Pod Save America - Dark Brandon Owns My Kevin

Episode Date: June 1, 2023

Joe Biden saves the country from default with a budget deal that has some Republicans furious at Kevin McCarthy. Ron DeSantis steps up his attacks on Donald Trump as Chris Christie and Mike Pence get ready to jump in the race. And later, Congresswoman Barbara Lee stops by to talk about her campaign for the Senate seat in California. 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 Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Joe Biden saves us from default with a budget deal that has some Republicans furious at Kevin McCarthy. Ron DeSantis steps up his attacks on Donald Trump as Chris Christie and Mike Pence get ready to jump in the race. And later, Congresswoman Barbara Lee stops by Cricket HQ to talk about her campaign for the U.S. Senate seat in California. But first, big news. Vote Save America has launched our Fuck Bans, Leave Queer Kids Alone Fund.

This Pride Month, Crooked's working to help raise $50,000 to support groups on the ground in states that are banning care and targeting trans families. Groups like the Transgender Law Center, the Trans Justice Funding Project, and the Trans Youth Equality Foundation. Head to votesaveamerica.com slash fuck bands to chip in. Also, we want to share a sneak peek of, sneak listen, I guess, not really a peek, it's an

audio format, of Crooked's newest pod. It's called Dreamtown, the Story of Adelanto, which we are proud to say is an official selection at this year's Tribeca Festival. Dreamtown is the wild but true story of a down-on-its-luck city in the Southern California desert and the scrappy, sometimes dubious cast of characters determined to reinvent it. Take a listen. In 2014, Adelanto, California, a small town in the Mojave Desert, was so broke there was talk of dissolving itself completely. Then along came John Bug Woodard Jr., a 63-year-old gun-toting conservative hippie who had a wild idea to save Adelanto. I got on old Google. I did a little Googling and I found out the secret.

The secret, according to Bug, via Google, was cannabis. I've heard those cannabis shops make a lot of money. What started as a simple solution to revive this small town would lead to a series of backroom dealings, a shocking scandal involving the FBI. I'm David Weinberg, and this is Dreamtown, the story of Adelanto. Subscribe to Dreamtown now to hear more bonus content before its premiere on June 7th, wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's get to the news. We have ourselves a deal.

Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy have agreed on a plan to avoid the first ever U.S. default, Biden and Kevin McCarthy have agreed on a plan to avoid the first ever U.S. default, saving us from a catastrophic recession that would have been entirely self-inflicted. Bravo. Bravo. In exchange for suspending the debt limit until 2024, Republicans got shockingly little of the ransom they initially asked for. No cuts to Medicare, no cuts to Social Security or Medicaid, no repeal of the Inflation Security or Medicaid, no repeal of the

Inflation Reduction Act, no repeal of student loan reform. The president will get his proposed budget for the military and veterans. All other spending will be the same next year as it was this year and grow by only 1% in 2025, which with inflation amounts to a slight cut. The work requirements for food assistance already apply to people between 18 and 49 years old. This deal will raise the age to 54, but it also exempts veterans and the homeless, which means more people overall will be able to get help. The work requirements for welfare will be tightened slightly, but only amounts to a cut of $5 million over 10 years. And there's a slight cut to the IRS that won't really affect the agency for several years. The House passed the bill on Wednesday by 314 to 117, it was supported by 149 Republicans and 165 Democrats.

And it's expected to pass the Senate as well. Obviously, this is not a budget Democrats would have passed if they controlled both houses of Congress. A lot of progressives voted no in the House, probably in the Senate as well, though they don't sound particularly outraged by this outcome. What's your take on the substance of the deal? I think we should stipulate this is stupid and performatively cruel public policy. Democrats would never do this on their own. The idea that deficits are our number one concern is stupid. The idea that you would tackle deficits without asking the wealthy corporations to pay what they

owe or even looking at the military budget is just asinine. Having said that, this is way better than it could have been. Biden was very smart about how they went about doing this. They gave McCarthy symbolic wins in exchange to protect substance and progress, the fact that the Inflation Reduction Act is preserved, and particularly the climate funding is preserved. I'll give you an example of one way in which they traded the symbolism. McCarthy came in and said, in his initial bill, they were going to repeal Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, which the court may do for them, but it's before that. I was going to say, yeah. But Biden did not give that up. He could have given it up and said, well, I'll probably lose

in the court anyway. I'll give them this in exchange for something else. He kept that. But what he gave instead was a statutory end to the pause in student loan payment collections. But Biden's team has already said they were going to end that pause this summer anyway. So McCarthy can go back to his team and say, look what I got from Biden. But he got something Biden was going to give him anyway. And so it was just very well handled here. And I get that no one is going to rush out to volunteer in 2024 because something is better than it could have been or not as bad as expected. But given where we could have been, there was no default. We avoided the economic damage that often happens in the run-up to default during these

debt limit crises. And the cuts are smaller than we thought. And the budget caps are for less time than we thought. And that's all, I think, way better than we hoped. And I think that is to the credit of the president and his team. I honestly don't see how you'd get a better budget if there had been no debt limit fight, which as we've talked about, they would have had to negotiate over a budget anyway. If those negotiations failed, there's a good chance of a government shutdown that they would have had to figure out their way out of anyway, both sides. And, you know, the fact is Republicans control the House. And so when you have one party in control of half a branch of

government, then you're going to have to negotiate and compromise at some point, or else you get a government shutdown, or in this case, you would have had a default. And with that context in mind, and those constraints in mind, I genuinely don't see how Democrats could have gotten a better deal than they already had. A cut of a few percent on spending, which is what it is when you factor in inflation, isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. As you said, the work requirements are dumb and are going to hurt some people for sure, but they're pretty minor. The fact that the welfare work requirement change will only save 5 million over 10 years, that is like nothing compared to the grand scheme of things in a

budget that is hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars large. So my question is like nothing compared to the grand scheme of things in a budget that is hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars large. So my question is like, how did Joe Biden get a deal this good from a party this crazy? Like, did he outsmart Kevin McCarthy? Did McCarthy outsmart the Freedom Caucus? I mean, you and I and most other people, in fairness, who talked about this, thought that either we would default or Kevin McCarthy would lose his job. And neither of those things happened. I think it is clear that Biden outsmarted McCarthy, for sure. And I think that happened in two ways. And really, for all of the absolutely absurd levels of credit that Capitol Hill press

corps is falling all over themselves to give McCarthy today, what they should really be doing is crediting Joe Biden, who kind of did Kevin McCarthy's job for him. And what Biden did that was, I think, quite smart here is when they went into these negotiations, Biden recognized that McCarthy could only pass a deal, would only pass a deal that he thought would allow him to keep his job. He could only pass a deal that it looked like he won a bunch of things. And so once the negotiation started, and we can go back in time and debate why Democrats didn't get rid of the debt limit during the lame docker, why they didn't mint a trillion dollar coin. And we've talked about why the 14th Amendment stuff didn't make a ton of sense in this context. But once you got to

the point where McCarthy's folks and Biden's folks were sitting down and the president was talking to the speaker, what the president did was he stayed quiet. He didn't make any, draw any red lines. He didn't go out and beat up McCarthy or polarize the negotiations. He gave McCarthy space. And Biden understood that particularly in Republican politics, these negotiations can be zero-sum. So if Biden comes out and says, I will not accept one penny less than this, then all of a sudden that becomes something that McCarthy can't give up, or it looks like he conceded to Biden. So the president took a bunch of shit from people in his own party,

from a lot of members of Congress who complained about it, by being quiet, because McCarthy was out there. They were bragging. Joe Biden's losing the messaging war. He's got to go out there and use the bully pulpit more. Where is he? Why is he so quiet? And he made the right decisions. He was willing, and presidents have to make this decision all the time, which is take on short-term political water to achieve a medium-term or long-term goal. And he did that here, and he got a better deal because of it. And then the second way that this really worked out for the president is that, frankly, there's an asymmetry in these negotiations between Republicans and Democrats when it gets to how government actually works.

