it can at the federal level get passed and signed into law? Well, it's a part of the arc of progress. And what is, when I look back over many, many years in public office and public service, I think about how much has changed since the mid-1980s when I first became involved. And even between my being sworn into the United States Senate in 2013 as the first openly gay member of the U.S. Senate in history,

to a few years after that when marriage equality became the law of the land. But I have to remind myself that it was not the law of the land when I first joined the United States Senate. And it was unimaginable at that point in time that we could get the votes together necessary to legislatively protect same-sex marriage rights. We won them in court. But when they became under threat because of the recent decision in the Dobbs case, a lot of people didn't think we could legislatively protect those rights.

And indeed, we've shown we can. On exactly that point, when you did get elected in 2012, I believe that DOMA was still the law of the land until 2013. So it might have just, you might have just, you know, butted up against that happening. But great point because the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 at a time when everybody was, I think, fearful or saying the sky is falling. There might be a state that decides to go forward and recognize same-sex marriages. So the Defense of Marriage Act was this sort of panicked response at the federal level saying, well, at least the federal government won't have to recognize any marriage other than a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. And today, now that we have seen the Respect for Marriage Act pass both houses and, you know, that is the death of the Defense of Marriage Act because it is explicitly repealed by the Respect for Marriage Act. It's kind of, you know, right now it's still on the books, even though the Windsor case made part of it, you know, declared part of it unconstitutional. it's still on the federal statutes. And so with the respect for marriage act, we are finally rid of that. I ran into my former colleague in the house Barney Frank during the celebration of the passage. And he said, I was in the house during the birth of the Defense of Marriage Act, but this celebration of the Funeral of the Defense of Marriage Act is a celebration to behold. Yeah, that's a great point. And that's been your career. I mean, you got there right at that birth.

And now this week, now you're here for the first funeral. So with that said, like, what was it like being in the Senate as, again, the first openly gay senator, given that that body is not exactly known for its tolerant views? I'm talking about when you were first elected in 2012 and you first took your seat in 2013. Like, was there any bigotry or anything that you encountered personally while you were in the Senate? You know, not that I would have observed or can recall at this point, but remember that I first was elected to public office at the local and then state level in the 80s and then the 90s. So I've seen some pretty wild things. I remember a fellow member of the state assembly swearing that she didn't have any gay people in her district, like they must all.

live in mine or so, you know, and I think perhaps to your question, what I have seen change, especially with marriage equality and so many same-sex couples being visible in, you know, not only celebrating their marriages, but out as families, there are hardly any colleagues that, no matter what party, Democrat or Republican, that don't know a gay couple. They don't have a friend or a loved one or a staff member who's in a same-sex marriage. And that begins to change everything. And I'd love to hope and think that my presence as a colleague, their colleague in the United States Senate, was helpful in there making those moves and considering their views.

but it also has been so bolstered by the visibility of gay Americans and the fact that that has also brought a sea change in American opinion. Over 70% of Americans believe that same-sex marriages deserve the same respect as opposite sex marriages. One image I think that was really striking to a lot of people was on the day that the House passed this bill, there was a Republican from Missouri, Vicki Hart. Hartzler, who pretty much stood up and got herself to the point of tears, practically begging her colleagues to vote against this bill. I guess what was your reaction to seeing that? You know, there are wrought emotions, and some of them, you know, don't stand up. I know that

there were people, I think, with every major piece of civil rights legislation, issue statements that would suggest that the sky was going to indeed fall. And we heard even with this legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act, that some sort of huge conflict with the religious liberties that we enjoy here in America, nothing could be further from the truth. But one of the ways I was able to help earn the support of 12 Republican senators, in the United States Senate to support this bill and get it through a Senate filibuster was by listening and adding some clarification language that makes it super clear

that there is no conflict between the respect for a marriage act, repealing the defense of marriage act, and religious liberties. There's just no conflict here. And we were able to clarify that and move forward. Yeah. that people can recognize at some point, although I feel like we would already have been there by this point, is that people gaining rights doesn't deprive other people of their own rights that they've already gotten. It just allows other people to enjoy equal rights. But I think

something that we've learned is that that seems like too complex of a topic for some people to comprehend. I was going to say, the other thing that made this measure so necessary was that I think for the first time in most people's lives, we saw earlier this year the Supreme Court take away freedoms and rights and liberties. Now, is this the only time the Supreme Court has ever gone back? I mean, there may be some other small examples, but half of America became second-class citizens. And I think that opened people's minds to the fact that an activist court could also revisit the O'Burger felt quality decision, could go back and review cases around access to contraception and many other cases. And so that's what necessitated the Respect for Marriage Act

is a legitimate fear that an activist Supreme Court, like the one we have right now, who had reverse course on these hard thought and hard won battles. Now, can you explain a little bit about why the Respect for Marriage Act was structured the way that was structured, because the bill doesn't codify same-sex marriage, but it doesn't ensure federal recognition of marriages that are already established? Federal and state recognition of marriages that are already established. So here's, and I want to give an analogy in this, because we forget oftentimes to underscore that the Respect for Marriage Act also protect.

