Pod Save America - “The white nationalist variety hour.”

Episode Date: August 14, 2018

White nationalists fail to organize a rally but succeed in organizing the GOP, Omarosa has secret recordings, and Democrats decide whether to take money from corporate PACs. Then Democratic candidate Rashida Tlaib joins to talk about the history she’ll make as the first Muslim woman in Congress, and Ana Marie Cox talks about following Ted Cruz around Texas.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On the pod today, we'll be talking to Rashida Tlaib, the Democratic candidate in Michigan's 13th congressional district, who is poised to become the first Muslim woman in Congress. We're also going to be talking to Annamarie Cox with friends like these. She's been running around Texas reporting on Ted Cruz. So that's exciting.

And his long shot bid to keep being a senator. We're also going to talk about the Charlottesville anniversary and the protests over the weekend, Omarosa's tapes, and the Democratic Party's relationship with corporate PAC money. But first, Love It, how was Friday's Love It or Leave It? We had a fantastic Love It or Leave It with Ira Madison III, Emily Heller, Awkwafina. It was fantastic. How do you get to be a one-name name person? I think you just have to commit with confidence.

I had some choice words for Michael Avenatti and his presidential bid. Who? Michael Avenatti. Who's that? He's a lawyer who we like on CNN but don't like in Steak Fries in Iowa. And you've got to listen to Ira talk about it. Wingdings, John, not steak fries. He'll be at steak fries, too. He'll be at them all.

Ira has some choice words for Omarosa, even though he's her publicist. Stick around for Emily Heller talking about some shark thieves. Tell me what's on tap for Pod Save the World. Well, John, tomorrow I'm going to listen to our president and record an episode

on the Space Force. I'm going to take him seriously. I want to know, do we need a Space Force? I cannot wait for this episode because I have no idea what's going on with this. Is this something that's real? Is this a made-up thing from a man in decline? Or are we... Is it time? Do we need to step up and have some cooler spaceships?

I don't know. All right. Tommy's talking to Bill Nelson about the Space Force. I do have a pet theory that is based on absolutely nothing, but a feeling that we'll get really, really good at space if and only if we have to fight a war up there. You know what I mean? Don't want to find out. You and Mike Pence might have the same kind of take on this.

Yeah. We also have two chapters of The Wilderness out today. The first is about why we have a historic level of inequality in this country, and the second is about what a big, bold, progressive economic agenda would look like. Lots of smart people in these episodes. We get into the history of the labor movement, talk about Medicare for all, jobs guarantees, debt-free college, all that good stuff. Check it out. But let's get to the news now. Okay. It has now been a year since one of the darkest days of Donald Trump's presidency. I know it's hard to pick just one. This is the day that white nationalists staged a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and then one of them killed a woman with his car. And the president of the United States, if we all remember, responded by saying that some of those white nationalists were very fine people.

On Sunday, the white nationalists tried to put on another rally in D.C., but only a few dozen people turned out, and they were vastly outnumbered by the counter-protesters. So guys, it's safe to say that the Charlottesville anniversary was an organizational failure for white nationalists and other assorted racists. Serwer had a piece in The Atlantic last week titled The White Nationalists Are Winning, in which he argues that Fox News anchors, Republican politicians, and especially Donald Trump are now openly pushing white nationalist ideology through much bigger platforms than a rally with a few dozen assholes. What do you think of that argument? The fact that we have all just come to accept that basically from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Well, when is Hannity? Eight? Yeah.

I mean, I think it's a full line. Eight, nine, ten. You got all your crazies. It's a white. Starts at Fox and Friends. You got your Laura Ingraham. Yeah. I mean, you got your Laura Ingraham.

You got your Hannity. Yeah. It's a white nationalist variety show for three hours. And they are getting more and more explicit. Tucker Carlson has gone full white nationalist. I don't think there's any other fair word to describe the kind of race baiting and anti-immigrant sentiment he's trying to stir up. Laura Ingraham has gotten explicit about the demographic shift in America. There is no other interpretation of that except to interpret it as being about race. You have Stephen Miller, who is clearly a racist, steps from the Oval Office

setting immigration policy. So, you know, in a lot of ways, what the alt-right is or isn't doesn't so much matter. Trump may have emboldened and empowered them, but they are a symptom of what has taken hold of the Republican Party. Yeah, I mean, there's the mainstream media still has this hesitancy to call Trump a racist. They say, oh, he's being racial. But like, we knew in the 70s, he was a racist when they wouldn't rent African Americans. We knew in the 80s when he called for the death penalty for Central Park Five and never atoned for that. We knew when he was a birther. We knew when he said Mexican judges couldn't rule against him. Right. So like, it is a fact that he is a racist. And I think what's frightening about that is that his success politically means that all these other people are emulating that strategy and they're becoming more brazenly racist. So look in Virginia at like Corey Stewart, who is a Republican Senate nominee. He is a white nationalist. He cloaks his views in language about leaving up Confederate monuments. But he's buddies with Jason Kessler, who organized the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, and like his staff is racist. So, you know, it's still talked about

whether or not Virginia Republicans should get behind him as some sort of political calculation and not an obvious moral question. So to me, that says, things have gotten a lot worse. And certainly it's gotten worse in terms of policy steps taken by the Trump administration. I mean, they're demagoguing black and Latino immigrants on a daily basis. They're stopping efforts to prevent police abuse of people of color and stopping civil rights enforcement. He abandoned Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. I wonder why. So I think, you know, by any measure, things have gotten worse. And I don't think we should look at what happened on Saturday and say, oh, look, only a dozen people came out. That is somehow emblematic of momentum of these vile beliefs in our country. Yeah. You mentioned Corey Stewart.

There are now nine Republican candidates running in 2018 with ties to white nationalists or Nazis. Yeah, literal Nazis. Literal Nazis. And, you know, I mean, the times that some of these white nationalists, like Jason Kessler and some of the other ones, have been interviewed, they say explicitly, right, that their ultimate goal, their long-term goal, is to sort of mainstream this ideology. And they see the Republican Party.

