Pod Save America - “Unfazed and determined.”

Episode Date: September 20, 2018

Republicans refuse to allow an independent investigation into credible claims of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and Democrats worry about Latino turnout in the midterms. Then Chef Jose Andres talks to Jon and Tommy about his hurricane relief work and new book “We Fed An Island,” and Julissa Arce talks to Jon about giving Steve Bannon a copy of her new book, “Someone Like Me: How One Undocumented Girl Fought For Her American Dream."

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Later in the pod, you'll hear a conversation Tommy and I had last week with Chef Jose Andres. This week marks the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Maria making landfall in Puerto Rico. And Jose's new book, We Fed an Island, is about the relief work he did in the months after the storm, which he's doing again right now in the wake of Hurricane Florence, because Jose's a wonderful person. We're also going to hear from Cricket contributor Julissa Arce, who last weekend shared a copy of her new book,

Someone Like Me, with none other than Steve Bannon. A story we'll hear from Julissa. She also launched a four-part series on Cricket Conversations this week with Hysteria's Grace Parra called Defining Us, which will explore and celebrate the identity and voting potential of Latinx communities. Also, on this week's Pod Save the World, former Secretary of State John Kerry is recording for duty. Did you like that joke, Dan? That really got a lot of mileage. I was so impressed with that. I love its joke. Join Tommy and

me to talk about everything from the Iran deal to why Rex Tillerson wasn't allowed to go with him to dinner. Finally, we put up a lot of new shit on Vote Save America this week, so go check it out. Make sure you're registered. Make sure everyone you know is registered. Also, an announcement. If you sign up for a shift volunteering for any Democrat running in the Crooked Eight between now and September 23rd, you'll be entered to win two tickets for our live show in Los Angeles on Friday, September 28th. You can check out all the details at votesaveamerica.com slash California. We want to say hi next Friday. We're going to be doing basically a live dress rehearsal for our HBO show. The trailer for which is out today.

That'll be on social media and then you'll be seeing it on HBO this weekend. So the HBO show is coming, Dan. It's happening. Well, two things. One, if a Democratic House is not incentive enough, I guess listening to us talk about politics in person will be incentive enough.

Cool contest. And second, now that the trailer's out, no takebacks, HBO. You are stuck with us for at least these four episodes. They're stuck. The trailer's out. It has to happen. I suppose they could just decide not to do it. Just have that trailer out there.

We'd have a nice minute trailer. We'll always have the trailer. We'll always have that moment. You can also watch the hbo trailer on our youtube channel youtube.com slash crooked media elijah will be very happy if we have more youtube subscribers so go check it out okay we have a lot of news um here's where we are in the kavanaugh nomination the white house and every single Senate Republican refused to allow an independent investigation into credible allegations that the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when the two of them were in high school. They refused to allow the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh's background check.

They refused to interview anyone who may have witnessed the assault or attended the party. They refused to interview Dr. Blasey's therapist, whom she told about the assault in 2012. They refused to talk to anyone or do anything but allow Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, where she would be questioned by Republican senators who have already called her, quote, mistaken and, quote, mixed up.

In response, Dr. Blasey's lawyers have said that she's willing to cooperate with the committee, but believes that a nonpartisan investigation led by the FBI should be the first step in addressing the allegations and that the rush to a hearing that doesn't allow any other witnesses to testify is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth. Dan, I want to start with the request for an FBI investigation. We got some Republicans saying the FBI doesn't do that sort of thing. Some saying that Brett Kavanaugh has already been through multiple FBI background checks for his previous appointments and confirmations.

Some are saying that it would take too long. What do you think? Could the FBI conduct a fair, timely investigation that would help resolve these allegations? After the original FBI background investigation of Clarence Thomas, the FBI, at the request of then President George H.W. Bush, reopened the investigation into those allegations. That investigation took a month? No. Three weeks? No. Three days.

So it can be done. Will it resolve the question? We don't know. But there's no harm in trying to actually do it it is they have the fbi has ability to do it all it would take is one phone call from don mcgann to the fbi to ask them to do it and uh none other than senator orrin hatch who said that uh this isn't the kind of thing the fbi does said back in 1991 about the FBI investigating Anita Hill's claims, this was the very right, appropriate thing to do.

That was a quote from Orrin Hatch in 1991. Also, just recently, John Yoo, a former clerk to Clarence Thomas in general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was, quote, surprised the committee is holding the hearing without an fbi request because it is quote normal to ask the fbi to do more and the fbi quote could have done this in a day or two this is someone who was a former clerk to clarence thomas uh a supporter of judge kavanaugh's nomination saying that this could be done um he's also the author of the torture memos. This is not some sort of liberal snowflake. Yes. So then we know that it's possible. But like so put the put even put the FBI

investigation aside. Right. Even if the Republicans decide they don't want an FBI investigation, why wouldn't the Republicans invite other witnesses to testify? Why wouldn't they subpoena Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh's friend who Dr. Blasey said was in the room at the time of the assault? Because they do not want to find out the truth. Everything the Republicans have been doing since the moment the Washington Post published this story on Sunday suggests they do not believe Kavanaugh is innocent of this. Because if they did, then the FBI investigation, they would believe the FBI would find that he was innocent or that there was not conclusive proof that this has happened. Therefore, they would want that. You would want the named eyewitness

to testify under oath that it did not happen. Then it goes from he said, she said, to he said, he said, she said. And so everything they have done suggests that they want to dispense with this, with the, a simple checking of the box and move on because the more they look, the more worried they are that we will find more about this incident or other incidents. Yeah. I just, I can't understand the Mark judge thing because this is someone who he told the weekly standard last week that the allegations are completely false uh but has since told the judiciary committee in a letter that he has quote no memory of what happened and does not wish to talk to senators about it um and you know this

is someone who's written for a number of different conservative publications um he's written several books uh basically he wrote a memoir of his struggles with drinking while he went to Georgetown Prep, includes a character named Bart O'Kavanaugh, who gets drunk a lot in the memoir. But it seems like if this is someone who truly could exonerate potentially Brett Kavanaugh, and who was in the room, like, why wouldn't they call him? I'm still confused why they wouldn't have him testify. Like you said, it's it's it's clear that either Republicans do not believe that Kavanaugh is completely innocent or and we'll talk about this soon. They're just, you know, really concerned with the timing of this because they want to rush this through as as much as possible. So, yeah, and then like they have no good reason for not subpoenaing mark judge lindsey graham was asked about this on tuesday and he said why

don't you want to subpoena mark judge and he just said no reason to oh no yeah no reason why would we subpoena the other witness the other witness who was potentially in the room at the time i think it has a lot to do with the idea that Mark Judge himself is not a particularly compelling character given some of the things he has written and said about women over time. And also, I think they're nervous about what Mark Judge could say about what Brett Kavanaugh or Bart O. Kavanaugh did in high school and how he acted in high school. And so this is a whitewash. school and how he acted in high school. And so like they are, this is a whitewash. They are trying to seem like they are being responsive to this new information without actually getting any

information because they do not want to slow this down under any circumstances. Dan, do you think the Republicans even want this hearing? Robert Costa at the Washington Post last night reported that several top Republican lawmakers have told colleagues that they hope Dr. Blasey declines to show up for the hearing, even as they issue statements urging her to do so. What are they afraid of? They're the fucking worst people. There's nothing more cynical than that, to be like, we definitely want to know about this. We care. We actually don't because we know this would be bad for us politically because we have a woman who has made a very credible accusation of sexual assault against their Supreme Court nominee. And the Republicans have zero women on the Judiciary Committee. So she

