Pod Save America - 2020: Elizabeth Warren on dogs and capitalism (From Feb. 21, 2019)

Episode Date: April 11, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren sits down with Tommy to talk about Medicare for All, climate change, Venezuela, Israel, and more. (Previously released on Feb. 21, 2019)

Welcome to Pod Save America. This is Tommy Vitor. Welcome to Pod Save America. This is Tommy Vitor. What we're doing today is back in February, we released my interview with Senator Elizabeth Warren as part of a Thursday pod. Since then, we've decided that it would be a hell of a lot easier for you guys to search for these things if we release them as standalone bonus episodes. So that's what we're doing today. You won't hear any new ads or anything like that. It's just the show itself, but it will make it a lot easier for you to find it and listen to it on its own. Here's the stuff we talked about. We talked about her adorable golden retriever puppy, Bailey. Don't miss that part. We talked about what it means to be a socialist,

why she's a capitalist. We talked about Medicare for all and the debate around that policy. We talked about immigration policy, talked about Venezuela. We talked about Israel and U.S. policy toward the Israeli government, including settlements. We talked about the use of force as president and her brother's service in the military, her stance on nuclear weapons in the state of Massachusetts. So it was a lot of fun. Elizabeth Warren knows a lot of things about a lot of issues and is a very impressive person. So without any more spin on the ball, here's the interview. I am honored to have in studio a Massachusetts resident, a United States Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

Thank you so much for being here. Oh, thank you. I'm delighted to be here. You just met Pundit Leo and Luca. So most important question of the day. We've got to give the people what they want. How is your new Golden Retriever puppy, Bailey, doing? Oh, I'm telling you, Bailey is taking to campaigning. So he now comes to the events in New Hampshire, since we're nearby, and he runs his own separate photo line. And I keep saying to everybody, it is not a competition.

I'll do one, he'll do one. And I have to keep saying that because more people want to get their picture taken with Bailey. He is painfully cute. Everyone check him out on the center's Instagram page. He's a honey bun. I mean, just amazing. Okay. And I just want you to know he's completely in favor of affordable child care, universal child care, affordable health care. He's in on all of this. He's for all of this, accountable capitalism. Accountable capitalism he's in. The whole suite of issues. Yeah, we had to do the whole thing on Glass-Steagall, which was early on. And I think maybe he was a little young when I first introduced him to it. But he's now in. And I heard he really pushed you towards the no first use nuclear policy as well.

Actually, this was a big deal for him. And I think it came from the other guys at the dog park had been talking about it for a long time. And, you know, there just comes a moment when it is the right time to just go ahead and say, we're just not going to do this. Make some news. That's right. And make a statement of your principles here. I like it. No first use.

He really is opposed to nuclear war. So what could I say? You know, you've got to work together. Well, I would love to dig into that in a minute. But first question for you. So during President Trump's soaring, stirring, beautiful State of the Union speech, he said, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. You stood, you clapped, you said you're a capitalist. Why are you a capitalist? Because I see the value of markets and that they can produce a lot of good if they have rules. But let us all be clear, if they have rules. But let us all be clear. Markets without rules are theft, and I am opposed to theft. There is a reason that the folks on Wall Street, the big CEOs, don't want me to even be in the Senate. They're kind of in the anyone but you. That's exactly, maybe that will be their tattoo, anyone but her. because I get how the system works and how it can work when it works right.

And how these are the guys who are ripping it off and making it not work. And I really do want to. I want to see it work. I want to see us as a country not just continue to produce more wealth, but I want to see us continue to produce more wealth, where that means opportunities, not just for those at the top, but opportunities for everybody. And I mean, not like kind of everybody. I really literally mean everybody. So I think in part because of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Sanders, and then President Trump picking up the mantle of socialism, because I'm sure he's a big supporter. It's been discussed a lot recently. And so, I mean, I'm just trying to help people understand the distinction because, you know,

you support Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill. You said you support the concept of a Green New Deal. You know, I think people look at you and they look at Senator Sanders and they think there's a lot of similarity there on policy views, but he's a democratic socialist, you're a democrat and a capitalist. And I'm just hoping maybe we can help listeners understand that distinction and how you might differ on policy. So, you know, Bernie and I have been friends since long, long before I ever got in politics. Of course, that's not saying much. I actually haven't been in it that long on the political end of it. It's always been the policy end. But the best I can do is explain my end of it. It's always been the policy. But the best I can do is explain my end of it. So let me give you two parts to it. First part is, we've got a country right now