They're very explicit about this, right? They see the Republican Party as their best chance, now more than they see the Republican Party, they're very explicit about this, right? They see the Republican Party as their best chance now more than ever in the Republican Party to mainstream these ideologies. And some of them when they have these rallies, too, they always talk about like, they want to sort of clean it up. You know, they want to be in khakis and, and golf shirts, and they don't want to, you know, they don't want to be looking too scary. And they don't all want the tiki torches, right? Because there's something much more insidious at play here is they want policymaking power in this country. And the policymaking power is to make sure that it's a white majority country, which they're very honest about, which now Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham

are saying every night on TV. They're talking about demographic change in the America we love being lost. Well, what's ironic about this is they're going around saying, oh, we need to clean it up. We need to find a way to do this, to campaign on these ideas without being explicit, to make them more palatable to a mass audience. But there have been Republican consultants and Republican campaigns practicing this for a very, very long time. Nixon and the silent majority and Ronald Reagan campaigning on these issues, the white hands ad. I mean, what we are seeing is people using their inside voice on the outside. But this has been a current of the Republican Party for a very, very long time. Great. And David Frum wrote a piece in The Atlantic over the weekend about Dinesh D'Souza,

who's this vile documentarian slash noted criminal and racist who was recently pardoned by Trump. The Republican Party has always had candidates who did racist things like Trump was just talking about, from the Southern strategy to today, to prominent intellectuals, and like D'Souza. And Fr his credit ended the piece with a question, which was, did they really change so much or did I? And I think that's a question the Republican Party will be asking itself for a long time after Trump has stained their reputation more recently. But, you know, they've been dealing with these problems internally for decades. internally for decades. Yeah, I mean, this has been the story of the Republican Party since, certainly since Trump became president, but even before that, which is the constituency within the Republican Party, who believe in, you know, low taxes, no regulations, free trade, immigration,

you know, this is like our friend Tim Miller, people like that. They are a much smaller portion of the Republican Party than I think that they thought for a long time, particularly because that segment of the Republican Party is concentrated in Washington and New York and some of these major cities, and a lot of them are the Republican consultants and stuff like that.

Cosmopolitan conservatism, you could call it, is a very small subset of Republicans. We thought that what we had was a conservative party with a nationalist fringe. We have a nationalist party with a conservative fringe. It tells you all you need to know that noted sad policy wonk, supply sider, Paul Ryan, has a guy running for his seat named Paul Nalen, who is an unabashed white supremacist and an anti-Semite and a vile human. Yeah. That was rejected by Breitbart after they initially supported him.

And CBS did a poll over the weekend asking, you know, do you think, how do you support Donald Trump on racial tensions, you know, on Donald Trump's racial accomplishments, whatever it is. And something like 87% of Republicans approved of Donald Trump on race and, you know, 90% of Democrats disapproved. And so that pretty much tells you all you need to know about where that party is. If you approve of Donald Trump on racial issues specifically, that's a hard one to do. Yeah. I mean, Donald Trump is permission for people to give in to their absolute worst impulses as human beings. Beyond that, you know, the way that I thought about it, too, because while it is true that this current has always been there, there is real danger into how open it's become. It's like there is poison. There is poison sludge at the bottom of the river and it's there.

And we've been saying it's there and that we need to address it. And it's like, what sludge? There's no sludge. There's never been any sludge. Among those who is now calling the president a racist is Omarosa Manigault Newman. Yes, we're going to talk about it. A former White House aide who's promoting a tell-all book about her time in the administration, Omarosa, who was the most prominent and possibly only African American official in Trump's West Wing, writes in Unhinged that the president is a, quote, racist, misogynist, and bigot, and has made shifting claims about Trump using the N-word.

She has also begun sharing conversations that she secretly recorded while she served in the White House. Every story about the White House, it's like one part, awful terror. The other part, what the fuck is happening right now? So she's begun sharing conversations she secretly recorded while she served in the White House, starting with an audio from a conversation in the Situation Room from when White House Chief of Staff John Kelly fired her several months ago. She also has a recording where Trump says he didn't know she'd been fired. Trump is now calling her wacky Omarosa on Twitter. He's also called her a lowlife.

So I want to give everyone time to bang their heads against the wall for a few seconds before we dive in here. But first question on this, is Omarosa credible? And is the White House credible when they say she's a liar? Well, I mean, I think this is pretty easy. Normally, this would be a complicated question. Is she good TV? Yes. Is she credible normally? No, but she has tapes. So that discussion kind of becomes irrelevant when she starts holding up audio of the individuals she's quoting. To me, this was also a reminder that John Kelly is not that smart. He thought he could take Omarosa into the White House Situation Room, intimidate her by having her in there, and tell her that her reputation would be harmed if she didn't go down the right way and leave quietly. That is an insane thing to do

to a person who made their career being a reality TV villain. Do you really think that Omarosa isn't thinking about the twists coming her way? You think she's not thinking about the book deal? Like, come on, man. So, I mean, on ABC this weekend, John Carl asked Kellyanne Conway, who is the most senior African-American working in the West Wing. And Kellyanne, for the first time in like years, was stumped because there is someone who I believe is an assistant, special assistant to the president, which is the third tier down of a commissioned officer. There's assistant to the president. There's deputy assistant to the president and special assistant to the president, which is a lower tier. That's what I was.

So not that big a deal person. And she should be ashamed of that answer. And you could tell it took her a long time to remember his name. Oh, but only his first name. She doesn't know his last name. I don't believe she knew his last name. But it's a big deal because it reflects a huge lack of representation for African-American staffers at the highest level of government. And so credit to John for asking that question. No credit to her for flailing around and malfunction like a

Westworld robot on television. She, uh, yeah. So, so in terms of the question, is Omarosa credible? No, of course she's not. She's not credible. All of her explanations for why she worked at the white house, the idea that she didn't discover that he was racist until after she got there is ridiculous. That is, I think, obvious. But it doesn't matter because, as Tommy said, she has tapes. But ultimately, I think what we were dealing with is someone who looked at her situation and said, the only thing I can do that is best for me is to tell her version of the truth, right, that on her right i mean all the way she's spinning her own experience fine but the the way i see it is even if her story is not wholly accurate it is still someone willing to leave this white house and burn that bridge to say

i saw some shit that would terrify you right and on that i 100 totally you know what else validates her story everything we we know about Donald Trump forever. And that's things he said on Twitter, things he said in public, other reporting from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Axios, all these places that have done reporting on him. Michael Wolf, everyone, every single

piece of reporting lines up with the fact that yes, he is a racist, yes, he is a misogynist, yes, he does lie all the time, yes, he is in some kind of decline. Absolutely. Or not all there, or doesn't know what's going on in his own white house either because he doesn't care or he's you know watching fox and friends or whatever else and like would you be that surprised if it came out that there was a tape of him using the n-word not really of course not not really of course not with everything else we know about him right and like i i understand that she has particular problems um because of who is, because of how blatantly she's contradicted herself, even as recently as like the day after she was fired. She was out there defending Donald Trump. But if we're waiting for some, you know, Boy Scout, morally upstanding, perfect human to leave this White House to comment on Donald Trump, we're going to be waiting forever because they don't exist because they work for Donald Trump. And so she's in there. She's speaking

from it. To me, it goes back to like the Steele dossier questions in some ways, which is like she was positioned to have firsthand knowledge of something that very few other people have. And I think when she says that Trump is declining mentally and he can't understand complex issues and isn't a part of major policy conversations, that is telling. And when she backs up other claims with audio tapes, that is telling. And when she has a documentation of being offered $15,000 a month for her silence, that is telling, especially when you see that Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard turned God knows what in the White House, is getting $15,000 a month for his silence.