would be questioned by 11 men, none of whom seem to be particularly sensitive. And so it is, they do not, they simply want this to go away as fast as possible. And it says so much about that because there is no vote more consequential that a senator makes than a Supreme Court nomination. This is the one

where there are no do-overs. You take this vote and this person will be on the court for decades. It's not even like a major piece of legislation which can be amended over time. And they are doing this with expressly trying to know as little as possible. And they're at risk of putting on the court to be the deciding vote

on overturning Roe versus Wade, a man who has been credibly accused of sexual assault. You would think that this would be the one, the one constitutional responsibility they would take fucking seriously. But instead they are treating it as if it is just something to get done so they can get to lunch quicker. I mean, even putting the morality of this aside, which I only do because we have not seen a lot of evidence of morality from the Republican Party since Donald Trump became president or much before that. Just from a pure political standpoint, you know, I've seen both liberals and a few conservatives write this, like, why wouldn't you want, if you truly believed that Brett Kavanaugh is innocent, if you believe him when he says this never happened blah blah why wouldn't you want a full investigation to uh clear his name as best you can so that when you ultimately take the vote then his confirmation

is on firmer ground um and you and you feel better about it so then you know like if they if they rush this vote monday um and more information comes out or we still just have the same cloud of suspicion hanging over it, their vote is not going to be as politically safe as it would be if they have a full investigation that potentially exonerates this man. It is just, the whole thing is just crazy. Like thinking through the politics of this, you're exactly right. The worst possible political scenario for the Republicans would be they try to hold this Potemkin hearing on Monday. Christine Ford decides not to come for all the very obvious reasons that it is not fair or impartial. and then they have the vote, they confirm them by one vote or Mike Pence breaks the tie,

and then we learn more information. That is a devastating political mistake heading into an election that is 40-some days away. Or you do this with leaving – you don't have the hearing, you don't have an independent FBI investigation, you don't do any sort of due diligence. No new information comes out, but it happens under a cloud of suspicion. That's also bad politics. The problem the Republicans have is twofold, which is, one, in the Trump era, to believe a woman credibly accusing a Republican of sexual assault is to somehow indict Donald Trump by association for the allegation of sexual assault against him. We saw this with Steve Wynn. We see this with Jim Jordan and what he is supposed to have been knowledgeable of at Ohio State. And up and down, we see this. And so they're unable to take this seriously because if they are to take it seriously, then it opens questions about why they

are not taking the 19 allegations against Donald Trump seriously. And then second, there is this win-at-all-costs-by-any-means-necessary sort of ethos that dominates the Republicans that somehow it would be a sign of weakness that would deflate the base to simply swap out Brett Kavanaugh for some other white male right wing ideologue Federalist Society approved judge. And then somehow that that would be a problem. Yeah, there's a whole list of them. Just pick one. It is like solar power.

It is an inexhaustible resource. There are so many of them. It is an inexhaustible resource. There are so many of them. I mean, and also, so I mean, what are the consequences of Republicans slowing this down a little bit to conduct this investigation? Why are they in such a hurry? There are none. There are none. Unless your view is the longer we wait before the vote is the more likely more information has come out against Brett Kavanaugh. That's it. But they, there is, I hate to say this, but this is not a question about getting this done before the election or whatever. Like McConnell gives two shits about process and norms so that he could very easily, we know this from Eric Garland, he could easily swap Kavanaugh out,

put someone else up next week, have a judiciary week after that, and vote after that. He doesn't care. And all of the protestations from the Democrats and the New York Times editorial board about how this is a bullshit process, he doesn't care. The Republicans don't care. All he wants, he could put a robot on the court if he would vote for corporations to overturn Roe v. Wade. He does not give a shit who it is. The whole thing is so weird. Brett Kavanaugh, no one cares. Brett Kavanaugh has a right to due process in a criminal proceeding. Of course, yeah. He does not really have a right to due process in whether he gets to be on the Supreme Court. He

doesn't have a right to be on the Supreme Court. The Senate has a responsibility to decide. They put the best person possible on the Supreme Court. And when there are questions, and those questions may be unanswerable, as they may be in this case, then the right thing to do is to step aside and put someone else in. It is not Brett Kavanaugh or Bust. They can put anyone else in, but they are making a conscious decision to put someone on the court to be the deciding vote on Roe versus Wade, who may be guilty of sexual assault. There's so much about what is happening here that it is a microcosm that

explains the Republican Party in the Trump era in every way possible. And again, if the reason they're not swapping him out is because they think to themselves, you know what? I truly believe this man is innocent. I believe this, he is being smeared here. Then you would think they would say, okay, we're going to go through another FBI background check. We're going to have the FBI subpoena various witnesses instead of just Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey Ford. So we're going to do this and we're going to find all the facts that we can. And even if the discovery of all those facts and through all those interviews, we cannot conclusively decide what happened here. At least we will have done our due diligence to say we tried to figure out everything we could and then we can vote on that.

But the fact that they're not even doing that, that they refuse to do that so far, is very telling. I mean, do you think that they're worried that if it goes too long, the Democrats will potentially take the Senate in the midterms? Because that seems to be, you know, Lindsey Graham sort of gave away the game yesterday when he tweeted that, you know, this is all about delaying this until after the midterm so that if Democrats, you know, take the Senate, they have an advantage. But of course, even if we take the Senate, I would not be surprised at all. In fact, I would expect that Mitch McConnell would try to jam through yet another nominee during the lame duck session between November and January. You know, wouldn't wouldn't you expect that? be confirmed because if your argument was the voters should decide and we therefore we can't we must leave the supreme court with an empty seat for nearly a year so that uh because we have an

upcoming election then confirming a conservative justice three weeks after the democrats took the senate would lay that bare but also mcconnell doesn't care about that he does not care and so like this does not this would not prevent he would still have even if it would be insincere, which is sort of funny to use in the same sentence McConnell, even though the insincere and lacking integrity, he would have the power and ability to put that justice on the court. And he would be under tremendous pressure from the right wing to do so. I wonder if he thinks that in that scenario, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, who were quite literally on their way out the door at that point, because they're not running for re-election, they're retired, will blanch at him trying to jam through a nominee in the lame duck. I just can't figure that out. I mean, do we, there is nothing we could do to stop them in a lame duck. I just can't figure that out. I mean, like, do we,

there is nothing we could do to stop them in a lame duck session, Democrats from nominating another justice, correct? Correct. No procedural things that we could pull. No. Yeah, it would be about Corker, Flake, Collins, Murkowski. And the more and more you, like just you're creating more of a permission structure

for them to say no. Right. Now, senators who are who have lost their reelection or have decided or are headed to retirement usually end up voting with the are more likely to vote with McConnell because they're all applying for jobs at Republican lobbying firms and think tanks at that time. So I wouldn't I'm not would not bet a lot of money on the integrity of flaker mcconnell in that moment or any moment frankly yep brian boitler was saying to me that it would um that voting against him in a lame duck would jeopardize their uh right wing wingnut welfare program yeah that's exactly when they leave and get a good job from like the heritage foundation or or you know the coke brothers or something like that. So what happens if Dr. Blasey Ford does not testify on Monday?

