Pod Save America - “There’s no ‘I’ in ‘Unity.’”

Episode Date: January 25, 2021

President Biden steers his Covid relief plan through bad faith whining about unity, Mitch McConnell tries to prevent Democrats from taking control of the Senate, and the MAGA extremists are winning the Republican civil war. Then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki talks to Tommy about being back in the briefing room and the first week of the Biden Administration.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, please visit crooked.com/podsaveamerica. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail].

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Today, we'll be joined by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. We'll talk with Tommy about the first week of the Biden administration. Before that, we'll talk about the coming battle in Congress over the president's COVID relief plan, Mitch McConnell's attempt to save the filibuster, and which side is winning the war within the Republican Party. You know, it's funny, Jon. I accidentally prepped for the interview thinking it was with sean spicer so the big it goes a little

off the rails of the just kidding no it was a just a joy to talk to jen just who's doing a great job did you grill her about the churchill bust and the paint job on air i referenced it yes you'll hear i would like a gay set of eyes on the on air force i saw that i know it's not a priority just like just one pair of lgbtq eyeballs thank you all right love it uh how was the show this weekend great love it or leave it we had kumail nanjiani on for the monologue which is very funny and we did okay stop with the inaugural and then i talked to heather mcgee about her book the sum of us and it was a great conversation. Check it out.

Did you call out Kumail on his cheat days that just definitely don't happen because he's in way too good shape? He's always like, I'm eating this whole pie. And it's like, no, you're not. I feel like every time he's on, we've covered it pretty extensively. So not this time,

but we did talk a little bit about his transformation, just a bit. Got it. Also, check out this week's America Dissected for the latest on the vaccine rollout. Abdul speaks with Dr. Micah Johnson about why the process is so screwed up and what can be done. Check it out wherever you get your podcasts. Finally, we got some new merch in the Cricut store, guys, including Doug on a mug to celebrate our new second gentleman is that real it's 100 real look i just read i just read what's in front of me i have no window into this oh you know what i'll open that window for

you i was like we're putting doug on a mug and it took me like six tries to get it through the get it through the process. But I got it done, Doug. I hope we're sending one to the Naval Observatory for Doug. Well, Blair House for now. Blair House for now, John. Come on. Eventually. Stay up on the housing news.

I know that. It's not going to be permanent, guys. All right. And this one I want in the merch store. A Got Mitch t-shirt. I want the Got Mitch t-shirt. Someone send that to me. Crooked.com slash store to check out all the great merch. All right, let's get to the news.

The first and biggest item on President Biden's legislative agenda is his $1.9 trillion plan to fight the pandemic and the recession. It includes money to speed up vaccinations, expand testing, and reopen schools. It also includes $1,400 checks, an extra $400 a week in unemployment, money to prevent state and local layoffs, money for child care, paid leave, rent support and eviction freeze, a student loan freeze and a $15 minimum wage. The White House kicked off their congressional outreach on Sunday with a call between National Economic Council Director Brian Deese and a bipartisan group of senators that Joe Manchin got together. Council Director Brian Deese and a bipartisan group of senators that Joe Manchin got together. After 75 minutes, the Republican senators told a number of outlets that Biden's plan cannot get 60 votes in the Senate, as is with Susan Collins saying she has, quote, concern. Oh, no.

Because of course she's concerned. Love it. What are some of the Republican concerns and what's your reaction to those concerns? So first of all, they have one concern, as far as I can tell, which is just the number. They seem to really be focused entirely on, oh, that's a very big number. I have some sticker shock, the price tag, like they're negotiating over a car. Mitt Romney said it was shocking. It's a shock.

Well, the thing about it is that like this isn't a car. It's not like like what don't you want? What part of this crisis are you not willing to address? Right. Like, is it the money for state and local? Right. That's 350 billion of it. Nobody wants to say that's not what they're for. Republicans, because Trump had pushed for it previously, said that they were open to doing two thousand dollar checks and unemployment insurance, which is a full trillion of it. Right. They all seem to rally around like there's like, what, 20 billion for vaccination. There's 50 billion for testing. There's 40 billion for PPE. You start going through it and you realize very quickly that

what they're really saying is we don't want to talk about the pieces of this we don't want to vote for because no Republican is going to come out there right now. We've got a million job claims. We have 10 million job hole. We're in the middle of a crisis. If the job numbers we saw this week were the first things we'd seen, it would be the start of a deep, terrible recession, right? We're in the middle of a national crisis. So they won't say make the check smaller. They won't point to what they want. So they're saying, oh, we have sticker shock. It's just too big. Tommy, yeah, it was sticker shock mainly, you know, and part of the sticker shock was we just passed $900 billion, you know, in December.

There was a few Republican senators who say there's too many non-COVID specific items like a minimum wage increase to fifteen dollars an hour. And then I guess Susan Collins and a few others had an issue with the fourteen hundred dollar checks going to people making too much money. They said that families making as much as three hundred,000 could potentially get those $1,400 checks. What's your response to sort of all of these various concerns? Yeah, look, I mean, I share a love it sort of annoyance with the people like Mitt Romney who are like, yeah, I support extending unemployment insurance and money for states and money to help with vaccine distribution, but not this much. Well, OK, then what is what is the right amount? It also seems like some of them are of the view that the economy will bounce back once COVID is handled. So they're sort of deprioritizing the economic relief.

Others like Rob Portman is in the press crying because the White House hasn't called him. So I guess maybe just being a thin skinned baby is his priority in this instance, not helping people. You know, like I it does seem like it's there's some hope here. Right. These people actually these Republican senators actually support all these things in good faith. Maybe there's a chance you can cobble together a package that they could support. But who knows? We'll see. Yeah, I mean, if you take their concerns as good faith concerns, what I would say is like none of these senators had an issue with Trump's first $1.8 trillion plan last year, the CARES Act, or the $900 billion plan this fall.

And nothing has changed about the state of the virus or the economy. The only thing that's changed is the money's going to run out. We know that life is not going to return to normal until the fall, hopefully earliest, completely normal. The last relief plan was specifically designed to get us through the winter. As Lovett pointed out, the job losses are still continuing. The December report was 140,000 jobs lost, which started reversing the so-called recovery. Unemployment benefits are going to run out in March. There's a cliff on that. And we're not vaccinating people quickly enough right now. Not nearly enough.

So like all of the need that was there when the CARES Act was passed, the need that was there in the $900 billion pass is all there now. And so the reason it's this much money is because that's what it required last time. And so the reason it's this much money is because that's what it required last time we had. We needed a big package to get us through the fall for the to last the recession in the pandemic. Well, it's just here's the thing. Like if if if there seemed to be 10 Republican senators that could get behind like, OK, the minimum wage, they're not going to be for that. It's the one issue on which they seem principled because the popular issue. But they're not having a debate about whether or not to take a $1.9 trillion package to $1.7.