So it's all very interesting. And, Lovett, you said this on Love It or Leave It, but she did, you know, she admitted on Meet the Press on Sunday that she was complicit. She said, I was complicit in this White House lying. She's regretful, which you have to say is more than any other person who's left the White House has ever done. Omarosa being willing to burn this bridge and say what she saw in the White House, I think, also reminded me of another piece, which is Stephen Miller's uncle writing in Politico about his nephew, what a little shit he is, for his positions on immigration, especially in this man recounting the incredibly harrowing and moving story of his own immigrant family and also of a refugee that he knew. And what I was struck by is both of these things are very different. I think obviously this person writing about immigration from the heart is a much more pure and honest moral act than what Omarosa is doing. She clearly has her own motives. But ultimately, these are people willing to burn bridges to speak out against something they think is wrong, whatever their interest may be. And it's a reminder that for all the ways in which Omarosa is a shameless and sleazy

and venal and craven person, she has behaved with far more integrity than Gary Cohn or Dina Powell or any of these other people, Rex Tillerson, that have left the White House. And the best they can do is leak on background because they are pathetic. And you know that Omarosa can get out there and do this, tells you that it's not as hard as people like Dina Powell and Gary Cohn would have you believe. Look, there is another route for Omarosa too. She could have taken that $15,000 a month. She could have gotten a very expensive Fox contract and gone on Fox News and lived that kind of life. So she could have found fame and fortune going the other way. The MAGA way. Yeah, the MAGA way, protecting Trump and doing that. She could have if she wanted. For all three of us, at any moment, we can press that

button. There's a big MAGA button that says, press that. Escape route. Go on Fox. I have an announcement to make. One more question. One note on her. We're going to learn if she's right or not. She says the people who have the tape of Trump saying the N-word intend to release it. Who are they? What's going on? Is it Tom Arnold? Let us know. I know. And then, again, though, like, to your point earlier that

this is all backed up by Trump's behavior. I mean, the audio of him pretending he didn't know she was fired and actually he's so full of shit it shows what a coward he is such a coward he can't oh my god oh my god i'm a roast i just heard that they said oh i didn't want that to happen oh what a bummer this fucking guy i said don't fire you oh but we can't undo it oh this is something can i do i can't do anything let... No, there's nothing to do. Call Michael.

Call Michael Cohen. You know what? He's been doing this ever since we've... He's walked into our lives. He's all tough with people when he's at a rally with this crowd behind him.

When he gets on the phone with someone or when he's in person, he's such a coward. Whether it's Amorosa. He can't... He's afraid to attack them. Fake Bob Menendez. Yeah, them. Fake Bob Menendez.

Yeah, exactly. Fake Bob Menendez calls him and he's like, oh, I think you got a bad deal from those Democrats. Omarosa, I can't believe what I'm hearing. People telling me he got fired. That can't be true. He's so nice to Barack Obama in person after doing the birther thing forever

when he meets him finally. It is person after person. He's a weak coward. It's almost as if he's a 71-year-old man in constant dialogue with his abusive father as it plays out on a global stage. One more quick question for Tommy before we leave this topic.

How big of a deal is it that she recorded John Kelly in the Situation Room? A lot of people very upset about this. What's the deal there? Tell us about the Situation Room and all that kind of stuff. So is it shocking that she was able to record the White House Chief of Staff in the White House Situation Room? Yes. That is an enormous breach of the rules protocol trust. But the White House Situation Room, like you walk in there to the left is some interesting stuff a bunch of guys sit over people sit over there men and women who work at the various intelligence agencies they have some cool bells and whistles some comms

equipment on the right or dead ahead of you is three conference rooms and so he took her to a meeting in a conference room reportedly to intimidate her by having her in that room mission accomplished man when you walk in right when in, right, when you walk into the situation room, you put your phone into a little cubby. You do that when you walk into any SCIF, any sensitive facility, where you're talking about classified information because you're not allowed to bring your phone in there because the foreign intelligence services can turn your phone

into a listening device because that's what it is and figure out what you're saying. The fact that she brought it in there and recorded him into this meeting is bad. She turned her own phone into a listening device. But it's not some national security issue like some people are trying to, like everyone's trying to get themselves so worked up about this. Like, oh, it's a breach of national security. It was an unclassified conversation.

The room you're in doesn't make it classified. The contents of what was discussed make it classified. And the other question we should answer for people is, is it normal for White House employees to sign non-disclosure agreements? No! I didn't. No, it's not! I'll disclose what I want. And many people think it's not, there can't be enforced.

The ACLU was talking about, you know, First Amendment protects federal employees' right to speak in a private capacity about matters of public concern. Apparently Don McGahn, the White House counsel, told the New York Times, like, yeah, you know, I mean, or it was reported that he said this, that he drew up these nondisclosure agreements just to placate Trump because Trump was agitated. But he knew the whole time that they couldn't be enforced. Well, here's the thing. You know, it won't be enforced.

Like the idea that they're going to sue Omarosa. I mean, someone had a bit of a harsh conversation with the Situation Room and she's blowing up their shit for the next six months. They're not going to mess with Omarosa. We didn't talk about it, but Axios had this incredible story. All the people in the West Wing were terrified of Omarosa. Terrified. Terrified of her. Like, what?