It seems as if the Republicans are just planning to say, fuck it. We're going to hold the vote. This is done. Is that what's going to happen? Yes. It seems that way. As of right now on Thursday morning, it seems that they will not make Kavanaugh testify about this under oath if Dr. Ford is not going to be there. And look, it does seem, you know, people say, well, then why won't she testify? You know, even though they're not doing this FBI background investigation, why wouldn't she do it anyway?

investigation, why wouldn't she do it anyway? And, you know, first of all, she hasn't said, neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor her lawyer have said that definitively she won't testify if these conditions aren't met. They just said that they should be met. But also there's this whole issue of, you know, these Republican senators and especially the ones in the Judiciary Committee have seemingly already made up their mind about this. You know, Lindsey Graham, quote, I'll listen to the lady, but we're going to bring this to a close. Very nice. Bob Corker, if we don't hear from both sides on Monday, let's vote. Dean Heller, dirty Dean Heller, said this last night, quote, we got a little hiccup here with the Kavanaugh nomination. We'll get through this and we'll get off to the races. A fucking hiccup. Allegations of sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee

is a hiccup, is what Dean Heller said. I do not like Dean Heller. I'm going to be very clear on that. Yeah, and by the way, you know, public service announcement. Dean Heller is in a surprisingly tight contest so far with Jackie Rosen, who was on the pod when we were in Nevada, for the Senate.

Go donate to Jackie Rosen's campaign today because she should be way ahead of him right now. That guy stands for nothing. Absolutely nothing. This is the guy who said he was 99% against Donald Trump and now calls him, like, a wonderful leader and is calling credible allegations of sexual assault a hiccup. Come on, Nevada. Here is why Dr. Ford, Christine Blasey Ford, is well within her rights to question whether this would be a fair and impartial hearing.

whether this would be a fair and impartial hearing. Mike Davis, who has the job of Chief Counsel for Nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and would be the person who would question Dr. Ford in such a hearing, he tweeted the other night, last night I guess, unfazed and determined, we will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Hashtag confirm Kavanaugh. Hashtag SCOTUS.

I would note that that is a terrible use of hashtags, first off, which is a real pet peeve of mine. But this is the person who is supposed to be leading the impartial investigation of what actually happened. Unfazed and determined, which is like this hearing is a box-checking exercise and that their intention is to have the hearing, not have the hearing, whatever it is, no matter what is said, confirm Kavanaugh. Now, he has, of course, deleted these tweets and locked his Twitter account for both violations of general hashtag etiquette and being an idiot. for both violations of general hashtag etiquette and being an idiot.

But he, this is like, I completely understand why Christine Blasey Ford, who was facing death threats and tremendous media scrutiny, would be at least skeptical that Chuck Grassley would hold a impartial hearing to try to get to the bottom of what happened. You know, it's just, again, it seems like in any other situation, except when there's allegations of sexual assault against a woman, the thing you would ask yourself, the thing that investigators would ask themselves is like, who has something to gain by lying here? What, what possible, what does Christine Blasey Ford, what did she have to gain by just making up this story this many

years later coming forward thrusting herself and her family into the national spotlight getting death threats having to move out of her home why why would you speak up if you were not 100% sure that this happened there's just no what do you have to gain from this? Why would she have told her therapist this in 2012? Why would her husband have said this too? Why would she have done these things if it wasn't true? Only with sexual assault do we doubt this kind of stuff. And you wonder, we wonder why women don't come forward yes and we only do it when it serves the specific political purposes of the republican party these days and then it's like you know what does brett kavanaugh have to gain by lying a supreme court seat and what do we know about

brett kavanaugh so far and we've seen this on the last pod we know that he has lied in the past we know that he's lied about something as simple as Donald Trump consulted more people and looked at more Supreme Court nominees than any president in history for this nomination. I didn't receive Democratic stolen documents in my email. I didn't work on the prior nomination. All things that don't happen to be true, whether you forget about the perjury argument, whether you believe it's technically perjury or not. He has dissembled and been dishonest through this whole confirmation hearing. And we know that because he is a Republican operative first that has been trying to dissemble and be dishonest his entire career so that he can reach higher office. He has, without question, been an incredibly ambitious,

entitled person who lies effortlessly in the search of greater power and success for himself and power and success for the Republican Party. That is who he has been. That in and of itself is not disqualifying from the court. But we only get nine justices until, of course, Democrats take over and then we pack the court with six members of Antifa. This clip's going to end up on Tucker Carlson's show. I can't.

It's great for my key rating. On Tucker Carlson's show. I can't. It's great for my key writing. And I am just so mystified by this. The Republican approach to this has been so revealing in some ways. The people who are arguing that this is horseplay or roughhousing is disgusting. The people saying, well, even if true,

can we really hold against him a mistake he made in high school? Which seems to be a standard they only apply to rich white men from prep schools and not anyone else in this country. Which also reveals that they don't really believe Brett Kavanaugh because why engage in this hypothetical argument about whether it was horseplay or what happened in high school if you believe Kavanaugh? The story that Kavanaugh's going with is that this never happened.

That there was no such incident that ever took place. And yet they're already going past that to argue, well, but if it did take place, if he's lying, then it's still okay. That's the argument they're making. They're trying to create a system where no matter what is revealed, Kavanaugh still gets to be on the Supreme Court. The whole thing is also weird because Kavanaugh was not the person McConnell wanted. McConnell wanted the other two right wing ideologues on the three person shortlist. And Trump, of course, this overhangs a lot of this.

And Trump, of course, this is overhangs a lot of this. But Trump, of is, Team Trump, if we ditch Kavanaugh, we're signing our own death warrant. Do you think that's true? I mean, do you think there's truth to the fact that if they, you know, if they pull down the Kavanaugh nomination, nominate Judge Amy Barrett tomorrow, or Thomas Hardiman, or any of the other people on the list that somehow that and then also confirm that person even before the election if they do it tomorrow if they do it monday if they do it next week they could probably confirm that person before november do you think that would hurt the base at that point i understand why they think that, because just the Republican mentality is, win at all costs, never admit—this is Trump. This is Trumpism, in fact, of the Republican Party, which is win at all costs, never admit defeat, never allow the establishment, even though they are the establishment, you know, liberals, the media, et cetera, to force them to backtrack.

And so I understand why they think that. They're also wrong. In the immediate short term, the way this would play out is Kavanaugh would announce he was withdrawing or they would announce they were withdrawing the nomination. There would be a avalanche of stories saying that the Republicans a huge mistake, and they blinked. And then Hannity and Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs and the rest of Trump's Kishikanda advisors would attack them. But then they would nominate someone else, and then we would move on. It would all be about everyone would grab an oar and get in and start trying to confirm that person. So I think it would be a momentary blink. I don't think it would have. Certainly, if you were to weigh the various political outcomes, that is much more desirable than confirming him and then finding out much more information about this allegation or other ones.

risk because of two potential developments one that more information comes out about dr blaise ford's allegation that confirms um what she alleged or two other women coming forward to say that they uh that you know that brett kavanaugh potentially has sexually assaulted them as well which in this me too era we have seen in almost every situation when a man is accused of this kind of thing, multiple women have come forward. That happened with Trump. That happened with Harvey Weinstein. That happened with Al Franken. That happened with a whole bunch of different people who were accused of these things.