Republicans hate government. They don't care about government. They're trying to take it down. They have no familiarity with the details of how these programs work. Biden's folks, we know a lot of them. We've worked with a lot of them. They have spent, in some cases, decades, dating back to the 90s, building these programs, administering these programs, understanding how they work. And so when you get to the table, it becomes very easy to make Republicans think they're

getting something when really you're writing the policy in a way that helps you. The work requirement is a perfect example. We're going to raise the work requirement age, which is going to affect some people, but then we're going to expand the eligibility so more people will actually get access to the program in total. And they kind of ran circles around him in the actual writing of the bill. And so in those two ways, that worked for Biden and he got a better deal than it could have been. Yeah, I know that the White House likes to say that Biden is often underestimated and they say that quite a bit. I think in this instance, in many instances, actually, they're right. You know, they're absolutely right. Like Joe Biden is a really good negotiator and he did an excellent job and he didn't let all of the political pressure

get to him on this. He just sort of, and, and, you know, there was a lot of risk to that. I want to go back to the 14th amendment thing one more time, because there's, you know, still the detractors on the deal on the left would still say like, he should have just gone ahead with the 14th amendment. Now that we know what this deal looks like, it is pretty clear that there was a choice for Joe Biden, right? You either make a bet that John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are going to agree with the Democrats' legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If you win that bet, there are no cuts, no policy concessions, and no debt limit fight ever again. So that's cool. If you lose that bet, then are no cuts, no policy concessions, and no debt limit fight ever again.

So that's cool. If you lose that bet, then a country that's already dealing with inflation is plunged into an economic crisis and perhaps a prolonged recession that there's no obvious way out of. Right? We don't know how the deal is going to come about to get out of that once the court decides, okay, the 14th Amendment, that's wrong. The theory is wrong. Then we're all fucked. So you can either make that choice and take that bet. The win is big. The loss is also pretty big. Or you take this deal that is a slight cut in spending for two years. I mean, to me, that's not even close. It's not even close. I want to help you with one thing here, which is I'm going to add an addendum to include Samuel Alito in your list.

Otherwise, the host of Strict Scrutiny are going to come running through that wall like in a Kool-Aid commercial. No, no, no. The reason I list those three is because obviously we don't have Alito. Obviously we don't have Thomas. And obviously we don't have Gorsuch. Okay. The three most likely to agree with us would be those three. Yes, there we go.

Just trying to protect you, ourselves, the studio wall. No prayer that we ever get a lead over. Famous Samuel Lito apologist that you are, yes. Well, let's talk about McCarthy, who for some reason you don't think should get much credit for this. Do you disagree? I'm going to give Kevin McCarthy a little credit in this one single instance. Okay, here we go.

Elijah, get a time marker. Let's clip this thing. I want it on TikTok by lunchtime. Kevin McCarthy has this crazy fucking caucus. Kevin McCarthy has this crazy fucking caucus. He went through how many rounds of, you know, humiliation to try to get this job. Barely cobbled a coalition together. How many times do we say he's stupid?

He's not going to be able to get this through the House. He's not going to be able to get anything through the House, which he did. He did get a bill through the House that was horrific if Joe Biden and the Democrats had gone with that. And then when he when Joe Biden said, of course, we're not going to go with that, he somehow negotiated a deal that still got a majority of Republicans in the House to go along with it. How did he do that? That was just, this is just dumb luck? Kevin McCarthy just stumbled into this? It's not dumb luck, but I just do not think we should hand out awards or compare people to LBJ for doing the bare minimum required of their jobs. Did someone compare Kevin McCarthy to LBJ? I think if you read Punchbowl this morning and you

took, there's an anagram that says somewhere in there that Kevin McCarthy to LBJ? I think if you read Punchbowl this morning and you took, there's an anagram that says somewhere in there that Kevin McCarthy is the second coming of LBJ. We were grading him on a curve here. We didn't default. We didn't default and he didn't get fired. But here's a curve. I think this was a better deal and less chaos than John Boehner had with us in 2011. Yeah, that is absolutely true. I think Kevin McCarthy in this instance did a better job than John Boehner or Paul Ryan would have done, especially Paul Ryan, because Paul Ryan's a policy wonk who actually cares about cutting government down to the bone more than anything else. And I think in this instance,

Kevin McCarthy being like, I don't give a shit about anything, really. Like, I don't have any strong policy beliefs. I just want to keep my job. And yeah, I don't want to, I want to avert default too, because that could cost me my job as well. I think you don't have to have, you don't have to believe that Kevin McCarthy has pure motivations here, but I think he was skilled at figuring out how to get out of this particular predicament is all I'm saying. I think skilled is doing a lot of work there. Once again, all he did was keep the government open and avoid a global financial catastrophe. Oh, I know that. That is like the basics of your job.

Yeah, that's what he did. Yeah, that's what he did. But doing that with this caucus, with the nuts that he has in the Republican House, does not seem like an easy job. So here's how I think we should judge this. Well, first, let me say, your question is, why isn't he losing his job, right? Yeah. The reason he is not losing his job here, or the two reasons he's not losing his job,

is the first, there's no obvious alternative. There's no one that someone wants in that job. And the vast majority of the caucus doesn't want to go through that absolutely embarrassing shit show they went through six months ago. So they would have to be in... They're not going to toss him overboard for what is largely a venal sin against the MAGA 10 commandments, which is what this is. The other reason is this was a fight over spending and the size of government. It's not fucking 2010. This is not what Republicans get out of bed every morning. What drive the Republican party post Trump is a party driven by culture war issues. And so if this was a fight over abortion, trans rights, book bans, all those immigration,

if he had not achieved what he promised to achieve on those issues, it might be a different thing. No one cares here. They're all just play acting in this. They had to have a fight. The Republican base wanted him to do something. They didn't really care what it was. And so at the end of the day,

it really wasn't a big deal politically because it was not over something they really care about. Let's see what happens if one of those issues were to come up with similar stakes. Undoubtedly, he will lose that fight. That to me is the biggest reason, is that the politics of – well, overall politics have changed, but especially Republican politics within the Republican Party has changed. Where the central fight during the Obama era was over the size and role of government and spending. And now it's all culture war. It's investigations.

I mean, a great example is Jim Jordan, House Freedom Caucus godfather, super right wing mega guy. Kevin McCarthy puts him on oversight, gives him gives him the chair of oversight to bring him inside the tent. And then Jordan is the one telling the right wing, just calm down over this deal. Because what does Jordan care about? Jordan doesn't really care that much about spending. Jordan cares that he gets to go do his investigations and attack the Biden administration. And the same thing goes with, like you said, with the culture war issues. One more thing on this is the way to judge this is not what just happened, but what happens next.

Because McCarthy is going to be, he spent some of his political capital with the far right. And so how is he going to build that back? He was on CNBC the day of the vote talking about holding FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt for not helping them obstruct investigations into Donald Trump. So there's going to be, we have to see what he's going to do. There was a report that he is giving the January 6th footage to a conspiracy theorist. There's going to be a bunch of things he's going to do to rebuild that goodwill. And we have to judge not just how he spent the Capitol, but how he builds it back. Well, let's listen to the so only only four of 34 Freedom Caucus members voted yes on this deal. And the four that did vote yes included Marjorie Taylor Greene, which is just wild.

So he did lose most of the Freedom Caucus. It just didn't matter that much. But they're pretty outraged. A few Republicans, few of the Freedom Caucus magoons even did make some noise about outing McCarthy as speaker. Let's listen. After this vote, and he will win the vote tonight, but after this vote, we will have discussions about whether there should be a motion to vacate or not. It is inescapable to me that there must be a motion to vacate the chair. If a majority of Republicans are against a piece of legislation and you use Democrats to pass it, that would immediately be a black letter violation of the deal we had with McCarthy to allow his assent to the speakership. And it would likely trigger an immediate motion to vacate. So they're not happy. They're not happy. And they're just out

there attacking Kevin McCarthy. But, you know, back to the scenario where they actually, you know, decide to go forward with a motion to vacate. So some Republican introduces it, they take a vote. And then assuming the Democrats that no Democrats step in to save McCarthy, McCarthy could lose because he only has a four seat majority. And there are quite a few Republicans who are pissed at him. But then you're right. Then what happens after that?