What? Anyway. Okay. Fun place to work. Enough about Omarosa. So I want to talk about the Democrats' relationship to corporate money. The New York Times ran a story recently about how more and more Democratic candidates are rejecting money from political action

committees sponsored by corporations or industry groups. These candidates are people like Beto O'Rourke, who's raised more than $23 million this cycle without accepting PAC money, Political Action Committee, that's what that stands for. The Times cites a report by Pew that found 75% of the public feels there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and

organizations can spend on political campaigns guys why do you think it's important that democrats do this do you think it's important that democrats do it i should start maybe you guys love corporate packs don't lead us to water i think that I think that we should have big bags and we should stand outside of ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs waiting for them to throw excess profits into our bags so that we might help them. I mean, from a political perspective, okay, from a crass political operative perspective, I think Beto's campaign shows you can do okay without taking PAC money. He's raised $23 million a cycle. He's out raising Ted Cruz. Again, from a crass political perspective, it is a potent message. In 2008, we painted on the

walls of our Iowa offices, the exterior, not paid for by PAC or lobbyist money. People loved that about Barack Obama. Granted, we muddled that message in 2016, but it was a very important distinction not to take that money because you will not ever convince me that getting a big PAC check or getting a lobbyist check doesn't change the way you think about an issue or change the way you think about an individual's interest before you. I don't believe that that's the case. It just does. So from a political perspective, I think it's a potent message, especially in this environment when you have more corruption in DC than we've ever seen in decades. From a policy level, I think we should try to be better than them. So for the DNC, I think we have the right climate change policies. We believe in cap and trade. We believe in the Paris Climate Accords. But I also think

we should practice what we preach by not taking PAC money from, say, Exxon. Well, I want to get to that in a second. I would just, I want to echo the point, like, in 2008, you've never seen polling like this in your life, or focus groups like this. The amount of people who tell you that money in politics is an issue, that corporate money in politics is an issue, that politicians are too influenced by money and lobbyists. It is insane. I've never seen anything like it.

And it cuts across all parties. It's Democrats, independents, Republicans. And the Clinton campaign underestimated it in 2008. They still took money from lobbyists. What are you talking about? And everyone in D.C. thought, this is like a shtick. This is just a game that Barack Obama is playing.

No one really cared. People cared about it. It's one of the reasons we run. It's one of the reasons that Bernie Sanders did so well in 2016 because he took that message too. And the idea – and a lot of people are like, oh, well, Democrats shouldn't unilaterally disarm because the Republicans have all this money. No. Like you said, Tommy, Beto O'Rourke, Barack Obama, Barack Obama ran two presidential campaigns, raised more money than any Democrat in history, outraced both his opponents, McCain and Romney,

by a huge amount of money, never took a dime from corporate PACs or lobbyists. Yeah, I think there's a policy question. There's a politics question. The politics question is incredibly clear. It is incredibly clear that people are hungry for this and they see it as a signal, a signal that they understand that this is an underappreciated issue for millions and millions of people. And I think all the evidence points to what John's saying, that you more than make up for the lack of corporate PAC money with enthusiasm, small dollars, et cetera, et cetera. There's the larger policy question about what it actually means. And this is where I think it's, I think probably one of the reasons that the Clinton campaign was critical of

it, the reason that you see pushback from some people who say, why are Democrats unilaterally disarming is that ultimately saying I won't take corporate PAC money is saying I won't be part of what is a fraction of the problem we currently have in the way money is influencing politics, from lobbying and super PACs to all the other ways in which money has incredible amounts of leverage inside of our political system. But none of that is a reason to then just sort of give up and not send that message to voters that are so hungry for it. I mean, it seems so simple. The argument is always, well, we can't unilaterally disarm, right? In 2016, the DNC rolled back that ban on donations from federal lobbyists and PACs. Before that, they partially rolled it back by saying they're lifting a ban on lobbyists giving money to convention-related expenses from the DNC. I can't be convinced that the amount of extra money you get by taking PAC or lobbyist donations is going to outweigh the feeling that voters have that they're all the same.

All these politicians are the same. They're all corrupt. They're all scumbags. I think if you can draw a contrast, it is invaluable. Low-dollar donations can fund any campaign in 2018. And I double-check this with all of our friends who are fundraisers, right? Because these are the people who have to raise money for a campaign. Every single one of our friends who are fundraisers, who are on the finance staffs,

will tell you that low-dollar donations can more than make up for any kind of money you get from lobbyists or corporate PACs. So, rejecting corporate PACs... Tommy, this is what you were talking about a couple seconds ago, rejecting corporate PAC money sounds like a no-brainer for Democrats. But on Friday, the Huffington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee has passed a resolution that effectively reverses a ban on donations from not just any corporate PACs, which they had already done, fossil fuel corporate PACs, oil industry, gas industry, coal industry. A spokeswoman for the DNC said the move was a response to, quote, concerns from labor about whether the original fossil fuels ban was, quote, an attack on workers. According to the HuffPo article, just 4.4% of workers in the

mining sector, including coal, oil, and gas, are union members. DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a call on Friday that, We have to draw the line that we are indeed a party of a big tent where all working people are welcome. We're not a party that punishes workers simply based on how they make ends meet. We've been engaging with folks in the labor movement to address their concerns. That is such a fucking frustrating statement. It is so silly. It's important to note, none of these bans on corporate PACs has anything

to do with individuals donating to campaigns. It has nothing to do with that. It's about the corporate PAC. The idea that saying we won't accept money from the affiliated corporate PAC of some big energy company is somehow signaling anger or a lack of inclusion for somebody working for that company is ridiculous. It's a ridiculous – you can't find one – we were talking about this earlier. Find the person. Find the person who thinks that.

I mean – so apparently the original resolution had language in it that was like referring to like dirty, oily business and stuff like that, and they thought it was offensive to workers. Fine, whatever. We can have a debate about that, whether we really need to be, you know, but fine. You could have the resolution say, workers who work in these industries are wonderful people. And they are, you know, whatever you want to do to reverse it to like please the labor unions who are upset about this. And it's not the labor unions, it's the it's the union bosses in these in these building trades unions and mining unions right but then you can have a resolution that says okay workers can donate workers from these industries can donate to the democrats we welcome the support of all workers and it also says they

can donate through their unions so if the unions have a problem with it the unions themselves are allowed to donate to democrats mining unions stuff like that no, no. All we want to do here is say no corporate PACs from fossil fleet industries. So this is now a worker at an oil company who's like, no, I realize that I get to give my $200 to my Democrat of choice, but I'm really upset that ExxonMobil and their political action committee couldn't donate a bunch of money to Democrats. There are people who work at Chevron, Exxon, BP who work on renewable energy. It would be silly to punish them because they work at a quote, fossil fuel company. I personally wouldn't care if all those individuals were out like digging oil wells. If they want to support Democrats as an individual, that's great. It's

just the PAC issue. And I think it's just, it's part of an effort to roll back a contrast we could draw. I mean, I just don't get it. I believe them that unions weighed in and made this complaint to the DNC. I just can't stress how hard my eyes are rolling at that complaint. It's so stupid and it's self-defeating for Democrats who actually care about this issue. And Tommy, we were talking about this. And it's self-defeating for Democrats who actually care about this issue. And Tommy, we were talking about this.

