Pod Save America - “Beto days to come.” (LIVE from Austin)

Episode Date: March 11, 2018

America sends its best negotiator to denuclearize a dictator, and Democrats craft an economic message for 2018. Then Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke joins Jon, Jon, Tommy, Dan, and Brittany on stage live at Austin City Limits. 

The Wow. Hello, Austin! These people, they're so quiet, I feel like I'm in Houston. Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau. Hey everyone, I'm Brittany Packnett. I'm Jon Packnett. I'm John Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Dan Pfeiffer.

We have a great show for you tonight. Your Democratic nominee for the United States Senate is here. Beto O'Rourke. Wow. All right. Ted Cruz is also here. Not a lot of Ted Cruz fans. All right.

Good note. All right, guys. Start with the news. There is a madman on the Korean Peninsula who is stockpiling nuclear weapons, and out of 300 million Americans, we are sending one man to convince Kim Jong-un that he should give up his arsenal,

Donald J. Trump. He's the dealmaker. That is correct. Well, so you're laughing, but here are some headlines. Washington Post, Trump secures a diplomatic coup with North Korea for now. CNN, why Trump's North Korea gamble makes sense. And my favorite, also from the Washington Post, Dennis Rodman praises plan for historic meeting. That was indeed a headline. I just... A world in which Dennis Rodman is being reached out to

for comment on the shenanigans of Donald Trump negotiating nuclear treaties. Is it a world we deserve? It belongs in a newsflash, in a screen, in a bad comedy about the future. You know? Yeah. And here we are.

That's all I wanted to say. We're right here. Sorry to interrupt. It's happening. Dictatorship! Dictatorship, apparently. We had cheers for cooperating witness last night. That's dictatorship.

That's fine. So, guys, I think we're all in agreement that the idea of direct diplomacy with adversaries is a good one. We thought it was a good idea when Obama was president as well. But Tommy, what is different about the way that Donald Trump went about this than, say, the way Obama went about negotiating the Iran deal? Yes. So let's talk about the process here for just a minute. The South Korean National Security advisor came to Washington to

brief us on these meetings in North Korea. Trump wasn't supposed to see him until Friday. He heard he was in the building on Thursday, so he summoned him to his office. So they sit down, they start to talk to him through what happened, and he's like, and so sir, Kim Jong-un would like to invite you to North Korea. I'll take it. And he accepts the deal, sight unseen. There's no national security meeting. There's no consultations with the Japanese or the Chinese. And then he directed the South Korean national security advisor to go announce it. And this guy had to literally call back to Seoul and be like, hey, is this cool? Can I make this announcement? Now, a brief aside about the announcement. This is a minor detail. But there's a lot of places in the White House where you can make an announcement. There's the Oval Office,

there's the East Room, there's the Press Briefing Room. They send this guy out to the driveway at 7 p.m. at night to make the announcement in the dark. Not ideal for reasons I don't need to explain to you. Why are these process points relevant? Because this stuff is really complicated. It took, the Iran deal took seven years to negotiate and that there was intelligence collection, there were sanctions, there was diplomacy, there were secret talks, there were not so secret talks. This is highly technical stuff. You have to agree on like basic terminology, like what does denuclearization mean to you? It's like a relationship. You have to, you have to figure out how you're

going to verify that they actually got rid of their nuclear material. And so the stakes couldn't be higher. They have up to 60 nuclear weapons. And if head of state negotiations can't sort this out, what comes next? A military option. So apparently the North Koreans are reading Fire and Fury to get prepared. Hopefully Trump is talking to his buddy, Dennis Rodman. But the challenge is that Trump dismisses expertise. He thinks it's irrelevant. He goes with the gut. And he's so thirsty for a deal that in the meanwhile, he's accepted this sight unseen. Kim gets the prestige of this meeting and hopefully, you know, presumably a bunch of happy talk. And by the way, he's holding like 80 to 130,000 people in literal concentration camps back home.

So I pray this works. I'm glad that their risky gambit was diplomatic and not military, but there is a better way to run a railroad that would likely lead to a better outcome. End of spiel. This is... Do you remember when

Kramer got burned by coffee? And the coffee company is like, alright, we're going to offer him lifetime coffee and a million dollars. And they walk into the room and they say to Kramer, we're going to give you lifetime coffee. I'll take it!

Well... Laughter room and they say to Kramer, we're going to give you lifetime coffee. I'll take it. It's actually the same thing. There's a list of things that should come with the meeting that if you don't interrupt, you get. Well, I was going to say, so much of the press is like, of course, the White House is saying Trump's known for his deals. He's known for negotiating. But Brittany, what have we learned over the last year about the success of Donald Trump's negotiating style? We've learned that he makes terrible deals. They're terrible for me. They're pretty bad for most of the people in this room.

My favorite part of this whole thing, though, is that Tillerson is out here and he's like, Look, I was very clear that I do not believe this is the appropriate time for negotiation. And I'm just anticipating the press conference where he gets behind the podium and looks at everyone and says, I tried. I'm not even very good at my job, but I did try. And he sort of knows, he's like, you know what I'm doing. Yeah, it's like, you know, so I am continuously worried about any deals that he makes, especially when his staff is doing their very best to prevent the meeting from being one-on-one. If you are a dealmaker, you can be trusted like an adult to go into the room and have the conversation. Clearly he can't be.

I mean, I just, I don't know when we're going to stop referring to him as a dealmaker, considering that since he's become president, I mean, since he's become president, he's failed to renegotiate the Paris Climate Agreement, failed to renegotiate NAFTA, failed to negotiate Middle East peace, which he said would be easy, of course. Jared's got that one.

Failed to get Mexico to pay for the wall. Failed to negotiate a replacement for Obamacare. Failed to negotiate a solution on DACA. Let the Republicans negotiate the tax cut among themselves. Failed to negotiate gun control legislation. And failed to negotiate that toupee. And failed to negotiate the toupee. I would say that you're forgetting

the literally dozens of very well negotiated hush payments. There it is. He fumbled the literally dozens of very well-negotiated hush payments. There it is. I couldn't even negotiate it. He fumbled the hush payments. Yeah, but he keeps forgetting to sign the paperwork. Yeah, yeah.