Because how do you get a more conservative speaker than Kevin McCarthy when you couldn't get that back in January and nothing has really changed? And do Democrats and for Democrats, do Democrats really want a more right-wing speaker than Kevin McCarthy or do they just step in to try to save him because Kevin McCarthy is better than whatever you're going to get next? I think Democrats want chaos in that situation.

That'd be my personal recommendation, but it's ultimately, it's like you're going to trade in for Steve Scalise, the guy who also helped pass the deal. Like to what, what's the upside there? You have to go pretty far down the list before you get to Jim Jordan as the Speaker, right? That's probably not going to happen. And they tried that, right? And that's not going to get them the two, I think it's 217 they need

right now because the House is down a member. But the only person right now who has the votes to be Speaker of the House is Kevin McCarthy. There's no one else. Yeah. Except maybe they can trade for Steve Scalise, but to what end? I think there's, there's one last quality that Kevin McCarthy has that makes him ideal for this role and why he was successful is that he can endure just an endless amount of humiliation and, and pain because he is Tom Wamsgan. He is a paint sponge.

He's a paint sponge. Kevin McCarthy is a paint sponge. That's what I'll say about him. All right. So Democrats don't currently have the votes to get rid of the debt ceiling permanently. Biden said a few weeks ago he's open to invoking the 14th Amendment in the future so we don't have to go through this again. What does that look like? Are there other ways Democrats can make sure that we don't have to go through this again. What does that look like? Are there other ways Democrats can make sure that we don't go through this again in 2025, which is the next time we'll hit the debt limit? Happy reelection, Joe Biden. The debt limit expires 19 days before you get inaugurated, which you will then have months of extraordinary measures, I imagine, to get you into the spring or summer. But what a fun way to start.

imagine to get you into the spring or summer, but what a fun way to start. I still have yet to hear anyone articulate a real way in which you could test the proposition of the 14th Amendment without having crossed the X date, without having actually spent money, raised debt after you no longer have the authority to do so. Maybe someone has a plan for that. By the way, if you've heard of it, if you're a legal scholar, if you're a member of Congress, if you have an idea of how to do that, please let us know because I have done the same thing. I've scoured every take and I have not heard one person who's talked about the 14th Amendment talk about how you could do it before you hit the X date. So if you can't do that, the only thing we can really do here is re-elect Joe Biden, keep the Senate, retake the House,

which will at least allow us to extend the debt limit without any drama next time around. There is certainly not majority support in either the House or the Senate for repealing the mechanism yet, but we should be working towards that because it is playing with fire. And the longer you play with fire, the more likely you are to get burned. Just because nothing bad happened this time doesn't mean something bad won't happen next time. And so we should try to take it away. I think legislatively is probably the only way to do that absent this secret legal theory that no one will put on the internet, at least in a place where you and I can find it. I know there's still that case working its way through the courts where I think

a government employees union is suing Yellen, saying that like she can't, like it's not legal for her to abide by the debt ceiling because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. So like maybe that goes through the courts and something happens. I don't know. That's the only thing that I've heard of otherwise. But yeah, no. And Schumer, by the way, someone asked him about not getting rid of the debt ceiling or lifting the debt ceiling when we had the majority. And he said it wasn't just Manchin. It was three or four others. So I guess then our next move is to find those three or four others and to put some pressure on them to change their votes.

Well, this is sort of why Biden did not leap at that idea because you can't do it. It's also there's short-term political pain in doing so. leap at that idea because you can't do it. It's also there's short-term political pain in doing so. If just voting to extend the debt limit is seen as a bad political vote, imagine what eliminating it would be like in the minds of these people. Now, I think that's a price worth paying, and you can handle that in the long run. But in the mind of politicians who almost by definition fail the marshmallow test, they're always going to choose short-term political security over long-term strategic benefit. And so it's always going to be a hard vote to get them to do. Yeah. And look, I get you don't want the short-term political pain, but I would argue that

it doesn't bring much political pain because like 5% of people in this fucking country even know what the debt limit is. So good luck with your campaign where someone's going to run out and be like, oh, they voted to eliminate the debt limit. No one cares about that. I think we could probably, if you and I sat down together, write a pretty killer political ad on that point, but we'll keep it to ourselves. Yeah, let's keep it to ourselves. All right. Lots of new developments in the Republican primary. Rhonda Sanctimonious.

So two of the people Trump almost killed will try to get their revenge at the ballot box by announcing their presidential campaigns next week. Chris Christie and Mike Pence. The former vice president has boldly criticized his old boss for endangering him and his family on January 6th. And Christie has basically promised to spend the primary kicking the shit out of Trump. Meanwhile, Ron DeSantis, coming off his wildly successful Twitter circles announcement, has finally started to sharpen his case against Trump in Iowa this week. Let's listen. At the end of the day, leadership is not about entertainment. It's not about building a brand. It's not about virtue signaling. It is about results. The former president's now attacking me, saying that Cuomo did better handling COVID than Florida did.

He attacked me for opposing an amnesty bill in the Congress. He did support this amnesty, this good lot too. Two million illegal aliens he wanted to amnesty. I opposed it because that's what America first principles dictate, that you're opposed to amnesty. In terms of the debt limit, yeah, I think he should, I think he should come up. You know, I mean, are you leading from the front or are you waiting for polls to tell you

what position to take? I don't need someone to give me a list to know what a conservative justice looks like. He used to say how great Florida was. Hell, his whole family moved to Florida under my governorship. Are you kidding me? So, so some of this stuff,

I think, is, look, if someone is saying that, I am going to counterpunch. I'm going to fight back on it. I'm going to focus my fire on Biden. And I think he should do the same. He gives Biden a free pass. I'm focusing on Biden. That's my focus. on Biden. That's my focus. So reporters have described these attacks as uppercuts and haymakers. What do you think? Huh? Haymakers, huh? The haymaker. I mean, we should stipulate the press has bloodlust when it comes to covering politics. They'll take anything and make it seem like an uppercut or a haymaker. You don't say. Turns out one of their biases might be conflict, and they love conflict. I also think it's probably pretty likely that DeSantis' team is pitching reporters on how

all of these are haymakers and uppercuts because they have to show the small handful of very wealthy MAGA adjacent billionaires who plan to spend $200 million to get him elected that he's fighting back because the narrative has been he's just been getting punched in the face repeatedly for six months without doing anything. So yeah, I wouldn't call these particularly tough attacks, but at least he is kind of sort of circling around the idea that he might make some sort of case against Donald Trump. of circling around the idea that he might make some sort of case against Donald Trump. It's an interesting strategy where I think the first part of that clip was what he was saying to the audience in a speech where and then and there he did not name

Trump. And then when reporters asked him, national reporters asked him some of these questions, that's when he actually started mentioning Trump by name. So clearly, they are hoping that the actual voters, Republican voters who still like Trump very much, do not get the haymaker or the uppercut, do not hear them. And instead, like you said, the national press writes headlines that probably some of the rich donors and the political class, they digest and not so much the regular MAGA voters out there. I would note that that is an absolutely idiotic, anachronistic, kindergarten-level understanding of how the media ecosystem works. Do you think these people are sequestered like a jury after they leave the town hall? Do you think these people are like sequestered like a jury after they leave the town hall? I mean, it's just stupid.