The craziest part of the whole thing is that the DNC is saying, well, if you look at the FEC report, because all of our donations have to be public, we've never accepted any money from these fossil fuel corporate PACs before this ban, during the ban, and now after the ban. We haven't accepted a dime yet. Okay. So you take the hit. So you're taking the hit now, but you actually haven't accepted any of the money. So why not put the ban in place

if you haven't accepted any of the money? It is so fucking stupid. It is so mishandled. It's like they went to Home Depot, bought a rake, drove it home, put it out on the lawn, and then stepped on it.

It is so fucking stupid. And I will say, like, look, there's a lot, obviously Tom Perez is the chair of the DNC. He made this mistake. He introduced the resolution. But also, please direct your anger at all of the DNC members, except for four who voted for it in support of it. And especially direct your anger at all of these union bosses who made this mess in the first place.

This is where it is very useful to come from outside of Washington. Because if you live in Washington, if you grew up there, you breathe the air. What's the place everyone goes to dinner in Georgetown? Diplomat? Oh. No, the other one

with all the idiots. Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah. Tortilla Republic? No, the one with the fancy- No, the Italian coast. The Italian, the dumb Italian. Cafe Milano.

Cafe Milano. You heard some doofus who pays 50 bucks for a fucking appetizer at Cafe Milano. You can convince yourself that yes, there's no big deal.

Applebee's Vita over here. Yeah, Applebee's America. So don't quote that book. But this is why Barack Obama, though, could come from Illinois, come from, be an outsider and sort of get the potency of this message and actually make a hard change because it pissed off a lot of special interests. They want to be able to give you their money. Right.

So to the lobbyists. This goes to, I think, the deeper issue around corporate money generally and the fact that when we're talking about PAC money, we're talking about a small subset of the ways in which money has influence. Democratic Party is doing this big reassessment of what we stand for, how we fundraise, what does it mean to be electable, what does it mean to be a Democrat. And I think one of the things we're looking back and realizing is that we paid too high a price for the ways in which a lot of mainstream Democrats, center left Democrats appealed to corporate interests over many, many years. You see it play out in these kinds of internecine conversations about interest groups when what people are saying over and over again is they don't feel represented. They feel like both parties are under the control of big corporations, interests that don't represent their interests. When we have these kinds of dumb fucking debates, they're right.

PAC money is the low-hanging fruit. Yes. debates they're right pack money is the low-hanging fruit yes um but no and but the fact that the democratic national committee hasn't taken this money and yet won't put the ban in place pretty much sums it all up right there because what the but what our friends at the dnc will say is you guys we're not being influenced by these fossil fuel companies we're not taking their money and then on the other hand they're saying well this ban is just sort of like a cosmetic thing it's not important no it, it's important, guys. You've been in D.C. for too long.

Like out in the country, the perception of influence is hugely important. And if you can do something like – and it's especially important among young people. And it's especially important among the non-voters that we need to bring back into the party right now. Just the only thing they – like in their defense, the only thing that's worth noting is that some party activists, including Christine Pelosi, were pushing a resolution hoping the DNC would consider a second proposal to stop accepting contributions over 200 bucks from individuals who work for the fossil fuel industry. And I think that would be a bridge too far to prevent random individuals. So that's, I think, what they would point to about this perception question that they were hearing from you. Well, and if that had happened, we probably wouldn't be talking about this on the podcast, you know, because it'd be like, oh, that's a more reasonable thing to argue about.

And also, you know, it's important to recognize that this has genuine policy consequences. And, you know, we spent a lot of time talking about the ways in which the Republican Party is trying to take America and everything it stands for and drown it in a bathtub. But this is one of those places where the Democratic Party has let people down. You know, when we had 60 votes in the Senate to pass Obamacare, when we had a big majority in the House, the Obama administration had to spend Herculean efforts trying to get Democrats to go along with measures that ran counter to what the health industry wanted, to what the insurance industry wanted, to what the hospitals wanted. When we did the climate bill in the House, which Nancy Pelosi managed to get through, which was an incredible act, it died in the Senate. But even getting it through the House

took compromise and compromise, some of them because of legitimate ideological differences, but some of it because a lot of these people looked around and said, if I go along with this, I'm going to get killed with my donors. I'm going to get killed with the people I need to fund my reelection and win. So, you know, this is not just about how it looks. It's not just about how it sounds. So that's really important. Ultimately, the Democratic Party is right now having a fight about what it means to be a Democrat. And it's a fight that we do not want to lose. And look, there is, aside from the influence that money has, there is a legitimate debate and a legitimate concern about what we do and what happens to workers in fossil fuel industries as we transition to clean energy, what jobs they will have,

what benefits they will have, making sure there's employment for them. That is a legitimate policy debate that is not just about people being influenced by fossil fuel companies. But that is not what this is. We can have that debate. And we can, by the way, also talk about making sure that we have, you know, all of our energy from clean energy by the middle of the century and a federal jobs guarantee so we don't have to necessarily worry about that transition as much, right? Like you can have policies that address both and address this divide between the labor movement and the environmental movement. But corporate PAC money is, this thing is just ridiculous and they should reverse it immediately. When we come back, we'll

be talking to a future congresswoman who didn't take a dime of corporate PAC money during her race and she'll be going to Congress, Rashida Tlaib. On the pod today, we're talking to Rashida Tlaib, the Democratic candidate in Michigan's 13th congressional district. How are you? Good. Much better, much better after just the happy chaos of the last week. I'm excited and energized. Well, congratulations. When you won last week, you said that you wanted people across the country to know that you don't have to sell out and you don't have to change who you are to run for office. What did you mean by that and how did that attitude shape your campaign? I think for many of us, especially, you know, for my families in the 13th Congressional District, which is probably second or third

poorest in the country, but various challenges from, you know, watching both Republicans and Democrats giving back tax breaks, for many of them kind of shying away from talking about, you know, things that are important, like universal health care and other things that, well, I don't want to seem too liberal. And I don't want, you know, they're so worried about the various labels, the various kinds of, I don't know, being called various names. It's really bizarre to me because many of the families at home want them to stand up for the right thing and not have to worry about, you know, billionaires like Dan Gilbert in Detroit to, you know, get them access to a suite, if you can believe it, in Comerica Park. Or I've heard rumors about just feeling this need of getting kind of his approval before they proceed to make a decision on various issues. So that's what I meant. I mean, a lot of us don't feel like we're being represented properly thousands and thousands of people back home that are counting on you making the right decision.

