Pod Save America - Biden Secures Temporary Ceasefire, Trump Threatens Obamacare

Episode Date: November 28, 2023

As Biden successfully secures a temporary ceasefire in Gaza, Congress attempts to pass an aid package for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. But Republicans say they won’t pass anything unless Democrats agree to new demands related to US-Mexico border security. Meanwhile, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis are spending super PAC money going after each other in Iowa and New Hampshire. While their biggest competition, Donald Trump, says he is once again set on repealing Obamacare. And finally, George Santos rips into his congressional colleagues ahead of his possible expulsion from the chamber. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Shiesty Felon Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Welcome back from Thanksgiving, guys. Great to see you both. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Shiesty Felon Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Welcome back from Thanksgiving, guys. Great to see you both. Great to be back. Yeah, it sure is. Tommy's right here in studio. We love that. All healthy.

Thank you. So on today's show, we've got a lot to talk about. Congress fights over funding for Ukraine, Israel, and the southern border. The battle for second place heats up between Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. Trump threatens to make another run at repealing Obamacare. And George Santos has a very public and entertaining meltdown over his looming expulsion vote. But first, we are finally getting some good news out of Gaza. Late last week, negotiators in Qatar announced that Israel and Hamas had signed off on a temporary pause in

fighting and an agreement in which Hamas would release 10 or more hostages a day for four days and Israel in exchange would release Palestinian prisoners. That deal went into effect on Friday. Over the first three days of the truce, Hamas released a total of 58 hostages, primarily women and children, and Israel freed 117 Palestinian prisoners. On Monday, Israel and Hamas agreed to extend the pause in the fighting for two additional days. Here's President Biden, who helped broker the deal, speaking about the negotiations. For weeks, I've been advocating the pause in the fighting for two purposes, to increase the assistance getting into the Gaza civilians who need help,

and to facilitate release of hostages. And we know that innocent children in Gaza are suffering greatly as well because this war that Hamas has unleashed has such consequences. This deal is structured so that it can be extended to keep building on these results. That's my goal. That's our goal, to keep this pause going beyond tomorrow so that we can continue to see more hostages come out and surge more humanitarian relief into those in need in Gaza. Tommy, what's your take on the deal and the Biden

administration's role in making it happen? I think the deal was unequivocally a good thing. And frankly, it was probably pretty clear from the beginning that some sort of negotiation was going to be the best way to get back hostages and to get humanitarian aid into Gaza. There's no doubt that President Biden and his team has been working this really hard behind the scenes. There's been lots of talk of the CIA director flying all around the world. President Biden's been on the phone with Netanyahu like almost daily, it seems, talking to the Emir of Qatar. And it sounds like Biden himself has helped unstick the negotiations at moments when it seemed like it could fall apart. So I definitely think they deserve a lot of credit. Where they lose me a little bit is when they claim that this deal happening is somehow evidence that the hug BB approach is the best and only way

to conduct foreign policy with the Israeli government. But like this, this ceasefire happening, getting prisoners home, the hostages home, it's, it's a very good thing. Love it. Yeah. I mean, the, the, the two stories that I think that stuck out to me is one, just stories that, that describe who the hostages were. And it just reminds you that this was, I mean, these are in some cases, children returning to like a completely broken life who watched their parents murdered and then were held in captivity. It's old people who were, you know, have medical needs. And it just, in the stories of the hostages, you see the depravity of what unfolded. And then at the same time, you have stories coming out in the last day or two that report that the level of civilian destruction and death and inhumanity in Gaza is at a pace like unrivaled in this century,

a level of destruction and that you have to go back to Vietnam or World War II to find an equivalent of. And so any respite from that, any pause in that, any way of diplomatically resolving this conflict is a good thing. Yeah. I guess the Biden administration's argument on the hug strategy is, you know, if they had pressed Bibi for a ceasefire early or even threatened to withhold aid earlier, then Bibi wouldn't have listened. He would have invaded anyway. And then Biden would have lost a chance to rein him in in the future because I guess Bibi would have been pissed at Biden for scolding him.

But I just don't know. First of all, it's impossible to know. It's impossible to prove the counterfactual, but I don't know. It's like, to Levitt's point, you look at the New York Times had a report over the weekend about the civilian casualties and they estimated 10,000 Palestinian women and children killed so far. And it just seems like there's there's no way that Gaza is a densely populated area and that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, you can believe both of those things to be absolutely true and And which is not to say that some sort of response wasn't warranted, but there's a lot of space between we have to do something and what has happened so far. I think the other challenge

for the Biden team and for the United States is that the entire world thinks that the US was fully supportive of and bought in to what has happened so far. And there is still the question of what comes next after this ceasefire expires, because I assume that Hamas will hold on to a certain number of prisoners, probably military males, like the adult members of the IDF they took. Although Hamas considers every Israeli to be a military prisoner because they're mandatory military service. But so we'll see what happens next. Hopefully that Biden is better able to use that leverage to rein in any future military effort, assuming there is one.

Well, one of the ways he has leverage, and we talked about this last episode, is potentially conditioning aid to Israel so that they only get help from the U.S. if they take certain steps, chief among them being reducing civilian casualties. Biden was actually asked about this over the weekend. He called it a worthwhile thought, which I had not expected him to say. I don't know if you did. I was excited when I heard him say that, but then I watched the Sunday shows and Jake Sullivan, his national security advisor, pretty firmly walked it back in several different interviews. So I don't think that they're seemingly going to entertain conditioning aid. I think they still think that this like direct high level private diplomacy

with NIAO is the best way to influence Israeli behavior. I mean, I guess it's obviously up to them whether they sign a supplemental if a supplemental passes. And we'll talk about that. We already talked about how Bernie Sanders put out a statement and then he also wrote an op-ed over the weekend saying that aid needs to be conditioned. Senator Chris Murphy was asked about this. He's open to the idea as well. I just wonder, like, I wonder how many Democrats you get on this and if it's enough to actually shape the package. But I guess, you know, we'll see. Tommy, what kind of conditions? Obviously, there's been a lot of options floating around. We've talked about some of them.