And I'm sure there are local reporters in those same scrums who are going to put them in their stories read by the local voters. It's just it's just dumb. Have one message, say it at the rally, at the town hall, in one-on-one conversations at the diner and to the press. It's not that fucking complicated. What do you think about the substance of the case DeSantis is starting to make against Trump, even if it's still a little soft, subtle, split between different audiences? It's largely whatever. It's kind of sort of fine. The problem is not what he's saying. It's how he's saying it. And I'm not even talking about

his voice, which is- We could do it in a whole episode on him. Which is, and we probably will. We got a lot of time between now and Iowa. But he sounds like a typical politician. It's just, and it's all like these very weird, unexplained, esoteric references. Like he said Cuomo did a better job than me on COVID. He voted for, he attacked me for supporting an amnesty bill with no context. Do you want Cuomo's New York or the free state of Florida?

He's like, I'd be happy for Iowans to make that decision. I'm like, you would? Do you think they're going to put all those pieces together? What are you talking about? I don't need a list to know what a conservative justice is. It's a reference to a point in the 2016 primary where he put out a list at the request of the Federalist Society of people he would consider appointing to the Supreme Court because of the opening for the Scalia seat. Now, I know that. You know that. Who the fuck else is so sick in the head that they know that?

Yeah. It's a bunch of haymakers and uppercuts for the terminally online. Yeah. And you saw this same problem in the disastrous Twitter space announcement thing he did where he talked about DEI and ESG like a hundred different times without ever explaining what they were. Like he is a typical politician who talks like a typical politician who seems to be in a political right- wing political bubble, I guess. And that is very evident in his messaging, either against Trump for himself or whatever else. I also think there's something a bit weird about and contradictory about his message that I am more electable than Trump. But I am the true MAGA king.

I am the real conservative who delivers, and Donald Trump only does what's in his own political interest. He was for amnesty at one point. He basically is hitting him from the right, saying that Donald Trump moved left on too many things, but that also, by the way, Ron DeSantis is the more electable candidate because people won't.

I just think that's a tough, it's a tough- I don't know. I don't know that Republican-based voters think that moderate equals electable. What do you think they think electable? I think they think strong equals electable. So he's trying to be, he's trying to out- I don't think he's actually reading,

I don't think DeSantis is accurately reading what the voters want. I think DeSantis thinks, I can be your Trump, and I'm a more competent version of Trump. And competence equals electability. Without actually really ever saying Trump lost, that's the hard part, is he doesn't say that, and Republicans don't really believe it. Someone pointed this out today in one one of the maybe his playbook, DeSantis said we would have 55 senators without Trump, but DeSantis endorsed all the same losers that Trump did. Yeah, I know. This is the Yeah, I still think his most his most effective message is like, I'm MAGA without the political baggage, right. But I think you're right that the way he's

what he's approaching that right now is too subtle to too online. It's basically what happens when every politician who's running is losing by a lot and they haven't been attacking their opponent. And then suddenly everyone says, oh, you haven't been attacking. And so they like throw out the whole kitchen sink and it's just sort of like attacks from all different sides and it doesn't really amount to much. That's where he is right now. He also doesn't have a rationale for himself. Back in December, the Monmouth poll had DeSantis beating Trump 39 to 23. This week they have Trump beating DeSantis 43 to 19 with nearly two thirds of Republican voters saying that Trump is either definitely or probably the strongest candidate to beat Biden in 2024. That's tough for a late-fall selectability argument, huh? Yeah, it's not great. And there are two big takeaways from this poll. The first one is that there is no non-Trump lane in this party, because DeSantis lost 20 points in six months,

and almost every single one of those points went to Donald Trump. It's not that they don't want Trump. It's that there is a group of voters who are open to something better than Trump, Trump plus. It's not Trump versus non-Trump. It's Trump versus Trump plus. It would say that there was a non-Trump lane if some of those points went to Mike Pence or Tim Scott or Nikki Haley or these other more clear non-Trumps. And the electability thing is interesting because, you know, we've talked a lot in this show and during the 2020 Democratic primaries about how electability is a bullshit concept. No one really knows what it means. It's a guess. Particularly on the Democratic side, it's really like sort of steeped in racial and gender tropes, you know, where you sort of imagine the electorate through the eyes of some imaginary Wisconsin voter. And, you know, where you sort of imagine the electorate through

the eyes of some imaginary Wisconsin voter. And, you know, in that, I think actually the way that was handled redounded against the women and candidates of color in 2020 and everything. But on the Republican side, it's pretty clear that electability equals strength. And the reason that is, is that you have to put yourself in the mind of how a Republican-based voter sees the world and how they get their information. So if these people are huge consumers of right-wing media, by definition, all the polls show that, that the definite Republican-based primary voter is a right-wing media consumer. And what those people see is a world in which there are all these powerful forces working together, Hollywood, a world in which there are all these powerful forces working together, Hollywood, the government,

academia, foreign countries to wage an all-out assault on the cultural relevance and political power of a certain segment of voters, right? This is what affirmative action is about. It's what trans rights are about. It's like the world is changing and you need a, in that apocalyptic rendering of politics, you need a strong man to protect you. And Trump just looks stronger of Vince's strength. It's pretty strategic at taking everything bad that happens to him and turning it around and using it as evidence of his strength and the threat he poses to the system. The Soros-funded DA indicted me for paying hush money. Somehow he took hush money paid to cover up an affair and turned it into a piece of evidence that he is a threat to this liberal world order. You're going to see the same thing if Joe Biden's DOJ indicts him for hoarding classified documents in his house and all these other things. And DeSantis does not look strong. There's nothing about him that evinces strength, and Trump has that. And that is why he's winning on that point. He looks like a better chosen fighter to take on this largely imaginary system Republicans believe in. Well, it's also why, to our previous discussion, DeSantis is trying to be Trump plus. That is his pitch now. I mean, it makes a lot more sense on the electability side and on the, I'm the real mega king.

I can deliver. I'm more competent. I don't have the baggage. And look at how strong I can be. I'm going after the liberal media and Disney and the woke corporations and the woke mind virus and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But let's see if he pulls it off. I'm still looking at Iowa. Still interested. I'm like, DeSantis is going to spend

a lot of time there. I think if DeSantis loses Iowa, I don't see how he goes on. I think obviously if Trump loses Iowa, he could go on. But I think crazy things happen in Iowa the more you're there. The Iowa caucus is one of the rare formats that allows a politician with real personal charisma and people skills to meet the voters individually, spend times with them and persuade them. There is one candidate who seems well fit. If he is the cog specifically designed for the machine of relating to Iowa voters, it is Ron DeSantis. He's got the smile. He's got the voice. He's got the laugh.

He's relatable. He's relatable he's relatable yeah i just see him sitting in a pizza ranch talking to a bunch of veterans about soybean relatable at the very least he has googled relatable um he has he has asked chat gpt what is a relatable politician what do i do so it. Speaking of the non-Trump lane, let's talk about Mike Pence and Chris Christie. What are they thinking? Do they have a prayer? Are you willing to go to the mat for them like Lovett did for Tim Scott? I don't think you should excuse you or Tommy for the way in which you've also validated Tim Scott's seriousness.

What did I say? What did I say? Give me a quote. I listened to the Tuesday pod at 1.75 speed, generally at 5.30 in the morning on Wednesday mornings. Wow, you're up to 1.75, huh? I'm still in the 1.5 world. Anywho, before we get to that, I just think it is absolutely amazing and fitting that we are now, by the time Christie and Pence announced, we will be at nearly 20% of Republican candidates who were almost murdered by Trump.

So what is Mike Pence thinking? That's a trick question because Mike Pence doesn't think historically known as one of the dumbest people in American politics. I think he probably truly believes that God has sent him on a mission to win this election so sure why not chris christie is probably two reasons for chris christie one i think he needs attention like fish need water and second he has his eyes on a job hosting a weekend show on MSNBC that could be easily attainable if he runs the Kickstarter campaign he previewed where he's going to spend the whole time mixing it up in media moments with Trump. So, yeah, I think he sees no loss for himself either. Maybe small chance he becomes president.