So that's why I mean so many different things, but mostly being a voice for the people that put you there and many of my colleagues in the statehouse. And I know many in Congress are what you would call sellouts. Yeah. Well, speaking of the Congress, the seat you'll be taking was held by one of the longest serving members in the history of the house. You've also said that you likely won't support Nancy Pelosi for speaker if Democrats take back the house. What do you see as at stake the next time the party chooses its leaders? And why do you feel it's the right time to start bringing new leadership into the mix? You know, there's a new era of civil rights, John. There is a new era of a movement out there. You know, you hear about

people talking about justice for all, talking about universal health care, talking about really bringing people out of poverty in a real just way. And many of the people that have been there, generations, I mean, I truly respect their leadership and appreciated all the work they've done. But now is a new time. It's our time. And I think it's really important that whoever's in leadership is reflective of the change that has happened on the ground. I mean, we are living in a Trump era. We have President Donald Trump as, you know, in the most powerful position in the country, in the world. And we need more courage, better, you know, this moral compass that I think is missing. I mean, half of the

people I'm going to be serving with are millionaires. Many don't even understand a city like an Inkster in my district who doesn't have a school district. They don't have a school district anymore, John. Or the fact that many of my families pay the highest rates of car insurance in the nation, primarily because both parties and people in power have not held the insurance industry accountable. And nearly half of my families do not own their own home because of the increase in discrimination in the banking industry, which we just bailed out. It's a new time. We need someone that is connected more with what's going on on the ground. And that's what happens when

you're there too long, when sometimes it is more about political strategy than about serving the families. I think that's when you kind of lose that compass, lose that connection. for just new leadership and understanding on their part that it's time. It's time for us to take the reign and be able to push back against all the hate rhetoric and as well as all the policies that I feel like are anti-working families. So you also identify as a democratic socialist. You'll be the second democratic socialist in Congress along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Why did you feel it was important to identify as a Democratic socialist as opposed to just identifying as a very progressive Democrat? And how do you want DSA to be shaping the conversation within the Democratic Party about the things it stands for? Well, John, you should know. I mean, I, of course, am a member of DSA, a member of

Michigan Democratic Party, a member of League of Women. I mean, I'm in different levels of membership. I absolutely like step away from these kinds of identifiers because I do feel like it leaves people out that do support me and do support the issues that I stand up for. What I do think is important is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and hopefully Ilhan Omar in Minnesota on Tuesday when she wins, that I think all three of us, as we walk into the chamber of Congress, that we stand for these issues of universal health care, of pushing back against corporate greed that really does put up these barriers. I think that it consistently has created this kind of slippery slope to even more people in poverty, more people

in the correction system, and so much more. And so for us, it has to be more about the issues than the labels, right? But I think DSA provides that space for me where when I'm talking about poverty and talking about what I call institutional racism, there is a connection with DSA members and that organization and that partnership that I hope to continue to have in Congress. So they are instrumental in me gaining that kind of knowledge and that fuel that I need to stand up to the institutional racism that I think is extremely present there that hasn't been, you know, at all been discussed in any members of Congress so far. hasn't been, you know, at all been discussed in any members of Congress so far, just about how tragic it has been for our inequity in education, how it is so tragic and seeing kind of poverty increase in so many different areas in my district. And so that that is something that I will be bringing to the to the floor of Congress. So the New York Times ran a piece this weekend about and we were talking about this on the pod today, about how more and more candidates are rejecting donations from corporate PACs, which is something

that you did in your race. Why did you decide this was the right path in your race? And do you think Democrats should be doing this as a matter of policy? And I also am wondering what you think about, and we also talked about this today, the Democratic National Committee over the last week, late last week, sort of effectively reversed a ban on corporate donations from fossil fuel companies, saying that it was about protecting workers, you know, so that workers at fossil fuel companies could still could still donate, even though they still can anyway. What did you think about that? And, you know, where do you think about sort of money in politics and taking money from corporate PACs in general? The irony is so many Democrats say they want to end Citizens United, but then they practice the very essence of what Citizens United was about. we're taking money from the very people that leave our families in poverty, put those kinds of structures in place and processes in place that don't allow our families to equally thrive with

the rest of the country. And I, you know, I'm always disappointed in decisions that have been made like that in that I did it, the grassroots fundraising. I mean, I think over 8,000 people across the country gave from $1.33 to hundreds and thousands of dollars. But what was spectacular about it was, you know, those individuals don't expect anything in return, nothing, but for me to work hard, for me to elevate voices that haven't been, you know, at the table for so many decades now. voices that haven't been at the table for so many decades now. And I would always be able to bring that kind of message to my Democratic colleagues that it takes a lot more work and it is hard to do it in a grassroots way. But my God, you bring a tremendous amount of credibility, integrity back into the Democratic process by allowing the same companies

that are donating to Trump and others that are fighting against us. It really does taint the process. And for us to really bring back people and wanting to be engaged in the democratic process, to be engaged in government, to increase voter turnout, we need to show it by action. And that means denying any access from corporations to influence us and influence our member of Congress. Do you find yourself wondering about how to sort of temper expectations among your constituents? Obviously, even if, you know, Democrats take back the House, there's obviously, or even if they take back the Senate in the House, you still got Donald Trump, you know, vetoing bills left and right. Even in 2020, if, you know, let's hope we get a Democratic president in there, you know, you still have to deal with a lot of conservative Democrats,

Democrats from red states. And so, you know, potentially the most progressive legislation that you've been talking about in your race, you know, doesn't get to happen. How do you think about, you know, how to make sure that you are fighting for what you believe in and what you said during the campaign, but also letting constituents know, you know, we might not be able to get it all in, you know, even a couple of years or a couple of terms, but, you know, maybe I'll be compromising here or there. The only way I can keep them believing in the movement that I'm part of, and it is a movement, is, you know, the creation of the Neighborhood Service Centers. I talk about this throughout my, I mean, I talked about it

throughout my campaign. You know, creating the Neighborhood Service Center that I did when I was a state representative kept me grounded, kept me rooted, but also gave me those bill ideas that I was able to give bipartisan support. But more importantly, getting my family's resources now, the issues that they're facing now, the everyday challenges may be local, state, county, federal. That is going to be my primary role when I'm in Congress. a low-income family that is really struggling with paying their utility or trying to figure out some home repair dollars. All of those resources are available in some sort of way. I mean, I wish there was more, but many of them don't know how to apply to them, don't know that it exists. I said this all the time in various forums. I don't want you to wait for Medicare for All to pass for you to get good health care.