Multiple women came out. So are they, they really, they're going to take that risk that this is it? This is the only story out there about Brett Kavanaugh. It's also just even putting the politics aside, which I know we never do anymore. But if you this is a lifetime appointment. You can probably find someone for the position who is not under the cloud of suspicion for sexual assault. Like he does not have a right to that seat. sexual assault. Like he does not have a right to that seat. Or at the very least, at the very least, you can wait a couple weeks to conduct a fair, independent, nonpartisan investigation,

which the Senate Judiciary Committee is incapable of doing, as we just heard from you reading Mike Davis's tweets, who is the chief counsel on Grassley's committee. They are incapable of conducting an independent investigation. But the FBI could. But the FBI could. At least the FBI that, you know, most of us know, maybe not the FBI that Donald Trump has depicted over the last year. I do wonder about that, whether Trump's view of the FBI as being part of some bizarre deep state conspiracy affects their willingness to do this.

Yeah, no, I'm sure it's possible. Well, this will all play out in the coming days. Who knows what will have developed by the time you're listening to this pod. by the time you're listening to this pod. Grassley did say that he set a deadline for Friday at 10 a.m. for testimony, written testimony from Dr. Blasey Ford. So I don't know if that will happen. We don't know what's going to happen, but we will continue to follow this story because I think by Monday we'll know a lot more. All right. Let's talk about the midterms.

Democrats got a few wake-up calls from Texas this week, one from a special election, the other from a poll, a couple of polls. in Texas that happened this Tuesday, Republicans won a state Senate runoff in what was widely considered to be a safe Democratic district in South Texas, where more than 60% of the people voting are Latino. Meanwhile, a new poll from Quinnipiac indicated that Beto O'Rourke is trailing Ted Cruz by nine points in the race for the U.S. Senate in Texas. And more specifically, that only 54 percent of Hispanic voters polled favored O'Rourke. That's the same percentage that Democrat Wendy Davis got in 2014 when she lost the governor's race by 20 points. And generally, outside of Texas, particularly in polls in places like California and Florida, we have seen Democrats underperforming with Latinos

in a lot of these midterm polls. Dan, what do you think is going on here? I don't know, but I really want to find out quickly because it's very concerning. I'm not overly concerned about one poll in the Texas Senate race. There was another poll that came out the next day that had Beto up to. My guess is that race is close. And I would actually be shocked if Beto was winning at this point, just for reasons of name ID. And he has to get a significant number of both non-voters, obviously, or infrequent voters, but also independents, a large chunk of whom are unlikely to be decided at this point.

But so the poll doesn't – that individual poll doesn't worry me. What does worry me is the – what I think we're seeing is a trend of underperformance among Hispanic voters across the Sun Belt, both in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas. And we probably don't take the House, or may not take the House at least, without doing very well in those areas, particularly California. And so it's concerning. Yeah, we see that in Gil Cisneros' race in the 39th in California. He's a little further behind the Republican in that race. He's one of the cricket eight districts then. Someone like Harley Ruda or Mike Levin or Katie Hill, some of these other candidates. And then, of course, like we've seen

this in Florida. Now, you know, there's a couple of reasons for this. If on the bright side, typically it is difficult. It is more difficult to poll Latino voters. Their response rates are a little lower, particularly in midterm races. You know, but also it's, you know, it's a it's a real concern since a lot of those districts are districts that we have to win. If you look at that special election in Texas, because, you know, it's always better to analyze an actual election than polls. in Texas, because, you know, it's always better to analyze an actual election than polls. The seat there had been vacated by a Democrat who was convicted of 11 felonies. And the Democrat running for that seat had served for two decades in the Texas House and was tagged during the race as a career politician by the Republican who is Hispanic

and would be the first Hispanic Republican to hold that seat. So you can argue that there are some mitigating circumstances in that special election that made it particularly difficult. But also, you know, I think, and you know, you've read this, you know, in different accounts of Beto's campaign and different campaigns in Texas, I think Latino turnout is always a concern. And I don't know that campaigns have figured out ways to effectively reach the Latino community. A lot of experts told Vox in a piece yesterday that Latino anger at Trump and the Republicans is at an all-time high, but their worry that may not translate into turnout.

Matt Barreto of Latino Decisions, he's a managing partner there, said voters have to believe that through their vote, they are alleviating their frustration and the candidate they vote for will work to solve the issues they care about. Anger is not enough. There was a poll from Naleo, a Latino organization,

that said 44% of Latinos think the Democratic Party is ignoring or being hostile to Latinos. 76% think the Republican Party is ignoring or being hostile to Latinos. 76% think the Republican Party is ignoring or being hostile to Latinos. So obviously awful numbers for the GOP. But the question is, can Democrats, you know, take advantage of that? And that seems to be an open question. Also in that poll, 60% of respondents said that they have not been contacted by a candidate or a campaign from the Democratic side this far, even in competitive districts. I think that's a very important point because often when we have these discussions about voter group X not being enthusiastic, this discussion happened around the African-American vote before the Virginia election.

Like, why aren't they turning out? Why aren't they registering to vote? Whatever the conversation is. And the point of that argument should be, why aren't Democratic candidates doing a better job of reaching out to these communities? Why aren't Democratic candidates doing a better job of having a message that is compelling to these communities, as opposed to just haranguing voters, which is not a particularly constructive exercise? And so that is the numbers you gave about voter contact in those areas is concerning. Why haven't we been able to translate the tremendous enthusiasm and I think very good organizations that has been part of so many of these races? Why hasn't that led to greater incidents of

contact between campaigns and members of the Hispanic community? I think there's some very real questions to be asked here, but I think there are questions that the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates in question here must ask themselves. Yeah. And one piece of good news is Beto's campaign launched its first Spanish language television ad just this week. So, you know, one would hope that there will be a lot more of that from Beto's campaign and obviously from other Democratic campaigns. I would love to hear from pollsters, strategists, organizers who have run races in districts, in places with heavy

Latino populations. I'd love to hear what they have to say about all of this. So let us know, reach out on Twitter. It is interesting too that the special elections that we've paid so much attention to have largely been in districts and states that with disproportionately small Hispanic populations. And so we have not fully tested this proposition. We're talking about enthusiasm, you know, enthusiasm advantage, which groups are engaged. We haven't really tested the proposition of what a special election looks like in a heavily Latino district or state. And I think to your point, there are some specific circumstances around this special election in Texas, but we should not dismiss it because I do think it bespeaks a larger problem

of underperformance that we need to be concerned about. Yes. So that leads us to our candidate of the day, Gina Ortiz-Jones. She's the Democratic candidate for Texas's 23rd congressional district, which spans from San Antonio to outside of El Paso. Gina served in the Iraq war within the United States Air Force and then worked in the Obama administration. If Ortiz-Jones wins, she'll be the first Filipina American congresswoman, as well as the first woman to represent the 23rd District. The 23rd District is currently represented by two-term incumbent Republican Will Hurd. However, both times Hurd was elected, he won by a margin of two or fewer percentage points. And in 2016, the 23rd voted to elect Hillary Clinton by three and a half points. The district is currently rated as leaning Republican, but it is winnable.

Dan, what do you think of this race and what do we know about Will Hurd, her opponent? Well, I'm very glad that we have, after our rigorous process, bestowed our endorsement on Gina Ortiz Jones. Congratulations to you. The questionnaire was voluminous. The interview was long, but she came through with flying colors. It's worth noting that Will Hurd was once a guest on Pod Save the World. That's right. But I don't care.