that works great for those at the top. It is a country that works great for giant drug companies, just not for people who are trying to get prescription fills. It works great for giant oil companies that want to drill everywhere, but not for people who see climate change as it's bearing down on us. It works great for investors in private prisons, but not for the people whose lives are destroyed and whose communities are torn apart. When a government works just for those at the top, that's corruption, plain and simple. And we've got to call it out because what's happened in this country is in effect on every decision that gets made, on every decision that gets made from giant ones that we see out in front like drilling offshore down to minute regulatory decisions. There's almost always somebody in the room representing the rich, the powerful, or multiple someones trying to get the field tilted just a little bit more in favor of their clients. And not just once, but twice, 20 times, 200 times, 2,000 times. And the consequence has been,

we now have a government that really does. It's not working for the people. And so whatever issue brings you to the table, whether it's around economic issues, gun safety, climate change, net neutrality, it all intersects through this fundamental piece of corruption. Right. Of a government that's listening to the folks with money instead of a government that's listening to the people who elected us to get there. So I start with, we got to root out the corruption. And then we got to change the rules in this economy and move us away from an economy that works, again, giant corporations who can buy political influence. We've got to get to an economy where there's more balance in it. It ought to be easy to join a union.

Right. Right? We ought to make it easy to have more worker power. Accountable capitalism says workers get to elect 40% of the seats on the corporate. This is a bill I've already put forward. 40% of the seats on corporate boards, ways to get more power back into the hands of workers. That's how we start to rewrite this economy. And I just keep working through that in every part of it. Taxes, progressive taxation. I put an ultra-millionaire's tax out, a proposal on this. Think about this. more than $50 million in assets. If we charged them 2% a year and they put that back in the kitty to help build opportunity for everybody else, we could pay for universal child care.

We could bring down student loan debt. We could make a big down payment on a green new deal. We could make the investments that make this country work. And that's for me what this is all about. Yeah, but there wouldn't be a lot of investing in Nantucket summer houses. And I think that they need new decks and places to park boats and such. So staying along these lines, I mean, a lot of this 2020 Democratic candidates support Medicare for all. I think it's sort of table stakes really in this race. Some people think. I think, interestingly, you've said that there are a lot of paths to get to universal coverage. But there are some critics on the left, you see a lot of Twitter, fun place to be, who vigorously disagree. disagree. They sincerely believe that a public option won't get us to universal care and that we need to eliminate private insurance to actually fix a broken healthcare system. Bernie Sanders,

for example, told the New York Times that he thinks the only role for private insurance in the system he envisions would be cosmetic surgery. You want to get your nose fixed, something like that. Why do you disagree with those who have a more draconian take on how to get to universal health care. So let me start by saying, I believe in Medicare for all. I'm a co-sponsor on the bill. Yeah, I'm signed up for this. But remember, even the bill that Bernie has put on the table has a lot of layering in over time. It doesn't just happen immediately. Nobody throws a light switch and says, we're there. It's got its ways of how we get some people, how we get some more people, how we get some more people. And by the way, how some people never end up in it. So for example,

veterans are kept in a different system. There's a question about how Medicaid gets brought into it. It's a big and complex system to be able to do this. And so there are folks who think, for example, one way you could layer this in is you could say, you know what? How about if we say Medicare now starts at 60 and then a year from now it starts at 55 and a year from now it starts at 50 and a year from now it starts at 45? Or how about we go the other way? And we say everybody 30 and under is covered by Medicare. And in another year, another two years, everybody 35 and under is covered by Medicare. How about if we let more of the population shift to Medicare immediately by letting employers

buy directly and drop private insurance and put people into Medicare? How about if we let people individually be able to buy into Medicare instead of having private insurance? In fact, I'll tell you, I have a bill that I put out last year that Bernie is a co-sponsor on that says if you're going to have any private insurance, one of the provisions we ought to put into law right now is private insurance has to at least cover what Medicare covers. So that's what I mean by there are a lot of different paths, but we all know, or at least I know where we're aiming, and that is the center of this, where we're trying to head to, is that everyone has Medicare coverage and that everyone in this country has coverage at a price they can afford. And let me just add on that, think about what it means that Democrats are talking about, okay, is the way to get there that you do it?