He may have, look, it seems he bungled at least one of them. However, however, you don't, it's like the CIA. You don't see their, his successes. With the hush payments. But he's bad at this, right? He meets with Chuck and Nancy about DACA, he strikes a deal, and then the Republicans pull him back, and the whole thing falls apart.

So thinking about when he actually sits down with Kim Jong-un. Love it. What is the psychology going into that meeting? If you're Kim Jong-un, Love it. What is the psychology going into that meeting? What is, if you're Kim Jong-un, what do you? I'm sorry. I just keep imagining an episode of Pinky and the Brain and I can't, I can't get it out of my head.

How are you, how are you playing it if you're Kim Jong-un? We've, you know, we've talked about this before. The Donald Trump playbook is the simplest playbook in the world. You compliment him, you say nice things to him, and then you're best friends. It's hard to even

say because I don't understand what they will be put in a room to talk about. No, but sincerely, what Tommy said is true. We don't have the same goals. We don't have the same expectations for what the outcome of this is. If the goal here is for North Korea

to give up their nuclear weapons, that's very complicated, but ultimately that's something that both sides have to agree to. How did those two people talk? Are they going to meet at the end of this process? Are they going to meet at the beginning of this process? It's actually hard to... The North the North Korea problem. You know,

we can make fun of Trump, but it's really serious. Obviously we all know it's really serious, but it's a bipartisan failure for decades. For decades, no one has known how to handle this and it has gotten worse and worse and worse for a simple reason. North Korea had realized that the safest thing they could do was develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible, no matter what anyone said or tried to do. And they've been pretty much proven right by that assumption. So the truth is, I don't know what Donald Trump can say, and I don't know what Kim Jong-un can say, because I don't know how you change that fundamental dynamic, which is at the heart of this problem. It has nothing to do with personalities. And the fact that Donald Trump is an adult racist senior doesn't make it better.

But we had some pretty smart presidents before him who had no idea how to work this shit out. Well, I was going to ask, why would Kim Jong-un even want to give up his nuclear program at this point? Do you think it's the sanctions working? I mean, what are the possible reasons for him wanting to have this meeting? I don't know. There's probably not a good answer to that because we know so little about how he thinks. But to Lovett's point, the North Korea problem is unique because they operate with a different set of incentives than any other nation in the world, right? They are not connected to the global economy in any way,

shape, or form. They do not care if their people are starving. They do not care to be shamed in the same way that other countries do. Being isolated is, they've been isolated for a long time. They're fine with that. And it's like, we don't really know because if you read a story in Reuters about how this came about is the North Koreans and the South Koreans met, which is very good since they're neighbors. And over drinks, Kim Jong-un made comments about how sure I'd meet with Donald Trump. Then they brought it back and Donald Trump accepted it and here we are. Like none of the work that went into this, and this is the point Tommy was making, which is the head of state meeting comes at the end. The experts get together and figure out

how this works. What are the actual... So like Seb Gorka gets together with... You get all the top minds. You get Seb Gorka. You get that guy from Cable News last week. Jesse Waters gets in there. Scaramucci can help.

Don't forget Dennis Rodman. Dennis Rodman comes. I mean, that goes to the problem. Omarosa comes. Yeah, we have no experts anymore. The experts have been shut out. Keep it. Tommy, what's the best case scenario here?

And then let's do worst case scenario, and then we can all... Let's not do worst case scenario. When everyone knows what worst case scenario is, why is that necessary? It's Friday. I think knows what worst case scenario is. Why is that necessary? It's Friday. I think we need to educate people here. You know, I mean, like, best case scenario in my mind is,

you know what, this problem has been approached for decades, like Lovett was saying, and it hasn't worked. And so flipping over the apple cart and trying something entirely new gets us to a different place. And maybe there's some sort of climb down of tensions maybe there's some sort of uh ratcheting down of sanctions or something in north korea and they agree to allow inspections and people on the ground or what have you but they already have an icbm capability that is assessed to be able to strike the united states

they already have 20 to 60 nuclear weapons, according to the intelligence community. So they are a nuclear-armed state that is developing the capacity to hit the United States. So this is a very different level of problem than even the Iran deal was trying to tackle. And so there's not a lot of... Because they didn't have the weapons yet. There's not a lot of great outcomes here, yeah. And I think in the worst-case scenario, I mean, I saw Senator Chris Murphy tweeted this today, like, you can see a scenario where the negotiations don't go well, and Trump somehow feels slighted, as he

often does, and then decides that diplomacy is over, and now it's time for a military strike, right? I mean, that's the downside. It's a big downside, if you will. But we're all pulling for you, DJT. The worst case scenario of a Korean war is, depending on

what kind of weapons Kim Jong-un chooses to use, you're talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of people dead. If he uses a nuclear weapon or a biological weapon or a chemical weapon, it's a war on a level that is so catastrophic that it's almost unimaginable to anyone that didn't live through World War I.

So, you know, this is high-stakes stuff. We need him to be successful. We're all rooting for him here. But, you know, it would be great if they approached this in a slightly more thoughtful way. It would also be great if he wasn't our president. Yeah, that's right. I was just going to say,

one of the more hopeful things I read today is that the White House sort of walked back the May deadline for this meeting and they said it might be longer than that. And I'm like, yo, push it till 2020. February 2021. Let's have this meeting. Let's just kick a can down the road a little bit. You know when you're supposed to meet with somebody

because they had some thing they wanted to talk to you about and you're not really friends and it keeps getting pushed back? And you're not really that mad about it? You're not mad about it. Both of you keep canceling. Maybe it'll be one of those. We'll end on that hopeful note. Let's move on to the latest economic news. The Labor Department's February employment report was released today and it was excellent. The economy added 313,000 jobs and unemployment stayed at a low 4.1 percent. The U.S. has now added jobs for a record 89 months in a row, a streak that began in April of 2010. Thanks, Obama.

That's right. That's right. I ended with that. I was going to do a little upswing there. I love it. It's great. But this is also, it's no longer just statistics. A new Axios SurveyMonkey poll out this morning

says that half of all voters in the 10 states that voted for Trump but have Democratic senators up in 2018 say that the economy is better off now than it was a year ago. Question, Brittany, you're running for Senate in one of those states, maybe where you're from, in Missouri. What do you say about the economy? Hey, Missouri.