We need to beat him. Yeah. Well, look, the statistic you need to know about Will Hurd, and you're right, he is one of the more reasonable Republicans in Congress, to be completely honest. But he's voted with Trump 95% of the time. And that seems to be the most salient point here, that he is a reliable vote for Donald Trump. And, again, this election is about if you want to check Donald Trump, if you want to have some check on his out of control power that he has and everything that he's doing, you've got to have a Democratic Congress.

And if there are Republicans out there who are only voting with Donald Trump, you know, 40 percent of the time, 30 percent, that would be one thing. But Will Hurd, despite the fact that he is a thoughtful guy who says the right things, votes with Trump 95% of the time. Yeah, he wrote some New York Times op-ed, which everyone applauded for the distance he was giving himself from Trump. But I don't care about your New York Times op-eds. They mean nothing to me. What I care about even more than your voting 95% of the time with Trump is your vote for Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, or whoever else to be Speaker of the House. That's what I care about. I care that if Will Hurd is elected, he'll be one more vote to ensure that the main function of the Republican Congress is to not investigate anything and to obstruct justice

for Donald Trump. And I don't really want that. I don't know about you, but I am against that. Yeah. And look, Gina Ortiz-iz Jones could really use everyone's help. Will Hurd, unlike some of, unlike many of the Republican incumbents, has not been outraised by Jones, Ortiz Jones. Through the end of June, Mr. Hurd had $2 million cash on hand compared to only $1 million in Ortiz Jones's coffers. So please, you know, give to Gina Ortiz Jones. She could use people's help. And it's a tough district, again, for know, give to Gina Ortiz Jones. Um, she could use people's help and it, it's a, it's a tough district again on for turnout. This is another, you know, it's a heavily Latino population there too. So this is like one of these areas that we're talking about and, um, yeah,

it's going to be a really tough race. Also, um, we've done a really cool thing on Vote Save America, which is we've asked, uh, candidates to answer the question, why are you running? And a whole bunch of candidates have already sent in videos that they've taken themselves, some on their iPhones, of why they're running for office. They're not just, you know, your typical talking point stuff that you see in an ad. They're really cool videos. And we got one from Gina Ortiz-Jones, which is is fantastic so check out those videos on votesaveamerica.com um to hear from the candidates themselves uh instead of us and um it's it's really cool so endorsement in the 23rd gina ortiz jones again it was a uh it was a tight one but you know

we came through tommy voted for well heard i'm just kidding. Tommy did not vote for Willard. What's that, Tommy? He did not. No, yeah. Even a positive of the world guess. Tommy had to vote against him. Okay. When we come back, you will hear the interview that Tommy and I did with Chef Jose Andres.

On the pod today, we have one of the greatest chefs in the world. On the planet. On the planet, and he's the author of the new book, We Fed an Island, The True Story of Rebuilding Puerto Rico One Meal at a Time, our pal, Jose Andres. Welcome. So happy to be here. It's great to have you. I can't believe it's the first time we were talking to you since we did this podcast.

Is it the first time you brought somebody with an accent? Yeah. No, you had some accents. You sound good. But not like mine. Yeah, that's okay. Sounds beautiful. Jose, so we're going to be sharing this conversation on the day that's a year since Hurricane Maria made landfall on Puerto Rico.

It's a place where you spent so much of the past year helping to feed people and rebuild. What should people know about the challenges that are still facing people who still live on Puerto Rico? Well, I think the main challenge is how you have like a double life, right? On one side, we need to be, the island is looking at bringing tourism again.

And you have to be selling that the island is a beautiful place, which actually, if you want to help Puerto Rico, right now you should go online, buy your tickets, make a reservation in a beautiful hotel or rent a house, and go to Puerto Rico. And that's an effective way to be helping the people in the island. But at the same time, today, Puerto Rico is facing problems that didn't begin in Maria, but they are a problem that almost they are over a century old.

Puerto Rico has been treated like a colony when the Spanish were very much in control of Puerto Rico. But then when America took over Puerto Rico, it's been a whole bunch of things that they've always been pushing the island of Puerto Rico down. Everybody hears about the Jones Act. Well, the Jones Act is almost like a way to say Puerto Rico is part of America, but everything you buy in Puerto Rico is going to be so much more expensive, more expensive than, let's say, Haiti or any other island in the Caribbean.

Why? Yes, Puerto Rico has challenges, has a big debt. But if the homeland, if America, if Washington, Congress, Senate doesn't help Puerto Rico to move away from its debt with those unfair taxes, the Jones Act, Puerto Ricans will never have the opportunity to bring their island back to where it should be without so much depth and looking towards the future. So you see, it's a lot of issues. Yes, the electric grid is a mess, it's old, but all has to do with that massive depth that the island has and where actually it's like Washington, D.C.

They pay taxes, but they have no representation. Until we don't give Puerto Rico a voice in Congress, in the Senate, in Washington, Puerto Rico will be treated like a second-class island, like a second-class part of the United States. And we need to change that once and for all. So just a couple days after the hurricane hit the island, you jumped on a commercial flight, one of the first ones into San Juan. You had, I think, a colleague with you.

You had as much cash as you could get out of the first ones into San Juan. You had, I think, a colleague with you. You had as much cash as you could get out of the ATMs at the time. Why did you decide to head down, and what did you guys do when you got there? Well, I've been in hurricanes and earthquakes before. Me, personally, I've always had that call to go, mainly to help, but mainly to learn. mainly to help but mainly to learn. You cannot learn just by only watching TV or listening to radio. Even I learn a lot when I hear your podcast. But I learn when I'm there and I watch and I try to bring a solution.

In my case, I'm a cook. I try to feed people. But then you began saying that you do other things. Why did I go? Because I saw that the hurricane was going to be massive, and I saw that devastation was going to be obvious. So I went, but I thought I was going to be there four or five days. I told my wife I'll be back by the weekend.

That Friday night I called her and I said, listen, I don't know when I'm coming back. But the problem here is huge. It's not about a few thousand people in an arena that they are having shelter and where we need to feed them. This is an entire piece of America, 3.5 million Americans that right now they have no electricity, no cell, but more important, no water or no food. And what was bad is that I didn't see a plan, a real plan, to overcome the obstacles of not being prepared. Everybody has recognized that the federal government was not prepared. You know one thing? I don't blame them for that.

Why? Because it was a very difficult season. A lot of hurricanes. One after the other was chaos. And this was catastrophic. Maria was like nothing we've ever seen. Okay, we were not prepared. This is okay. What is not okay is that we don't try then to overcome the issues

and have a quicker, faster response. So, I mean, you get there, you get on the ground. How do you begin to triage to set up a station to feed hundreds of thousands of people a night, different locations, all these chefs, all the food? How do you get that going? More often than not, when we have a big problem, the weight of the problem can paralyze everybody,

the leaders. So you have to start breaking the problems into smaller ones. So the issue was we had to feed one, two million people. It was not very clear how many people were going to be hungry, but the number was huge. So FEMA at the time, at headquarters, they were talking the right game. They were saying we need to feed two million people a day and probably two, three meals a day,

six million meals a day. Six million meals a day. Plus, there was no water on the island. There was water on the island, but it was very much

a political problem. Bad communication between different agencies within the Puerto Rican government. So you had to bring almost three million gallons a day into an island. You know,

the space of 3 million gallons? Used to bring them, forget it, but to distribute them. So the problem was huge. What we do? What do we do, chefs like me? First day, we did 1,000 meals. Second day, we did 2,000. Before we knew, we were not just receiving orders.

