No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Republicans pull horrific new stunt over abortion rights

Episode Date: July 17, 2022

Republicans enter the next frontier on their war on women beyond overturning Roe. Brian interviews Senator Chris Murphy about leading the effort to get the new gun legislation passed, what to do about the popular provisions that didn’t make it into the bill, and his response to Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene who tried to block this from becoming law. And FOX LA’s Elex Michaelson joins to discuss Gavin Newsom, rumors that he’s seeking higher office, and why he's gaining so much attention.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 next frontier on Republicans' War on Women Beyond Overturning Row. I interview Senator Chris Murphy about leading the effort to get the new gun legislation passed, what to do about the popular provisions that didn't make it into the bill, and his response to Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Green, who tried to block this bill from becoming law. And Fox LA's Alex Michelson joins to discuss Gavin Newsom, rumors that he's seeking higher office and why he's gaining so much attention.

I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So by now I'm sure you've heard the story of a 10-year-old child who had to travel from Ohio to Indiana for an abortion. An almost textbook example of what Democrats warned would happen if Roe was overturned while Republicans said that we were all being hysterical. It took like five minutes for that to come to fruition. But that inadvertently led to the next frontier in this fight, which is the ability for Americans to travel freely

from one state to another for reproductive care so that if you live in a state where it's banned, at a bare minimum, you'll be able to travel to a state where it's not to receive the care that you need. Cut to the latest vote in Congress, where bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate, that would protect Americans' rights to travel across state lines to receive reproductive care, which, by the way, should be a given. Like, we're talking about taking preventative action here to ensure that Americans can travel within America to get care where they want.

Like, the idea that we need legislation protecting your right to travel freely in this country is just unto itself, like, dark. But here's what's worse. In the Senate, where Democrats tried to pass that bill with unanimous consent, it was immediately blocked by Oklahoma Republican James Langford. And in the House, of the 208 Republicans who voted, 205 of them opposed that bill.

To be clear, 205 Republicans voted against the right of an American to be able to travel to another state in America. You know, there was this ad that my friends over at Midas Touch put together a month or two ago that you might have seen where a couple of cops pull over a car and there are two women inside and they're super nervous

and the cop asks if one of them is pregnant and one woman freaks out and the cop rips her out of the car and I thought the ad was great it was really well done and Republicans just decided that it was Democrats being hysterical and then immediately after claiming that Democrats are being hysterical 99% of Republicans in Congress go on record basically saying

yeah no that ad is pretty much exactly what we're going for and I mean just think about the mechanics of this. You block interstate travel for reproductive. You station cops at the border of each state to, what, administer pregnancy tests? These are the small government people, hard at work, making sure that you carry your government-mandated pregnancy to term. And here's the thing, you know, we see this. The whole country sees this, and it's horrifying, right? Like, let's remember 70% of American support row. This is some far-right, crystal-fascist stuff happening right now. This is the stuff that we watch in The Handmaid's Tale, and we're like, ah, it's a bit

close to home, but it was always just a little too much. And so it was kind of still fine as a piece of fiction, but like, now it's not. But Republicans are still plowing forward because they don't think they'll be held accountable. And they've put a lot of pieces in place where they won't be held accountable. We have gerrymanders in states like Florida that come pretty damn close to handing Republicans the House. I mentioned a few weeks back that the Supreme Court is hearing Moore v. Harper. That's the case that would prevent state courts or governors from acting as a check against state legislatures who draw gerrymandered maps. Meaning we could see insane gerrymanders, even in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan,

and Wisconsin with zero recourse. We already have voter suppression laws on the books in states like Texas and Georgia. Our only tool here comes this November, where we hold the house and we expand our Senate majority by two seats and then eliminate the filibuster and start codifying some laws and expand the court. We need abortion protections codified. We need voting rights legislation codified. We need anti-jerrymandering legislation codified. This all has to happen this November, because if the Supreme Court starts handing Republicans some more wins, Democrats won't even have the chance to win back these states once Republicans are finished and trenching their majorities.

And look, I know this stuff is dire. I know it seems hopeless. I know it's easy to feel defeated. I know it feels like bad news all the time. But just remember, we are on the right side of these issues. These are issues that unite Democrats and divide Republicans. That's where we want to be. They went off the rails with abortion bans and book bans and LGBT bans and voter suppression and we'll probably see same-sex marriage on the chopping block next. People see this. They are paying attention and they recognize the importance of taking power away from these people. So with that said, just remember that this isn't a job for someone else to take care of. This requires all of us.