Hey, Missouri. What do you say about the economy when you're on the trail with these numbers and this backdrop? Wait, who am I? Am I actually trying to win or am I just me? You're trying to win. What do you mean you're trying to win? The Senate hangs in the balance. I mean, I'm trying to win or am I just? You're trying to win. Okay. What do you mean you're trying to win? The Senate hangs in the balance.

I mean, I'm trying to win, but I'm just saying police in St. Louis like to tear gas me. So I don't know if I'm going to win this statewide election. Truth be told. The conversation that we have to have is not just about employment, right? It's about the kinds of jobs folks are getting, how long they're able to stay in those jobs. Are they able to grow in those jobs? and are we distributing those jobs equally across sectors? Is it happening across racial lines? Is it happening across rural and city lines? Because what we know is that the wage gap continues to increase, both along racial lines and gender lines.

And let's be very clear, especially given where we are in the tech industry especially, we see women being paid less than they should be. And women of all races getting even less than the average. And I think it's really important to note that Donald Trump cannot fix the gender wage gap by the hush money he keeps paying to the women he harasses. So that would probably be the end of my stump speech. Is that why he's doing it? You know.

He's going to claim that's why. The same way he claimed he fixed black unemployment. Yes. The Lilly Ledbetter hush money payments. Might have named the episode. Dan, what's your stump speech on the economy? Well, I think it's first, it's important to understand what those numbers mean, which is people's approval of the economy is actually a lot less about the economy

than it is what party they're a member of. So when Barack Obama was president, he inherited a little bit of a shit sandwich from George Bush. A bit. A bit. A bit. Small one. Losing $700,000 jobs a month, economy shrinking 9% in a quarter. And when you polled people and you said, do you think the economy is going well or poorly?

The people who gave the economy the highest ratings were African-Americans and Latinos. They also happened to be the people who were doing, hurt the most by the economy. It's because they liked President Obama. On the first Gallup poll after Trump won, the overall approval rating in the economy stayed about the same, but the people who thought it was doing well completely flipped. And Republicans who hated it when Obama was president now approved of it. So it is a little bit of a no shit Sherlock's or a situation here that these Republican states, people believe that.

But so that's not what I would worry about if I was a Democratic senator running in the states. The Republicans have given us the greatest messaging opportunity in the world with the tax cut because they should be talking about the fairness of the economy because that people care so much more about not just how well they're doing, but whether the rich are getting the advantages or they're not. And this tax bill does that. And so to make that argument about the fairness, making the economy more fair for middle class and working class families,

it's a very easy message to do. It's one we know works. And they just have to do it. Like, you can't get twisted into this pretzel about, like, I gotta, like, credit Trump and do this. Just make the same progressive economic argument that has been working for a long time. Yeah, I think that's right.

I don't know how to make this part of the right message. But I do think that what we're seeing with wages not going up very fast is sort of the same structural economic problem we've seen for decades, that the economy grows, the economy contracts, and yet we don't see benefits accruing to the vast majority of people. I think part of what explains Trump, beyond all the obvious causes, Part of what explains Trump, beyond all the obvious causes, is some kind of fundamental sense amongst people that things aren't fair and that we, each of us, don't have as much dignity in the society as we used to have.

And that's something that crosses parties, because I think you see some of that same feeling in the desire for revolutionary change with Bernie Sanders. It's something you see across races. Donald Trump appealed to it by using racism for white voters, but that same sense that something is broken in our economy, in our culture, that saps us of dignity in our dealings with our bosses at work, where we don't feel we have enough power, with the companies we give money to every day, the cable companies and the airlines and the banks and the people we deal with. And I think Democrats don't necessarily have, none of us have the language for how to talk about this. And I don't have the language to talk about this, but I think about it all the time. I think about it when we talk about the way

in which people leave the Trump administration and pay no price for it. And it seems like it's disconnected. But a culture that doesn't prize basic values about fairness, integrity, honesty, is a culture in which people feel as though they're not going to be in which the only way to get ahead is to cheat and steal and lie. And

that brokenness is part of our politics and it's a huge part of our culture right now and I don't think anyone has the language really to talk about it. Tommy? I guess my reaction is this conversation makes me frustrated all over again about all the post-2016 presidential election analysis when everyone decided that despite the fact that we are increasing jobs at a pretty

consistent clip despite the fact that unemployment was lowering that it was a failure to talk to and reach the white working class voters who weren't feeling lifted up by its economy that was the problem and why hillary lost when you know we've seen this sort of partisanship of every uh statistic that exists um how you feel about the economy being just the latest. So, you know, it is part of the broader sickness and challenge that Lovett was just talking about,

about how everyone is viewing things from a specific lens that is breaking down by party. But, you know, we got to work on that. We got to talk to everybody. Yeah, I think you got to look at the broader picture. And it's what Brittany said, that there is still a huge wage problem in this country.

Last year, the top 10% of other wages grew by nearly 4%. Most people's wages grew by 0.2%. Three million people lost their health care last year. Premiums are going up over the next couple of years, particularly because Trump tried to sabotage Obamacare. Cost of child care is up. Cost of tuition is up. Cost of totalitarian tuition is up.

Paul fucking Ryan just announced this week that he wants to do a commission on Social Security to privatize it. They want to cut Medicare. I mean, this is the message. This is what the Democrats have to say. It doesn't matter how well the economy is doing. I'm glad you brought up Paul Ryan,

because... I know you have some feelings. It's a very popular statement here. Dan's mentor. There is no reliable retweet more reliable than a criticism of Paul Ryan from Dan Pfeiffer. Dan Pfeiffer.