Chance he's got the 11 a.m. slot on Saturday on MSNBC. Chance he's got the 11 a.m. slot on Saturday on MSNBC. Yeah, there really is a certain brand of a cellar corridor, politicians, pundits that think like, you know, like it's Chris Christie. Right. He thinks he thinks that the Republicans he knows in Jersey and New York are like the Republicans elsewhere in the country. He's the same people who think like Mike Bloomberg is what the country's looking for for president. Just a whole, the people who think that like a real independent candidate that would have a chance as someone who's fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. It's like, hello, step out into the rest of the fucking country. You mean the people pitching Jamie Dimon, Wall Street CEO? There you go. Yeah. Yeah. The Jamie Dimon bandwagon, those people that you could, you could, you could fit them on the island of Manhattan.

OK, so Chris Christie. Here's the thing. No prayer. Sarah Longwell was talking about this. And she said in her focus groups, the only mystery is who they hate more, Mike Pence or Chris Christie, because they hate both of them a lot. These are Republican voters, two-time Trump Republican voters. So the base doesn't like them at all. I think Mike Pence's entire campaign

is absolutely pointless, just completely pointless. I have no idea what's going on there. Chris Christie, Chris Christie gets in the race and just attacks Donald Trump for the entire race. Awesome.

I don't think it's going to get him anywhere. His theory is, I don't think Republican voters penalize you for directly attacking Donald Trump. I think that is wildly optimistic, to say the least. But if he believes that, I'm good with that. Chris Christie wants to come just kick the shit out of Donald Trump. Yeah, I'm here for that. That's great. Good for Chris Christie. If Republicans want to make the primary mildly more interesting with some Donald Trump attacks from a certain loser, great. We got a lot of podcasts between now and then, so I'm for it. Yeah. I do have some concerns that with the field being this large now, again,

that it's only making it easier for Donald Trump to win because anyone who's going to vote for Chris Christie, all five or six people in New Hampshire, Ron DeSantis could use those votes. Yeah, I thought about that. But Seth Maskett, who's a political science professor who writes a sub stack, pointed out the other day that really the difference between like three candidates and 12 candidates is not that big a deal. Because it's just where the votes go. It doesn't matter if they were dispersed to a third candidate or that same number of votes is dispersed over 12 candidates, it doesn't really make a huge bit of difference. For someone to have a chance, it really has to be, for all intents and purposes, a one-on-one match between DeSantis and Trump. Could other people be on the ballot?

Sure. If they're getting no votes, it doesn't really matter. But if there are any number of other viable candidates, it just makes it that much easier for Trump to win. So I don't care that it's 12. Three is frankly problematic. You know what my real test is? How many of these goobers finish behind Vivek Ramaswamy, who is the businessman who came out of nowhere to be the anti-woke crusader and who's running for president. Which is, that's a real unique lane in this party.

Right. Because I think there's a good chance that Vivek Ramaswamy finishes ahead of Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Asa Hutchinson, and then Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, we'll see. Okay. I'm not, that's not off the table. Yeah. You know, just a fun, just a fun side bet here. So ideally, one of these candidates will argue that Donald Trump may not be the strongest candidate due to his many crimes and potential convictions. CNN broke the news yesterday

that federal prosecutors have obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which Trump admits that he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran and suggests that he'd like to share the information with the people at that meeting, but knows that he can't really declassify documents as an ex-president. Do you think that stealing the government's secret war plans will land Donald Trump in

some trouble? One would hope. Thank you. It seems, I mean, the guy has an amazing propensity to admit to crimes on tape. This is like the 17th time that's happened. And so it's quite impressive. I do think before we send him directly to jail without passing go on this, it's worth noting. Because a lot of the commentary on this is, this proves he didn't declassify the documents because he says after he was president, he didn't declassify them. But to my understanding, that has never been an argument that Team Trump has made in the court of law. They make it in the court of public opinion all the time. They say he has the power to do what he could have done. It's a way to get out of the argument and cable news panels. But no attorney has gone

into a courtroom, I believe, and said that Trump did not commit a crime because he declassified them because he didn't. And to do so would be to violate every bit of your legal ethics and possibly end yourself up in jail. And so I don't know. What is their defense? What is their, what is the defense for this? That you stole a bunch of, you stole a bunch of top secret documents. You were asked for them back. The Washington Post broke last week that like the day before the DOJ came to get the documents, there was people moving boxes around. They were, they were, there was security people moving boxes around they were they were there was security footage and then there were trump people asking the people who run the security footage how long does that just asking for a friend how long does that security footage stay in the camera

i mean they literally did the crime version of a fire drill so that they can obstruct justice faster that was in the story yeah it was it was it was a it was a fire drill so that they can obstruct justice faster. That was in the story. Yeah, it was, it was, it was a, it was a fire drill. Okay. If the feds show up, uh, okay. The feds are at the door. Let's pretend the feds are at the door go. And then everyone did. And then everyone did their crimes. Yeah. I can't, it doesn't seem like there's a great defense to this. I think the questions revolve around, will the department of justice indict a former president on the Espionage Act? Or will it be a Presidential Records Act violation?

Or will it be obstruction of justice? Obstruction of justice is a difficult charge to prove and to do. And are they going to do, like, would they charge a normal person for this? If he was just the assistant secretary for North American affairs? Yes. He would be in prison. Are they going to do that against the former president of the United States in the middle of running for reelection against the boss of the people making the charges? I don't know. That's the question. I hope so. I'm bullish on this one. Yeah. You're bullish on the law, not the politics, I assume. Oh yeah. No, I'm bullish on the law, not the politics, I assume. Oh yeah.

No, I'm bullish on the law because I am a legal expert as we all know. But I do think like, I would bet that if you, if, if they had to pick, I would bet that this is an easier case to bring against Trump than the January 6th case. Yes. I would, as, as a fellow legal expert who reads the same people on Twitter and listens to the same single legal podcast that you do, I, I do think it's easier to make a political argument about why this is a crime versus the hush money case. But, you know, it's not like I expect it to change Republican voters' minds. In the general, I don't think it'd be so good. He'll say, oh, Joe Biden took documents.

Joe Biden gave documents back. You stole secret war plans and you refused to give them back. I mean, it's going to be an absolutely amazing moment in the hypothetical debate about this. I'm not a documents dealer. You're a documents dealer. Chinatown. Everyone's going to be covered with glory there. All right.

So Trump, who we all know is a policy wonk, also laid out a few meaty proposals this week. policy wonk um also laid out a few meaty proposals this week he he wants to throw a giant nationwide year-long birthday party in 2026 to commemorate america's 250th anniversary and to celebrate he's also reviving his proposal to unilaterally end the constitutionally guaranteed right to citizenship for anyone born in the United States. What a very, very cool, very legal way to celebrate our founding values, huh? Very serious, very substantive, very patriotic. That's how I would describe this. The party thing is so Trump. He wants to like have a party in every state.

He wants a giant like a world fair kind of thing. Also the year long part where we're partying from, I think it's like Memorial day of, of, of till, till July 4th of the next year. Oh, so it's an,

it's not even on the calendar year. It's a whole, it's a whole year. It's a year long party that goes state by state. I mean... It is a very... Yeah, it's like you could hear a lot of people going, that sounds kind of fun.