They're acting as though they want to see a much different, a much smaller thing. We just can't do that, right? Because each piece of this, when you look at it, each piece is required, right? Like Joe Biden promised getting those checks up to $2,000. Unemployment benefits are needed. The $350 billion for state and local is needed. The money for PPE and testing is needed. Biden has been saying we're in a national emergency. We need to act like it, right? This is a package that reflects the actual scale of the problem. Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, their problem is with

the scale of the issue and giving and creating like artificial constraints on the amount to get their votes doesn't make sense when it seems like they're not looking, they're not quibbling. They're looking for an entirely different proposal. Well, so Politico reported that even some Democrats indicated that they're not sold yet on Biden's plan. How much of a problem do you guys think that is, Tommy? It's hard to know. I mean, I'd like to see actual senators on the record saying as much. I did see that Jason Furman, who was a Obama administration economist, suggested that he thinks he'll have to come down some to get all the Democrats you need, even for a reconciliation vote. My guess is that the Biden team started big with this package, anticipating the fact that it might get negotiated down in some places. I think

that's smart negotiating. It's what I would have done, too. The thing to remember, though, is that Bernie Sanders is now or about to be once they figure out how to make the Senate go forward. He's now the chair of the Budget Committee. And he said over the weekend that he wants to use the budget reconciliation path to pass a really big COVID relief package. So, you know, that's I don't know what Democrats are on board or not, but Bernie is forging full steam ahead here. Yeah, well, let's talk about that. I mean, I do think on the question of getting all the Democrats on board, you're right. You can have some negotiations around the edges here. Like if they wanted to target the fourteen hundred dollar checks so that they're not going

to people making three hundred thousand dollars, but, you know, somewhat less than that, like I'd be fine with that. I'm sure that could bring the price tag down a little bit. But you're right. There's not going to be major changes just to get Democrats on board. But, you know, the president has two options. He can now change his plan and make it smaller so that he might be able to find the 10 Republican senators he needs to pass it as a normal piece of legislation. Or he can change only what he needs in order to get all the Senate Democrats on board and then pass the plan through the budget reconciliation process, which only requires 51 votes. Which, Tommy, as you just pointed out, Bernie is like ready to move on that. Pelosi in the House says she's ready to move on that.

Lovett, what are the upsides and downsides to each strategy? Why don't you talk about regular order? So what are the upsides to regular order at this point? It's hard to really remember. I mean, look, the challenge of doing it through reconciliation is you have to clear everything through the Senate parliamentarian to make sure it is a budget-related proposal that there's other kinds of rules associated with it. $15 minimum wage, there's some people are claiming you can do it probably falls out another a number of other pieces of this. Probably it may be it may be the only provision I think that falls out if you if you did it this

way. I'm not positive, but I think I think almost all the other things we talked about were just money, just straight spending. Yeah, well, there I think there are other parts of the proposal that haven't gotten a lot of coverage that would have to just not be part of a reconciliation that aren't money, but the money could be done through the, through reconciliation. Um, the idea, I guess, for going through regular order would be, you could quickly pass checks and money. Uh, if you still believe that there's 10 Republican votes for that, I don't know. And then you could also pass some of the emergency funding for vaccination and testing and PPE.

And then you can come back to reconciliation to do some other things later. So your first bill would be bipartisan. And then after that, you would use reconciliation. I'll just be honest in that I don't totally understand the merits of that. Why is it better to pass some of the other pieces to reconciliation later? What does that do? Especially is it better to pass some of the other pieces to reconciliation later? What does that do? Especially if it's like Bernie seems to think he can get reconciliation done by February 8th before the impeachment trial starts. So I don't totally understand it, but to me, it's like procedure experts have at it. The goal is to get as much of a $1.9 trillion package out as quickly as humanly possible. Reconciliation, regular order plus reconciliation.

I have no fucking idea. Tommy, do you want to make the argument in favor of going through regular order and just trying to get those Republicans on board? No, I think it's a dumb argument. Look, Dave Weigel, The Washington Post made this point over the weekend, which was in some ways having a 50-50 split, I think is almost less complicated politically. Like when Obama had 58 senators back in 2009, it was easy to allow yourself to think, okay, let's pick off two moderates here. If we, you know, engage in good faith negotiations with, you know, if we just like give some sweeteners to Maine and Alaska,

maybe we can get the votes we need. I don't think there's a chance in hell that you find 10 Republicans to support a package at the scale that Biden seems to think is necessary. So I would turn to reconciliation. I mean, I think that the downside is bad faith whining from Republicans about how this isn't unity, which will spill into dumb reporting and analysis about how this isn't unity. But like the point of governing is to do things for the people who elected you. And I think the American people want Joe Biden to pass a big COVID relief bill and get his arms around the problem and get money to states for vaccinations and testing and all these things. So I think like I would just go right to reconciliation. I seem silly.

I agree with both of you, but just for our listeners, I'll make the argument for regular order. I'm now a centrist pundit. You can find me on media press on Simpson Bowles Favreau. Here we go. I'm going to be I'm going to be on the roundtable. So like if you go the regular order, you show voters, the media, Republican politicians, and maybe most importantly, moderate Democratic senators like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, John Tester, that you are willing to work in a bipartisan way. smaller deal done where and you notch an early win where you get just the money for vaccinations out the door immediately because it's urgent and we need that money immediately and you get maybe the votes for the 1400 checks because we saw a lot of republican support for that just a couple weeks ago so if you get and and some house democrats uh we're talking to the american prospect about this that this was a plan that some House Democrats wanted called shots and checks. Right. And you would pass that through.

You would send to the Senate. You would immediately get a bipartisan win on shots and checks out there. And then Biden could do the rest of his plan in a reconciliation package with just Democrats sometime in the early spring. That would be that would be the case for doing it regular order. And then you're Joe Biden and you can you you made you know, you kept your promise on bipartisanship. You brought 10 Republicans along and everyone in Washington cheers. And I don't I guess like I don't I don't totally understand the politics of that reconciliation bill where you've taken out a bunch of really popular stuff and left behind the parts that are a bit less popular. You know,

like I don't I mean, I think the checks and the vaccine stuff is going to be extremely popular. No, that's what I'm saying. Of course, that's what I'm saying is those are the parts you've taken out that are really popular. You've passed those to regular order.