Dan Pfeiffer hits RT on anti-Paul Ryan tweets. I mean, just, he practically breaks the glass on the phone. Go on. This is exactly right. Paul Ryan did not give a shit about adding a trillion dollars to the deficit to pass the tax cut. But now that we've passed the tax cut and all those rich friends and the Kochs got wealthier,

now, oh, my God, deficits again. We must cut Social Security. And so a message that says that the tax cut that Donald Trump, the Kochs, millionaires and billionaires are going to be paid for by cutting your Social Security benefits will be the most powerful message tested in recent history, and it has the benefit of being accurate. The other thing that flummoxes Democrats is, well, you know, some people did get tax cuts from this. Like it's, you know, it's maybe $75 a pay period, or it's going to be a thousand bucks a year. And they're like, well, that's a thousand

bucks. You can't be against a thousand bucks. But what it, it does, it misses a point of human psychology and behavior, which is, you know, there is a thing in economics called the ultimatum game, where you say you give someone, I give, well, I'll just $100. And he gets divided up between him and Tommy. And he only gets to keep it if Tommy accepts the deal. And if he says, Tommy, I will give you $35 of these dollars, but I'm keeping the rest. People reject that. Like they don't want their $35 if they know the Kochs are getting $2 billion. And so. What if I do like 55, 45? If the rich people were getting that, like a distribution of the tax cut like that, it might be different, but that's not what they did. And we have to make that argument every single day between now and November. I'm really glad we're talking about

this. And if I take your original question about what I would actually say if I were running for office, I would say what I am looking to candidates and politicians to do, which is have the courage to talk about what is happening to the most marginalized in society. Because what we say in our communities is that when America gets a cold, marginalized people get the flu. So if you are a person of color, if you are a woman, if you are disabled, if you belong to the LGBTQIA community, you have additional burdens and barriers that you are dealing with alongside of what other people are dealing with. So I want candidates to talk about the fact that white high school dropouts have more wealth than black

college graduates. I want candidates who will talk about the fact that it is predicted that by 2053, black people in this country will have zero wealth. And by 2073, Latinx people in this country will have zero wealth. I want politicians who are committed to being courageous enough to figure out how to solve the economy for all of us and not just some of us. That's great. So it seems pretty clear that populist economics

is a political winner in this environment. I do not know if it has broken through to every Democrat in Washington just yet. because this week, 17 Democrats joined with Republicans to support a bill that would deregulate 25 of the largest 38 banks in the United States, and it could increase the chance of another bailout. So the senators who are for this bill, their argument is that it would provide relief to community and regional banks that didn't cause the financial crisis, but are struggling under Dodd-Frank regulations. Now, this is something that a lot of Democrats have worried about over the last couple years. Even

Elizabeth Warren was saying, you know, community banks, we have to relieve them of some of the more burdensome regulations. But in this bill, the threshold became much bigger than community and regional banks and started going up to what would have been countrywide, which was a bank that contributed to the crisis in 2008. Dan, why are Democrats for this? Why are these Democrats? What is the political thinking here? I mean, I will believe that their intentions were good at the outset of this process, but they ended up with a bit of a shit burger here. Yes.

So what's going on here? I would say two things about this. One, like it is legislative and political malpractice in my view. One, Republicans want this bill really bad. If you're going to give them the votes to get this bill, they should have gotten a better deal out of it. Second, most, but not all of the Democrats are voting for this are in states Trump won. And in some cases by a lot. If you think being with

Trump on this bill is going to help you, then you've completely misunderstood 2016. Because being, in two ways, one, the Republicans are still going to attack you and they will probably attack you for siding with Wall Street for voting for this bill because that's how they play it. You know who ran against Wall Street and the banks in 2016? Donald Trump. Yeah, if candidate Donald Trump was out there,

he would be all over this bill attacking it. But I would say another thing, people are really pissed off about this. I've been pissed off about it. But I do think we have to put it in a little bit of context of these Democrats, which is, and not also presume the most cynical motives of them, right? Because Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, who have been reliable progressive champions in a lot of things, are for this bill. They're not in a state that

Trump won. They are, Tim Kaine's up for re-election, Mark Warner is not. So, like, we shouldn't be like, we disagree with them on this. We're going to throw them out of the party. Because these are the same people who voted to save Obamacare, who have voted against almost everything that Trump has put forward. And so, I think we should push them to do the right thing here. But we can't be in the world where we're going to decide, you're wrong on this, we're done with you, get out, get us a new Democrat. I agree.

Love it. What do you think? I think that's right. I think we can be a little bit more cynical about the motives. But that aside, I am more angry about the political malpractice than the policy, though I don't like the policy. I don't understand

why even now they aren't demanding more. Well, I mean, Brian Boyle was talking about this. They need 60 votes to pass this bill in the Senate. Democrats could have easily said, okay, this eases regulations on some banks that are a little too big that we don't like, but

Mick Mulvaney is running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau right now temporarily, and there's no permanent head of that bureau right now. So if you want us to vote for this bill, you give us an independent consumer watchdog that is real, that will make sure that agency has teeth, and then we can compromise

about this. And I don't understand why they're just giving them the votes without trying to get something. That is something they could get. That is actually something they could get. They could get a moderate, reasonable, kind of technocratic leader of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Trump would be okay with and promise democratic votes and get a new appointee. That's absolutely achievable. There are just some really disconcerting

parts of this bill on just a basic policy level. Banks $50 billion or less are not subject to certain additional oversight, like stress tests and other things. It raises that level to $250 billion, which, as John was saying, Countrywide Financial was a $215 billion bank, and that was a huge piece of the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. So people who wrote the bill have said, yeah, 5-0 is too small, but $250 is way too big. So that to me seems like a totally screwed up legislative priority. The other thing it does is it exempts them from certain reporting that would allow us to understand discrimination in loans. And how that got into this piece of legislation, it makes no sense to me. So I think, you know, a little bit of scrutiny

here, a little bit of pressure on these Democrats, who I agree, they shouldn't be thrown out of the party by any means. But if they hear from constituents that we're really unhappy about this, they won't do it again. The other thing is, liberals were correct in saying that, you know, Dodd-Frank was a compromise. Dodd-Frank was, there was a decision that Dodd-Frank wouldn't be a nationalization of the banks. It wouldn't be a giant reform of the various systems that currently oversee the financial system. It was targeted. What Tommy is talking about, this threshold, this extra scrutiny for bigger banks, it was specific. And it was specific because what we learned after the crisis is, if we don't look at banks in a more systemic way,

we won't notice that across all their balance sheets is a ticking time bomb that can destroy the economy. Exactly. That is what happened, right? That all these different banks were doing similar things and it added up to a crisis not enough people saw coming. So to take Dodd-Frank and its targeted, right, practical compromise oversight proposition