I've said this before. I'll say it again. Find people in your circle. Your friends, your family, your neighbors, someone who just turned 18 or 19 or 20, someone who doesn't pay attention to politics, someone who considers themselves in the middle, find those people and make sure they know the stakes in November. And if they say that Democrats aren't meeting their expectations or that Joe Biden's not being strong enough, remind them what's at stake if it's not Democrats, if it's not Joe Biden.

Remind them what would happen if Republicans took control. We would see national abortion bans, even in cases of rape or incest. We would see contraception ban. We would see same-sex marriage and sodomy and anything that doesn't comport with their religious views banned. You're not voting for Joe Biden in November. This is not a referendum on Biden. This is our last shot to save abortion rights. It's our last shot to save voting rights.

It's our last shot to expand the court. That's what's on the ballot. So ignore the people on the right and the people on the left who think that now is the time for some protest vote or a time to express their dissatisfaction with Biden. We'll worry about Biden in two years. What's right in front of us right now is so much more important. The good news is that I think people are finally waking up to that.

Next step is my interview with Chris Murphy. Today we have the U.S. Senator from Connecticut and the person who led the charge in the Senate to pass legislation aimed at reducing gun violence. Chris Murphy, thank you so much for coming on. Yeah, great to be back. Thanks for having me. So this gun bill has been signed into law. There was a signing ceremony at the White House. First off, could you outline what's in this new law? Well, this is the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation the Congress has passed in 30 years.

it's undoubtedly going to save thousands of lives. It's not everything we need to do, but it is a really important start. At the heart of this bill is funding for state red flag laws. These are the laws that allow you to take guns away temporarily from people who are threatening to kill others or themselves. States are going to be able to implement new laws

or improve their own laws because of almost a billion dollars in funding. It closes the boyfriend loophole. This means that no longer will boyfriends who beat up their girlfriends, be able to own guns. If you're convicted of domestic violence against a non-spouse, a romantic partner, you now are on the list of those prohibited from owning or buying guns. It puts in place a new law to go after gun traffickers. We have these gun trafficking rings, which buy guns in states with loose gun laws, transport them to states with stricter gun laws.

Now we have new federal abilities to block those folks. A whole new process for selling guns to people who are under 21. That involves an enhanced background check, which includes a call to the local police department. Think of what might have happened in Highland Park. If the four times that guy bought a gun every single time, there was a call first to the local police department. The police department might have been able to intervene.

And then a whole bunch of mental health spending. So $15 billion in community anti-gun violence funding and mental health spending, that money alone is going to save a lot of, lives because it's maybe the biggest one-time investment in mental health spending since the Affordable Care Act in this country. So really excited about all those provisions. I think we're talking about a life-saving bill here. Yeah, yeah. There were some outstanding issues with Republicans on two points in particular. They were the first two points that you named closing the boyfriend

loophole and how to structure federal funding for state red flag laws. What was the sticking point on those two issues and how did they get resolved? On state red flag laws, the compromise we eventually got to was to slightly broaden the eligibility for the money. There were some Republicans who say, well, listen, my state is never going to adopt a red flag law. Shouldn't I be able to use some of that money for other court-based anti-violence initiatives? And so we said yes to that request. And so the red flag law money is technically also eligible to be used for a narrow set of other court-based interventions that could reduce violence. On the boyfriend loophole, the Republicans said, well, listen,

if you get convicted of a felony and you get your gun rights taken away, every state has a process by which you can apply to get your rights restored. And that's true. You can get your voting rights and your gun rights restored. Because we actually don't take any rights away, if you commit a misdemeanor, there's really no well-defined path in the states to get your rights restored after a misdemeanor. So we had to set up a sort of new pathway in this bill to get your gun rights back after a misdemeanor domestic violence assault. And so what we said is that if it was your first offense and you commit no additional violent offenses after five years, you can apply to get your gun rights restored. And that was something that the domestic violence groups were