Oh, I know what you're saying. And then you're being left with... That's a very good point. You're being... And I also, you know, the urgency of passing, it's a little... Like the unemployment benefits

extension are really, really important. I've sometimes taken a backseat in coverage of the checks. And I don't know, like, what happens if you start talking about reconciliation, delaying the unemployment benefits? Is that something they're thinking about, including with the checks and the COVID and check? What are we calling it? Cash and COVID? Shots and checks. Shots and checks. Shots and checks. So I don't totally understand it. To me, it's like...

It sounds very, it's a very attractive title. Like I want a shot and I do want to check. Yeah, no, those are both. I want both of those. If you pass another bill, you already have people saying, we just passed a bill. We just did 900 billion. We've already done something like that. They're going to triple down on that. Everyone's going to get squishy. Go big, go fast. Do not delay. I hate that. Look, you can also, you can wrap yourself in, you can tie yourself in knots for trying to figure out upsides and downsides. Like the biggest upside of the budget reconciliation process

is you deliver more relief to more people. It's obvious. More people get help in the country, right? Like that's the one. Now, the tough part about budget reconciliation, and it's interesting, Tommy, that you mentioned that Bernie thinks he can get it done very fast because a lot of people are saying that just as a process, budget reconciliation takes a ton of time because Republicans and others, Democrats, too, can introduce amendments to the process and they have to debate every single amendment and vote on every single amendment.

Is the word voterama coming to me? Yeah, the voter-rama. I hate that word. They promised up to a thousand amendments in this process that they would have to take the time to vote on. And now I think Schumer can kill a bunch of them. But still, it could take a lot of time. And we do need to get stuff out the door fast. So there is a timing issue there, too. And, of course, you could piss off the mansions and the cinemas of the world to say the Republicans want to work with you. Why aren't you trying to work with them? But I actually think that Psaki squared the circle on this pretty well in her briefing today, because they asked about the budget reconciliation process and Joe Biden seemingly looking for a deal

that's done under regular order. And she said, look, if there's a budget reconciliation process, Republicans can still vote for a bill that goes through budget reconciliation. If Sanders and Pelosi send this through reconciliation, Joe Biden can still say to Republicans, look, I'd like a bipartisan bill here. I'd like to compromise. So I don't think starting the process through reconciliation necessarily forecloses the idea of working with Republicans, if you're into that sort of thing. When did we become CQ? What's going on? of thing. When did we become CQ? What's going on? Just trying to, you know, tell people what's going on here. All right. You referenced this, Tommy, but no matter which direction

the president chooses, he's going to have to deal with Republicans weaponizing Biden's call for national unity against him. Some political reporters who credulously treat the Republican criticism as if it's on the level or already writing about this. The Washington Post had a story over the weekend headlined, quote, turned off by Biden's approach. GOP opposition to stimulus relief intensifies the story. The story only got more annoying from there. Tommy, how should the Biden White House respond to this criticism? And what's the best way for them to keep working towards unity while still getting their agenda

passed? I just think you have to blow past the constant process conversation and get to the substance, right? I mean, Joe Biden campaigned on a bunch of policies and promises, and then he overwhelmingly won the presidency. His agenda has been clear, and unity never meant abandoning that agenda because Marco Rubio made a weird hostage video and tweeted it out when he was crying, right? Like the ideas Biden has put forward

are bipartisan. 70% of the country supports his COVID plan. According to the new ABC poll, there's bipartisan support for $2,000 COVID relief checks. You know, 65% of the country wants us to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords. Like 40% of Republicans want to raise the minimum wage. I think you have to focus on the results and what you're doing for people and just get past this dumb, archaic debate about the process.

It just, it feels very Washington to me. Love it. Yeah, I mean, look, we've talked about this. Biden campaigned on unity. He's been very clear on what unity means. It means at this point, showing respect to people with whom you disagree, trying as best as you can to argue in good faith from a shared set of facts and not burning the Capitol down. Right.

Those are the three parts. He is living up to his side of the three parts of what unity means. It doesn't mean allowing Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio and others to dictate the terms of the debate or the agenda. And look, Tommy's right. Joe Biden will be judged as a president on whether he succeeds in passing his agenda and giving people genuine relief from this crisis and showing progress on a number of policy fronts. That is it. Nobody will give a shit about the filibuster.

Nobody will care about these process debates. Nobody will care that Rob Porton says, nobody from the White House has called me. Now, if you excuse me, I have a Zoom with Brian Deese together. Like nobody will, nobody, none of all of that will melt away. And all that will be left

is whether or not he's substantially delivered. That is what will matter in the midterms. That is what will matter in the general election to come. Voters care about the ends, not the means. Bipartisanship is a means. The end is what you pass. And, you know, it's, I mean, like, and they are holding Joe Biden to a standard that Joe Biden did not set for himself.

Yes, Joe Biden said, I think more Republicans will work with me. I know how to deal with them. He definitely did say that. You know, we've all expressed our bewilderment that he believes that, but that he did say that. But in his inaugural address, he was very clear that unity doesn't mean agreeing on every policy. It's like, like you said, it's making sure that disagreements aren't based in crazy conspiracies and don't lead to violence. Like you said, Levitt, it's making sure that disagreements aren't based in crazy conspiracies and don't lead to violence. That's the standard that he set out himself.

And, you know, it's not just like Tommy said that so many Republicans support so many of these policies embedded in this package. It's that like Biden is putting forward a plan that's going to help Trump voters in red states just as much as it helps Biden voters in blue states. Right. He's trying to help the whole country, which, you know, is something you would hope that any president does. But the last president was like going to war on blue states. Right. Literally. I mean, he overtly said he would not give money to Democratic governors to bail them out. That's how we talked about COVID relief. You want to talk about unity like Joe Biden's going to help all these. I also I find it so exhausting, this suggestion that, you know, he's being hypocritical by using executive orders like Joe Biden said he would get rid of the Muslim ban because it's bigoted. It's horrible.

It's a wretched thing that goes against everything we stand for as a country. He didn't say I'm going to get rid of the Muslim ban by putting a bill forward in Congress. No, of course, he's just going to repeal the executive order that Trump put in place. Like it's this debate ranges from he won faith to obtuse. And it's like it's so frustrating to watch reporters sort of play into this and focus on this as sort of like the central thing right now. He campaigned on ending the Muslim ban. People knew that ending the Muslim ban would require an executive action. He won not only the electoral college, but a 7 million popular vote margin. That's why he did it. Muslim ban. That's it. Lifting the lifting the lifting the trans ban as he did today. Daca. Trump said he supported

of other issues. I think the key the key piece of all this is that one one aspect of unity that I think Joe Biden prizes, maybe it's a bank shot to unity, but it's governing without surprises. It's sensible. You're going to get news at the briefing and not by a tweet at three in the morning. The briefings will be regular. I'll treat people, it'll be calm and orderly and the lack of chaos as a means of kind of lowering the temperature in our politics. Joe Biden has that. We are at we are at a current rate of an incredible amount of executive orders. Zero surprises. Zero surprises.