We were searching like a scout who is in need of meals. We began feeding every single hospital. Two became four, four became eight. Before we know, our main kitchen is too small. We began in our little restaurant in Santurce. We rented the parking lot ahead, across. That parking lot became like a tourist place. Everybody was coming to see what we were doing. We needed an arena. I got the arena. We went from 10,000 meals in that first kitchen to the second kitchen, 75,000 meals a day. We went from one kitchen to 26. At one point, we had 18 kitchens operating at once. We went from 20 volunteers to 25,000. We went from 1,000 meals a day to 150,000 meals a day. You see what we do? We went from one city to 78 municipalities, including Vieques and Culebra.

That's what you do. You start solving the problem and doubling and pushing. But you don't try to fit everybody the first day. You don't try to solve every single problem. But by scaling it slowly, we were able to do amazing things. You break the problem into smaller portions, and then you start dividing, but then you conquer. I needed chefs. I called.

Before I knew, I had more than 20 chefs of the top quality from arenas coming into San Juan. We began having big armies that we began deploying like SEAL teams, one kitchen at a time. Before we knew, we were operating in 26 kitchens. That's amazing. You write in the book about how the traditional systems of disaster relief don't really work, whether it's the federal government or the Red Cross. What did you learn about those traditional systems, and how do we go about starting to fix those? systems and how do we go about starting to fix those?

I mean, number one, we need to understand we are again in hurricane season, hurricane alley. Probably if you see the Atlantic and the Pacific, we have almost like six, seven potential hurricanes happening almost at the same time. This is like something we've never seen before. And I only want to say that the men and women in the federal government, in many of the big NGOs, to me, they are heroes. But somehow what's missing is a new way of leadership. If things happen, like let's say in Houston, and you put everybody in a big shelter like the convention center, and you have 10,000, 15,000 people, that's somehow easy to manage. You feed

them, you give them a place to sleep, you give them blankets, you give them food, you give them medicines, whatever they need. But what happens when the problem becomes something like you never saw? For example, Katrina. Everybody remembers about the Superdome. We put more than 10,000, 20,000 men and women in the Superdome because nobody planned for anything else. And for many days, we had men and women at the superdome without food, almost without water. And many things happened on that superdome, as we know. It was almost like a disaster, a mini-disaster within the disaster.

You know what an arena is? Everybody thinks an arena is a place where you go to watch NBA players or football games. No, no. That's a big lie. An arena is a gigantic restaurant that happens you have NBA players for entertainment. Right. So if you activate every single place where in normal days you can buy food, all of a sudden you have everything you need to be feeding people. The only thing you need is somebody living, bringing the food in,

bringing the chefs, the volunteers. Food is not going to be an issue. Water should not be an issue. Now we need to take care of the other many issues. In the case of Puerto Rico, the issue was food. Food was available. Everybody said, Jose, you were brilliant. You were able to get the food there. I didn't do anything. The food was in the island. The only thing I did was find who had the most quantity of food, open an account, start paying them, and start placing orders. And the food began showing up. Then was many other logistical things we had to do. The trays to deliver, the teams to deliver, the kitchens, the generators to maintain the kitchens with refrigeration.

Many of the things that logistically, quite frankly, we did a very good job. But essentially, we need to start only having like football teams have, special team coaches. special team coaches. We need to have at FEMA, at the big NGOs, people that specialize in the unforeseen circumstances that may change every plan you had. Because when we don't do that, something goes in the wrong direction and nobody seems to be adapting like we do in the private sector to the new circumstances. And then is when chaos becomes almost unmanageable. You were pretty public in the book, and I think in interviews, about your frustration with FEMA, the Red Cross,

like a lot of the big infrastructure that's supposedly in place to deal with these kinds of disasters. Have they reached out to you at all since you've been talking about your experience, since you did so much work to feed people, to say, okay, what could we learn from you? Can we have a dialogue? With FEMA, we've been trying, but we've been very, I would say, unlucky.

I'm going to put the blame on myself for maybe not trying hard enough. But with FEMA, we've been very lucky. On the sense of Red Cross, I think we've been in the last two big fires in California. Over the last year, we've been in Ventura at the Carr Fire, and we had an amazing dialogue with Red Cross. And very much, Red Cross will tell you, we were able to fit almost all the shelters that were being managed by Red Cross. So there we had really a very good learning experience, and there I saw the best that Red Cross has to offer. But again, to me those are very simple situations that Red Cross actually is very good managing those shelters

and finding partners to feed the people and all the amazing things they do. But again, I go back to the things that when we are unprepared for something like Katrina, when Maria happened and the problem was so spectacular that for me, I had the plan to feed almost one million people a day. And my frustration was that I understand I was a guy that came from nowhere with a funny accent and dreams of feeding everybody.

But actually, we had the plan. And for me, instead of talking, what I did is I began cooking because I wanted to show them how we could adapt to the new circumstances. So in the sight of Red Cross, I think it's going well. Our partnership, I think the future of NGOs. NGOs cannot do everything. We need to start specializing. We need to start specializing. We need to start specializing.

And if you don't specialize, what happens is you try to be everything, and then you very much, you are nothing. So if you specialize, you can become very good at certain areas. World Central Kitchen, we specialize in feeding people, but more important, in adapting to those circumstances that nobody saw coming. That's what we are very good at. So FEMA overall, I think right now, you know, with all the hurricanes, I think I see that what's been happening,

I see like almost the way they are approaching everything has changed. I think they are more proactive in showcasing that, look, we have food, we have this, we have that, we have electricity, we have people ready for water issues. And this is good. That's what they have to be doing. They have to be really getting ahead of themselves and, again, prepare for the unforeseen circumstances. You became an American citizen in 2013. You have been a fierce advocate for immigration reform.

have been a fierce advocate for immigration reform. Obviously, with Donald Trump as president, the idea that we're ever going to pass immigration reform seems quite distant now. How do we get the country back to a place and our politics back to a place where we can come together and actually pass immigration reform, or at least get the country in a place where people can start talking in a way that might can start talking like we, you know, talking in a way that might get us to real progress on immigration? I think on a hurricane, like what happened in Maria or in this season of hurricanes, we had the answer. A hurricane is chaos. A failed immigration reform is chaos. A hurricane to solve the problems that the chaos of a hurricane creates, you need every American together. Know who is Republican, know who is Democrat. Now, what do you believe,

how food should be shared or not, but together to trying to transform problems into opportunities. Immigration reform is something I'm very astonished because we have a businessman, a true businessman as our leader. And businessmen usually are pragmatic people. President Trump calls himself a super good businessman, very pragmatic, and who can't make a deal with anybody. Right now, as the economy keeps improving for the last eight, nine years, non-stop, One of the main issues is that we have no workforce. It's very hard to be hiring people. And it's very hard if you are a Republican,

and it's very hard if you are a Democrat. So only for pure American pragmatism, used to give the opportunity to the dreamers that they are as an American as President Trump, you or I, used to give them the opportunity to finally have their dream and become full American citizens. When all the contrary, we're thinking about kicking them out, which is dividing the country apart and kicking out two million people, Americans to me, which is trying workforce to keep moving America forward.