comfortable with. It's consistent with state laws around felony restoration. And it was, you know, one of the creative compromises we had to make, I think, a very reasonable compromise in order to get this bill passed. Now, just on the issue of red flag laws, a little deeper on this issue, the House tried to pass a federal red flag law and 201 Republicans voted against it. So in terms of offering up federal funding for states to enact these laws, how do you depoliticize the issue so that states actually do enact it? Well, I actually think that the very act of 15 Republicans and a number of Republicans in the House voting for this law will hopefully signal to Republican state legislatures that there's really nothing to be scared of. In addition, we built into

our law requirements that any state red flag law has to. to meet constitutional due process requirements. So we made it crystal clear that you can't have any red flag law that strips an individual of their constitutional rights. So our hope is that the Republican support for this bill in combination with some of the protections for due process rights will convince some Republican state legislatures to move forward with these laws.

And just look, there are plenty of Republican states that have these laws in which they work very well from Florida to Indiana. There are plenty of Republican states with red flag laws that are saving lives without robbing anybody of their legitimate Second Amendment rights. Yeah. And I think, you know, you bringing up the example of this latest July 4th shooting is a testament to what could be done to just save lives.

I don't think that you need to be a Democrat or a Republican to recognize the significance of taking away a gun from somebody who everybody knows who it's clear would stand to commit violent acts with it. Just a question on a Republican response to this. And I'm going to use, I'm a little bit sorry to do this to you, but I'm going to use Marjorie Taylor Green's tweet. She had tweeted the Senate Republicans are everything wrong in the GOP. Too many of them have helped Joe Biden pass his America last agenda, even more than the

progressive Democrats in the House. The Republican Party needs a drastic identity change for America to survive or the GOP won't. So basically she's coming out and saying, you know, the quiet part that she thinks Republican should be more concerned about hurting Joe Biden. even if that means allowing more American kids to die to gun violence. What's your response to not only her, but just Republicans more broadly who are echoing this sentiment?

Ultimately, you have to decide what your loyalty is to, right? Are you an American first or are you a Republican first, right? Is your loyalty to the Constitution or is your loyalty to Donald Trump? I mean, my loyalty is to my country. My loyalty is to my state. My loyalty is to the Constitution. And, you know, when I go back home, I don't hear a lot of people talking like Marjorie Taylor Green. I mean, I don't talk, I don't hear a lot of people talking, telling me that my

primary agenda should be hurting Republicans. People tell me that my primary agenda should be improving their lives. So I just feel like this was a moment when Americans were very clear what they wanted. They wanted Democrats and Republicans to sort of set aside the politics on guns, find the common ground, stop arguing over what we can't agree on, and find what we can agree on. And there's a big fringe element on the Republican side and a smaller fringe element on the Democratic side who are focused only on doing damage to the opposite party. But that's not where 90% of Americans are. And I'm just super confident about it.

Why do you think Republicans decided to come to the table now after ignoring so, so many mass shootings before and offering up thoughts and prayers while actually relaxing gun laws in most states? Why, why now? And kind of what does that say more broadly? There's an element of this that is personal. I do think that both John Cornyn and Tom Tillis, the two primary Senate Republican negotiators, were deeply personally moved by what happened, especially in Evalding. I mean, that motivated their decision to come to the table. But I also think we're at a natural tipping point when it comes to the political power that exists. on the gun lobby side and on the anti-gun violence movement side.

It's heartbreaking. It's taken 10 years for that shift to happen. But there simply now are more of us. And there were a lot of Republicans who went back home for that Memorial Day recess right after Evaldi and heard directly from their constituents that they were not going to accept the status quo. They were not going to accept nothing and that there was going to be real political pain for members of Congress who decided to sit on the sidelines this time. And so I do think that over the last 10 years, this power has shifted from the gun lot.

He's still powerful, but they don't have as much power. And the anti-gun violence movement and parents have a lot of power. And I think that is what ultimately made the difference this time. Now, there is this fear that because this bill didn't cover everything, including preventing 18 to 20 year olds from purchasing semi-automatic weapons, that Republicans will now have cover to say, we did our part. We're done for another 30 years. you know even though gun violence will still of course continue and even though we should be continuing to take steps to to continue to make people safer how do we keep the pressure on to

continue taking those steps to to keep people safe even in light of what will be that excuse well to the extent an element of this argument is and i hear it right that people make this is we shouldn't empower republicans um because they vote for things that make the country better off we should reject that wholesale um We should be in the business of passing things that make people's lives better. And if that involves Republicans voting with us, great. But on the broader worry, which I understand that this was our one shot. And so if we only have one shot, we should hold out for everything.