Bernie said, well, let's do it over four years. Other people say, let's do it over six years. Some people say, let's build up from Medicaid instead of from Medicare. Others say, start with the young people, start with the older people. Lots of different ways. That's the conversation Democrats are having.

You just reject this. It's all or nothing. Well, but here's my point. While the Republicans are out there at the same moment doing everything they can right now to take away health care from tens of millions of Americans. And, you know, they've still got the lawsuit pending down in Texas that they're trying to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, the Medicaid. They're trying to cut Medicaid, and they're doing everything they can through HHS and the regulations around that to undercut it. So I think this is a great moment for what primaries are about, is to get the ideas out

there, get a lot of people to talk about. But the point is to build the kind of energy, grassroots energy in this country for Medicare for all, so that Democrats win 2020. We've got the House. We've got the Senate. We are ready to move forward and get everybody covered. It has been a very substantive primary so far. It has.

Let's keep it that way. Other candidates listening. Not you. You has been a very substantive primary so far. It has. Let's keep it that way. Other candidates listening. Not you. You've been perfect. So President Trump recently declared a national emergency on the southern border so that he can take a bunch of money from other places to pay for his stupid wall. There is no emergency. This is absurd. I think everyone knows that, including Mitch McConnell, even though he flip-flopped on it. But it's also clear to me, I think, that the Republicans aren't going to stop him. I mean, Congress could block him in this instance, but it would require Republican votes. And I think we're all sick of waiting for them to be courageous.

So I guess my question to you is, shouldn't Democrats say to Republicans, if you're not going to step up and protect the institution of Congress and enforce the old rules, then these are now the new rules and that we're going to play by these rules when a Democrat is elected. And we fully intend to use a national emergency to advance Democratic priorities or things that are actually an emergency like climate change. Yeah, which is an emergency, right? We got a lot of real emergencies. So here's how I see this. I'm not quite ready to give up the way you implied in that question. In that fight? Yeah. In the following sense, there is no emergency at the border. So the facts are just wrong on this. Second, I don't think he has legal authority to

do this. And he's not going to be able to do anything right now. As you know, 16 states have sued him. We're going to see a lot of law, and that's just going to be the beginning of the lawsuits. This is going to be like full employment for lawyers who can spell constitution, right? But we're going to see a piling on of these lawsuits. Ultimately, the courts will settle out what is the legal authority here of the President of the United States. So the threat here is not imminent. We can continue to have this constitutional debate around it. I think the President is wrong on this, but I do think it is a moment to talk about what you think a real emergency is. And to talk about that emergency in terms of trying to highlight for all of us, this is the responsibility of

government. Government's job is to look out there and see what's coming. And climate change is upon us. I'm going to say something really controversial here. I hope everybody listening be calm out there. This is controversial. I believe in science. And climate change is real. It's man-made. And we have got to act. We're running out of time on this, the urgency of the moment. And banging on that drum, I think, is critically important right now. And I want to say it, I want to do the emphasis on that in a big public sense again, because I see our opportunity in 2019 and, you know, up through November of 2020 as a chance to pull more people in on the core issues. to pull more people in on the core issues. And I think, look, I think the questions about the power of precedent are very, very important. Come on, I believe in this. But we got to be out there

talking to the American people about the stuff that touches their lives. We really do have to be talking about a government that's not working for them, talking about universal child care, talking about people who are just getting crushed by student loans, talking about the importance of raising the minimum wage and the opportunity to join a union, talking about climate change, talking about gun safety, talking about the things and making them real that affect people every single day, and saying to them, hey, look, maybe you're already a Democrat, then you should be a fired-up Democrat. Maybe you're an independent, but man, if you're worried about climate change, or if you're worried about gun safety, or if you're worried about your student loan debt, or how you're going to get your kid in some kind of high quality affordable daycare, we are the party who is working for you. We're the party who's trying. And that's our chance to rake back some of those Trump voters. I want us to use this period of time to build the grassroots movement. So when we win in 2020, we are ready to