I think he said this inaugural to something about like not every disagreement has to be like a war. Right. We try to just respond in good faith to the Republican disagreements to the COVID relief plan. Right. If the sticker price is too big for Mitt Romney and at the end of the day, Mitt Romney doesn't want to vote for it, that's okay. We'll see you next time on some other piece of legislation, hopefully, or maybe

not. Thank you for playing. Thank you for expressing your views. We're moving on and we're going to pass this. Thank you for playing. Here's your gift basket. We're good. Don't worry. We don't have to destroy Mitt Romney over this. He just, he doesn't want to vote for the bill. That's fine. We're moving on. So before Democrats can even start moving legislation through all these relevant committees, the 50-50 Senate needs to formally pass a power sharing agreement that gives each party an even number of seats on each committee, but makes Chuck Schumer majority leader, gives Democrats the chairmanship of every committee, and allows Democrats to control the legislative schedule. An agreement that's identical to the last time there was a 50-50 Senate in 2001.

But here's the catch. 2001 but here's the catch mitch mcconnell said he won't support the power sharing agreement unless schumer promises not to kill the filibuster a demand that schumer has rejected uh democrats can't take over committees though and freshman senators can't receive committee assignments until an agreement is reached so business is not completely blocked in the senate but there's a lot of confusion there because there's a lot of people who should be chairman or chairwoman of their committee right now, and they're not getting that gavel because Mitch is making these demands. Lovett, what are the different ways this standoff can be resolved here? Well, so it seems as though three broad ways it ends.

One is that McConnell just cracks. One is that Schumer and the Democrats crack and make some sort of unenforceable promise that is written in such a way that Schumer can pretend he didn't say it in six months. I don't know. And the other is that Democrats decide, fuck it. The filibuster is done. Uh, because this, uh, this, this, this obstruction, uh, prevents us from doing the people's business. Did I miss one? What am I missing? The other one is they could

say the filibuster is done for this specific issue. Republicans are filibustering this power sharing agreement. You get rid of the filibuster on the organizing resolution, which would break open the entire debate. Yeah. Basically, there's filibuster reform and then open the entire debate. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So

there's basically like there's filibuster reform and then there's caving. That's it. Yeah. Tommy, why do you think McConnell picked this fight now? Was it smart? Because it doesn't seem like I guess we should also say that it's not just Schumer who rejected this. Schumer has now the entire Democratic caucus behind him, including opponents of eliminating the filibuster like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. They're all united behind Schumer on this. So why did McConnell pick this fight? Was it smart? It's a little weird, right? I mean, he's sort of filibustering the existence of the Senate right now, which is an odd mood for Mitch McConnell. I don't know. Mitch McConnell is

shrewd, but not always smart. I mean, I think he might just be burning clock and trying to strip away as much time from Joe Biden as he can in terms of his ability to get stuff done. He's creating as many obstacles as he can for Schumer, creating political hurdles for moderate Democrats, maybe in his mind in the process, and just being generally as obstructive as possible because he's a pain in the ass. I agree with you, though. It's been heartening to see people like Jon Tester and Manchin and other Democrats come out and say, this is outrageous. We can't do this. I mean, Schumer's proposal, which a lot of Democrats on Twitter reflexively flipped out about, was to just go back to the power sharing agreement from

2001. It's a very clear, easy to describe as bipartisan plan. He might have overplayed his hands here. I'm not exactly sure what McConnell's doing. I mean, Collins was quoted in one of these stories basically giving an explanation for this. She's like, you want to do it before there's an emotional, difficult, controversial issue so that it isn't issue driven, it's institution driven, meaning promising that you'll keep the filibuster. Because, which is basically her saying, I'm really worried that if we had a debate about the filibuster because we were blocking an increase in the $15 minimum wage, that we would lose that fight among public opinion. And so I want to do it while it's all about process and institution. And most people don't know what the fuck we're arguing about.

In practice, Mitch McConnell is blocking every issue. So I'm not sure that that logic really holds up to people that don't live in Northwest DC. not sure that that logic really holds up to people that don't live in Northwest D.C. Yeah, I mean, look, I think best argument for what he's doing to me is this debate is coming. He'd rather be about process and institutions and norms and about the minimum wage or COVID relief. He's now gotten a few Democrats like he's got Sinema on the record saying I'm against removing the filibuster and I'm not open to it, right? That's a better quote than he had a week before. And the argument against it is he's pushing towards, he's moving a big confrontation that limits his power closer, whether it's about the organizing resolution, which would just give Democrats like Jon Tester and Manchin and Sinema reps in getting rid of the

filibuster or bringing the debate, just moving the filibuster debate forward for Democratic activists? They're breaking the seal. Well, this was, yeah, I was going to say, this is the big question. This is sort of why we should be talking about this, because what is sort of the best strategy to convince Manchin and Sinema and other Democratic fans of the filibuster that it's time to kill it. Because the one thing that McConnell did that he probably didn't want to do is, you're right, Lovett, he did get a firmer quote from Sinema on this.

But he now has 51 Democratic senators on the record saying that Schumer shouldn't promise to keep the filibuster as it is. So he just inched the whole caucus a little bit closer to filibuster reform. But now we have to figure out what to do about Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin and the rest of the crew. Yeah, I mean, I feel like there's two things. I think one, if we're talking about the filibuster, it's a harder conversation than when we're talking about an opportunity to raise the minimum wage or a specific bill. Right? Exactly what Susan Collins was worried about. Yes. I mean, that's what Susan Collins is worried about. That's what Graham has been worried about. They're all being completely transparent. They're like, let's do this

fucking now. Let's try to get them on the record now because it's on a hot button issue. Because we know our position is untenable among public opinion when you get to a real issue. And the other piece of this too is is whether or not you emanate, eliminate the legislative filibuster totally, which right now Democrats don't have the support to do. Democrats having it as a cudgel is really important, which is why it's a bit frustrating. The Sinema statement is pretty frustrating. It went further than tester and further than mansion.

It was strange. Like, why are you going so far? Like you can just not be for it, but still want to govern. It was a bit like, I don't, I just don't understand that statement.