What would you like to see attached to the next aid package? Well, I do think that Murphy to Bernie Sanders gets you sort of the range. Like Murphy basically said, we should condition aid to ensure it's used in accordance with international human rights laws. That does seem like the absolute bare minimum that one should do. That's not a criticism of Murphy. It just seems like that's obviously we should do that.

And is also, I think, kind of an affirmation of what is already U.S. law. Yeah. I believe. Right. Yeah. In the 2020 primary, Ben Rhodes and I worked with, we did an event with JSTRE where we tried to get all the candidates to agree to saying that USAID should not be used to annex the West Bank or

otherwise support settlement construction. I think that's another obvious one. I'm personally more in the Bernie Sanders camp where I'd like to see the conditions be a little more broad and focus on the underlying political problems, including settlement expansion, settler violence at the West Bank, requiring a commitment to peace talks. But the rub there is that Netanyahu's current coalition would never be okay with agreeing to those terms. Yeah, there's nothing. I mean, there's nothing even in Bernie Sanders' list of things that he believes USA should be conditioned on. There's nothing in that list that is not mainstream US policy, right? It's just that making it a condition is somehow seen as sacrosanct.

The point that was striking to me, I think it was the Times made, that military experts were making, is the U.S. faced a ton of criticism for the level of civilian casualties that it inflicted in Iraq. And Israel is using U.S. supplied weapons that are far larger than what we were willing to use in urban areas in Iraq, despite the fact that even that caused a lot of civilian death and destruction. And the idea that it would be U.S. policy to not use these bombs in urban areas when we use them directly, but that we are okay with them being used in urban areas when we are not using them directly does not make sense to me. What was the gist of Jake's walk back?

Jake said, yes, President Biden acknowledged the idea of conditioning aid, but said Biden's approach will be this high level diplomacy behind closed doors that generated results, getting hostages back, getting more aid in, et cetera. So he was repeatedly pressed on a follow up being like, so does that mean he's for conditioning aid? And Jake ducked it in a way that clearly signaled to me that that's not the path they're going down. The question that I would love Biden and the administration to answer is like, why not? Why wouldn't you condition aid? Like, I realize you like your diplomacy approach, but what is wrong with that? And they're going to say, well, Israel needs to defend itself. Well, if we were only providing funding for the iron

dome which they use for defense that's one thing but that's not the only aid that we're sending if we're going to send weapons over there then like what yeah the aid request will be far more expansive it'll include hellfire missiles and all kinds of offensive so it's like why would the biden administration say no we're going to send them weapons and hopefully they'll do what I tell them to do. But if not, what are we going to do? Yeah. It's also what is there? That is a publicly, if they're publicly, their position is we do not want to condition aid because publicly their position is basically what Tommy was saying, that they're going to hug BB, but is there value to there being conditions placed on aid that the Biden administration is reluctantly dragged to as they get to be like kind of to continue to maintain their position that they want to do

this diplomatically. They want to do this through back channels while at the same time, they're facing pressure from at home that's requiring them to push harder, right? Like there's nuances to this. So maybe there won't be a veto threat if there's conditions. Presumably if something passes this, I mean, we're going to get to all of it, but like the idea of anything passing seems like so fucking difficult. Like difficult like oh let's add solving middle east peace on top of ukraine on top of the border so if something passes biden's going to sign it i think it's probably a pretty sincerely held belief by biden that that's the wrong path and it's part look let's be honest it's part politics smart us domestic politics it's also part this weird belief that we need to treat

politics. It's also part this weird belief that we need to treat Israel and relations with Israel as this special singular relationship where we can't criticize Bibi Netanyahu in public and we can't condition aid the way we do for every other country. And it makes absolutely no sense to me, but you know, I'm not in government. Did you guys see that Dean Phillips, he's running for president by the way, Congress in Minnesota. He u.s special forces should go into gaza to get hostages i have seen him do this a couple times now he's running against biden from the left in a presidential primary calling on sending u.s special forces into gaza well i think it's that makes sense well he is on the um he i also heard him say he was on the his foreign policy experience as being on the subcommittee for the Middle East. I heard him mention the subcommittee. Well, that explains it. Subcommittee.

Anyway, anyway. Yeah, so as we mentioned, Congress is also going to attempt to pass the aid to Israel along with aid to Ukraine and Taiwan. And Republicans say they won't support any of it unless Democrats also agree to more border security funding and new border policies. border policies. Some of the proposals being discussed include making it more difficult for migrants to claim asylum, resuming border wall construction, and detaining asylum seekers while their cases are considered. Let's start with Ukraine. Tommy, how critical is the funding for Ukraine? Long term, it's absolutely critical. I think it's the difference between winning and losing, or the difference between winning and Ukraine cutting a deal with the Russians. It is very, very bad for them. I think we're not the only country providing weapon systems to Ukraine,

South Korea, the UK, the EU, the European countries are providing a lot. But I think if we cut off the spigot, it will be very hard for those countries to fill the gap that you had made some, they pledged a million artillery shells by March of 2024. They've already said they're going to fall short of that goal. So they're already struggling to meet their commitments. And so what that means is Ukraine runs out of weapon systems. They run out of ammunition. They have to change the way they're fighting. They probably have to cede territory for strategic reasons. They lose the ability to counterattack in meaningful ways. And in the long run, Russia is just bigger. It's like eight time zones,

11 time zones. It's got more people. It's got more of an industrial capacity. This has become a stalemated war of attrition where everybody's just lobbing as many shells at each other as they can per day. And Russia will be able to manufacture those or get them from North Korea. Whereas Ukraine is now going to have to husband them, even if they get what they need from us. Like, that's why the U S took this very controversial decision to give Ukraine what are called cluster munitions, which are horrible for a variety of reasons. But I think the Biden administration agreed to do that because they were running so dangerously low, the U.S. in their stockpile and also the Ukrainians. And they just like literally couldn't match the Russians fire for fire. So they can't get this done. It's, it's pretty likely they lose the war.

I mean, long-term, long-term, it won't be like an immediate, like, you know, deal getting cut, but I do think it puts them in a terrible position. So the question is, will Republicans agree to this? Obviously there's Republican support in the Senate for Ukraine, though that's not uniform. In the House, Speaker Johnson was down in Florida today. They asked him about this and he said, we can't allow Putin to march through Europe and we understand the necessity of assisting there.