One, this is a moment where we actually have, the White House, the House, and the Senate. That arrangement may not exist again for the foreseeable future. So we should take advantage of what we have today. But more importantly, as I study great social change movements, once they get their first victory, they very quickly get more, right? Whether it's the marriage equality movement, the civil rights movement, once you get a taste of victory, once the movement sees what action can achieve, once the other side understands that the sky doesn't actually fall when you support reform, all of a sudden more is possible. And that's the moment that I believe we're at when it comes to this movement. I think it is now much more likely that we are going to pass further reform after getting this bill done because our movement is empowered and the Republicans who voted for this are going

to see that there's actual real political benefit to voting with us and they will do more of it in the future. I'm reminded of the ACA, which they tried to attack what's more than 70 times. And it's so popular now that it's actually a death now for Republicans who try to campaign against it. Look at the 2018 midterms. I'm also reminded of this latest, you know, union drive where the first Starbucks got unionized and now we have like hundreds of them. So I think like, yeah, in terms of these like tipping points for good social change, I think that's a testament to that. I just want to mention one more issue that I think is especially outstanding. It's one that I

touched on earlier and that's the issue of 18 to 20 year olds of being able to purchase these weapons. That's obviously one of the most popular provisions that's still outstanding. Where was your group on that and what is the likelihood of something like that eventually getting signed into law? So I think that there were Republicans who would have voted to raise the age to buy an assault rifle or a rifle to 21. Remember right now you can't buy a pistol. You can't buy a handgun if you are under 21. You can only buy a long gun. And there are many states that actually don't allow you to buy any guns. I think there'll be more states in the coming months that will pass restrictions. So what you're talking about is a limited group of states that allow under 21-year-old

buyers to buy certain weapons. There were Republicans that were willing to raise the age, but not enough to get us to 60. So what we instead ended up doing was building in a waiting period and an enhanced background check. And as I mentioned, I really do think that there's evidence both in Uvaldi and Highland Park that had our law been in place. There's a chance that that that enhanced background check combined with a good red flag law could have prevented either of those shootings. But this is clearly a very popular provision, just simply raising the age to 21. I think a lot of states will get it done. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's a vote in Congress to do this in the foreseeable future. I think a lot of constituents are going to

demand that we continue to build upon that enhanced background check. Great. Well, we'll leave it there. So, you know, I just want to say that because you push for this and because you push relentlessly, you know, lives will invariably be saved. I know that there's a lot more to do and you didn't get everything you wanted, but this law will mean that people, you know, will be able to go home to their families who otherwise wouldn't have because of gun violence. So I know that, you know, you have a very thankless job. But thank you for busting your ass on this because, you know, lives will be saved because of you. Well, Brian, thanks for spending time on this issue, devoting a portion of your show to shedding light on what needs to be done. There is so much more to be done, but we should celebrate the breakthrough because that breakthrough begets more victories in the future. So appreciate it.

Thanks again to Chris Murphy. Now we've got the host of Fox LA's The Issue is Alex Michelson. Alex, thank you for coming back on. Thank you so much, Brian. So you were the only California reporter to go to D.C. this past week to cover Gavin Newsom. You spoke with him four times. What were some of the moments that resonated most with people after those interviews aired? Well, it's interesting. Of all the meetings that he talked about, he said one of his favorites was with your last guest, Chris Murphy, who he spoke very favorably of, said was a hero to him.

And he was especially passionate about some of the gun legislation that California is working on. and working with Chris Murphy on ways to sort of do that on a bigger scale, saying that what the Senate is doing is clearly inadequate, given the situation, but he's grateful that something's happening after there. I mean, I think the most sort of striking image that I'll remember and that I think most people will remember is just the image of him walking into the West Wing. And the timing of it, you know, it coming just days after a New York Times poll showed that two-thirds of Democrats want somebody other than Joe Biden to be the nominee in

2024, which leads to the question, who is that person going to be? And could it potentially be him? And then he literally walks in the door of the West Wing to go meet with the White House chief of staff and to meet with the president's wife. It was quite an image and a culture that is driven so much by images on TV and social media and all the rest of it. Well, just on that moment alone, like, you have that image. And that was striking to me, too, like, obviously everybody who saw that and recognizes how much Gavin Newsom's been in the news lately, just like that image of him walking into the West Wing.