I like a party. Yeah. But if you happen to be born here and think that you're an American, think twice. Now, we should just get into that because it would be horrific to end what's known as birthright citizenship. It is in the 14th Amendment that any person born here in the United States shall be granted

citizenship. That is part of the Constitution. For some odd reason, the yahoos that work for Trump have led him to believe that he can just end that unilaterally through executive action, even though, again, it is in the 14th Amendment. So it's horrifying because it's just a way to get rid of dreamers, basically. It's a way to make sure that the children who are born here, but born to parents who are not American citizens, don't get to become American citizens. That's all it is. So it's gross. But the idea that this would pass legal muster, even with this Supreme Court,

seems a bit far-fetched. I mean, it's absurd. It's racist. It's bigoted. It's frankly stupid. I would say these two things, if you wanted to try to take a somewhat serious political lens to this, is they are sort of a Rosetta Stone for understanding Trump's appeal and sort of the fundamentals of MAGAism, which the party thing is, it's not just like Trump loves a party and he's going to try to get the village people to do a reunion for it or whatever else weird thing he would do. But it is, the Republicans have tried to find a way, like their message is essentially restorative nostalgia. They hate what America is now, and so they sort of package their patriotism for trying to return it to something else.

And so it would be very much in line to try to make a lot of the 250th anniversary of America, et cetera. The immigration thing is really important to understand how it fits with Trumpism because immigration is the bridge between bigoted culture war grievance and economic nationalism and populism. And this is what I think so many of these other candidates get wrong when they're trying to take on Trump's mantle is the fusing of those two things. And immigration is what won him the nomination in 2016.

And it was one of the reasons why he won the presidency, because he found a way to use it as evidence, both that he was going to stand up for a certain segment of white voters who were scared about the changing demographics of America, and a certain set of workers who feel left behind by the economy, in part and incorrectly, because they believe that immigrants are taking their jobs. And so this is right in his wheelhouse. Yeah. And I would also say that, you know, we've talked about before how the politics of immigration are complicated. I think the median voter in this country would probably say they are in favor of more border security and also in favor of certainly making sure that dreamers become citizens, people who are born here, and also in favor of more immigration and a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants who are here. And so I

think that the idea that you're going to end birthright citizenship, I haven't seen any polling on it, but I would imagine it is quite unpopular, even though immigration politics are sort of complicated. So I do think sort of in the vein of the CNN town hall where Trump said a bunch of shit that is probably wildly unpopular and a general election. I think this falls into that category. And I don't think Democrats should necessarily be afraid of this one. No, not at all. If it if it came to pass, it would be horrific. But I think we should go on the offense on this one and let people know this is one of Trump's plans or something that he's trying to do, because I don't think it's be horrific. But I think we should go on the offense on this one and let people know

this is one of Trump's plans or something that he's trying to do, because I don't think it's very popular. The party, on the other hand, I don't know. I'm sure that's popular. I'll see you there. I'll see you. I'll see you at Trump's 2026 America party. When we come back, Congresswoman Barbara Lee will be right here in studio and she and I will talk about her Senate race. Joining us now is a longtime progressive champion who's now running to replace retiring Senator Dianne Feinstein. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, thanks so much for being here. Glad to be with you. I know you've had a long week that was capped off by a vote last night on the budget deal in an early morning flight back here to California.

You voted no. Do you think President Biden could have negotiated a better deal? I think the president negotiated what he could negotiate. It was lose-lose based on Speaker McCarthy and the extreme MAGA Republicans. And if you look at their budget and what they passed out of the House, in no way was that acceptable to the president or House Democrats. And so I think the president did a great job in the negotiations based on the hand he was dealt. And, you know, I think that as an appropriator, however, you know, I looked at that budget and the deal very carefully. And just based on domestic discretionary spending, we're going to lose about a billion dollars this year. And so myself, the ranking member, Rosa DeLauro, we voted against that because we knew it was passing. I mean, we would never let the country go into default. But we have to look at, myself

personally, the 20 million people who are one paycheck away from poverty here in California and my district, and I voted against the bill. Were you at all surprised that McCarthy and a majority of House Republicans agree to this? Well, when you look at the vote, it was Democrats who delivered that vote. That is true. That is true. I didn't even know if he'd get a majority of his majority. Yeah. Well, look at the rule. You know, Democrats had to take the rule over. And so these are extreme MAGA Republicans, and they listen to Donald Trump, and Donald Trump wanted the country to go into default. This was a manufactured crisis. We fought for a clean debt ceiling bill, which we voted for three times under Donald Trump.

ceiling bill, which we voted for three times under Donald Trump. And in no way should it have been joined with an appropriations budget vehicle in terms of the provisions of the bill. We asked for it to be on parallel tracks, but that did not happen. And it was really the MAGA Republicans, that was their bill. And President Biden really mitigated against a lot of the pain that could have been had as a result of what happened. There are three House members in the California Senate race. You and Katie Porter voted against the deal. Adam Schiff voted for it. Do you think that vote should be a relevant issue in the Senate race? Well, the voters will decide. I don't view

my votes in a political context at all or in a campaign context, because I have to look out for the least of these, the most vulnerable, my constituents, and again, the 20 million people in California who live in one paycheck away from poverty. When you look at the work requirements, we looked at who's going to lose. It's going to be primarily black and brown women with children. When you look at a lot of the cuts and how they're going to impact our domestic spending, it's going to be atrocious. It's going to be harmful. When you look at defense, for example, and I think you know that defense spending, it's unacceptable. It's not sustainable. That was $886 billion that the most vulnerable are paying for. And when you look at the escalation of the defense budget, I want to remind you that the Pentagon has never been, well, it's been audited five times. It was myself and a Republican who got the requirement to audit the Pentagon, the only agency that has not been audited. It's been audited five times and it has flunked

five times. And we know that there's $150 to $200 billion that GAO indicated, waste, fraud, and abuse, taxpayer dollars, waste, fraud, and abuse. So $886 billion in this bill was just unacceptable, especially when you have the most vulnerable paying for that. You've served in the House for 25 years, where you're now the highest ranking black woman in Democratic leadership. What made you decide, I don't want to stay in the House, I don't want to retire, I want to run for Senate? The Senate is absent voices such as mine. The Senate needs representation. Representation matters in a democracy. And when you look at

what's missing in the Senate, people who look like me, there are no black women in the Senate. And since 1789, there have been two African-American women serving, Vice President Kamala Harris and Senator Carol Moseley Brown. I have the experience. I was in the California legislature. I'm a progressive, but I know how to move the ball forward to make sure that everyone has a shot at the American dream. I've been fighting for years for the LGBTQ plus community,

for communities of color, for women, for the disabled, for seniors, and I've been able to get the job done. And you can look at my record. And so I think now the Senate needs my voice. It needs my perspective. There's so many issues that aren't being addressed. When you look at housing, the affordable housing crisis, when you look at the climate crisis, when you look at public safety, when you look at what is taking place here in California, again, the 20 million people living one paycheck away from poverty, I've been fighting for low-income working families and the poor all of my life. I've lived that experience. And so I want to take my experiences, but also

the job that I know I can do in the Senate to make life better for every Californian. What do you want to try to get done in the Senate that the House hasn't been able to get done? Well, I want, first of all, to have the Senate debate affordable housing, what that means, and some specific plans. You don't hear many senators talking about the unsheltered and a plan to make HUD be more focused on how we can work together to make sure people are not evicted so that they don't get to the streets. But if evictions take place, how we immediately, and I think Mayor Bass is phenomenal in what she's doing. And she's a supporter of mine, and I know her very well. And I'm watching and seeing how she's doing this, getting people off of the streets into shelter

as quickly as possible with children. It's a shame and disgrace in the wealthiest country in the world, we have unsheltered children. But with the mental health services, the wraparound services, also with job training and whatever people need to stabilize their lives and then make sure they have a safe, clean place to live. But then you have to take it further to rent. You know, the rents here in California, who can afford on $15 to $20 an hour to live in California?