And he said he feels confident that it's going to get done. But he wants to condition it on the completion of a successful no, not November, is what he was saying over the weekend. And that does. And then, of course,

then his son has to verify it with a very specific process. Right, which takes some time. Which is, there's a... Gotta get inspectors in there. There's a black light involved. Wow, that was... Did not expect that segue from...

Look, it was getting a little dark in here. I felt like this was a Tuesday recording, not a Monday. Well, now we're going to get to talk about immigration and border policy. A lot of Democrats, including progressive democrats like vermont senator peter welch when does no not november start oh my gosh it's sorry the first oh

it's already midnight on the 31st yeah you're right okay it's guys it's almost december congrats i guess that's to be no not december well no bad ideas anyway immigration we got all kinds of democrats now saying they're open to tougher border policy what do you guys think about that immigration we got all kinds of democrats now saying they're open a tougher border policy what do you guys think about that oh well like i one thing that's been i think a little bit strange about this so just so just that republicans are basically saying why why we can't why would we send money to defend a country abroad if we're not defending america here at home that kind of thing and then you see that pulls off the charts yes and then you see democrats don't have to take a poll for that one then you see like i think like schumer put out a statement being like these bastards will do it

and like he basically said republicans are injecting this divisive policy debate into what should be a bipartisan you know agreement on sending aid to our allies to stop putin and she and um he said but we're. We're open to more borders. And I get it. Like, I think I think probably the politics of that are about, you know, this is ultimately going to be a if there is some kind of a deal, it will be a deal that angers the the hard right, which will not accept anything other than the kind of right wing Republican House proposal as a victory. And this was any kind of change to asylum that involves raising the threshold for what asylum seekers have to claim is something that would anger the left and progressives and immigration activists.

And so you start by signaling that you're being dragged to this. And I get that, but like, this is also, again, we've talked about this many times, but like the idea that we're in yet another debate where it's Democrats fighting tooth and nail to send money overseas while Republicans are trying to secure the border. Like if we are actually going to be in a situation where Democrats and Republicans are coming together to negotiate something for the border, it can't just be because Republicans made it. We should own that we believe in a humane but stable whatever set of reforms at the border and that we are not being dragged by Republicans to solve this crisis, but actually want to address the crisis. I also think it frankly shows that Republicans have changed the politics in pretty shrewd ways by busing migrants out of states like Texas to places like New York, right? Because in August-

Which we all thought was a dumb stunt when it happened. Well, we thought it was a dumb stunt when it was a private jet to Martha's Vineyard, happened well we thought it was a dump stunt when it was you know a private jet to martha's vineyard but there was a more like sustained systematic effort to spread the cost of these policies because you had eric adams saying in august of this year that a hundred thousand asylum seekers had arrived in new york city in a little over a year and that the city had spent 1.45 billion dollars on services which he said is was just fiscally unsustainable. I don't know. But let's be clear, it was still a morally abhorrent stunt, but it seems like it had the effect that it was intended.

Well, I think it stopped being a stunt. I didn't realize, I talked to the mayor of Chicago about this when I was in Chicago for Love and Relieve It. And the coverage of the Nantucket flights and the kind of shenanigans around that, put that aside, there was just a steady stream of buses going from Texas to Chicago, bus after bus after bus. And that like, that stopped being national news,

but nothing that happened to Chicago is national news. The place could burn to the ground and it would be like third story in New York. But still, like it was a, it's something that just continued and became a sustained local big political issue i mean our asylum system it's just has it's not set up for the amount of migration that we're seeing right now at the southern border and asylum system is is for people with legitimate fear of

being persecuted in their home country based on race, religion, political beliefs. It wasn't set up for people fleeing from poverty. It wasn't set up for people fleeing the sort of gang violence that we're seeing in Central and South America, even though people's, you know, asylum requests have been granted for some of those those issues. And we have a legal immigration system where people are supposed to apply to immigrate to this country. And then if you have an asylum claim, you have an asylum claim. And if you have a refugee claim, you have a refugee claim. But right now we have more people trying to cross the border than I think they said in any, any time except like three different years in all of U.S. history. And we just don't have, we don't have the processing. We don't, the communities, even welcoming communities, right,

who want to help out immigrants and migrants who are coming just do not have the resources. And instead, these people who are coming here looking for opportunity, looking for safety or just like sleeping on the streets like it's just not we're not cut out for this. I think the current system, I think, clearly is not serving anyone well. system i think clearly is not serving anyone well what's really tough to read when you dig into these negotiations is you keep seeing graphs like democrats used to make protecting the dreamers a part of any such negotiations and have dropped that provision and man that's really terrible policy and hard to swallow you know because i think the commitment it used to be bipartisan remember donald trump wanted to support the dreamers as well i mean obviously well democrats still want to support the dreamers right i'm just saying they don't think it's good no i was going to say though i think if you're gonna

if democrats are going to have to swallow some of these border restrictions and again i think there's some level of increased border funding and uh changing of asylum policy that's just right on the merits but very likely they're going to have to swallow more than they want right because you're going to have like Tom Cotton and all these Republicans jamming the stuff in and they're going to want to get Ukraine and Israel done right I would put out like if we're going to agree to that then let's put the dreamers back on the table that's a but of course then that's what I'm saying but what you're reading is they've dropped those provisions in the Senate even yeah so were they they in the initial, what do you mean dropped? Were they in the initial? It's no longer contingent as part of a negotiation to give them something else they want. That seems

to have been swapped out for Ukraine funding. Right. The thing you're getting is Ukraine funding. I mean, the thing that's like, what I'm trying to understand is, okay, so there was always like stepping back, there was a broad immigration reform compromise that was always being negotiated. And it's some form of more stringent rules at the border, far greater border security, maybe funding for some kind of a wall or whatever. There's just like, there's the like stick part of it. And then there was a set of reforms that include legalizing dreamers, path to citizenship, et cetera, et cetera. This negotiation seems to be entirely focused on border security and asylum seekers. And the question is, if you give and if you like supply, if you agree to a bunch of not