But, but what it also does is it like, it makes more acceptable to some of these moderates, perhaps other reforms to the filibuster, like forcing Republicans who want to filibuster things to stand in the Senate, changing it from 60 votes to have to be yes to 41 votes that have to be no, right? Like there are a lot of smaller tweaks that there are reforms, but before removing the filibuster that would go a long way to helping Democrats at least be in a better position to pass their agenda that that I think McConnell is making basically inevitable, if not far more likely. to be some pretext where republicans are obstructing something very popular and it is clear to the public that the only thing standing between this very popular piece of legislation getting passed is um like democrats like joe manchin and kirsten cinema not just willing to have

51 votes to kill the filibuster for this thing yeah uh and i think i think we're going to get there like we're headed there but i think until you have issues to argue about it's gonna be tough to just like talk about this and sort of more philosophical terms um all right let's talk about the battle for the soul of the republican party which will soon be tested again now that the house impeachment managers are set to walk their article charging donald trump with insurrection incitement over to the Senate this evening for a trial that will begin now on February 8th. But after talking to a dozen Republican senators, CNN reports that the chances of conviction are slim, and it's not hard to see why. The MAGA wing of the party is in revolt against any Republican politician who hasn't been sufficiently loyal to the guy who

did incite a violent insurrection with his attempt to overturn a democratic election you got to be you got to be loyal to that guy um so tommy the 10 house republicans who voted to impeach are facing all kinds of threats kevin mccarthy's walking back his support for liz cheney keeping her leadership role arizona republican party just voted to center cindy mccain jeff Flake, Governor Doug Ducey, the first two for not supporting Trump, the last one for not helping him overturn the election. How much steeper does this make the path to 17 Republican votes for conviction in the Senate? I mean, I think it was always very steep. I don't see any chance that they get 17 Republican votes. I really don't. I mean, you can you can watch in real time cowards like Marco Rubio

finding arguments that impeachment is divisive and convincing himself while on a Sunday show, or like the Kevin McCarthy flip-flop from saying Trump's words at the fascist rally inside of the attack to then saying the exact opposite are just unbelievable. So with very few exceptions, Republican elected officials are cowards. They're not going to break with Trump on anything, even when their own lives were literally put at risk. And even when he wants them to regurgitate the lies, I mean, it's the cult of Trump. It's the same problem that's existed for a very long time. I do think that like the Arizona Republican Party is a bit of an outlier in terms of just how absurd it is.

But, you know, there was that infamous quote to The Washington Post by some Republican official who said, what's the downside in humoring him when it comes to supporting the lie that the election was stolen or that there were these vast irregularities or that it's somehow just appropriate to ask questions about the election results? Here's the harm. You guys convinced all of your Republican voters that the election was stolen, and now they are furious at you for not doing anything about it. I think it's only going to get worse for some of these guys if they support impeachment, and they're all worried about a primary challenge. So, Leavitt, Axios reported that in almost every Republican state or district, most voters are livid that Republican leaders didn't fight more to overturn the election and support Trump after the insurrection.

What does this say about the future of the party? Like Maggie Haberman last night tweeted that Trump has for now backed off his threat to create a new MAGA party or Patriot Party. But because and what she said, she said one of the reasons he's backed off the threat is because it's hard for him to talk about primary challenges in the Republican Party if he's also supporting the third party. Someone told him that maybe those two things don't mix, but he is threatening a lot of primary challenges in 2022, like Tommy just mentioned. So like what what is all this? What does all this sort of say about the future of the party? all this sort of say about the future of the party? So first of all, I just, there's a great quote about what's happened to Kevin McCarthy since he's sort of flip-flopped on this. And it's, we're eating shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner right now, which made me so happy. Enjoy it, Kevin. You deserve it. You deserve nothing but meals of shit for what you've done. Senate Republicans do not want to say anything about the substance of the allegations

against Donald Trump. That's a good sign, right? They really are afraid to say, they don't want to say they support him. They want to use a completely manufactured constitutional argument that, oh, you can't, you know, you can't try a president after they leave office. That doesn't make any sense. Next thing you know, we're impeaching old presidents for no reason. All of a sudden, it's mayhem, you know, so it doesn't make any sense. Next thing you know, we're impeaching old presidents for no reason. All of a sudden, it's mayhem, you know, so it doesn't make any sense. But that's what they're rallying behind

because they don't want to deal with this on the substance because they recognize that there's a broad coalition of Americans who reject insurrection. That's good. But they're terrified of their base. They're on the losing side of the insurrection issue. Yeah. Anti-insurrection is a broadly popular position in American politics. Sadly, it is not as popular as you would like it to be in the Republican base because all of these Republicans have had the audacity of listening to the right-wing news sites of OAN, Newsmax, Fox News, and all these Republican officials who said that the election was stolen in one way or another. And these people have said, okay, well, we believe you. Now let's act on it. Let's let's let's follow what you're saying to its logical

conclusion. And that was obviously something they never wanted anyone to do. Josh Hawley never wanted anyone to believe him. Right. Ted Cruz never wanted anyone to believe him, but they do. They believe Lou Dobbs or they've chosen to believe Lou Dobbs. They believe OAN. They believe Newsmax. And this is a huge fucking problem. And, you know, from the point of view of Democrats, I don't know what we should be saying other than if you want to unite the country, join us in rejecting violence and insurrection and the peaceful and, you know, show support for the peaceful transfer of power. That is what this impeachment vote is all about. And let these Republicans, you know, make whatever bullshit argument they want. But we are going to be dealing with a radicalized nationalist Republican base for a long time,

because they made a very smart decision of locating themselves in less populous states and in less populous parts of the country. So yeah, I mean, we were where we were before the election. We're where we are in the weeks since the election in dealing with this crisis. We're where we were before the election. We're where we are in the weeks since the election in dealing with this crisis. I will say, too, that it also shows that the source of the radicalization is not just Donald Trump. Right. Because the guy is gone.

He doesn't have his Twitter account. Now, granted, they're still afraid of him. They're afraid of his organization, you know, giving them primary challenges. But the people who are riling these folks up are on Fox News, on OAN, on Newsmax. It's the right wing media that is riling these people up. It's the crazies in Congress that they elected that are riling the base up. Like this problem is, you know, it was before Donald Trump came into our lives. It was a problem in this party. And now that he's gone, it's still a problem. It goes far beyond Donald Trump. What do you think about like Democrats role in all this? Like, is there

anything we can do to exploit these divisions or do we just sort of stand back and root for chaos? That's a good, it's a hard question. Yeah, it's tempting to sit back and cheer for the Patriot Party and hope it sort of cleaves off a big chunk of the GOP and then they both lose elections. I don't know that that strategy gives me flashbacks to 2016 and all the very Machiavellian takes that I myself participated in about how Trump winning the Republican primary was the best thing that ever happened to Democrats because he could never win the general election. Hillary Clinton is going to steamroll him and blah, blah, blah. I think long term that a sane, healthy opposition party is a very important and a very good thing in any democracy.