and then eliminate it for huge swaths of enormous financial institutions just because you're worried correctly about community banks i don't think it's good i mean part of what also happened as we have seen it contributed to the wealth gap that i'm talking about with people of color right because we know that banks specifically targeted black and latinx communities with subprime loans which has led to additional crises in our communities so i'm hopeful that we'll see far different things coming from this bill because I'm deeply worried about what discrimination can

happen under this. I'm also hoping while they're negotiating and saying now that you're finally ready to have a bipartisan conversation, I'm hoping they'll actually push their Republican colleagues to finally have a bipartisan conversation about DREAMers and actually pass a bill for undocumented Americans. I said, there's one other thing about this, which this goes to the legislative malpractice pieces. The house still has to pass something. So we're going to pass this bill. Paul Ryan's going to make it a lot worse. And now these Democrats are in a position where they are, they have voted for it. And so they're to flip-flop and vote against it or pass an even worse bill yeah and so they should have made the house pass something first or started the

negotiation much further in their direction and so it's it's bad we can't we can't lull ourselves into reducing oversight during the good times and get to a catastrophe again. We have to keep the pressure on. But, yeah. No catastrophes. But again, I think we have not run out of time on this yet. You know, the bill has not passed yet. And so you should still be able to pressure those senators who voted for it to try to change this bill for the better. And like you said, I don't think you go to them and say, you've betrayed us and why did you do this? Like, we got to tell them to have a tougher bill and to ask for more from the Republicans. And I think if you put that pressure on, and the pressure's already happening now,

then we could actually see some changes in this. Can't we also say that we feel betrayed? Well, you could say that, too. You could say that, too. Get your feelings out there, Levin. We could say that here on stage. Tommy said negotiating is a bit like counseling. It's a bit like couples.

And it's important to start with I feel. I feel. I feel, Kim Jong-un, that you should give up the nuclear weapons. I feel, Tim Kaine, that this bill doesn't do enough to not be bad. And I would like you to... I hear you. I hear you. So we just...

I hear you, but I have a DSCC fundraiser on Tuesday. Just kidding. Are you kidding? It makes me feel that when you do a bill that seems too beneficial to Wall Street while we're also raising money from Wall Street... Okay, I feel like... You've talked about it.

You say it's in front of them. Yep, we got it. I don't want to I feel like you've talked about this. You say it's in front of them. Yep, we got it. I don't want to fight here again. We talked about this. You know I don't like talking in lifts. I don't feel comfortable. These men and their feelings, my God. It's okay. It's okay.

Now for a segment we call Okay, Stop. Here's how it works. We'll roll a clip, and then we'll talk about it. We'll stop it whenever we want to by saying, okay, stop. As we've all learned in recent months, there is a crisis in our society in the different way we treat men and women. Men cannot get a fair shake anymore.

You all just learned that? This is great. This is good. You seem skeptical, but a man by the name of Tucker Carlson will convince you. Let's roll the clip. of, it says Tucker Carlson, will convince you. Let's roll the clip. Ugh, that's all we do.

We hear a lot about female empowerment in this country, and of course we're totally for that, we're for empowering all Americans, but for some reason you almost never hear anything about how men. Just before we get to it, just want you all to know if you're listening, that the words beneath Tucker say, it says,

Men in America airing every Wednesday in March. I feel like Men in America is airing every day, all the time. All day. I don't know if it's every Wednesday in March. ...are doing in America. So we took a close look at the numbers, and we found them so shocking that we're devoting the month of March

to a special series on men in America. Every Wednesday, starting tomorrow. Okay, stop, wait. Oh, man, Tucker and his bangs crack me up. Okay. So listen, I get it. We had Black History Month, Women's History Month.

It's finally your turn. Very excited to see what you do with it. Hope that you finally get the equality you've always been looking for. Good. By the scope of the crisis we were, it's a largely ignored disaster, and it is a disaster. It affects every person in America. Okay, stop. He's got a point. The men being in charge is a fucking disaster

right now. I will tell you, Tommy, there was a slightly higher tone to those cheers than previous cheers. Yeah. Also heartened by some of the potential solutions we're looking at, we kick off tomorrow night with renowned psychologist and thinker Jordan Peterson.

Finally, if you were to give parents of boys... Okay, stop. You can't see it at home, but it's a white dude. In case you were wondering. In case you were wondering. In case you were wondering, that's the psychologist on it. Piece of advice for how, diversity, inclusivity, white privilege, systemic racism, any of that, you take your children out of the class. Okay, stop, stop, please stop.

Oh my God, I didn't watch this clip before we did it. Oh my God, I didn't see it either. I didn't either. I wish you had warned me. Oh my god. I didn't see it either. I didn't either. I wish you had warned me. Oh my god. That's cute though because he read the whole woke dictionary. That was real cute. Listen.

I came here and my finest retro 11Js and my thankfully accurately flesh toned microphone to tell him and anybody who thinks like that to have a coke and a smile And my thankfully accurately flesh-toned microphone. To tell him and anybody who thinks like that to have a Coke and a smile and a seat. This is what always happens.

Because when you have always experienced privilege, equality, and equity, and diversity, and all those things he named off, they always feel like oppression. It's just an inconvenience. You'll be okay. That is exactly right. And like when the Me Too movement started in this country, a lot of people looked at it and said, this is unearthing real problems in the country. Like what solutions can we have? What sort of activism organization can we do to improve behavior, improve outcomes in this country. Fox News said, aha, I see a sweeps week move here. But there is a real truth to it, which is they see this as an opportunity, just as they have done as the country gets more diverse as a way to make money and do politics

around white victimization. This is exactly how they're going to play Me Too, which is, oh my God, men are in huge trouble. Watch Sean Hannity at nine. Yeah. I just want to note that this guy's talking about America from Toronto. They're not being educated. They're being indoctrinated.

And there's absolutely no excuse for it. I agree with that completely. You might run out of schools pretty quickly. That would be just fine. It's hard to express my gratitude to you for telling the truth as you do. Thank you very much for that. Okay. I just, I don't, I feel like he did not prepare well for this interview. Very weird clip sentences. I will say, you know, there's no crisis for men. But what they're not wrong about is that there is a crisis in masculinity, which terrifies them specifically.