just reforms to the asylum process, but a ton of funding for additional border security, funding for the wall, which Biden's already kind of relented on, funding for agents, et cetera, et cetera etc., etc. Have you given on the one place that could in the future make it possible to help the dreamers to do a path to citizenship, to do all the kind of broader reforms that everyone recognizes that are humane and needed? Yeah, you are. And that's why you shouldn't give it up. It depends on how small this is. But I also don't like this. The way this has been framed as like carrot and stick and you know everyone used to say that

oh when obama was president he only did the border stuff because of pure politics so he could get the other stuff too and it's like no like a sensible humane immigration system that works would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million 15 million undocumented immigrants in this country it would legalize the dreamers it would have a legal immigration system where you could even increase the amount of immigration that comes to this country but you do it through legal channels same thing with asylum and refugee claims and then yeah make sure that other people aren't coming in illegally into this country. That would be actually just a sane immigration system. That's not just like, give Republicans a little, give Democrats a little. I'm just saying,

it has been framed, the framing of it has been sort of twisted. Well, yeah, the politics, part of what happened is I think there was a way that Democrats used to talk about immigration, nation of immigrants, nation of laws, right? And then I do think that during the 2016 primaries, there was this basically kind of a shift to the left and just how we talked about it, not actually- 2020 primary. In the 2020, God damn it. I know, I know.

But yes, there was a shift in how we talked about it. And then I think the parts, the kind of the harder parts that would inevitably be part of any deal became de-emphasized. And then I know, you know, bad politics and it's bad for the world. But that doesn't mean every deal that would involve some form of border security is like a massive failure that there can't be a successful compromise of some kind. The other thing they just need to rethink is the U.S. sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba and places where you're seeing a lot of migration outflows because the economy has been crushed. of migration outflows because the economy has been crushed. Yeah. And by the way, Trump's entire 2016 campaign and his presidency, his first term, also like put a lot of gas on the fire to say the least, right? Because when people think about border policy and they think about family separation, or they think about Trump telling

us that caravans full of terrorists were coming, right? Then they think, yeah, why are we reinforcing and the wall, right? Why are we doing all that kind of shit? But like, what they're not thinking about is that there could be another system that actually works that is humane, that's legal, and that like, has immigration makes sense. But so Trump contributed to this in a big way as well. There's also just the like, I think, even like the Republican statements about this, like they don't want to support additional funding for judges, anything that would like make the process work better, unless you're also addressing what they describe as the pull, right? Which is like the draw to the United States. And I think for a long time, that was about the fact that there's no internal enforcement, that this was about people coming and seeking jobs. But on top of that, you have these huge numbers of people

seeking asylum or refuge or just trying to find a way out of these countries that are in crisis. And that on that has been a kind of like I think the situation at the border has been overtaken by those events. Speaking of Republicans, let's talk about the 2024 Republican primary and the fierce battle for second place. With less than 50 days until the Iowa caucuses, are Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and their respective super PACs spending all their time and money going after the guy who's winning by 40 points? No, they're not. They are going after each other. are going after each other. The New York Times reported that Nikki Haley's super PAC spent $3.5 million on ads attacking DeSantis over the last two months and not a single dollar attacking Trump. Similarly, DeSantis' PAC spent 10 times more money hitting Haley than going after Trump. Tommy, it seems like the two of them are going all in on Iowa. Why do you think they're going

negative on each other instead of Trump? Because they're stupid. I don't know. I mean, you keep reading these articles where various interest groups in super PACs have said that all of the testing they've done on anti-Trump ads or messaging have backfired and hurt them. But if that's the case, drop out. Why are you still competing? I mean, it's just like they all think that they can narrow this race down to two. And then, I don't know, somehow change the game in New Hampshire and beyond. But that's a ridiculous suggestion. Did they not learn this lesson from 2016 when all of Trump's challengers started beating each other up because they thought that they could take everyone else out and that they could be the last one standing to face Trump. And then because like, you know, Jeb and Marco and Chris Christie, they all sort of attacked each other and all, I'm forgetting some, they all attacked each other. And so then Trump just benefited from it. Like, we're just going to do this again now? Well, on top of that, it's not like these attacks that they're leveling against each other are helping them either. We'll talk

about it. But like DeSantis is having this sort of like this like civil war inside of his super pack because they're feeling like DeSantis is getting hurt by the fact that he's going after Haley now, like that this guy cannot launch an attack on anybody that doesn't make people dislike him. And it's like, for some reason, this rule doesn't seem to apply to Trump, right? Trump go after Haley and go after DeSantis and go after everyone. Everyone's like, that's our fucking guy. But these guys go negative for one second.'re like i don't like it i don't care for it that's because that's that's that's who trump is yeah and it's because who then it's because of who they are yeah no so the de santa story which we did not get to talk about

because it happened last week when we were all on break um never back down the super pack that is essentially running his whole campaign he's basically outsourced the whole campaign to the super pack and so when never back down is running these ads about haley in iowa they are backfiring and hurting desantis because the never back down branding is so close to desantis because that's like his whole campaign yeah so voters in iowa are smart enough to be like oh that's a des a DeSantis ad. Rightant of Ron DeSantis. This guy named Scott Wagner and Jeff Rowe yells at him. You have a stick up your ass, Scott. And then Scott Wagner gets up and responds.

Why don't you come over here and get it? By the way. Hey, what? What kind of? Anybody? Anybody is a lifelong friend of Ron DeSantis has to be a fucking, just one of the worst human beings

to have a conversation with. That is an incredible response. 10 out of 10. That's the craziest response I've ever heard. That's so... Why don't you come over here and get the stick out of my ass? I think it's a great response.

You stand up. Why don't you come over here and get it? I thought it was cool as hell. I think it was a good response. I didn't good response there's some real sexual tension in that response that doesn't make it worse to me i didn't know if get it meant get the stick or just get it like get some i thought i think he's referring to the stick oh i thought yeah i thought the stick too like oh if i have a stick back here come why don't you come and remove it for me yeah you know yeah let's have a fight let's have a fight. Let's have a physical fight. Let's solve this by fighting.