interracial marriages. That jurisprudence is much older. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court said that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. At the time that case was decided, 16 states still had laws on their books banning interracial marriage. It took until the year 2000 for the last state in the United States of America to repeal their statute banning interracial marriage. Now, it didn't matter because Loving v. Virginia had decided that those 16 statutes and even the one that wasn't repealed until 2000 were unconstitutional so they couldn't be enforced. But look at where we are today. We have 35 states that have on the books either constitutional bans on same-sex marriage or statutory bans or both in some

cases. Wisconsin has a constitutional ban that passed in 2006. So if the court were to strike down marriage equality in the Obergerfeld decision, there would be 35 states that would have already statutes on the books. And that's what we needed to contend with to make sure that if you were legally married and in a state that bans same-sex marriage that the state you live in would be forced to recognize your marriage if it was legally entered into in a jurisdiction where it was legal. So it sort of when and where. And it would be really, really difficult to structure a lot at the state level that, I'm sorry, at the federal level to actually a codify Alberta called where you're actually trying to overturn 35 state laws

or 35 constitutional amendment. You know what I mean? You don't have that reach from the federal level. So we still have work to do, even with the Respect for Marriage Act passed, it's worthwhile doing that sort of housekeeping at the state level. Let's go back to those states

that pass laws banning same-sex marriage and repeal them. That would be extra insurance, but those laws are generally still on the books. Is there a way to codify same-sex marriage at the federal level, like an actual codification of same-sex marriage at the federal level, or is the reason that that law wouldn't work is because given the makeup of this court, it would get struck down anyway?

Well, just think about the fact that marriage is defined and regulated at the state level. And in fact, every state does not have identical marriage laws, but they're largely similar. You can't go to a federal clerk and get a marriage. license. You go to your county clerk in most jurisdictions to get your marriage license. Yeah. And it's entered into by, you know, the presiding officer is either a state official, a judge, or a religious person, and divorce. You file for your divorce at the state court, not federal court. So if you're, I mean, could we set up a federal marriage statute and start having, well, I have a federal marriage, you have a state marriage.

I mean, it would be creating something anew. And that's why the Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage didn't say, you know, we're going to create a federal right to marry so that we can get around the states that ban interracial marriage. That's what's difficult about it. I mean, it wouldn't be impossible. I can tell you it wouldn't pass because building this political support for creating a whole new regulatory authority that doesn't currently exist would be quite complicated.

Well, what's your message to a young person who may want to get married in the next few years, but who lives in a state where there is hostility to same-sex marriage, and it might not survive the next legislative session? What would be your message to those people? First of all, thank goodness O'Burgerfell has not been overturned. This Respect for Marriage Act was passed sort of as an insurance policy because we have now this activist court that has made it clear that they're going to review past precedent like overturning Roe versus Wade. So again, to that young person, go for it and know that right now you can do so in any state in the United States of America.

But I would also say that if you care about these fundamental rights, that also be active. and look and see whether your state is one that has an old law on the books banning same-sex marriage. And maybe talk about how you can be a part of a movement to make the laws reflect the reality that we want to always see moving forward. But go for it. And even if that dark day came when Obergerfeld might be overturned by an activist court like our Supreme Court right now, now, then it still means that you can go to a state where it is recognized and be married. It's sadly, it's kind of like what many women are forced to do right now because of the overturning of Roe versus Wade. Wisconsin has an 1849 era criminal abortion ban.

So people in need of abortion care in Wisconsin have to travel to Illinois or Minnesota. Soda or Michigan in order to seek the care. I want to see us do everything we can to restore the rights we've just lost. But I hope we're never in a position where people seeking to get married to the person they love have to move to another state. But frankly, before Oberger felt that was the way things were for a while. Like closest friends were married in Canada because they recognized same-sex marriage before the United States did, any state in the United States. So we want to keep moving in the direction of progress and freedoms. And your state, Wisconsin does have, you know, obviously there is a Democratic governor there.

And the state legislature is so gerrymandered, but hopefully with that race coming up for the state Supreme Court in April, we'll finally. have the opportunity to flip that Supreme Court and then restore some fair maps to the state of Wisconsin and hopefully see some draconia laws like that one get repealed. But with that said, we just had a really successful midterm cycle, Wisconsin included, except for the Senate race in Wisconsin, where Ron Johnson will somehow continue to serve. So what is your take on the Ron Johnson Mandela Barnes race

and how can we fix it moving forward to ensure that other senators, yourself included in your next, in your upcoming re-election, are meeting the same targets that other statewide winners in Wisconsin have met? Let me just, because I'm a U.S. senator, I also look at the map nationally. And we're celebrating the fact that next Congress, we will have 51 Democratic senators in a year that was supposed to be the worst headwinds imaginable for Democrats. And I think the overarching lesson was a rejection of extremism in most governors and Senate races. Extremism, meaning those who celebrated the overturning of Roe versus Wade, those who deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, those who embrace conspiracies around vaccinations and COVID, et cetera, that by and large, that was rejected.

In the Wisconsin Senate race, you know, an exception to that generalization, Mandela Barnes fought that race to a tie. It was incredible. I was so honored to campaign with him. And that's reflective of a state that is pretty, pretty 50-50. Yeah. And, you know, he won his lieutenant governor's race four years. years prior with less than a percentage point. And this was close also. So I think the overarching

message is that we rejected extremism, but there were some exceptions to the rule. And we've got to, as we always do in a democracy, which is not a spectator sport, we brush ourselves off and we get ready to fight again. Yeah. And we will. But in the meantime, we'll celebrate this win that you had played a major role in. So congratulations again. Senator Tammy Baldwin, thank you for taking the time. Thank you for having me. Thanks again to Senator Baldwin. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, interviews captured and edited for YouTube and Facebook by Nicholas Nicotera, and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you

enjoyed this episode, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app. Feel free to leave a five-star rating and a review and check out brian tylercoen.com for links to all of my other channels