There's a crisis in that we have decided a certain way of being a man, which worked for men and no one else for roughly 150,000 years, from literally the first, from the beginning, is there are parts of that that have wrenched our society and held people down and hurt people and hurt men too. And I think what Fox News is exploiting

and what they're noticing is we don't have the next thing, right? Like we are learning a lot about the way men aren't supposed to behave. And I think what we replace that with is really scary because it's uncertain for people. And I think it's uncertain for Fox News viewers and there's nothing they like more

than exacerbating the fears and uncertainty of their aging white male viewers is it is it is it that we don't know what to replace it with or they just don't like what we're going to replace it with yeah yeah no i feel like the fear here is actually the loss of power, right? And that what we're talking, the updated and evolved version of masculinity that we're talking about seeds power, and that is actually what people are afraid of. I think that's right.

I think it's a few things. I think obviously a big part of this is the seeding of power. But separately, I do think that there is a feeling of, for a lot of men who were quite comfortable with the way things used to be, it wasn't just about power, it was about identity. A lot of what Fox News is is white male identity politics. Really?

Well, when Trump says we used to punch people, we used to knock them around, he's speaking to a way of being male that appeals to people, that they liked about themselves and they feel it's being taken from them because of all the damage it's done. And also the damage it's done to their own sense of self and how they're supposed to be

and what they're allowed to say and what they're not allowed to feel and the clothes they're allowed to wear and not allowed to wear. And maybe they want to wear a skirt, you know? But, so I think it's good, that's all. Yes, I respect and hear your feelings on that. Thank you for sharing.

That means the world to me. And I'm so glad we've had this conversation. That's the deepest conversation that's ever been had and ever will be had about that television clip. Right there. When we come back, we will be talking to Congressman Beto O'Rourke. Our guest tonight is the incredibly impressive congressperson representing the 16th district of Texas.

He needs no introduction. Federal law. I think they like you. They like you. It's a good thing. Congratulations on the primary. Thanks for being here. So, Democratic turnout in the primary on Tuesday broke all kinds of records. This is a good thing. Republicans still cast a half million more votes in their primary.

So, first question, where are you going to get those 500,000 votes? First of all, let me just say thanks for having me on. And I'll tell you

from all of the people that I've met with a friend of the pod shirt at one of our town halls, you're giving so many people so much hope right now at a time that we need this. So thank you for what you're doing. Thank you all. I love that more than a million of our fellow

Texans voted in the Democratic primary. It's the high watermark for a midterm Senate race for 36 years going. I love that 1.5 million of our fellow Republican Texans got out there and voted. I love that 1.5 million of our fellow Republican Texans got out there and voted. It is the high watermark for them forever. That's a good thing for Texas. We are a non-voting state. We're not a red, we're not a blue state. People traditionally have not voted in Texas, so this is good for us.

And I'll tell you, as the son of a Republican mother, whom I've convinced to vote for me, and she did the other day, and as someone who was just in Cooper, Texas, and Pittsburgh, Texas, and Paris, Texas, so many people said to me, I'm going to be voting in the Republican primary, because that's how I pick my county commissioner, my county judge, maybe my member of Congress, but I will be voting for you in November. And there are a lot of people out there like that. So we're going everywhere, talking to everyone, not writing anybody off, not taking anyone for granted,

and we're just going to keep doing that. So the way, like the path to victory is two groups of people for you, right? It is convincing people like your mom, people who voted Republican before, who may be disenchanted with Trump, disenchanted with Ted Cruz, and getting them to vote for a Democrat.

And, and maybe even more importantly, Texans who've never voted before. What are you going to say to those people as you see them on the trail, both groups, to get them out to vote? This is my opinion, but more important than what I say to them is the fact that I show up and I listen to them.

So we've been going to places like UT Austin. Maybe you all have heard of it. But we've also been going to TCU and to SMU. And we'll be going to TSU south of here soon. We're going to go everywhere, listen to everyone. And no consultant worth their salt would ever allow us to go to a college campus or talk to a high school senior class because they say those folks don't vote but i don't blame them for not voting if no one ever

showed up and listened to them and heard what was on their mind and so we're going there and we're listening and we're making their issues our issues when someone uh we met this young man named clay in donley county in clarendon who was going to Clarendon Community College, studying to be a welder. And he had a Pell Grant, was working as a cowboy part-time, rustling up cattle in the Palo Duro Canyon to pay for his education. But he said, I don't know that I'm going to make it. I've also taken on debt. And I'm paying the note on the loan. And I may just give up. And he wants me to be the person who's going to champion his cause and make sure that his education is affordable and that he doesn't graduate with a ton of debt

on his back and that he can pursue his dreams, his passion, his career. People want to know why 45 years in, we're still waging the war on drugs and we're doubling down on that in this administration and why people who want to use marijuana for medical purposes in this state are treated as criminals in the eyes of the law or why we have the world's largest prison population bar none and it's the young people we were just in georgetown texas and it was a high school senior who came to the microphone and said before you say anything about your thoughts and your prayers, I want to know how you're going to keep me and my fellow students safe at our high school. So I want action on this. And I think any time we've had the toughest, most important change

that this country has had to make, it's been led by young people. You think of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. You think of my colleague, John Lewis, in the House, who's my all-time hero. It's those students and it's those young people who are going to force us to do the right thing. They have become our conscience and they are our leaders. And so by going to them and listening to them and following their lead, not only is it a way to get them to vote, it's a way for this country to do the right thing. So you're going to find us there. You're going to find us everywhere across this state. So I think that's the right thing to do.

What do you make of the fact that Ted Cruz's first chess move here was reminding people of what your first name is and calling you a liberal. He's clearly, so you're running your race, you're talking about the issues, you're meeting people. He's clearly going to try to get in your head. What's your thought process there? So not lost on most of the Texans that I'm meeting with is the fact that for the last five years, for the better part of that, Ted Cruz has literally not been in the state of Texas. He has visited every single one of the 99 counties of Iowa. He's been to New Hampshire. He's been to

South Carolina. He's campaigned in Nevada. The best applause or laugh line that I can deliver in a town hall is asking people in Waco or Pecos or Edinburgh, when was the last time Ted Cruz held a town hall meeting in your community? Because he never has. And if he had, he would know that Texas wants to lead the way from going from the least insured state in the country to making sure we have universal health care for everyone, every man, woman, and child in this country. They want to make sure that our racist gerrymandering laws in this state are changed so that members of Congress are no longer picking their voters. He would learn that people like Clay, like folks all over the state, want to be able to find a job that pays more than a living wage, returns some dignity and function and purpose in their lives. In this state, the defining immigrant story, the connection that America makes to the rest of the

world should be the one that leads on immigration, writes those laws in our own image, from our own experience. And as you all know, of the 98 senators who showed up to work four weeks ago to vote just to proceed on a debate about immigration reform specific to Dreamers, 200,000 of whom live in this state, there was one senator who turned his back on all of them and this country and the state of Texas, and that was Ted Cruz. And that's what people across this state are telling me. So we can talk about nicknames and we can talk about nicknames, and we can talk about the silly stuff, or we can talk about the big opportunities that Texas has to lead this country. And that's where I want to be.