So what's the way? I think we all need to stop talking only to the people that think like us. I feel like sometimes we are all like seals that we speak to our audience and we all clap like a seal after receiving a sardine. And that's okay. But I think we

all, including you two and myself and everybody else, we all need to try to do more to try to reach to those that don't think like you. Almost for myself, going with World Central Kitchen to, let's say, areas that maybe think immigrants should be away or that undocumented should be kicked out. Almost when I go to give a plate of food to somebody that maybe is different than me,

and they look at that plate of food and they thank you for what you're doing for them, almost it's one of many ways we cannot be trying to reach beyond the aisle. But we are going to have to do better in trying to understand what others think. So they are not afraid of people like me with an accent or people like me that I am an immigrant and I'm a proud American. But understanding that if we don't try to reach above, beyond the aisle,

if we don't tell people that senators in Washington are having a salad every day, that that salad has been picked by an undocumented immigrant. If you start giving facts in a genuine way, I think it's a way we're going to start reaching to others. And we have to be persistent, that yes. But I think immigration reform, I always said, is not a problem for America to solve. It's an opportunity for America to cease.

And I do believe that having a pro-business president in the White House will tell me that immigration reform for a second will pass quicker rather than later. But now we're talking about building walls to keep everybody away. This is going to put America in harm's way because before we know, we're not going to have workers to keep moving the economy forward. Okay, so along those lines of what you just said, you're working at one of your restaurants. Donald Trump shows up. He not only orders some food, but he wants you to sit down and join him.

What do you cook him and what do you say? What do you talk about? How do you reach across the aisle to him? Man, I think that will not happen. We know he likes hamburgers and McDonald's. No, he likes, he's a man of his traditions, and he likes to go to places that they usually carry the Trump name. I don't know if it has something to do with him.

But I think I would treat him with respect, even he's not giving respect to others. And obviously, I would try for a second to have the same conversation I'm having with you in saying, Sir, do you understand that the vast majority of the fresh food we are eating in this country, chances are, chances are we have an undocumented farmer picking up this carrot, this lettuce of those beets, or taking care of the well-done meat you like to eat. I think that's pragmatism to a degree. Quite frankly, during Maria, I wish I had the same contacts that I had with previous White Houses. same contacts that they had with previous White Houses.

Because I almost felt like if maybe President Trump, not like I was his best friend, but I knew many of you around him, that they would pick up the phone and say, you know, we have a big problem here. But actually, believe it or not, I have the solution. Can you give me the power to show that the solution is as simple as let's do it? But I think President Trump, we're going to have to keep working harder, not with him, but the people that believe that him is the savior of all the things that are wrong with America. I think the solutions that we need to bring forward to create this amazing America that we all believe in are not by leaders that try to tell you that we are all an enemy of each other,

but by people that try to bring us all together to keep moving America as one forward, under one flag. Jose Andres, thank you so much for joining the pod. The book is We Fed an Island, The True Story of Rebuilding Puerto Rico One Meal at a Time. Go check it out, and thank you so much for all the work that you do. We're all inspired by you all a time. Go check it out. And thank you so much for all the work that you do. We're all inspired by you all the time. When we come back, the interview I did with Crooked contributor, Julissa Arce. On the pod today, I am joined by Julissa Arce, who is the author of a brand new book, Someone Like Me, How One Undocumented Girl Fought for Her American Dream. Welcome back.

Thank you. It's so good to be back. I'm so glad that I'm back. So the last time I was on the pod, it was to talk about when DACA got rescinded. And that was such a shitty topic. So I'm glad to be back to talk about something that I'm excited about. Yeah. And you've been just crushing Crooked Conversations. I have.

And you have a special series out this week on Crooked Conversations. Thanks for asking, John. We just talked about it on the pod. Oh, you did? But I want to hear about it from you. Oh, yay.

I just gave a quick brief. Awesome. So I'm super excited about this special Crooked Conversations series that we're calling Defining Us. And it's all about exploring the Latinx, Latino community identity, culture, and future. And it's really exciting to explore some of the history of Latinos in America that a lot of people don't know about. And therefore, they think that we just got here, like we're newcomers to America.

We have a long history of being in the country. And then also exploring what does it mean to be a growing population that one day is going to be the majority minority population and then also not have the kind of political power that we need to have and so how do we harness our community to come together to get out to vote to check out vote save america yes um and and so i'm really excited the first one came out yesterday and you're doing with grace grace para from hysteria yes and i'm so glad she's so grace is amazing and she's hilarious and i'm so glad that she said yes when i was like hey let's do this and she was like absolutely um and she she brings such a different perspective to the conversation um and also a lot of comedic relief which is amazing very funny yeah so one question on that um because dan and i were just talking about this on today's pod we're talking about Latino

turnout in the midterms and this week there was a special election in a state senate seat in Texas where it was like a 60 percent plus Latino voting population and the Republican won this seat that should have been Democratic that combined with we've been seeing in a lot of polls, which, you know, polls go back and forth, but polls in California, polls in Florida, polls in Texas and the Sun Belt, that Latino turnout may not be, at least Latino response rate in these polls, may not be as heavily Democratic as some of the other demographic groups that we're seeing in the midterm. What are your thoughts on sort of Latino voting potential turnout, how difficult it is to get Latinos to turn out? Is it the

responsibility of Democratic campaigns? Are they screwing up by not reaching out more? Is it something more fundamental about the Democratic Party? What do you think? So a few thoughts on that. And we're going to have like a whole crooked conversation to talk about this. But I'll give you some brief thoughts on it. One, I think that the Democratic Party has made a mistake of only talking to Latinos about immigration and saying the reason you need to vote Democrat is because we're we're pro immigrant and we believe in immigration. And and the fact is that polls have shown that Latinos actually care about healthcare,

jobs, and education before they care about immigration. And immigration is a huge issue in our community. Like when you think about what's happening at the border with the kids and the fact that we still don't have a DREAM Act. And so it does affect the Latino population in a disproportionate way. However, we also care about where are our kids going to school and how are we going to get health care.

And the Latinas made 54 cents on the dollar when compared to white males. And so all of these things affect us. And so I think that we need to do a much better job of speaking to the Latino population and the Latino voters as though they're like full human beings that are capable of caring about more things than just one issue. That's one thing. The other thing that I'm really excited to explore is sort of like how religion plays a part in the Latino voting bloc, because there are a lot of Latinos who are Catholic, who are Christian, who therefore vote Republican for one single issue, right? And that's the pro-life, pro-choice issue. And so there is that. And then I also think that Latinos have been disillusioned with the Democratic Party, right? And although

we care about more than immigration, like we have been disappointed because we're promised a lot when it comes to immigration and it just hasn't happened. Like the results haven't been there. Right. Yeah, it's interesting. in that episode. We talked to Ali Noorani and he did say that one of the strategies they used was they ran these ads with pastors and sort of religious overtones, sort of reframing the immigration issue as about our common humanity and we are all God's children and found that, you know, that had a great effect in sort of reducing the opposition to immigration reform, not only, you know, among white evangelical Christians.