start making those changes. Look, I'm 100% with you, but I do think there's a lot of Democrats out there who look at the past few years and are pissed off. They look at Mitch McConnell stealing a Supreme Court seat. They look at the way Trump right now is completely ignoring the Magnitsky Act requirements he has to report to Congress about whether the Saudis were going to sanction the Saudis for murdering a journalist. about whether the Saudis, whether he's going to sanction the Saudis for murdering a journalist. They're pissed off that he's using a national emergency declaration to take away from Congress

its most clearly articulated power in the Constitution, which is the power of the purse. And so I think they're wondering, are Democrats, when we get power back, going to fight fire with fire? Or are we going to try to return to norms and institutions

that seem a little passe, especially when you have someone as craven as Mitch McConnell in charge for the Republican side? I think that's sort of what I'm trying to get at. So maybe the best place to look at that one, how about if we do it in the specific around when we think about the rules on voting, right? What's going to take a 60-person majority? Are we really going to have a filibuster, or are we going to say 51? Now, I'm somebody who believed very, very strongly in filibuster reform. I'm on the record on this. I fought for it for a long time

because the Republicans completely blocked us, right? They weren't letting us put anybody in the courts. But it was worse than that. Not worse, equally bad. They also weren't letting us put anybody in the consumer agency, so the agency couldn't get its legal, full legal authority. NLRB, they were about to shut down the NLRB. And the answer to that, and I think it was the right answer,

was just to say we're done on the filibuster. And I voted for it. I strongly supported it. Harry blew it up. Harry blew it up, and I think Harry was right to blow it up. I strongly supported him when he did that. Now the Republicans turn around, and they took the filibuster and blew it up even more. So they said even on a Supreme Court nominee, and we hadn't even done anything yet, right?

So first they steal a Supreme Court seat. Then they turn around and change the rules on filibuster on a Supreme Court seat. And so when it swings back around to us, what are we going to do? And my answer on that is all the options are on the table, that that's how we got to do this. All the options are on the table, that that's how we got to do this. If the Republicans are going to try to block us on key pieces that we're trying to move forward, then you better believe we got to keep all the options on the table. And I think that's the way we should be describing it right now on everything that the Republicans are doing, that nobody's going to forget what happened here, and all the options are on the table. We're not going to let them play by one set of rules, and then we play by the polite, everybody drinks tea and keeps a curled pinky up while they do it.

I'm just not for that. We're not on the Morning Joe civility rules. I like that answer very much. Turn to some foreign policy, if that's okay. I'm just not for that. On the Morning Joe civility rules. I like that answer very much. Turn to some foreign policy, if that's okay. I'm ready. Okay. So there is a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. People are literally starving to death. Hospitals don't have like gauze or band-aids, like the most basic supplies. The Trump administration has recognized the National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the president and encouraged a bunch of other countries to follow suit. And frankly, what was a pretty impressive diplomatic play by them. He also sanctioned Venezuela's oil industry, which is a major step, which could cut off all their supply of dollars and their ability to have an economy.

Do you agree with those two steps, recognizing Guaido and the sanctions on the oil sector? And if so, I mean, how do we back up a step as bold as saying, there's a new president, and it's this guy that we named, especially given our history in Latin America? So I want to broaden this one out just a little bit. Start with the fact that Maduro is obviously a dictator. He's terrible. He's stolen this election. It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare for the people of Venezuela. So that's part one. Part two, this notion of using our diplomatic tools, I'm all for it. I think recognition, I think getting our allies to do it, it's a way to bring diplomatic pressure. Economic sanctions, yeah, I support economic sanctions, but now we're going to start, we've got to turn the dial some here. We have to offer humanitarian help at the same time. We can't let people starve. It doesn't matter that Maduro's willing to let his own people starve. fleeing the country. And that means they're loading up around the borders, the countries around the borders, the social services are under enormous strain, refugee camps are springing up.