Did that happen by accident? I can't, like, I can't imagine it did. Well, I mean, it happened. We knew that he was entering and we told them that we'd like to get a shot of that. And they have the option of sort of taking a walk where they, there is a shot of that. They have an option of taking a walk where there isn't. And for that instance, they took the option of there being a shot of that, which we certainly appreciate as people that traveled, you know, all this way to be there. And when he was leaving

his meeting with Ron Clayne, the White House Chief of Staff, he had the option of walking in a way where he could come and talk to us or walking in a way where he wouldn't. And we're grateful that he took the way where he walked and did talk to us and talked to us about what Ron Clayne and him talked about. He said they talked a lot about homelessness and immigration and other ways that federal government and state of California can work together. And Ron Clayne, the White House chief of staff, retweeted my story about that, saying that they had a great conversation. So both the White House and Governor Newsom seem to be trying to send out a very clear picture that they are working together and working together for the betterment of Joe Biden, the current

President of the United States and trying to support his agenda. Obviously, that raises the question. This is the question that everybody's asking, so we might as well just talk about it right up front. You had asked Newsom, not only this time, but a number of times before this, if he was interested in running for president. Here's what he said, this latest time that you asked him. And you know, there are a lot of people that are talking about you running there and

potentially being comfortable there. What do you say? When you see that, there's no part of you at all? No, because I don't know, you know, it's one of the first. of those things. I've tried to say no, no way, in every way I possibly can, including saying subs. I don't know what else, I don't know what language. In fact, I may need advice and counsel, what's the language to express absolutely no. It's just fodder. It's made up and it is, frankly, it's not helpful. It's not helpful to any of us and gets in the way of things we should be

focused on. So you sold or what? Well, the one thing, if he's asking for my advice on what he should say, I mean, he hasn't said fuck no. So that could be one other thing that he could add to put even more emphasis on it. Look, I mean, I don't know. And the honest truth is, I don't know if Joe Biden has totally decided whether he's going to run or not. Right. I mean, he said that he intends to run.

That's a legal word. He can't actually declare for running them because then a bunch of people. a bunch of campaign things go into effect. But talking to a lot of the folks there privately, I mean, it seems like they're under the impression that he is running, that he is intending to run. I don't think that a final, final decision on that is going to be made probably for another six or seven months. And so until that happens, like the political world is sort of frozen.

I don't think Governor Newsom has any intention, any way that he would run against Joe Biden and try to prime it. I don't think so either. And so if Joe Biden doesn't run, then it becomes an open primary. And then the question becomes, you know, does he run against Kamala Harris, this person who he's had this very complicated, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, sometimes rival, sometimes ally relationship for 25 years, dating back to their early days in San Francisco. There are indications in polls right now that he would do better than her. There are indications, I think, from the political consultants that have worked for both of them, that they would be more inclined to work for him. That being said, if you look at the early Democratic primary schedule with South Carolina having an even bigger role than it did last time, the party is moving to put even more of an emphasis on African American women as a key voting block early on, perhaps the key voting block early on.

And the question is, would they be supportive of a wealthy white guy from California over the first African-American vice president? We know that Kamala Harris was not polling especially well in South Carolina the last time around, that they were more supportive of Joe Biden. We know that she wasn't polling very well in California the last time around. Part of the reason that she dropped out of the race. That being said, she's still the incumbent vice president, and it would be quite something for him to challenge her. in 2024 you know the whole thing with newsome the reason i've covered him is that he's willing to fight that's been a huge theme uh in this whole thing i think we desperately need that is that who he's always been is he is he leaning into that now what do you think yes that that is that is

who he's always been he's always been trying to be kind of a few steps ahead of where things are going um and kind of lean into things i mean the the beginning of his political career when he got so much notice was shortly after he took over as San Francisco mayor when he started marrying same-sex couples in California, which was then there was a legal challenge and then those were stopped. And then there was prop eight in California where gay marriage was made illegal. And then years later, of course, the Supreme Court made it legal in California. But he's kind of taken, he prides himself on being first, first in the country to do a lot of things. A lot of his announcements are we're first. We're taking the fight to them. And I think that's how he sees