I like the other thing too is I hope it's not. This is a meeting about, this is a meeting of the Never Back Down board discussing how best to back down. That's what this, that's what they're arguing about. Well, should we back down like this? How do we back down over here? So what ends up happening is they decide to start. So a couple other consultants or confidants or friends

of desantis again some tallahassee goobers what's the hardest to believe is that he has this many friends yeah um they have decided to set up a second super pack called uh fight hard fight long fight right fight right fight right yeah it's called fight right fight right is the new super pack that's now going to attack hayley with ads with doesn't have the Never Back Down branding. So they think that they're going to attack Haley and people aren't going to know that it's Ron DeSantis, even though it's going to be funded by the Never Back Down. It's a bit like when Garth Brooks became Chris Gaines. Why? What?

Remember? No. Remember when Garth Brooks put on a mustache? Because basically the other thing, too, is I was like reading about it. I was like, wait, there's another they're funding another PAC. I was like, where's the money coming from? He's transferring. It's coming from Never's the money coming from? Do you transfer it? It's coming from Never Back Down.

Coming from inside the house. So they send a million dollars to this new, this new super pack that works for the super pack that works for Ron DeSantis, because that's going to, this is your problem. Hey, there's your problem right there. The super pack name is,

it's too out there. And then Ken Cuccinelli, who was, you know, fucking asshole from Virginia before he was now running this pack, sends a letter, like he's on the record being like, I disagree with doing this. The whole thing is incredible. I want it to be on the record that I disagree with doing this. What record?

For who? For history? Guess what? It's already in the NBC story. I think we figured out who leaked it. Yeah. By the way, also, it's like, this isn't going to be an HBO movie. You people are not interesting enough.

No. This is the best sentence you've gotten. It's only, I'm the only one that likes it. Also, just again, Jeff Rowe, the chief strategist for the DeSantis super PAC, was Ted Cruz's campaign manager in 2016. So he has watched this movie before. He should know damn well that the strategy he's running for Ron DeSantis

is the one he ran for Ted Cruz and didn't work. And he's just running it back. But he is making some money a lot of money he also has they have this you know big door knocking operation in Iowa that again the super PAC is running the the field organization here and Jeff Rowe has told people that he believes the group's door knocking push could be worth as much as 10 percentage points on caucus day tell me do you think that you think the you think the operation is going to give him 10 points that are not showing up in the polls? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I cannot overstate

how stupid that is. We had the most unbelievable field team and organization, GOTV organization in Iowa in 2008. And the difference is, by the way, is the the Never Back Down field team. They're hiring them all. They're all paid staffers. These are not volunteers who love Ron DeSantis and really care about the mission. No, these are like, they're going to hire 2,600 people by Labor Day, so they said in some New York Times story

in May of 2023. They have no idea what they're doing. This is not going to work. Well, there was the one example of someone was caught on a ring camera, one of these guys that was hired by the PAC, and he was like, if you don't vote for DeSantis,

I'm going to... What did he say? He was like, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to kick your ass or something. And then he's like, sorry, I'm pretty stoned. Yeah. He said he was high. He said he was too high. There was this time story that quoted Jeff Rowe in May of 2023, talking about their strategy. He said, quote, he argued that Mr. Trump had shied away from key fights that motivate the Republican base and on which DeSantis had led, including on LGBTQ issues, schools, and taking on corporate America. This is the direct quote. How do you beat Trump, Mr. Rose said? Well, you beat Trump by beating Trump.

And where Ron DeSantis has beaten Trump is by doing what Republican voters want him to do the most. What does that mean? What? What does any of that mean? Yellow Disney? Is that what that meant? So this is a New York Times article about Iowa that just ran Sunday, I think. And the whole thing is about like Haley and DeSantis going after each other.

And basically the strategy is everyone's going all in on Iowa except for Chris Christie. And if Haley can get second in Iowa and beat DeSantis, then she goes to New Hampshire where DeSantis is basically like collapsed. He's pulling in the single digits. And she, I guess, beats Trump to New Hampshire where DeSantis is basically like collapsed he's pulling in the single digits and she I guess beats Trump in New Hampshire maybe she comes close enough and then she then she goes home to South Carolina and that's where she really makes her stand so that's her strategy DeSantis's strategy I guess is just to get second in Iowa and then I don't know I don't even know what I mean it really is like win Iowa but I don't think that's happening either and then if DeSantis we just but just you you glossed it. DeSantis is now in fifth in New Hampshire. That is fucking devastating.

And so like, if you're DeSantis and you get second in Iowa somehow, and then you go to New Hampshire and you get like fifth, I guess he's thinking that the momentum for getting second- He's gonna bounce, yeah. Yeah, the Iowa, the second place momentum you get in Iowa just like carries you up to second in New Hampshire. People in New Hampshire love taking their cues from those Iowa rooms.

Oh, yeah, yeah. No, that's right. Anyway, you go through this whole thing with Haley and DeSantis, and at the end it says, Trump campaign officials say their operation has already amassed 50,000 signed cards committing to caucus for him and 1,800 caucus captains. And then the DeSantis campaign said it had more than 30,000 people who committed, and the Haley campaign declined to provide any such data points. Yeah. So the take home there is by their own standards, DeSantis says 20,000 fewer voters in Iowa than Donald Trump.

I don't think that's a good setup. It also said he visited his 98th Iowa county a week ago after holding around 10 small public events over three days. And then Trump went to one rally in Fort Dodge, got 2,000 people, which is more than all of DeSantis' events combined. I do. I read that, too. I do wonder. Trump has people who travel for him who go to, you know. Out-of-staters.