You mentioned the high school student who brought up keeping him safe. How do you go in campaigning to make Texans safer from gun violence in what might be the most pro-gun state in the union? How are you doing that and how can that work? I think you begin by acknowledging that we have this incredibly proud, honorable tradition of gun ownership. So many people have stories about hunting with their moms or their dads or their grandparents, having a gun for self-protection, learning how to shoot as I did when I was taught by my Uncle Raymond, who was a captain in the county jail, sheriff's deputy, champion marksman. And he also taught me gun safety and gun responsibility.

So what state better than Texas to lead the way, to say that we should have universal background checks without exception? than Texas to lead the way to say that we should have universal background checks without exception. We know that in those states that do, you see a massive reduction in gun violence against an intimate partner, fewer girlfriends or boyfriends being killed. You see a dramatic reduction in gun violence against law enforcement, fewer cops and sheriff's deputies being murdered by those they were sworn to serve and protect. And this could be the state that leads the way on saying weapons of war, like an AR-15, that are designed for the sole purpose of killing people as effectively and as efficiently and as great a number as possible should not be sold to people in our streets who go into our schools, into our churches, into our concerts, and kill one another.

That's absolutely wrong. And we could be the state that leads that. And I'll tell you just a quick anecdote. Three weeks ago, we were in Brownwood, Texas, kind of between Fort Worth and Abilene. And a woman stood up at the town hall meeting that we were holding there. And she said, listen, I was born on a ranch just outside of Brownwood with a 22 in my hands. And I'm an independent voter, which I've learned. My mom's taught me the code. That means she's a Republican. And she says, but I also have 46 grandkids. And I want to know if I can trust you to stand up to the NRA, which was not the question I was

expecting her to ask. And I said, ma'am, not only have I not taken a dime from the NRA, which was not the question I was expecting her to ask. And I said, ma'am, not only have I not taken a dime from the NRA, I don't take any money from any political action committee, any corporation, any special interest. When I vote for something or work on legislation or take a stand, it's always going to be for you and your grandkids, no one else. And you'll never have to worry, but she, she can be forgiven you and your grandkids. No one else, and you'll never have to worry. But she can be forgiven for asking the question, because Ted Cruz, in 2016, just one year, took over $300,000

from the NRA. So, who does the guy work for? The NRA, or the people of Texas? So, I think that's the way that we have the conversation in this state. If you win this race, there is a pretty decent chance that it means the Democrats have taken control of the Senate. What are you telling the people that you meet about what a Democratic Senate could achieve

with Donald Trump as president in the next couple of years? Yeah. Let me start where there's already been some progress. I sit on the House Veterans Affairs Committee, and we have a crisis in mental health care access for veterans in this country that is connected to an alarming rate of suicide. 20 veterans a day, it's conservatively estimated,

every single day in this country take their own lives. For those veterans who have what are known as bad paper discharges, they have an other than honorable discharge, the suicide rate is twice as high. David Shulkin, the Secretary of the VA, the President's nominee, confirmed 100 to 0 in the Senate, has made reducing veteran suicide his number one clinical priority. And so we're able to work with him and the administration on this issue. I think that's one of the most sacred obligations we have. I would like to make more progress on that.

Republicans as well as Democrats, big city Texans as well as those living in the smaller counties, want to make sure that they can see a doctor, that their kids can go to a therapist, that they can afford medication. A school teacher just died this year in Weatherford, Texas of the flu in 2018. And I'll go to Weatherford or I'll go to Henrietta and folks will say what we have right now is not working. They may say I don't like Obamacare and they may blame President Obama or the Democrats for it, but they don't want to go back. They say, get something better. And for me, and for many of them, that means universal health care. Making sure everyone, not as a function of luck or privilege or circumstance, everyone can see a doctor. And

they just get that that is so much less expensive and so much better than what we're doing today. Lufkin, Texas, not a Democratic stronghold. Woman comes to the mic at the town hall and she says, I just want you to know that my brother gets arrested so that he can get mental health care at the county jail. We have learned that the county jail system in Texas is the single greatest provider of mental health care services in the state of Texas. It is so wrong. It is so expensive. It is absolutely the worst way to deliver care to people who not only are going to be better if they can receive that care, but they are going to be better for all of us. They're going to be able to work and pay taxes and finish their education and start business,

write novels, tour the country in punk rock bands, play music for the people who need to hear it, raise their families, and do so at a fraction of the cost. And who knows? Maybe that idea is so big, so important, so urgent right now that even with this administration, with enough Republicans and Democrats working together, we can get that done because it is connected to every other issue. If you're not healthy, you're not well enough to go to school, you're not well enough to go to work, you're not well enough to raise your family

and take care of yourself. And so we absolutely have to get that right. You all gave us a great start in the right direction, but we need to finish the job and make sure that every single person can do that. So that's one idea. Yeah. that every single person can do that.

So that's one idea. If people want to get involved in your campaign and want to help out, what should they do? I'm so glad you asked. Tough question to ask. The easiest way to do this is to text POD to 90975. So POD to 90975, and, pod to 90975. And we'll sign you up. You can become part of this.

And you can make something great happen, not just for Texas, but for the United States of America. So, thanks to everyone who's willing to do that. And lastly, and maybe just for tonight, most importantly, if you want to join us for a beer, we'll be at Buford's after this on 6th Street.

So, come out and have a beer with us. Before we let you go, we wanted to play one game because I know you played a game with Love It or Leave It last time. And I believe we have John Lovett here to host, as he often does. There he is. It's so good to see you again. You've come so far since you got your start on Love It or Leave It. Texas.