We should be leading the international community to get help to those people, to make sure that they've got food, they've got medicine, they've got care. And frankly, that makes it easier for people who are in Venezuela. They have fewer people dividing the resources, more people seeing an option that if they get out of the country, at least for a period of time. And that puts more pressure on Maduro. The part you didn't talk about, though, and I just think it's worth mentioning here. Trump did something else besides doing the diplomatic recognition. Because I'm all for the diplomatic part of this.

He also did a lot of saber rattling. And given America's history in South America, frankly, our history all around the globe now, I think rattling sabers when we should not be considering a military intervention is a real mistake. I think that it causes the president to burn the credibility of the United States and to remind everyone of times when we have intervened that were not only bad for our government, they were sure bad for the local folks. So I think that our focus should be on diplomatic and on humanitarian relief. And I just have to emphasize this part again. I said it, but I want to let it just go in passing. Working with our allies.

This is why we need allies. This notion now that Trump cozies up to Putin and Kim Jong-un and Xi and can't get along with Canada? Yeah, Merkel. I mean, who can't get along with Merkel? Everybody likes Canada. Exactly. That Justin Trudeau. The Europeans that are allies.

These are the times that we should be working with our allies, our European allies, our Canadian allies, our Asian allies, to move in and support together. That increases the pressure on Maduro. It helps with humanitarian relief. And it undercuts any notion that the United States is big-foot footing around South America or any other part of the world. There's a reason we need our allies. And this is one of those times. We need to work together.

We'll have a lot more diplomatic and economic power if we do that. Agreed. The first bill that the Senate put forward was a bill called S-1, which did a whole bunch of stuff. It was military support to Israel. I think it was some policy towards Jordan, some additional sanctions in Syria. But then there was a really controversial provision that would allow state and municipal governments to punish companies that boycott, divest from, or place sanctions on Israel, the so-called BDS movement. Why did you oppose S-1? movement. Why did you oppose S-1? So I oppose the boycott, but I oppose a law that permits punishment of people who want to support the boycott. This is one where I stand with the ACLU.

I just don't think we do that in the United States. I'm opposed. I opposed it when it came up earlier. I've spoken out against it. I've written letters on this. I don't think that's the place we go. I know that Israel faces real challenges, so do the Palestinians. I think the way we can be a good ally to Israel is we can push again toward a two-state solution, toward a long-term solution in this area. And look, I get it. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world. It's a liberal democracy. We don't have a lot of allies over there that follow the liberal democratic traditions. But a good ally urges friends to get together and work out a solution. And the Palestinians and the Israelis need to be back at the negotiating table. The United States should not be dictating terms.

We should not be putting shits on the table or taking them off. But we should be pushing them to negotiate a two-state solution. So totally agree. And, you know, President Obama spent a lot of time pushing the Palestinians and the Israelis to try to negotiate a Middle East peace process, a two-state solution. But, you know, one major sticking point in that peace process has been Israeli settlement construction. And, you know, we put a lot of, there were a lot of carrots. There were a lot of things offered to Netanyahu, some that haven't even been reported in terms of military hardware and other incentives that come to the table. And they, to their credit, the Israelis did have some settlement freezes and

the Palestinians refused to engage. But, you know, at this point, we're at a point where a lot of members of the Likud party, President Netanyahu's or Prime Minister Netanyahu's party are talking about annexing the West Bank. And it feels like the chance for incentives to bring them to the table for a two-state solution or to end settlement construction are unlikely to work. And I'm curious if you would consider a pressure track that included some sort of punitive approach that might force them into negotiations or to stop settlement construction. So let me say, I think we have to stop to acknowledge what has changed during the Trump administration. The pressure toward a two-state solution obviously has gone away. And in fact, the whole publicly naming Jerusalem as the capital and moving our embassy

took one of the things that should have been decided by the parties. It's not our decision, it's their decision and how they wanted to handle that. It made it very clear we're standing on one side in these negotiations. And the problem with that is it doesn't encourage negotiation. In fact, the Palestinians refused to talk since that happened. That's exactly right. To Jared's magical plan. There you go. Plus, the Israelis now have less incentive to talk, right? That's a part of what's happening in this. So the way I see what you're talking about, as you said, we have pushed it this far under the Obama administration, and now Trump

has completely reversed it. I don't therefore draw the conclusion that what happened under the Obama administration was never going to work, that you couldn't keep pushing harder. Because over time, realities are bearing down on Israel, demographic realities, births and deaths, what the region looks like. And I think that this is a moment, not while Trump is in there playing the game that he's playing, but that the opportunity soon to get Israel back to the table and get the Palestinians back to the table, if we, the United States, can be an honest broker and can encourage, again, other nations, other allies to help support that. I actually have just a little spark of optimism.