It's like you're following the dead. It's like when Mark Penn accused Barack Obama of busting in people to the Iowa JJ. Well, I don't think we ever fully got to the bottom of that. God damn it. I don't know we ever fully got to the bottom of that. God damn it. I don't know that we fully know exactly what happened. I mean, we're talking about these early states here, but like, I feel like once we go to the rest of the states, Tommy, you were pointing out that the rules are getting a little rigged in favor of Trump here. This is the thing that people have to understand. As we learned in 2008, all of us here, this is ultimately a

campaign for more delegates, right? So not just that Haley needs to win in Iowa, she needs to win overwhelmingly in these early states so that she can, I guess, get enough media attention and a bounce so that people in all these other future states where they're not paying any attention right now will decide that 60% of them currently are supporting Trump. They'll all flip because what people need to know is Trump's people have changed the rules to make it easier for him right now will decide that 60% of them currently are supporting Trump. They'll all flip because what people need to know is Trump's people have changed the rules to make it easier for him to win. A couple of examples. In Massachusetts, a candidate used to need to win 5% of the statewide vote to get delegates. In 2020, Massachusetts Republicans changed the threshold to 20%

to get delegates and made it so that a candidate getting over 50 percent of the vote gets all the delegates. So it turns into a winner take all at this threshold. California is on March 5th, Super Tuesday. It awards 169 delegates. California Republicans changed the rules so that a candidate who gets more than 50 percent of the votes gets all of the delegates. Previously, most of the delegates in California were awarded congressional district by congressional district. Most of the delegates in California were awarded congressional district by congressional district. So basically, Trump's allies have made a huge push to create these winner-take-all triggers in all these early states, like all the primaries before March 15th. According to Wall Street Journal, in 2016, 15 states and territories had a winner-take-all trigger like the ones I just described. In 2024, 23 states and territories that vote early before March 15th will have a winner-take-all trigger. So long story short, it will be very hard to

stage some sort of come-from-behind victory because of these rule changes. And also, Trump could have this thing sealed up on Super Tuesday pretty easily. Before his first trials even happened. And like you said, Republicans already had more winner-take-all states than Democrats just do proportional, every state. Yeah. And now it's like, now it's supercharged, right?

Their rule had technically been you couldn't have a winner-take-all before March 15th, but they created these little thresholds and loopholes to sort of make de facto winner-take-all. Even though it's... I do think, though, it's like... It's think though it's over so i do think i like rigged so whether or not it's winner take all i think would matter more if we're talking about like what happened in 2016 where you have

this like kind of big field that's refusing to narrow like the reality is whether you know whether nikki haley is losing by eight points, 20 points, 30 points, it really doesn't matter. Trump is cruising to the nomination. And the only question then is not, it's like if someone else is potentially gonna be the nominee, it means that they have to overtake Trump faster. It has to happen quicker.

The consolidation has to happen fast and it has to happen with enough time before you get to some of these big states. Right, because you can't say, all right, we're to take second in Iowa, do better than expected in South Carolina. Then we're going to, you know, collect a lot of delegates on Super Tuesday and we're going to grind it out and win in the Connecticut primary on April 2nd. Right. Because they've rigged the rules so that Trump is going to get all of the delegates out of these states where he's the only Republican candidate anyone has heard of. And again, once you hit the majority of delegates, primary's over. So Trump is, of course, acting like he's already the nominee with good reason and laying out plans for a second term.

Over the weekend, he posted on Truth Social that he's seriously looking into alternatives for Obamacare and that Republicans should, quote, never give up on their fight to, quote, terminate it. The Biden campaign pounced and the president himself talked about this on Monday. And my predecessors, once again, God love them, call for cuts that could rip away health insurance for tens of millions of Americans and Medicaid. They just don't give up. But guess what? We won't let these things happen. How likely do you think it is that Trump can actually pull this off

after famously not being able to get it done in 2017 and then telling us he was going to have an alternative for Obamacare for 10 years now. I don't before we even get to like, where the fuck did this come from? Like he it seems like someone at his country club mentioned a Wall Street Journal piece or something like this is such a strange bank shot to get to him talking about Obamacare. And like, so basically, there was a Wall Street Journal piece that misrepresents something Elizabeth Warren said about Obamacare to say that Elizabeth Warren finally admits that Obamacare costs money. And Trump sees this and then uses it to basically take a swipe at John McCain because he thought about John McCain on the toilet and

then puts this out there beyond that. And then, and then now it's a whole new cycle and Biden's taking a shot and everybody should. But it's like, where did this come from? Right. Like Republicans have clearly recognized that this is a losing issue for them. to like keep him as disciplined as possible and so far it's working and they're like maybe we'll just maybe it's good that he's off twitter maybe we'll like get him back we won't do a lot of mainstream interviews right and and they're trying to keep him on message but trump can't stay disciplined for that long like you cannot just keep him contained like this he is going to make he's an artist political mistakes he's an artist like this one and the world is his canvas like someone someone got to him and was like you got to be careful on the abortion stuff. Republicans are losing on abortion. You got to at least pretend, moderate.

No one got to him on the ACA stuff. Well, he's on the abortion stuff. That's where his heart is. He always has that. He will try to walk this back. I bet he will try to walk this back and it hopefully won't work. Very smart of Biden, I think, to come out and do a statement on this. I think Trump will absolutely try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because he's a dumb racist who hates Obama and

wants to destroy everything Obama ever did. That's my genuine feeling for why he actually cares about this. And what it will mean in practice is 20 million people will lose their health care that they gained because of the Affordable Care Act. And something like 150 million people who depend on health care because they have pre-existing conditions and insurance companies can't discriminate against them because of pre-existing conditions. They will lose that protection. Young people will lose the protection of being on their parents health care till they're 26. All the seniors who are now paying less for prescription drugs, thanks to what Joe Biden did in the Inflation Reduction Act, will pay more for prescription drugs because of this now. There will be no more lifetime limits on how much health care you can get. So like if you're if you're seriously, seriously ill

and your insurance will only cover up to used to used to only cover up to a certain amount. Obamacare got rid of that. That will come back now. I mean, it's just it is ridiculous. Catastrophic. How likely is it? Well, so, you know, like you said, Trump will want to do it because he's Trump. If there's a Speaker Mike Johnson in the House, you can bet that the House will do it. There are a bunch of crazies there. They can barely elect a Republican speaker. They're so right wing.

And then in the Senate. So, yes, Collins and Murkowski were no's, but they could support an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Or if Trump wins, it seems very likely that in that world, Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown don't hang on. It's possible they do, but unlikely. And if that's the case, then Republicans will have the votes in the Senate to get rid of Obamacare. And again, they can do it. They can probably do it just through a budget process, through a budget reconciliation process and not and they won't need the 60. Yes. I mean, if they if Republicans write problems in the White House and they take the Senate, keep the House, they will certainly try to repeal Obamacare. It is hard to imagine

they wouldn't succeed. They almost succeeded last time. They the reason Trump is still mad about it is that it was only by a kind of like last minute reprieve from John McCain that the thing survived at all and by the way he could have gone either way in that whole fucking thing because he was a capricious guy and it was a fit of not a fit of peak but it was like uh it was a little it was a it was a 50 50 shot i mean remember we remember what remember we watched it people we were like we were just the fact that we were hopeful john mccain might not repeal obamacare we got shit for seeming like a bunch of naive goobers.