himself. And I think he sees right now politically that there's a real hunger for that. There's a hunger for somebody to take it to the opposition. He thinks that the Democratic Party has been too often on the defensive, not enough on the offensive. He thinks the Republican Party has been much more effective at winning political arguments by being more ruthless and being more strategic. And he thinks that the issues are too important to let them do that. So it's time to sort of change the game a little bit. And that is a different mindset. And in different generation, too. I mean, Joe Biden could be his father. And Joe Biden is a man of the Senate from a different time in the Senate where there was a lot more bipartisan compromise and a lot of people got together more and there

wasn't as much acrimony. And Gavin Newsom, I don't think, has that longing from a different era. And the other thing that Gavin Newsom has as an advantage over Joe Biden, which is not Joe Biden's fault, is that he's got a Democratic supermajority in Sacramento. Republicans literally cannot do anything to stop anything. They have almost zero power whatsoever. So the governor has the ability to do things in a pretty dramatic way that the president, with 50 Democratic Senators, if we call them all Democratic Senators, doesn't necessarily have the ability to do. And so in that contrast, too, not only the age contrast, but the contrast in substance and what

he's able to pull off is quite something with the president. And that's really in, I think, Governor Newsom's favor. Yeah. It's almost, I mean, it's not Biden's fault because he's dealing with a different composition in the House and Senate. but it really does still lend the optics of, like, Newsom's strength in that he can push forward anything he wants to with those supermajorities. You know, to the point that you just made, like, why does this seem so difficult for Democrats?

Democrats are the last thing standing in the way of authoritarianism. We are watching, as Republicans broadcast to the whole world, that there's going to, you know, strip women of their bodily autonomy, that they want fewer people to vote, that they think decisions legalizing gay marriage should be overturned. This is a fucking five-alarm fire. Why is the Democratic Party having so much trouble meeting this moment? By the nature of what the party is, you know, the old school expression that Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

I think the Republicans for decades have been more used to this idea that certain principles like lower taxes, like abortion is bad, like we need more conservative judges that are more pro-business, big principles that everybody agrees on, and then sort of the rest of the stuff doesn't really matter that much. And it's more, as long as we stick together on those big things, it's going to work. Democrats are so focused on this interest group or this person or this racial quota or this being checked off, or you offended me here, or you can't do this. There's this purity test, and this is something Barack Obama's talked a lot about with disgust, where, you know, there's just look for perfection and perfection is not possible it ever is certainly not possible in

the current political system that we have set up in Washington and and yet there's this sort of grassroots Twitter mob angry cancel thing that it has turned out to be like like a suicide bomb because it's preventing victories I mean we saw so much of that in 2016 with Hillary Clinton with progressives. I saw it at the Democratic Convention, which had so many Bernie people that were like refusing to support Hillary Clinton there at the convention. And it's like, okay, guys, so who, you got Donald Trump? That was better?

Really? Really? Donald Trump was better? Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh is better than, you know, Judge Justice Merrick Garland or whoever else Hillary Clinton was going to appoint to the Supreme Court? I mean, that seems insane. And yet people still have not learned their lesson in some cases.

Do you think that people look at someone like Newsom and even other fighters, you know, like Katie Porter, Mallory McMorrow, who is the state legislator who's risen to prominence? And do you think that they start to rank the ability to fight higher than those people's actual policy? Like, it's worth for Republicans. You know, most of them don't introduce any legislation. They just fight culture wars. Do you think that that will start to take priority in choosing candidates on the left? The performative nature of it.

I mean, I think that it looks like we're headed that way. Of course, Governor Newsom would contend that he has done a lot in terms of legislation, and he has because he's got that super majority. But it's not just Governor Newsom, and we saw J.B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, getting a lot of attention during a recent trip to the White House as well, and similar questions and similar thoughts there about this idea of Democratic governors who are able to do things. And it was striking and talking to some of the top political reporters while I was in Washington this week with the Washington Post and New York Times and CNN and other

outlets. And they all are really focused on that sort of narrative art of Democratic governors and their ability to govern and President Biden and his inability to do much because of the situation in Congress and the Democratic base's frustration about hearing that I can't convince Joe Manchin and Kristen Cinema, so nothing's going to get done. That's a very tough message to, I mean, it's hard enough to blame it on the Republicans, but it's very difficult politically to say, well, you gave us a Senate majority and a House majority, but we can't get our own stuff together. So sorry, you're not getting anything.