One of the greatest places on earth. And yet, maybe the greatest. And yet, you're represented in the Senate by the principal from the Breakfast Club if the principal from the Breakfast Club thought he should be president. Here's the thing about Ted Cruz. Exactly. He currently has a lower approval rating

than Roy Moore had on election day. If Ted Cruz were a Rotten Tomatoes score, he'd be Geostorm. If Ted Cruz was on the US News and World Report college rankings list, he'd be Trump University. If Ted Cruz was Texas Barbecue, he'd be the McRib. So we thought we'd highlight some of Ted Cruz's achievements in a game we call The Senator Who Wasn't There. Would anyone out there like to play the game? You know, I'm going to make an exception.

Yeah, I'm going to make an exception. Yeah, I'm going to make an exception. She's wearing merch, but it's Beto merch. It's happening. I feel like she was just called to contestants row. The price is right there. What's your name? Emily. Emily.

Lovely to meet you. Are you from Texas? I am. I even have a tattoo. You have those Beto songs? No, it's a tattoo. It's a Texas tattoo. It's a Texas tattoo.

In case you would forget. In case, yeah. I lived in Illinois for a while, so I needed to remember. This is my home. Good. Good. Emily, that's good. Thank you. Are you ready to... I'm so ready. This is my home. Good. Emily, that's good.

Are you ready to play? I'm so ready. Are you ready to play the game? Yes. Question number one. After serving less than one term in the Senate, Ted Cruz left the state of Texas and traveled around the country, running for president,

which became an exercise in being humiliated by Donald Trump. When asked whether he'd leave Texas and run again, what did he say? Was it A? Absolutely not. The people of Texas deserve a senator who is there for the needs of the state and not eating corn dogs in Iowa. Not only that, but a big, scary, rich man was mean to me,

and I don't want that to happen again. It made me feel bad. Was it B? After watching the first season of Front Night Lights, I realized that it must remain in Texas because, as they say, Texas forever. Then I saw season two of Front Night Lights, and I really think they shouldn't have had Landry kill that guy. And if I spoiled that for you, I do not apologize because I am Ted Cruz,

and of course I spoil shit. Or was it C? Life is long. We will see what the future holds. AKA, there's nothing that can stop me from running for president. It's how I'll prove to every moron out there that I'm likable. C? Emily, it's C.

Yeah. You did it. He's a narcissist. It only makes sense. You know, that's a good question about what motivates Ted Cruz. I don't think we should be armchair psychologists, but I do think it's pretty clear he's going to run for president until the day he dies.

Question number two. Immigration is one of the most important debates we can have, especially in Texas, a border state, and yet when the Senate recently voted to start an immigration debate, Ted Cruz was the only senator to vote against it. Why was it A? According to his Fitbit, he has to get in at least debate, Ted Cruz was the only senator to vote against it. Why was it A? According to his Fitbit, he has to get in at least 10,000 steps

and 10 votes that piss everyone off to hit his fitness goals. That's just using tech to... A B? Dan? Tommy Dan? Whoever, whatever. He was worried the immigration debate would go late

and everyone would see what he becomes at midnight. Or was it C? During a classic Cruz very long speech on the floor of the Senate, he said that DACA recipients don't deserve to stay in the country and Republicans who voted to even debate immigration are to the left of Barack Obama and for some reason he also said

I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day waking up reliving the same day over and over and over again. And of course, we can only hope that that is true because maybe at the end of it, he'll be a better person. C. Emily, it's C. I'm starting to think, I don't know how you feel, that we put our thumb on the scales on this one.

A little bit. Question number three. Texas is a state where people don't like to be pushed around. Anyway, when Donald Trump attacked the appearance of Ted Cruz's wife and also claimed that his father killed JFK,

how did cowboy Ted Cruz respond? Was it A? He challenged Donald Trump on the spot to a no-holds-barred fight in the octagon. He ripped off his shirt, spit on the ground, and then punched himself in the face, shouting, I love pain, let's do this. That one creates an image in your mind.

Or was it B? He recorded a five-minute straight-to-camera ad where he laid out the crisis in American conservatism. Shaking with anger and inhumanity, he defended his family and the norms of politics itself. Individually described by Democrats as Obama good. Or was it C? He gave a speech at the RNC and got

booed, but then like two days later, he totally chickened out and phone banked for Donald Trump, even though Donald Trump never apologized and still hasn't, which is incredible. I wish it was A, because I know he has a terribly punchable face, but I know it's C. It is C. It is C.

I take B, too. An Obama good video from Cruz. Yes. Question four, Emily. You're doing wonderfully. Thank you. You're doing great. Thank you.

I so admire this show. I think you're doing a lot for democracy. Can we get a correct ding? Leave it. Leave it in. Leave it in. Your final question. Being a successful senator requires you to work alongside your colleagues to make law. Which of the following quotes is something a Republican colleague has said about Senator Ted Cruz. Was it A?

Peter King from New York called him a con man and once said on TV, I hate Ted Cruz and I think I'll take cyanide if he ever gets the nomination. Was it B? John Cornyn, the other senator from Texas said, clearly he didn't come here to remain in the Senate. He came here to run for president. Was it C? John Boehner, former Speaker of the Texas said, clearly he didn't come here to remain in the Senate. He came here to run for president. Was it C? John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, said,

I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life. Was it D? Lindsey Graham, the Senator from South Carolina, who said, if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.

Was it E? Senator John McCain from Arizona who said, you know, it's always the wacko birds That get the media megaphone Was it F? Former President George W. Bush Who said I just don't like the guy

Or was it G? Ted Cruz Senator from Texas Who said If you want someone to grab a beer with, I may not be that guy. It's all of the above. You got it, Emily.

And that's right. Emily, you have won against so much. Who wasn't there. You've done it. Thank you for playing. This is why I think Beto's going to win,

because even his colleagues on his party don't like him. That was the... Yay! You totally got the message of the game. Give it up for Emily. And please, give it up for Congressman Beto O'Rourke. And make sure you turn all of this cheering into getting out there and doing what you can. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to Beto O'Rourke. Thank you, Austin. You've been a wonderful friend. We appreciate you. Thank you, Austin! Bye.