And like, which often we are. And often we are. But yeah, no good. Just some numbers on this. 22% of the American people supported Trump's last attempt to get rid of Obamacare in 2017. The current favorability rating for the Affordable Care Act is between 57 and 62%, according to Kaiser. care act is uh between 57 and 62 according to kaiser and this from a fox news poll in 2020 they asked people would you rather keep the affordable care act or replace it 64 said keep

32 said replace 32 of republicans favored keeping it and that was in a 2020 poll and this is the this is just political if this continues if if if there's a way to keep this as like central to the election, I can't think of a more damaging thing for Trump. or close to the least, maybe tied for second, was when he tried to repeal Obamacare is extremely unpopular. And in terms of what you would be able to talk about, like abortion, democracy and extremism and Obamacare, like that would be like, if it is the third story, that would be very good. Yeah. And again, I saw a bunch of people reacting to this news

by saying like, this seems like a small thing. Like he's going to end democracy. He's going to end democracy. to end democracy and it's like yeah the people all of us who pay close attention to politics and maybe some of the people who are saying that have health care that they pay for uh they could say that but like for the for the people who are disengaged in politics who are not paying attention they hear that they're going to lose their health care that's how they're going to vote that's how they're going to vote all That's how they're going to vote. All right, finally, George Santos is back with a vengeance, but he could be out of Congress within the week.

The Republican chair of the Ethics Committee has introduced a resolution to expel Santos after their bipartisan investigation found that the congressman used his campaign funds to pay for personal expenses like Botox, Hermes bags, and a subscription to only fans uh fucking legend santos is taking this in stride here he is during a twitter spaces interview on friday they all act

like they are on ivory towers with white pointy hats and they're untouchable i mean within the ranks of the united states congress there's felons galore. There's people with all sorts of sheisty backgrounds. And all of a sudden, George Santos is the Mary Magdalene of the United States Congress. Can we pause real quick? Can we pause real quick? Mary Magdalene got the Congress? What is he talking about?

I think he's saying that he's being unfair, you know, thatary magdalene was uh cast out yeah she was cast out and uh but is was he friends because she also went to witness the crucifixion i'm just i still can't get past they're on ivory towers wearing pointy white hats so yeah i was gonna talk like hey man i've that's not what ivy towers are for right towers are for people that are kind of like naive intellectuals who don't know how the world works. I don't know, are the pointy hats? I don't know where that came from. And by the way, Felons Galore, incredible drag name.

Just waiting to be taken. The other- Why don't we roll the rest of the clip? We're all going to stone this motherfucker because it's just politically expedient. want to see michael guest the chairman of ethics put his resolution i i might have matter of fact i think he should be a man and stop being a pussy and call the privilege on this on the damn motion. This precedent sets a new era of due process, which means you are guilty until proven innocent. We will take your accusations and use it to smear, to mangle, to destroy you and remove you from society. I don't care. You want to expel me? I'll wear it like a badge of honor. I'll be

the sixth expelled member of Congress in the history of Congress. I'm not leaving. I'm not. Come hell or high water, these people need to understand it's done when i say it's done i don't know about that first of all god damn legend i think i say it again i say it again yeah i think it's the first time uh the words pussy and a privileged resolution were used in the same sentence by someone i also just i also like the the it's so jarring when he says pussy, a word that's hard even for me to say, because it's like, I'm sorry, but you're using a gay voice. And he does. He's in his gay, because he's fighting.

He's being a diva. So he's in his gayer voice. And it's like, then you're going to say that? Then you're going to bro out on us? I don't like that. Also, just when he says when he says uh shysty yeah my spidey sense is tingling and i realize that there's two paths before george santos now there's the one i hope he takes which is reality show diva that's the path the other is like

q anon anti-semite right like they're just he's he might look at those paths and say why not both i mean there was a house ethics committee investigation report but this wasn't just He might look at those paths and say, why not both? Why not both? Why not both? I mean, there was a House Ethics Committee investigation report, but this wasn't just conjecture. So I'm interested in what happens here. An expulsion vote needs two thirds of members to pass, assuming all the Democrats vote to expel him at this point, which I assume they will. which I assume they will. Some of the people like Jamie Raskin, who we talked about before, who didn't want to expel him before the ethics committee finished their report

are now saying like, yeah, no, we've had due process. This is what we were asking for. A very principled position. Very principled. And I agree with that position. And so if you get all the Democrats, you still need 70 Republicans.

Now, Santos in that Twitter spaces interview said, I think they're going to vote me out because I can count votes, which seems doubtful. Yeah. Um, said a liar, but,

uh, and then someone asked, uh, Mike Johnson about this today. He said on the resolution, he said, it remains to be seen. I've spoken to Congressman Santos at some length over the holiday and

talked to him about his options, but we'll have to see. I wonder if Johnson tried to get him to resign on his own. I'm sorry. Imagine those two trying to relate over a coffee. That's a buddy coffee. I love it. I fucking love it.

I love it. There's the pitch. What's a drag queen grifter and just a weird legal zealot? I love it. One of them is on OnlyFans. One of them gets in trouble if they go to OnlyFans with his son. What do you mean you don't have our Avis reservation and we have to take the train together?

What do you mean our phones are have our Avis reservation and we have to take the train together? What do you mean our phones are dead? All the flights are canceled, but my son is home. You don't have a son. What do you think? They're going to vote him out? I think they want this guy gone. I think they want him gone. I think the only reason they were keeping him around in the McCarthy. I think they want him gone. I mean, I think, like, I think the, you know, the only thing that they,

the only reason they were keeping him around in, like, the McCarthy era was that, like, they needed every vote. They needed every single vote. And it's true that they go to a special, like, you know, it's hard to imagine.