It's outrageous. I mean, yes, I support $25. This should be the floor. That's not even a living wage in California. But we've got to get to where people can live in California. And so we have to raise the minimum wage to a living wage here so people can afford to rent properties, you know, rent an apartment or a house or whatever. And then you have to look at home ownership. Young people can't purchase homes in California, in my own district now, I think the average two-bedroom house is

over $700,000. So what do you do? So you have to have a comprehensive affordable housing strategy, and the Senate is not doing that and putting those ideas forward. What do you do about that? Because as you mentioned, there's a problem with people not being able to afford any shelter whatsoever and they're on the streets. There's also rents are too high, impossible to buy a home. Is this an issue of supply? Is there a need to build more affordable housing? How does that get done? Is this an issue of supply? Is there a need to build more affordable housing? How does that get done? Is this an issue of rent control? What are some of the policies you think would make a difference? All of that. First of all, we need to figure out how to prevent evictions. We saw that with the moratorium during the height of COVID. We had the resources to do that, right?

And we did it. Secondly, we have to look at creative ways to develop affordable housing. I led the effort to establish, with Bernie Sanders, he did the Senate and the bill, to develop housing trust funds. And this is just another way, a creative way, to have a strategy for homeownership, where the trust fund buys the land with property and then you go in and rehab the property and then a homeowner a potential home homeowner can afford that property because they're not paying for the land but yet they acquire equity in that that house and when they want to sell they'll sell it they may not get as much but they will get a profit and so housing trust funds are very creative ways of developing affordable housing for people to purchase homes. Then on renting apartments, you know, so many, and I have a bill right now, the Deposit Act, so many people can't afford the deposit to rent a

house or to rent an apartment. So we have to have our federal government, and HUD can do this, to help people with deposits. I mean, who can come up with $5,000 or $6,000 if you're working at a $30,000 job, right? And so we have to have the federal government work with state and local private sector to come up with a strategy for deposits for people who can't afford it. So we have to look at it as a continuum and as a comprehensive strategy. And there are many, many ideas from low-income housing groups, Mayor Bass again, that need to be championed in the Senate that aren't being championed now. You have long supported progressive causes,

even when those causes have been unpopular, even within the Democratic Party. What are the important but maybe unpopular causes you think Democrats should be doing more to support right now? Where is the party being too cautious? Well, I think the party has been very aggressive on many issues, on climate. I mean, we're working now on issues around climate justice with Raul Grijalva. I'm a co-sponsor of his bill. around climate justice with Raul Grijalva. I'm a co-sponsor of his bill. So I think we need to do more around climate justice and addressing climate for, you know, cleaning up low-income communities where pollutants have sited their plants and poisoned the soil and the air. And so we need to do more on environmental justice issues. And I think the party is beginning to do more. I support the decriminalization and legalization of cannabis. I co-chair the Cannabis Caucus.

When you look at marijuana justice and when you look at what's happening, what has happened with black and brown people in this state, in the country, It's crazy. So many people have records now because of that. And so I think the party, we need to push. I was on the drafting committee, one of 15, during this last election, and actually when President Obama ran. And so I got in provisions on decriminalization, but we couldn't get the party to go toward descheduling and legalization. And so we need to move toward that, of course, with the proper controls in place and the proper regulations, but we've got to do that. It's a criminal, it's a justice issue. I know you've been, one cause you've been supportive of is the California's Reparations Task Force Plan that represents this country's biggest effort to

design a reparations program. Can you talk about how that program might work and how you might convince other legislators in other states to adopt such a program? Sure. And I'm really proud of, first, our Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, who took this on in spite of all of the pushback and the governor, Governor Newsom, for signing that. And I watched the work as it took place, and I did speak at the last meeting. First, let me just say, reparations is an international concept. This is not just a United States concept. Countries everywhere in the world understand that when damage is done, when there is harm inflicted based on human rights, based on

slavery, based on whatever, that you have a responsibility and a duty to repair the damage. I have the bill to set up a truth, racial healing, and transformation commission also because you have to have and transformation is reparations but you have to have the truth told about what has happened here in this country as it relates to African Americans in the Middle Passage. And I think this task force had went around the state and they found some truth tellers in terms of what has happened. And so we have a responsibility to do this so we can heal because we're in a divided country racially. And a lot of people don't understand the history of this country in terms of the 250 years plus of being enslaved.

My great-grandmother was born in Galveston, Texas, during slavery. And the generational trauma and the generational economic gaps that have happened. I mean, when you look at the average income, the wealth gap, when you look at the incarceration rates, when you look at the housing disparities, when you look at the healthcare, I mean, COVID, you saw so many black people. So you see the damage. And criminal justice, that is not just because of today, that's because of policies that were developed as a result of enslavement, Jim Crow, reconstruction, segregation, racism. And so this has to be disrupted, these policies. And reparations is a way to do that. And of course, we supported Japanese reparations. We supported reparations for every group that has been damaged by policies. And this is not an individual thing.

This is about the policies of our government and what our policies have created in terms of generational gaps and generational and systemic racism. And so I think the commission is looking at ways to address that. And I'm not certain the proper way the experts are looking at it, but we've got to do that. And I hope that California will set the standard so that we can pass H.R. 40 in Congress, which is just a commission to study nationally reparations and my bill to establish a truth, racial healing and transformation commission. So there are a lot of California Democrats who are big fans of all three of you running for Senate. I know that Congresswoman Porter and Schiff are your colleagues. You all respect each other.

I'm sure you don't want this to be a nasty race. But for people who like all of you, like all of your records, think you're all progressive, how should they think about the differences between the three of you? Well, they need to evaluate us all based on our merits, our experience, our background. But also, I would hope that they would look at representation. And in a democracy, this country needs representation. And black women should not be excluded. Our Democratic Party has really, in many ways, benefited from the work and the blood, sweat, and tears of black women.

We're smart, okay? We carry a heavy load, not just for the black community, for everyone who's been marginalized and shut out. We want everyone to have a seat at the table. And I think that's what I bring to the Senate race and to the Senate. So a poll last week showed that 67% of Californians believe that Dianne Feinstein is no longer fit to serve in the Senate. Certainly, it also seems like the people around her seem to know that she could retire tomorrow and be replaced with another Democrat. So far, she has refused to do that. Do you think that's the right call? Listen, first of all, I did not file my papers to run for the Senate until Senator Feinstein issued her statement.

I talked to her in December, issued her statement that she was not going to run. That's out of respect. That's just who I am. And I want her to get well. I hope she's feeling better. She's back in Washington, D.C. And that's it for me. I'm focused on this race

and her health. And I think that's what, and I understand all of those who have different points of views. But just as a person who recognizes her legacy and respects her and who I am as a human being, I'm just praying for her health. Okay. There's been a lot of discourse about age in politics lately, not just Feinstein. Biden is 80, Trump is 76. You're 76. If you win, you'd be in your mid 80s at the end of your first term. Have you given any thought to whether you'd serve just one term or? You know, I don't, I haven't, age is a number. I have a lot of experience and I bring a heck of a lot to the party, the Democratic Party, and will bring a lot to the Senate. And so I have not even thought about re-election. I'm thinking about election right now so that I can win. And I

hope that Californians really understand that what's needed now in the Senate is my experience, understand that what's needed now in the Senate is my experience, my courage, and my convictions. I mean, you know, when the authorization to use military force was presented, everybody voted for it. That was to go into Afghanistan after the horrific events of 9-11, where so many people were killed in our country. There was a 60-word resolution that came before us, and it gave any president, including President Obama, the authority to go to war in perpetuity. I said no to that. And I think you have to have somebody who you can look at their past to understand what they will do in the future. And that's what I hope people will look at and factor that in as they make their decisions, hopefully to vote for me.

If Senator Feinstein does change her mind and resign, Governor Newsom will appoint her replacement. Do you think it would be fair for him to appoint one of you running for the Senate seat, knowing that it might give that candidate a bit of an advantage? First of all, I'm not going to get involved in the governor's decision-making process. I mean, he did commit to appointing a black woman, but he's going to do what he intends to do or wants to do. I'm going to stay focused. I've got to stay focused. I've got to raise money.

We're building a great team. We're doing a grassroots campaign, lots of support throughout the state. And if I started thinking about other things other than my day job and this campaign, no, I'm very focused. This is obviously the first time you're running statewide. What is it like? How's the campaign going?