Contact my office. The service center will connect you to a federally accredited clinic. I will personally email the executive director making sure that you don't have to live without having access to cancer prevention treatment. And those are the kinds of things that I think will allow them to continue to have faith in this movement is that I will go beyond just voting the right way, beyond this just legislation and actually help them through everyday challenges and getting resources they need now. That's great. Final question. There's never been a Muslim woman in Congress before. You're the daughter of Palestinian immigrants.

There's going to be more. There's going to be more coming. Don't worry. What does this mean to you on a personal level that you're about to make this history? I think for me, you know, being a mother of two children that are growing up in a Muslim household, and I always tell them, you know, you got to decide whether or not you want to practice the faith. I'm not going to force it on you. And of course, my eldest is fully embraced it. And I love all of his inquisitive questions and this kind of empowerment

that he feels being able to now say, you know, proudly that I, you know, yeah, I'm Muslim and I'm proud to be Muslim. When he was nine years old, you know, he heard me talking to his father about this awful depiction as a cartoon depiction of like the kind of someone of a skeleton figure wearing a Nazi uniform. And it said, Allah waqbar, which means God is great, on his sleeve. And it was a cartoon depicted in USA Today. And I was so devastated by it and paused and just was telling his father, my God, if people see this, they're going to think we're like Nazis. They're going to want to kill us. And without knowing, my son was in the other room. He walks in. I mean, the door was closed. He walks in and he says, mama, don't worry. Again, he's nine years old at the time.

He's 13 now. He goes, don't worry. If they ever ask, I will tell them I'm not Muslim. So he was going to hide it. I cried. John, I couldn't stop crying. And all I kept thinking to myself is, what can I do? What can I do? And I did lead a campaign called Take on Hate for a year. But what that leads to is now, as soon as Congressman Conyers retired, I thought to myself, do I stay outside of the ring or do I get back in? And of course, the number of issues that I'm so passionate about when it comes to equitable development, when it comes to economic justice for all, I also in the back of my mind thought, how incredible is it going to be able to show my

sons that Dr. Ben Carson was wrong, that everything Trump is saying is wrong, because now their mommy, who is proud to be a Muslim, proud to be an American woman, is going to walk onto the House floor of Congress and really send an incredibly powerful, inspiring message that America is great, that this is the possibility of America, that this is the answer against hate. I am so humbled and I get emotional every time I talk about it. My mother, who is already dry cleaned the Palestinian thob, this thob that she has that was sewed in Palestine in the village that she was from. And she's ready for me to wear it when I swear on the Holy Quran, Thomas Jefferson's Quran. Again, if there isn't an

inspiring, hopeful story at this moment of darkness in our country, I don't know what is. And I hope and pray that on Tuesday, Ilhan Omar wins her election. And a woman who comes from such a, you know, challenging history of being a refugee and coming into the United States. And now, again, the possibility of her walking onto the House floor as a Muslimah, as a refugee, and now as an American congresswoman. Again, that is a tremendous American story that we all should love and embrace and let the light shine, because it really is a dark time right now. And this is tremendous light that I think we all needed right now. Well, you certainly inspired me, Rashida.

Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us on the pod today. Best of luck in Congress. We're all behind you. We're pulling for you. And keep up the good fight. Thank you so much. When we come back, we'll be talking to the host of with friends like these anna marie cox on the pods today anna marie cox hosted with friends like these long time no

chat how are you doing i'm i am well thank you i am good i have been traveling a lot i think that's what we're going to talk about but But I have been traveling a lot. Are you in Texas now? I am not in Texas at this moment, but I was in Texas last week. And you know what? I'm from Texas, but even I forget how big Texas is. I drove a lot. I drove a lot in West Texas through the plains, prairie of West Texas.

To meet up with Ted Cruz, who is on a little mini tour a very mini tour it's a mini tour in many ways um it was short because uh well he as he would argue he only had a week off from the senate um and he visited lots of small towns um and uh not not i mean people came you know i wouldn't say the venues the venue that I was at was, you know, empty by any means, but it was not a huge venue. Unlike there's another guy running for Senate and I understand like he's filling auditoriums and stuff. So yeah. Bill Nelson.

Hey, Anna, it's Tommy. What, like when you talk to the Cruz campaign team, how do they feel about the state of this race? Because from afar, I'll talk to journalists or see photos from events at Beto O'Rourke's rallies, and it looks enormous. And we've obviously met him a couple times, and we're rooting for the guy. But it's Texas, and I can't tell how much is me wanting him to win or me wanting Ted Cruz to lose versus the actual reality. Do you have a sense from talking to the Cruz team, are they really worried about Beto O'Rourke? Do they see him as much of a threat

as sort of the national media narrative has recently built him up to be? I think they're worried. My sense is that they did not expect to be campaigning. And given sort of like, I mean, it was great. I had I had a fine time with the Cruz people. They are they are decent, but it felt a lot like they were panicking, not panic. I won't say, OK, maybe I shouldn't say panic. It felt like they're worried. They're definitely worried. Okay, maybe I shouldn't say panic. It felt like they're worried. They're definitely worried. At this point in a campaign for Texas, you know, Senator, I don't think you should be telling people, you know, about yard signs. And that's kind of the level I feel like they're at. They're

asking people to put up yard signs in Brownwood, Texas, which is a kind of, you know, a space on the map. There is no, I was telling people about the great barbecue I had at the venue where Ted spoke and someone was like, oh yeah, no one ever goes anywhere and no one ever goes there anymore because it's not on the way to anywhere. But that's where Ted Cruz has had his, you know, town hall. And are they just worried about getting a crowd? I think so. i think they are um i will say that the crowd that turned out was very enthusiastic um it was you know um on the older side uh it was um largely white but that's because Brownville is largely white.