So I do think there's I think the Democrats sort of sometimes forget how religious the Latino community is. Yeah, there's a lot of Latinos who are torn. You know, I have I have a lot of friends who, um, who vote Republican because of this one issue. I think that's changing now because they're seeing just how the Republican party has become like incredibly toxic and, and, and racist, frankly. And so I think that they're starting to like come around on that issue. Um, and like feeling like I can't possibly vote, uh, Republican anymore because of what's happening. One other thing I'll add about the Latino bloc is just the fact that, you know,

we tend to talk about the Latino voter as though we were all the same. Right. And there is such a huge diversity within the Latino community. So some of those nuances, I think we also have to be more mindful about recognizing when we're talking to Latino voters. Which goes back to your first point, which is that immigration can't be the only issue that we talk about because, because Latino voters are so ideologically diverse and have so many different beliefs, talking about healthcare, jobs, wages, education would be important for Democrats to reach out. I want to talk about your book. So Someone Like Me is a young adult adaptation of your bestselling memoir, My Underground American Dream. Why did you want to adapt the story for a younger audience?

Yeah. So the reason I remember being in middle school and not reading a single book that reflected my experiences, like where the protagonist of a book felt like it was someone like me. Right. And so as I was thinking about writing this book, I kept that in mind. And I wanted to make sure that young readers, young adults feel like their stories are so important that there are books written about it. And, and I saw that today, I just came, I'm just here from, I was just in a school in East LA, where the majority of the students were Latinos, and they were so excited. And they're like, I've never met an author before. And I've never, I've never read a book that talks about my experiences and I think that you know for for for young adults who read this and they're gonna I think they're gonna feel like they're they're

seen um and then for students that maybe don't feel like this is exactly their experiences I'm excited for them to learn about a different experience than theirs and hopefully they'll be able to be more empathetic to people who are different from them. Yeah. So I want to hear the story about how you came to give a copy of this book to Steve Bannon the other weekend. Tell me what happened there. So I was invited to speak at the Economist Open Future Fest. And so the Economist, unlike the New Yorker, did not take away their invitation of Steve Bannon. And so I thought really long and hard about, do I still go to this event?

And when I realized that the immigration panel was going to have no actual immigrants on the panel and people from the Center for Immigration Studies, which has been called a hate group, I was like, no, I have to go. And I have to make sure that my voice is part of the conversation. I didn't know that we were actually going to be able to ask Steve Bannon questions, but I sat in the front row and I had this really visceral, physical reaction to him walking on stage. Like I wanted to like throw up because here he was and he's so harmful and so dangerous.

But when they said we could ask him questions, I started thinking about what am I going to ask him? And I thought about the question. And what I asked him was about the lies that he tells to the American worker that immigrants are taking their jobs when at the same time there was a a a tax bill that passed when he was in the White House that is for corporations not for the worker right and and then I said and then I said to him because he had talked about how much he likes to read blah blah blah so I was like oh and since you like reading so much here's a copy of someone like me so you can actually learn about immigrants. And I handed him the book and my heart was like racing because I had not planned to do that.

Like I just it kind of just happened in the moment. But, yeah, I'm glad that. What did he say? He was like, oh, thank you. You'll have to sign it for me. And I was like, oh, I already I already signed it. I came prepared. And how did he answer your question? Oh, so his question, the way that he answered the question, of course, he like, you, I already signed it. I came prepared. How did he answer your question?

Oh, so his question, the way that he answered the question, of course he like, you know, he doesn't answer questions. He's gonna try to deflect. Completely full of bullshit. Right, and he's gonna stick to his talking points. However, he did say, yeah, this tax bill is not for the American worker. And I fought Steve LaNuscia and I fought Gary Cohen, but they won,

and I lost. And that, I think, proves the point. And I know you guys talk about it a lot on the pod, and I was listening to Monday's pod on the way here. And it just proves the point that Republicans cannot, they cannot run on an economic platform because they don't have any answer so they're gonna have to run on an anti-immigrant ms-13 campaign because they actually have nothing to show the american worker right if they if they really believed in helping working class americans white latino african-amer, whoever, they would have a different economic agenda because they have an economic agenda that is only for the rich. The only way to attract the votes of working class Americans, white working class Americans, is to make them

afraid of immigrants or to make them afraid of African Americans or to, you know, do what they've been doing for many years now. Right. Exactly. And it's like, you know, I'm so glad I asked him that. And that like we have like a video of him saying that, you know, yeah, this tax bill is actually not for the American worker. And I'm like, you're right. It's not. And therefore, you know, you guys are going to skip, skip, keep like spooing your your your lies. your lies. And what's funny to me is like how the places that are most afraid of immigrants are the places that actually don't have a large population of immigrants. Yeah. So that's always like puzzling to me. The other fascinating thing I learned when I was doing the immigration episode for the

wilderness is, I think it was Ali who told me, you know, what he typically thinks is there's 20% of the country who's against immigration all the time. There's 20% of the country who's completely pro-immigration all the time. And then there's about 40% in the middle who can go back and forth. What do you think the best strategy for persuasion is of those people in the middle? Because some people think it's with facts, it's with the economic argument, it's with the national security argument. Some people say it's more cultural. You obviously wrote a book that is, you know, an incredibly compelling story to sort

of like move people's emotions about your own story. But what do you think about that? I did write a very compelling book. And I think, you know, listeners, you should get a copy. Go read it. Go read it. Someone like me. And if, you know, I think even though it's a young compelling book and I think you know listeners you should get a copy go read it go read it someone like me and if you know I think even though it's a young adult book I really do think that like adults will like be able to pick it up and read it but if you really want the adult saucier version then go get my underground American dream buy both buy both why choose right um but to answer your question like actually if I you know if know, if I had all the answers, immigration reform would have passed and that would be the Nobel Prize.

But I think it's a combination of everything you just said. I think that we have to have a strategy that does speak to people's hearts. And that's by telling our stories and sharing more stories like mine and like the thousands of dreamer stories and to remember that there's also stories of like the worker who's in the field and who doesn't have a college education, but who has just as much of who has earned just as much to be to be American. And we do have to keep pushing the economic argument. I think in this in this midterm elections, that's going to be, I think, the biggest answer is to keep reminding people that the answer of if immigrants were not in America, you'd have a job and you'd have better health care and you'd have better education.

We have to really push back against that message. And then I do think that it's also I love what Ali said about bringing in the religious community to this. Because there are going to be a lot of people who I went on this show once that the person, the host is a reverend. He's like very conservative and like a big Donald Trump supporter. And so he was like quoting me Bible verses and I was like, I got you. Like I've read the Bible too. So like, let me tell you what God says, you know? And like literally in the Bible,

it says that it's our obligation to take care of the widow, to take care of the orphan, and to take care of the immigrant. Like it specifically calls those three groups of people that we're supposed to be taking care of. And so I think we have to bring that message in also. So it's a combination of everything you said. Julissa, thank you for coming back on Pod Save America.

The book is Someone Like Me, How One Undocumented Girl Fought for Her American Dream. Thank you for having me. Thank you so much. And check out the Crooked Conversations that Julissa's leading over the next couple of weeks. And like I said, buy both books. Yes, buy both books and

listen to Grace and me on those conversations. Thanks, Melissa. Thanks. Thanks, everyone, for listening. And we will we'll talk to you next week.

And don't forget to go to VoteSaveAmerica.com and sign up for a chance to see us live for a live show next week. Bye, everyone. Bye.