And what's sort of the path to victory for you guys? It was great. Last week, you know, it was the convention here in Los Angeles. And it was really unbelievable because let me tell you, I've been a party person, Democratic Party person, since I was a youth director, Northern California youth director of the party. And there were so many people there who knew me and who know my work in the Democratic Party. I helped start the Peace Caucus, the Progressive Caucus. I helped start the Poverty Caucus. And so I've worked with delegates and grassroots organizations in the party for years and years and years. As I said, I was on the drafting committee twice for the Democratic Party platform, brought a lot of

California provisions into our national platform. And so it's really an exciting campaign because I really am working to get the Democratic Party endorsement like everybody else is. But last week at the convention, I mean, we had lines of people coming up to me, thanking me, telling me they're going to support me, telling me they're going to vote for me. Lines of people talking about the issues in California, where I stood. Many wanted to compare me with the other two candidates, which is fine. That's what you do in an election. I spoke at several of the caucuses. Those that weren't decided came up and said, sign cards. I'm with you. I'm with you. So it's really a reward.

And this is all over in rural counties, in the desert, in Southern California. You know, I was raised actually in San Fernando. I went to San Fernando Junior High and San Fernando High School. And let me just finish by telling the story about San Fernando High School. When I was 15, I wanted to be a cheerleader here in the Valley. And I'm a Valley girl. OK. But there was a selection process where you go before a selection committee and this little group would select you. But I didn't look like what they would select.

OK. 15 years old. And I wasn't sure what to do. And then I remember the NAACP, because my mother was one of the first 12 students to integrate under the NAACP's lawsuit, the University of Texas, they don't pass it. So I went to the NAACP, I said, I want to be a cheerleader. And they looked at that, they said, we'll work with you. They helped me organize. And there was a lot of pushback, but we pushed the administration to change the rules of the game from a selection process to an election process. So I tried out in front of the student body, and guess what? I won. I was the

first black cheerleader at San Fernando High School. And at the same time, other girls of color won that same year. And so I share that story because it's about dismantling these systems that are barriers for people, whatever it is, based on gender identity, based on whatever, race, gender, disability, age. We've got to make this country fair and equal for all. And so I've been doing this since I was 15, my first election, and I won that and I intend to win this one. Well, I was going to ask about sort of how your life experiences have shaped your political views. You mentioned that story. You know, you were born in El Paso at a time when the city was segregated. You and your family have experienced firsthand the effects of segregation and discrimination. Like you said, your mom was one of the first to integrate University of Texas. You became the first black cheerleader in the San Fernando High. How have all of these sort

of personal experiences shaped your view of politics, of this country, and what's possible in this country. Yeah. And I was found public assistance also after a marriage, which, you know, I found myself in a domestic violence situation. I'm a survivor of domestic violence. Had an abortion early on when I was living in San Fernando. I was on public assistance when I was a student at Mills College, an all-women's college in Oakland. Raised two small, now my age, phenomenal young men as a single mom. I had to struggle a lot. I went to UC Berkeley. I founded a community mental health center. Now, you know, I understand the mental health crisis because that's my background, clinical social work. And so I've always had many challenges that so many black women and women of color have, but they're not, they're challenges for me to figure out how to make sure everybody doesn't have, they don't have

to go through what I went through. And so I always look at policies and structures and what I can do to make life better for everybody. And so my experiences have shaped my view. When I was in views of what I need to do as a public person, when I was in Sacramento, I was in the legislature. Pete Wilson signed more of my bills into law than mostly anyone who was elected in 1990. I carried the Violence Against Women Act. I carried the bill that enhanced sentences for blocking abortion clinics. You just name it, and I did it. And he signed my legislation because I'm progressive. He was right-wing, and we'd end up, I'd negotiate,

and I'm a good negotiator right there and get my bill signed. And so I believe that my life experiences, people will look at. I said earlier 20 million people in California live one paycheck away from poverty. I fought my own party to say the P word. It was always fighting, which we must do. And I continue to for the middle class. But we never talked about the poor. OK, so we set up a task force.

Finally, after about 10 years, I got everyone to see the light. So I chair the task force on poverty and opportunity. So I just use those personal experiences to try to make life better for everyone. My dad was a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. He served in World War II and in Korea. Yet when he wanted to buy a house in San Leandro, California, you know, in San Leandro, they were burning crosses. You know, in San Leandro, they were burning crosses. We had to drive around, coming from Southern California to visit my aunts,

had to drive around San Leandro because black people were run out of town. My dad wanted to buy a house in San Leandro, and my mom did when he was stationed at Fort Ord. He was run out of town, and he had his uniform on. But guess what? Today I represent San Leandro and the House of Representatives when I was in the legislature. So the arc of the moral universe is long, as Dr. King said, but it bends towards justice. And so I have to just say, and still I rise. And we have to remember that. Well, that is very inspiring as is your story and career. So thank you for joining us. Good luck out on the trail and come back again soon. Glad to be with you nicely and you here on this coast. I know, I know. Take care. All right, that's our show for today. Thank you to Barbara Lee for joining us

and hope everyone has a fantastic weekend. Oh, wait, John, John, John. Oh, hi, Elijah. Before we go, can we do a quickie? Have a quickie? Do a quickie? You know what? I would move on from there. Yeah, I'd move on. I'm glad you wore your...

Go, continue. Wore what? Don't worry about it. It's Pride Month. Conservatives have embraced cancel culture recently, and they're going after any brand that they deem as woke, including Bud Light and Target. Now the right wing is divided over the latest brand

to enter their crosshairs, Chick-fil-A. What did Chick-fil-A do? They hired a vice president of diversity, equity, and inclusion. That's it. Some conservatives are saying that they shouldn't boycott the famously Christian company. Other conservatives have another take. Here's right-wing goon and Elon Musk favorite, Benny Johnson. Let's hear their clip. Chick-fil-A, ladies and gentlemen, the biggest fraud ever pulled on American Christians. but this is some type of like christian company shame on them shame on them let me tell you what go read your gospels

let me tell you someone who wasn't tolerant christ tolerance is not a christian virtue wow did that deliver let me tell you let me tell you someone who wasn't tolerant. Jesus Christ. Famously intolerant. I do not know that Benny Johnson has actually read the Bible. I will tell you. He knows content. I was raised Catholic.

I know my New Testament. Pretty sure Jesus was tolerant. I thought he was going to say, you know what's not in the Bible? A vice president of diversity. I thought he was going to go there. But no, no, he went after Jesus himself. The greatest fraud ever perpetuated on Christians. Is that what he said? Yes.

This is tough. Was Chick-fil-A? So if you are a God-fearing Christian, no more Bud Light, no more Chick-fil-A, no more Target. These people are going to have to start like frequenting businesses that are for libs because they're going to, they're now running out of a red state America companies.

I think we're headed towards a completely separate anti-woke economy funded by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Okay. Yeah. Good luck. Good luck. The anti-woke chicken restaurant, the anti-woke department store.

I mean, there had an, there's an anti-woke chicken restaurant, the anti-woke department store. I mean, there's an anti-woke bank. There's an anti-woke SPAC vehicle that's being created. There will be no end of rich conservatives trying to separate their voters from their money. Treat your neighbors as you would like to be treated. Not a Jesus, not a Jesus commandment. No. Not a directive from Jesus. The golden rule, fake news. Fake news. Jesus is here to spread the good word, and the good word is, fuck all your neighbors.

Anyway, that's awesome Danny Johnson great job great job to you Elijah that was a fantastic take to leave us on and again thank you Barbara Lee for being part of this and everyone have a great weekend we will talk to you next week bye everyone Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez.

Our producers are Andy Gardner-Bernstein and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Thanks to Hallie Kiefer, Madeline Herringer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Mia Kelman, Ben Hefko, and David Toles. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube

to catch full episodes, exclusive content, and other community events. Find us at youtube.com slash at Pod Save America.