Institutions that don't have loyal opposition, if they don't have strong institutions, get in big trouble. I worry about the Republican Party becoming even more extreme and the damage that that could do. So it's bad. and the damage that that could do. So it's bad. I mean, I think the only long term solution for Republicans who want to push back on Trump and the forces of Trumpism that are requiring that they lie to their voters all the time about everything is to speak candidly and tell the truth about what happened in the election and what he's saying today. But I just, you know, every day that goes by, I have less faith that the majority of elected officials in the Republican Party are willing to do that. Yeah, it's like, I don't want

to sit here and root for all of these MAGA crazies to win primaries, because somehow that's going to be easier for us to win, though it may be easier for us to win. But I think we need to make clear, Democrats need to make clear to voters that the Republican Party is in the thrall of extremists, right? Like they spent 2020 calling us radical leftists who loved Antifa. And, you know, there's potentially evidence that sub-presidential level that it worked in some House and Senate races, though not all, particularly Georgia, I would say that strategy failed but like they're going to do it again now that we control the White House and Congress they're going to say that we

went too far that we went too far left for extremists we have to actually make clear that these people are the real extremists we have to make clear that people know that this is the party that has sent QAnon conspiracy conspiracy theorists to Congress that people know that this is who's driving the train here, that it's the Arizona Republican Party that's in charge and the Texas Republican Party, who now has like the QAnon slogan on their Twitter account. Like it is like they it has to be made clear that this party is in the thrall of radical extremists. And that's what we should start calling these people.

Pretty simple. I mean, you know, like they are the one good sign here is like they're not they're not super happy about this because like this morning, Rob Portman announced he's retiring at the end. And so he's not going to run

against in 2022. So now we have an open seat in Ohio. You would think that because like Ohio has now gone Republican on the presidential level two times in a row, Republicans would be pretty happy. They don't seem super confident that they're going to win that seat back, though I'd say they're probably favored. But probably the reason they don't feel super confident is because like Jim Jordan is going to win that primary or someone maybe even further to the right. And that's going to make a seat that could have been easier for them probably a little harder.

I think you're right that, you know, if Jim Jordan wins that primary, he is an extreme human being. He's an extreme partisan. He's a kind of a nut personally, and he could make it harder for them to win. I think that it's just the odds are that what will happen here is that all the people running for president, the Ted Cruz's, the Josh Hawley's, will kind of lead the way and set the agenda when it comes to whether or not they hug Trump or not, whether or not they're playing for this MAGA base, because they're all going to be looking to win that 40 percent of a primary. And that's all that they will really care about. And that's why the sort of extreme trajectories in political parties can become self-reinforcing and things just get worse and worse and worse. And we've seen it in history. We've seen it when people hugged Goldwater or hugged Nixon, even after he was disgraced. I mean, the Republican parties tended to just

tack to the right and it's almost, you can't slow them down. So I just, I'm not very hopeful about the fever breaking. You know, you're seeing online like the QAnon people are now deciding that, you know, Biden's inauguration was a deep fake. I mean, there's just like there's a lot of weird things happening. I've never been less confident about the fever break. Yeah, me too. Me too. Love it. I'm just going to like, look, if we had if we had proportional representation, then the Republican Party would be two parties. There'd be a conservative party, and there would be this nationalist revanchist movement. And because that was hidden from view,

and because a lot of mainstream Republicans spent decades indulging, encouraging, making use of right-wing misinformation, Rush Limbaugh, the Southern strategy, decades of just sort of hammering the base of the party until they were just a bunch of frothing at the mouth nationalists. Uh, they are now at a place where if there really were a proportional representation, you would have a small Republican party competing against a growing nationalist movement. It is a conservative fringe attached to a nationalist party. And, uh, all of these people are fighting against, um are fighting against that momentum. Liz Cheney, someone who a few years ago we would have called an extreme and dangerous figure.

Now a rhino. Rhino Liz Cheney. Mitt Romney. I mean, look, like a system in which telling the obvious, undeniable, unassailable truth where that's brave is a broken system. It's broken. Republican Party is fundamentally broken, and it won't change by just encouraging people. It won't change by yelling at the Times about their headlines. It won't change about both sides shit from the AP. It will change when there's a

fundamental shift in the way millions upon millions of Americans currently get their information and what information they seek out. Because by the way, when Fox News showed the tiniest bit of moderation, still hateful, still ridiculous, still spreading misinformation, millions of people sought out Newsmax and they sought out OAN. So yeah, there's a supply problem

in terms of what people are seeing, but there's also a demand problem and that is self-replicating. So it is a dangerous and long-term problem. Well, when we come back, Tommy will ask new White House press secretary,

Jen Psaki, whether Biden's inauguration was fake. I am thrilled to welcome on the show the new White House press secretary, my old friend Jen Psaki. Jen, it is so great to see you. It's so good to be here. This is so fun. This is so fun. This is so fun. I'm really excited to dig in today on Air Force One colors, the Churchill bust, like all the big issues that voters care about. Those are the only things I will talk with you about. So let's start with the Churchill bust,

which by the way, was a controversy 10 years ago, which you and I both remember. We all lived it. So full disclosure for listeners, we've been friends since like 2004. We literally sat next to each other in the White House for a couple of years. So this is the most the most biased interview I've ever done in terms of. And also I gave you a tour of the John of the Kerry campaign headquarters. Do you remember this? And you when I applied for that when you applied for a job and then you went and worked for Barack Obama, who was running for Senate. And I was thinking to myself, he's missing out. He's missing out. Kerry's going to be president. Who knows who this Obama guy is? So I was a little,

I didn't have a lot of like foresight at that point in time. Listen, you were doing the right thing. Everyone was working to make the country a better place. So like, look, this is my first question, right? Like, I just want to know what it's like to be back. So listeners know the West Wing is tiny. When you see Jen briefing at the podium and then like walks when she walks out when the briefing is over, that actually goes into an office. And when Jen and I sat in that office, it was like half the size of a studio apartment and we had eight people in there. What are you guys doing in a COVID time? Like, do you have your full team in the building? Are you working remotely?

No, it's so different. One, we're all wearing N95 masks and I'm not wearing one right now. It's right here, but because I'm in my office, but we're wearing N95 masks and we have a much smaller footprint in the building. So it almost feels like the end of an administration in the sense that there are just so few,

there are far fewer people here. Now, what is very familiar is some of the same Secret Service agents, some of the same people at the White House mess, which is where you go. It's basically like a cafeteria. If you belong to a summer swim club, you go up and you order a grilled cheese sandwich. Some of the same people, and there are so many friendly and familiar faces. So there's some similarities. Last week, Brian Deese, the NEC director, which is so funny when I say that out loud, he's brilliant, but I still feel like we're kids. I know.