Yeah, I think something that's been interesting is there is like kind of a, a dev, a divergence in polling in terms of, like, usually if you have an unpopular president, you'd also have an unpopular, you know, the generic ballot for midterms would also bode really poorly for Democrats. But as Joe Biden's approval rating stays low, you've seen an improvement among Democrats, like, in these generic polls for Congress. And I think people are recognizing that, like, to the point you made earlier, the answer here isn't to just, like, cut off their nose despite their face and just say, like, okay, I'm unhappy with what I see. as Joe Biden's ineffectiveness, I'm not going to vote for any Democrats.

I think that people recognize that the answer here isn't to, like, take their ball and go home, but rather to just support people who are actually going to fight, going to, like, take this fight to Republicans. And so if that means electing more Democrats to Congress to combat what we're seeing, you know, on abortion, on voting rights, on health care, on guns, then that's what they're going to do. We'll see. We'll see, yeah. I don't know if that's totally clear if that's what they're going to do. We'll see.

Just to finish up on one more note on Newsom here, you know, you're one of the few people left on the planet who hasn't succumb to like an echo chamber. So you're, I think, well positioned to answer this question. What's the reaction from the right been to Newsom? And what does that tell you about him? They hate him. They call him Nuselini, new scum. They call him King Gavin.

I mean, he represents everything that they hate. But by the way, just to like interject for a second, just like the cognitive dissonance between someone on the right calling Gavin Newsom, King Newsom, after that party has like fallen in line to the nth degree coddling Donald Trump of all people is just like is just kind of mind blowing. But anyway, go on. They would say that what he did during the coronavirus in accumulating so much power and taking away power from people in a local level and different things that he's. done. They view him as arrogant. They view him as out of touch. They view him as elitist. They say he's a liar. He is kind of the face of everything that they hate about Democrats, Democratic politics, and everything else. So a lot of them hate watch him because he fires them up. But he is he is really seen as somebody that they don't want anything to do with in the same way that Democrats now don't want anything to do with Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott.

You've got these characters that are all seeing the other as being a helpful foil. I think Governor Newsom likes having Ron DeSantis as somebody he can punch. Just like Ron DeSantis probably likes having Governor Newsom too. It gives each other an ability to contrast. Joe Biden's whole model, right, was to not do a lot of that. To be bigger than that, trying to be bipartisan, to be more centrist. to try to find ways to work to each to each other, to bring the temperature down,

this battle for the soul of the country. And it doesn't seem like Newsom, at least publicly, is doing as much of that kind of work. Privately, I think there's a big part of him that is more centrist than he leads on. Like he had a good working relationship with Donald Trump. They talked. Newsom played the game.

He flattered Trump a lot. lot. Got a lot of money for California. Trump doesn't say a lot of bad things about him. And so I think he knows how to do that. But publicly right now, he thinks that the smart way to go politically is to really try to fight back blue states versus red states. Yeah. There's going to be a lot more to watch in this space. And for anybody listening right now, Alex is the guy to follow when it comes to that space, you know, you've, you've really, like, made a huge name for yourself in California politics. So, so for anybody listening, Alex, let us know where we can hear more from you. Right. So our, so we have this big interview with Governor Newsom, if people want to hear

more of that, which you can watch on my YouTube page, YouTube.com slash Alex Michelson, or you can subscribe to our podcast. Our show is called The Issue Is. So just search for the issue is wherever you get podcasts and check us out. But the stuff with news, Newsom this week is especially interesting. If you want to get a better sense of who he is, you'll hear from him on a whole lot of topics there. Thanks again to Elex. One last note, I believe that this week's January 6th committee hearing is the last one that's

planned. Right now, it's set for Thursday evening, prime time. So if you want to watch along with me, subscribe to my YouTube channel. Just type in Brian Tyler Cohen in YouTube. Okay, 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, interview.

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 briantylercoen.com for links to all of my other channels.