Let's call it a glimmer. Can we start with glimmer? I'm pro-hope. I'm pro-glimmer. But I mean, when I look at Israel, I look at Bibi Netanyahu putting up campaign signs that feature big photos of him and President Trump. This weekend, he released a TV ad attacking his opponent, Benny Gantz, and accusing him who putting up campaign signs that feature big photos of him and President Trump. This weekend, he released a TV ad attacking his opponent, Benny Gantz,

and accusing him of colluding with Obama behind his back. And it had this like grainy, darkened image of Obama. And I'm just wondering, does it worry you that such a close ally has fully aligned with one political party, the Republican Party? Yes. No, this is the part. That's why I was talking about the difference between the administrations. Yes. And honestly, I don't think this is good for Israel. I mean, I think this is terrible for Israel.

And that that's the direction he's going. Of course, also remember, you know, he is under investigation, others in his administration, in his family. Are we talking Netanyahu or Trump? Oh, I'm sorry. Which one were we talking about? Yeah. Sentence applies in both places, doesn't it? But I think that is part of the point.

Trump is not forever and neither is Netanyahu. Good point. Switching gears a little bit. So I know your brothers all served in the military. They did. And one flew combat missions in Vietnam. Did their service shape how you view, let's say, the use of force or the use of the military as president? And I guess, is there a post-World War II conflict that you look at and you think, that was a right, justified use of military action?

That's an interesting question. Let me tell you how it shaped. I think it undoubtedly did. That I grew up, because my brothers are all a lot older than I am, I grew up in the shadow of a family constantly worried that one of my brothers wouldn't come home. that one of my brothers wouldn't come home. That Don Reed flew in Vietnam was obviously the main one. 288 combat missions. Wow. 288 combat missions? 288 combat missions. That's incredible.

Yes, it is. And to this day, I feel my heart flutter when I say that. I lived watching my mother always checking the mail. It was always there. But I think of that in terms of the very personal reminder, both of the incredible bravery and sacrifice of those who say, I'll put it on the line. You know, my brother John was stationed in Morocco. It was much safer. It was at a different time, but still. He was far, far away, couldn't come home for a year. There was some shooting. There was... And they have agreed. That's what they've agreed to do. David, my youngest brother, trained as a combat medic. Now, it turned out he never had to be sent to combat. service. And that means there is a moral obligation incumbent on those who would send

our military into harm's way to make sure that it is done for well- out reasons when truly our security and safety are on the line. Yeah. Not just for politics, not just that it's got to be real. Yeah. And it's hard to find a place where that's been the case. Right. I mean, I think that's sort of what's driving it. I mean, we all know now that Iraq was sold to the United States under false pretenses. But, you know,

if someone I loved had served in Vietnam and it would piss me off that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 64 was forced through Congress under false pretenses. And when Johnson and the administration figured out that there were those false pretenses, that was never real to the American people. And they continue to use that authorization. So I'm curious. It's when McNamara said he knew that we'd lost, but he didn't pull out. And thousands and thousands of people continue to die. Young Americans, 18, 19, 20 years old, had been sent over.

And he later claimed as part of his, you know, his great confession that he knew it was lost. And yet he kept sending our brothers, our sisters to die over there. Yeah. I mean, that would piss me off. Yeah. Well, it's this defining moment in our history. I mean, Obama was sort of a post-Vietnam president. But I think for a lot of people who are in the military, there are some who feel that Vietnam is an instance of where we should have gone all in earlier

and didn't have the backbone to win the war, right? Like you hear that from some parties. Others, I think you think, how could we possibly trust our government when they tell us why we're going into war? And I'm just curious, like, if that experience, especially how personal it is for you, maybe makes you distrustful of some of the claims that might be made for why we could go to a war in Iran or whatever the next thing might be? So I think of it as surely we have learned our lesson that we need to ask the question once, ask the question twice, look at the evidence over and over and over before we move in. And obviously, during the George W. Bush administration, the whole weapons of mass destruction was just made up. It was just a lie to the American people. I think of this just a little bit differently. And that is, if we're going to use military force,