We did a briefing together last week. And before we went out, I looked at him and I said, should we tell Dan and Larry Summers we're doing this? Like we were these rogue actors going out to brief the press. So there's still an element of it that feels a little bit surreal because, you know, you and I were both kids in this place and it's, um, it's just an adjustment. Yeah. It's amazing. And look, so on top of us getting older, like the media landscape has changed a lot over the last decade. One, one example is the fact that I'm interviewing you right now.

That's one example. For my house. Yeah, that's weird, right? And that you're kind of a renowned podcaster with a massive following. So, yes, that's changed. You know, I read underwear ads for a living, Jen. But, you know, you also have Sean Spicer reportedly applying for credentials. There's all these like new partisan outlets.

Yes. Spicer reportedly applying for credentials. There's all these like new partisan outlets. So before the Trump folks came in and they like, you know, got rid of the briefing for a period of time, there were conversations about like, okay, how do we take this thing that is sort of anachronistic and make it more substantive for the press, less performative for TV? Is that something you're able to think about or talk about with the White House Correspondents Association, or is it too soon? You know, it's interesting because if we had been coming in or if Hillary Clinton had won and we had been sitting down with their team to have a conversation, you and I maybe would have given similar advice, which is start from scratch,

do something different. The briefing is a bit outdated. You want to figure out a way of providing information to the press and the jury, and I both know it's very efficient because it forces people in the building to put forward policy answers. I would say kind of in this moment in time, we didn't go to the Correspondents Association and say, we want to reduce the grief and we want it to be different. We felt like we were coming in at a time where the public has been through a version of a trauma, and actually the press has in some ways as well. Yeah, truly.

Because they weren't getting access to information. They didn't have access to policy experts. I mean, never mind, you know, information from the press secretary every day, but for people who were running the policies. And we felt like part of our, you know, rebuilding trust with the public was returning this briefing to five days a week and doing it in a way where it was incumbent upon us to try to maintain a calm tone at this moment, because people have been through a trauma and, you know, they need to heal and realize,

like, we're going to disagree, but it doesn't mean we have to shout at each other. That may come, but that's how we wanted to start it off. Well, I was very impressed watching you do a briefing at like seven 30 at night on an inauguration. That was beyond the call of duty that day. I mean, I had five cups of coffee that day and I couldn't sleep that night. Hence I I did call Peter Doocy, Steve Doocy multiple times the next day. But, you know, there's just so much adrenaline going into the first day and thinking, I got all these texts that morning that were like, the country is counting on you, waiting for you to succeed. And I was like, oh, my God. Yeah. Thanks.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah, exactly. So, Jen, I mean, there's so many familiar faces in the Biden administration from, you know, the Obama days. But it has been so interesting to me to hear how some of those same people talk about how the thinking has evolved on policy. For example, Jared Bernstein, top economist for Joe Biden, has worked for him for decades, including back during the Obama years. I heard him talking about how in 09 and 10, economists were worried about the unemployment rate getting too low because that might lead to inflation. Now there's new data, there's new thinking, and the economists are not really worried about full employment leading to inflation. It's just sort of like not an issue. You were in meetings then in 2009 about the Recovery Act. You're in meetings now about President Biden's COVID relief package.

How do you feel like the approach or the thinking has evolved over time? You know, what's been really, I realize I'm biased because I speak on behalf of this White House, but it's is that there has been an evolution, right? It hasn't been President Biden was Vice President Biden. We're going to do things exactly the same way. I mean, absolutely not. I mean, first of all, the country has evolved, right? And there are issues. I mean, the beginning of the Obama-Biden administration,

the president and vice president weren't out there in supporting gay marriage. I mean, that is like insane to think about at this point in time, right? But there has been, you referenced on economic and the approach to economy and economic growth. I mean, one of the things we've been saying, which is still an adjustment for me to say because of 2009, that the danger is really that the package is too small, right? And that is reflective of the lessons we've learned.

If we don't do a big package now, then what? We're going to have fewer people who get to apply for unemployment insurance. We're not going to have money to reopen schools. It's just a very, there are certainly lessons learned from the past, substantively on policy too. I mean, one of the issues we were just talking about, which is a good central one to your heart, is China and how, you know, during the Obama-Biden administration, there was a view, you know, there was a hesitation to make the relationship uncomfortable, right? We were very careful about how we talked about every aspect of the relationship. Nobody wanted anyone to be uncomfortable. And that was a bipartisan approach. And now you have the Biden administration, and frankly, many Democrats and Republicans saying that wasn't the right

approach. Things have gotten worse. They've become more aggressive. The economic relationship is more problematic and we need to take a different approach. So it's some of the same players, but some, one of the benefits is some is certainly some of the lessons learned on policy issues. And I'm seeing that also in communications. I mean, remember we talked about the healthcare bill as bending the cost curve. I still don't know what that means. No, no one does. And by the end, you know, of course, this was not by the end. It was clear from polling and talking to a bunch of American people that really what they wanted to know is that their kids could stay on health insurance. Right. So there are kind of lessons you've learned in all of the categories.

I mean, we'll still mess up a lot, but we are we are learning from the past, the last Democratic administration too, that many of us served them. It does feel like you guys have really simplified a lot of these arguments. And I am grateful for that because I don't think people want complicated answers. What is it like for you? I mean, a month ago, you were just one of us schlubs living in a seven-month lockdown or whatever it was. Now you're handed this massive problem of getting a pandemic under control and the part of the team trying to fix it. Like how has that changed your life? Are you able to get like vaccinated? I mean, are they, are they taking care of the people who are now trying to manage this issue? So we did about three dozen of us got vaccines two and a half weeks ago and we'll get our second dose.

And what they're trying to do, the White House Medical Unit, is get more people vaccinated, especially people who will be around the president. And as you know, like people who have to be here for national security reasons because they need access to classified information. So, yes, in that sense, we're certainly being taken care of. I will acknowledge, and I guess, Nate, I don't know if you guys are doing things in person or how much you're doing things in person, but it is very strange. There's a social awkwardness to all of us, right? Because we haven't been around people. So I just ran into Lloyd Austin's secretary, Lloyd Austin's wife, and I believe it was his sons in the hallway. And they said, oh, hi. And I didn't really know what to do. It's like, do I shake your hand?