Um, it, uh, you know, what was weird about it to me was not so much like the size or the level of enthusiasm, but the fact that there wasn't anybody there, you know, kind of kicking tires. I remember when I was coming, covering Ted on the 2016 primary, and you would run into people at his rallies who are like, you know, he's not perfect, and I don't like this about him, or I think this about him, but I think he's a good Christian and a strong conservative, and I think he'll make a good president, right? Those people are not the people that I met at this rally. These people are all in. And they were Trump supporters. That's what they were. Like, they were there to hear ted cruz pledge

fealty to trump and almost all the questions had to do with national politics and his position you know in respect to trump's positions there was like a vague sort of q anon question there was a question literally someone asked when can we expect an arrest of hillary clinton that was an oh my actual question that ted cruz got what did he say i was like and it was from jeff session um he said this is actually very clever on his part i have to admit he said i share your concern that is i don't think that's clever i think that's gross right it's like so it's like don't you think don't you think it's a sign of like how how much he's had to cow to trump into this base that he couldn't just say like you know the equivalent of why uh you know we don't pull it

we don't arrest our political opponents in this country he would never could never say that in a million years yeah i mean you're i mean you're right it's it's kind of gross he did he did say in in something that i think we could agree with he said something like you know the fbi should be the fbi not the democrat fbi not the republican fbi not the you know republican doj or democratic doj um and that was like i felt like i'm the only person who heard that part of his answer you know um because also because what everyone else heard was oh yeah we're dealing with the Democratic DOJ right now. And that's what we have to, you know, have to purge them.

It was someone asked about, you know, Alex Jones getting getting banned from Twitter and shadow banning. There was like there was another question. There was not quite a QAnon question. Oh, but the lady next to me did tell me that there was stuff going on in the government that I didn't know about, and that President Trump was doing more than we'll ever know. And I didn't want to ask a follow-up on that. So these people didn't come to hear about jobs? No, no, they didn't. And they didn't come to hear about healthcare. They didn't come to hear about education. They didn't come to hear about the problems that people are facing in their everyday lives. That was weirdly absent. I mean, I've been to town halls a lot. I mean, you guys have too. And in the heat of a national spotlight,

you do get national questions, right? But always, you can't keep people from asking about local stuff. Like that's like a hallmark of a campaign is that someone's going to ask about, if not like the potholes, they're going to ask about, you know, their brother that can't get XYZ service or, you know, their kid who has, you know, this issue. And that just didn't happen. And it felt like this was just performative, kind of Fox News fandom, you know, like Trump cosplay more than actual Ted Cruz enthusiasm. Although people I mean, I have to say so they were there were enthusiastic about him, but it really was like this weird transference from from Trump. And they told me ever a few people told me, you know, we almost lost him at the convention, meaning Ted Cruz. Look, one thing we've seen is that, you know, Beto is talking about sort of more sort of nuts

and bolts issues, talking about immigration, health care, the economy. And Ted Cruz has been doing this sort of cultural, his tweets, everything he's doing, it seems built around sort of these cultural grievances. Do you think that what you're seeing at the rallies is a subset of just the passionate people that are showing up? Or is Ted Cruz being forced to speak this way and address these things and take on this tenor because that is where the Republican voters in Texas are? I think that's where the base voters, you know, in Texas are. I think that they're that's what's animating them is when you talk about immigration, talk about it in the terms that Trump talks, you know, like,

Ted did talk about building a wall, I will point out that that is not a local issue in Brownwood, per se, it's pretty far away from the border. But, you know, he didn't talk about it, again, in terms of jobs, or in terms of like, what do we do about immigration, it was like, basically, like, you know, wall and enforcement. And that's not actual policy. And, you know, you and I know that and people who have to deal with immigration on a daily basis know that. And I think that, you know, there was this weird aspect to the to the town hall, too, where I felt like he, you know, he is a smart guy. I mean, I've interviewed him a few times and he may make people skin crawl, but he's a genuinely intelligent person. And I could see him like trying to get people to wrap up their questions before they went off the rails. Like there was this like kind of undercurrent of like, please, no one asked me about QAnon.

Please, no one asked me about QAnon. To almost everything, because all of the questions had that kind of fever dream, you know, aura to them that they could at any moment become a Sean Hannity monologue. And I think that he's smart enough to know that that would be bad to have you know go viral at least maybe it wouldn't maybe in texas it wouldn't maybe in texas that wouldn't be bad at all i don't know um but it seems like beto is turning out people that weren't going to turn out before and i think that that terrifies them well we will we are very interested in how this uh piece on ted cruz turns out um we will be we'll be waiting for that. In the meantime, what's going on with friends like these?

What's the latest and who you're talking to and what you're talking about? Well, last week was our monthly check-in with Rick Wilson, who actually has a thing to push now. Yeah, his book. Yeah, he's flacking his book. It's a good read, I will say. If you enjoy his Daily Beast columns and you enjoy his

personality in general, the book is an extended riff, but also, as he says in our interview, a little more introspective than he expected it to be. I know there are people on the progressive left that will never be satisfied with the amount of mea culpa that he does, but I think that he does do some introspection about his role in creating the monster that we're facing together. And then this week is going to be a discussion about how to cover racists,

because we had the somewhat non-event of the Unite the Right rally, and it sparked a lot of conversation among journalists about how do you talk to these people and how do you cover this moment without amplifying it and I think that's a question both for journalists and for people who are consuming the media so that'll be our discussion this week yeah fantastic thank you um well thanks for thanks for stopping by it's good to talk to you again it's good to talk to you too guys don't be strangers thanks to Rashida Tlaib and

Ana Marie Cox for joining us today. And thanks to ExxonMobil for sponsoring this edition of Odd Save America. Hey, I don't know. Could you pass me that duck in that oil?

I was going to squirt it. All right, guys, we'll see you later this week. Oh, we'll also be on. We'll be on. Oh, yeah, we'll be on Colbert on Thursday. We have a big announcement. We do.bert Thursday Oh yeah, we'll be on Colbert on Thursday We have a big announcement

We do, we have an announcement We'll be on Colbert on Thursday But then we're going to be saying something on Colbert Oh, we have an announcement on Colbert It's our announcement announcement We're going the MAGA route We all got a Fox News contract We're pressing the MAGA button

We'll see you on the 5 Oh man Enjoy Pressing the MAGA button. We'll see you on the five. Yeah. We'll see you. Yeah. Oh, man. Enjoy.