If we're going to use military force, that we need to be a whole lot more thoughtful about what exactly we think military force can accomplish. You know, there's a big toolbox out there. And there's a lot of diplomatic tools in there and there's a lot of economic tools in there. Why military? Okay. On the front. why military? Okay, on the front. And then the question is, what's the back end of this look like? So the military do X and then what? And what do we expect to have happen? Is it the military going to go this far and then economic support is going to move in and it's going to cause something to happen or a lot of diplomatic help. So for me, I think what frustrates me, and it has in virtually every discussion about using military force since I've been old enough to follow it, is there's always a lot about the front end.

Yes. there's always a lot about the front end. Yes. And nothing about the middle and the back end. And that that's how we end up in the endless war of Afghanistan. Yeah. That's how we end up. Yes, that's exactly right.

And that can't be right. That cannot be our approach going forward. We are running out of time. But you and Congressman Adam Smith recently introduced legislation that says, quote, it is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first. Yes. Close quotes. A very brief but very important piece of legislation. And I think a conversation that, again, unfortunately, isn't just academic. Everyone knows we use nuclear weapons in World War II, but that didn't swear us off using them.

Right. I mean, Truman debated using nuclear weapons in World War II, but that didn't swear us off using them, right? I mean, Truman debated using nuclear weapons during Korea. Eisenhower was telling Johnson to use them in Vietnam. Westmoreland was talking about it with a working group. We are planning to spend a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons to upgrade our arsenal. Why did you think it was important to put this policy forward? Because you also noticed you put it in your foreign policy speech. And it was, it jumped out at me. That's right. In fact, I didn't hide this.

Yeah. This is right out front. And I'll tell you exactly why. It's because we're having a conversation in the U.S. Senate right now. I sit on Senate Armed Services about usable nuclear weapons. Tactical, strategic nukes. Use all those fancy words because they're euphemisms. And it's, oh, we want nuclear weapons so we can totally blow up a city,

but not the entire country around it. And that would mean usable just by definition means more likely to use. And that that's been the push from the Trump administration and the Republicans jumping up and down for this. I think that we need to have a conversation about nuclear weapons. And I think we need to make clear there is a real risk to that kind of conversation and that kind of move in our nuclear arsenal. If we are out there saying, yeah, we could be first use country, the odds that something goes wrong in the next big crisis and someone miscalculates a signal that we've sent or missiles that are conventional weapon that we have sent that we have increased the odds of a nuclear holocaust. Global annihilation. Yeah.

Yeah. Final question for you. So Massachusetts, our home state, we've produced a lot of winners. We have. We have the Patriots. We have the Red Sox. We have the Celtics. Even the Bruins.

Everyone in the room now hates me. We've had less luck with presidential candidates, Dukakis, Kerry, Romney, Ted Kennedy, kinda, and 80. Excuse me, can I just stop you right there? John F. Kennedy. I know, I know. If we go back a little further, we had one serious badass. But why are you the Massachusetts-an, I guess, Bay Stater, whatever you say, who can put it over the top? Look, for me, this isn't about politics. It just never was. This is my life's work. And it grows out of who I am. I am the daughter of a janitor who got a chance to be a public school teacher, to be a college professor, to be a United States senator, and now to be a public school teacher, to be a college professor, to be a United States senator, and now to be a candidate for president of the United States. Because America invested

in a college education for a kid like me, because America set the minimum wage at a place where my family could survive and didn't lose its home and get tossed out on the street. I believe in an America that recognizes the value of every kid. That's our best statement of who we want to be. I look around and see this government that just works great for those at the top. I want to make this government work great for everyone else.

That's why I'm in it. All right. Senator Warren, thank you so much for coming. I won't tell the other guys that you said Luca is the best and we can clearly hear Pundit barking as the interview

careens to a close. Yes, well, Bailey loves it all. Oh, Bailey. He's a dog. Thank you again. He's a good Bailey. He's a dog. Thank you again. He's a good dog. He's a very good dog. Bye.