We did elbow bumps like the whole thing feels kind of funny and a little bit awkward. But, yes, they're they're trying to make sure. I mean, obviously, the president's safe, that we're safe. The press are safe. I mean, we're concerned about that, too. The press to be tested every single day they're here too. So it's a new universe of an approach here. Yeah. I mean, an NSC meeting is like just begging to be a super spreader event. I mean, how do you shove a bunch of people in a basement conference room together and not let them open a window? Well, you know, we have like morning wrap, morning calls and evening wrap calls and things like that. And what's, what's so different is, you know, they used to be in, when Dennis McDonough was the chief of staff, he had this like huge table that was like two tables and there'd be 20 of us in there. And you'd be looking around thinking, what does the OMB director have to say today?

Well, that'll be interesting. And now we do it. We're here, but we do them on video. So you're in your office and you know, Kate Bedingfield is in the office next to me is on her, you know, screen. I'm on my screen. Ron Klein's on his screen because, uh, we don't, I mean, we all want to be safe too. Um, so that's another, but it's also weird. So it's so weird. Yeah. It does have a very nerdy, like NSdy like NSC sit room connection vibe to someone at the Pentagon for no reason when they could have commuted. But no, you guys are very smart to be safe.

I like it. So I know you're so short on time. You may have noticed that there is a very stupid debate breaking out in the media about the word unity. It seems to range from bad faith to this sort of like absurd, obtuse, maybe overly literal definition that suggests that, you know, unity means President Biden was going to renege on all these promises he made during the campaign because some of them make Marco Rubio sad. Can you just like tell listeners,

what does unity mean for President Biden? I have so many thoughts on this. I mean, people ask, what are going to be your markers? I'm like, what does that even mean? I mean, it's not, you know, so I mean, look, I think part of this from President Biden's view is basically the vibe you're sending, right? Are you open to engaging with people from both parties? And are you open to engaging? And that doesn't just mean in Washington, right? This is like a small little universe. This is like, are you going to talk to Democrats and Republicans who are elected officials? Are you going to make an effort to talk to, you know, people who didn't vote for

you, to, you know, talk to them about what you're going to do on COVID. So I think part of it is making sure, and he's very focused on this, making sure when he's communicating and using the bully pulpit of the presidency to the degree that still exists, it still exists in the beginning of a presidency, to communicate not through a partisan lens, but to all of the public

so that they can trust in the information that is coming from the president. They may disagree. That's fine. They can trust in the data that's being presented. They can trust that he's trying hard for them, right, even if they disagree. So, you know, it's more about his approach and his commitment. You know, I feel like all of us have commented during the Trump administration about in moments of crisis, which we will have them, you know, who the public looked to, who was their moral compass, right? And, you know, when there's a shooting at a, you know, community or at a school, people don't look at that through a partisan lens. It eventually gets there on, you know, gun safety and things. They look at it like they want somebody who's sitting in the Oval Office is going to tell them it's going to be OK.

And this is a terrible moment for our country. And I think what President Biden is is trying to do is kind of return the moral compass and leadership to to the White House and certainly to the Oval Office. So, you know, that's part of his approach. And then just last question for you. I saw Brian Deese, who you mentioned earlier, did have a call over the weekend with a bipartisan group of senators to talk about President Biden's COVID relief package. Do you guys feel like there's any progress getting made? And I've seen like Mitt Romney, for example, saying he thinks we should maybe break off pieces of the bill and pass that. Are those compromises on the table in your view? You know, it feels really foreign to people because the last few years have been so weird that.

But it's not. I mean, how it's working is how it should work is how it's working. The president puts forward his plan. He gives a speech. He says, this is what I'd like to see. Here's what I've talked to my health and economic team about how we can address the crisis we're facing. And then let's have a discussion about it. And that's exactly what we're doing. So is there an openness for things, the sausage looking different on the other end? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and it probably will, right? The bill never looks exactly like it looks in the first speech, right? As you and I both know. But I will also say what's been so interesting, maybe about the questioning, but even about how some have responded to this on both sides of the aisle is like the notion that Republicans don't want to reopen schools. Of

course they do. Or the notion that Republicans don't want the American people to have access to apply for unemployment insurance when we hit the cliff in the middle of March. Of course they do. Or vaccine distribution. This is not just a democratic issue. 70% of the public, according to polls this weekend, supports it. So, you know, I think it is, you know, we're going to have this discussion. There will be things that look different. The package will have different components. But it wasn't designed like he wanted to say, I want to have the $2 trillion package. He was like, these are the things that are needed to address the crises we're facing. Yeah. Yeah. Well, last, last question. I mean, have you thought about maybe showing some unity by

having president Biden get a little meaner on Twitter, maybe attack his own vice president, single out some random journalists, you know, just sort of for unity sake? You know, it's funny when I was in Wilmington for one of our events announcing cabinet nominees, he said to me, I hope that none of our nominees are going to get into fights on Twitter. And I was like, who on earth would that be? Like we forced them to be. So he didn't mean anyone specifically, but he's been pretty clear to all of us that he's not going to govern by Twitter. We can be out there tweeting, of course. It's an important way to communicate with people, journalists especially, but that's not his vibe. People can go to sleep at night and not worry

something's happening in the middle of the night, that he's not on his phone tweeting in the middle of the night. That's not going to be what people can expect from this administration. phone tweeting in the middle of the night, that's not going to be what people can expect from this administration. That seems like great advice from President Biden. Jen Psaki, it's so great talking to you. It's so fun watching the reaction to your briefings on Twitter and people just being like, first of all, loving you as a human being, but also remembering how good it is to get information that is factual and straightforward from you. So thank you for doing the show today. Thanks for all the work you're doing. Keep it up.

It's great talking to you. Thanks to Jen for joining us today. Dodging left and right. Thanks to the Churchill busts for just being there through thick and thin. I haven't heard it. I haven't heard it. Yeah, it's okay. Tommy, who would have thought that day one of the Obama administration, when you and

Jen were sitting in lower press, that someday she'd be White House press secretary and you'd be on a podcast. And I'd be interviewing her in my sweatpants from my house on month, what, 10 of a lockdown? Who would have thought that? I think it's plausible. Yeah, I think it's plausible too. Jen being successful and me being a homebody, I can see it. Top three issues unaddressed by the interview.

Air Force One interior design, Space Force uniforms, daylight saving. I'm on them all. Don't worry. Daylight saving. Wait for that. That's coming. Dog with a bone on that one. Look out, Ed Markey.

Look out, Ed Markey. I'm coming for you. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our associate producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Katie Long,

Roman Papadimitriou, Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Nar Melkonian, Yale Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as videos every week.