It's hard for them to, they can't count on the seat, that's for sure. It's, yeah, it's a more, it's like a Biden district. They might lose it, yeah. Yeah, and the, the... We only lost it the first time

because everyone fucking fell asleep at the wheel who was part of that race on the fucking believable this guy's guys wandering around me like yeah i'm a scientist too i'm getting away with this it's un-fucking-believable just and also by the way fake dot like the thing that came out of the ethics report which is like it's a it's an amazing what a scam what a scam so remember when we talk about this yeah we should talk about this for a second because like we at time we talked about this, and it was really confusing, or at the time we talked about how these reports didn't make sense. So one thing that was in some of the disclosures way back when was that he had loaned a tremendous amount of money to the campaign.

I think like $80,000. And then another check for more. But anyway, he started with the $80,000. And everyone was like, wait wait because he's a businessman but where's this money coming from because he also was like behind on rent or had been in had been evicted from an apartment so it was all really confusing turns out that was made up there was no 85 000 or 80 000 loan it was 3500 or something like that and so then he pretends he's loaned the campaign 85 000 uses it to show strength to get donations, and then just starts paying himself from the fucking donations. Legend.

Thinking that no one would check to see that his $80,000 loan to his own campaign was only $3,500, which he was right. He was totally right. He was totally right. Except eventually he got got. Well, those wax wings can only get you so high. And then they did indeed melt. Yeah, I do wonder what the calculation is for these Republicans, because why do they need him around, right? They're going to lose a seat in the special, probably.

They'd probably also lose it in the next election. So, like, why not get rid of him now and saying that you're expelled? And, like, does Mike Johnson need every vote? Sure. But, like, what else are they passing between now and 2024? I guess all the supplemental and then a continuing resolution to fund the government in January. But beyond that, like, can you afford to lose one more vote? And like versus the political consequences of having all these Republicans saying that

they voted to keep that. I mean, think of the fun ads you could run. The other piece of it, too, is it's like, actually, it's a statement about how weak Kevin McCarthy was because why did you need every single Republican vote? You don't have the Senate. So nothing's passing that's not bipartisan. So it was like, I need every vote to do my dumb messaging bills

to prove to the hard right that I'm cool so that eventually when I do a deal, they don't expel me from my job, which is what they ended up doing. But then George Santos saw his Jesus Christ, Kevin McCarthy, get crucified, which is why he's Mary Magdalene. But will there be a resurrection? That's the question.

Is that why he's Mary Magdalene? None of us know. We're all trying to figure this out. I'm still on the pointy white hats. I don't know why. I don't know what the pointy white hats were either. I do think like if they decide, I can't imagine why. I don't know why anybody would vote to keep DeSantis.

I think the New York delegation is like, get him out. Oh, yeah. They're New York Republicans. There have been two why anybody would vote to keep DeSantis. I think the New York delegation is like, get him out. Oh, yeah. They're New York Republicans. There have been two resolutions. One of them was from fucking them. But I do think like it is. It is. The previous expulsions were Confederates and people who were convicted.

Right. This is not a conviction. There's some logic to that, but I don't think they'd hang their head on it. Anyway, good times. We'll miss you, man. Well, yeah, we really will. Well, we'll see. We'll see.

He could say. He could say. Yeah, don't jinx it, Lovett. smile. It's it. We don't know yet. I don't know pitched for love or leave it I bet you come on Have you at least had a comedian impersonating? Oh, yeah? Oscar Montoya came on and did an incredible George Santos, and we have to we have to have him bring him back John Stantos over here is a big fan of this guy. Hey. What? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?

Do you understand? I didn't, I genuinely didn't. You're Stanning him. Oh, I do. I do. I do. I'm a George Stantos. Something the kids currently say, but was actually coined by John. Oh, cause he said John.

That's why I thought it was T. John Stantos. I know, it's hard to tell that you're John Stantos. I'm a George Stantos. That one needed some more time in the joke oven. Hey, come on. I'm sitting right here with you guys. John's trying to wrap it up. I'm trying to Stantos That one needed some more time I'm sitting right here with you guys John's trying to wrap it up It's been a long show It's been a very long show

We have two quick housekeeping notes before we leave Good show, long show The most important event of the year Is happening on Thursday night It's a live televised debate Between Republican presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis and the man he absolutely

isn't running against, Governor Gavin Newsom. So we will be doing a group thread to cover this debate. Did you guys know you'd have to do a group thread Thursday night? Actually, I'm learning about it now. I'm not going to lie to you.

By the way, I think I'm in Phoenix, but I'll do my best to join. Yeah. Three of us, plus Dan, plus the rest of the Crooked crew will all be on Discord to get access to this and more events like it. Make sure you're subscribed to Friends of the Pod. You can head to crooked.com slash friends to learn

more. We're going to group thread this debate. We're just going to have some fun. Just going to have some fun out there. First question, what channel is it on? What channel is the... Fox? Fox. It's Fox. Sean Hannity. Right. Bummer. Sean Hannity is moderating. I have some friends in the Newsom channel is it on what channel is the fox fox it's fox yeah sean hannity right bummer sean hannity i have some moderating i have some friends in the um newsome camp and this has created a lot of work for them yeah i bet well it's worth it did you just know that it's a let's say i think

i think it was the right thing to do i mean it just seemed like ron de santos has a bit more to lose since he is a current presidential candidate great it's a total waste of time. The whole thing is amazing. Also, the only thing is, it's good that he's not, as long as he's not talking to voters, he's not hurting his campaign. I think when they both agree to it,

it made some strategic sense, but now it's just like DeSantis is plummeting. He's not in the right States doing it. It's crazy. Anyway, speaking of live events, Pod Save America has got two more. Two more.

You can catch us in El cajon on december 7th and san jose on december 13th we'll be joined by co-host sam sanders and adisu demessi get your tickets at cricket.com slash events now and that's our show we did it we'll talk to you guys on thursday bye everyone pod save america is a cricket media production production. Our producers are Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari, writing support from Hallie Kiefer. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis.

Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Tolles, Kirill Pelleviv, and Molly Lobel. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube to catch full episodes and extra video content. Find us at YouTube.com slash at Pod Save America. Finally, you can join our Friends of the Pod subscription community for ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and a great discussion on Discord.

Plus, it's a great way to get involved with Vote Save America. Sign up at crooked.com slash friends.