Pod Save America - “Watch out for falling Keurigs.”

Episode Date: November 13, 2017

Republicans are divided over whether to support an alleged child molester for the U.S. Senate, Trump gets cranky at the end of his foreign trip, and Congress plows ahead on their plan to cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the middle class. Then Dan Rather joins Jon, Jon, and Tommy to talk about Trump and the media, and DeRay calls in to discuss Republican judicial appointments.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Tommy's taking a big drink there. Big swig of coffee. It's a little bit of that kind of day. Today on the pod, we'll be talking to the former anchor of the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather. He's cool. And later, we'll be talking to the host of Pod Save the People, DeRay McKesson.

Lovett, how was The Beacon? The Beacon was awesome. He's cool. And later, we'll be talking to the host of Pod Save the People, DeRay McKesson. Love it. How was The Beacon? The Beacon was awesome. It was a great show. The first of the two Beacon shows is out now. We had Ronan Farrow come by and then a panel of Katie Turr, Alex Wagner, Michelle Wolfe. One of my favorite shows. Awesome show.

The crowd in New York was awesome. I listened at the gym and I giggled uncomfortably with lots of people around me. They were so smart. Michelle, so smart. Michelle, so funny. I love an all-women panel because they don't interrupt each other. But it was a great show. And then this week we have Van Jones, Chris Kelly

of SNL, and comedian Cristela Alonso. And then our second Beacon show is going to come out as our Thanksgiving episode. Awesome. Cool. Tell me who's on Podsave the World on Friday and tell us about the new schedule, the new change. Got a lot going on in my world, John. Thanks for asking. Podsave the World is moving

to Fridays. I always thought of it as more of a weekend show. You chillax with your friends. You listen to some Podsave the World. Chillax. It also gives me a lot more time to record during the week and keep it topical. I feel like we found the buried lead of the world. Relax. It also gives me a lot more time to record during the week and keep it topical. I feel like we found the buried lead of the movement this week.

Right now, you can listen to an episode with an Asia expert named Danny Russell who helps you understand why Trump took a five nation, 13 day swing through Asia,

how it's going, what successes, failures are, et cetera. Later this week, I'm going to record an interview about what the hell's going on in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon

because it's freaking a lot of people out. And then this Wednesday, my crooked conversation with Jane Mayer, the author of the book Dark Money, which I've mentioned 600,000 times is out. And if you please listen to the interview, you don't have to do it this week. You don't have to listen to it on Wednesday, but listen to it sometime because the problem of money in politics is so important and you need to hear it. Guys, subscribe to Crooked Conversations conversations some of the best conversations are happening there dan pfeiffer mark leibovich about the nfl we got tommy and jane mayer i cannot go subscribe guys wait to find out what they're like 20 30 minute conversations i'm gonna find out what what those

chains are for i'm gonna find out uh about all different kinds of pads. Who are those stripy guys the chains are for? What did they say? We're moving the chains. Yeah, that's what they said. Love it. New pod that we announced last week. Majority 54 with Jason Kander already at the top of it. Number one. Number one.

You know what? Number one, it defeated a true crime podcast, which is like the David versus Goliath situation. It's so funny because I listened to Love or Leave It on Sunday, and I heard you yelling about the true crime podcast. And I know you threw in Jason as a cover for complaining about Love or Leave It, not making it to number one. Well, that was because of S-Town. That was because of S-Town.

But now Jason did it. Jason got to number one. Yeah, and good for Jason. But all I'm saying is, I mean, I can't go back in time, but, man, launching at the same time as S-Town, we'll never get to, it was tough. So that will be out this Friday, November 17th, will be the first episode of Majority 54.

Go subscribe right now. It's going to be great. All right. Let's talk about the news. Okay. So the big debate within the Democratic Party right now is, you know, who will lead the party out in the wilderness? How far left should we move? What's our message?

How sad did Donna Brazile's book make us? Yeah, how sad did Donna Brazile's book make us? So that's what's going on in the Democratic Party. Bookmake us. Yeah, how sad did Donna Brazile's book end? So that's what's going on in the Democratic Party. The big debate within the Republican Party right now is, should we support an alleged child molester for Senate in order to prevent a Democrat from winning the seat?

That's the big debate. On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore pursued teenage girls when he was in his 30s, including an incident where he initiated sexual contact with a 14-year-old. That woman, a Republican who voted for Donald Trump, went on the record with the allegation. Again, she's a Republican who voted for Donald Trump, went on the record with the allegation, and the entire post-story was based on interviews with more than 30 other people who knew Moore at the time.

Moore denied the incident with the 14-year-old, but did not deny that he used to date teenage girls while in his 30s. Some news today. This morning, another accuser is alleging that Moore assaulted her when she was a minor. And yet, despite all this, we have only a handful of Republicans have called on Moore to drop out of the race. McCain, Romney, Kasich, Larry Hogan, Governor of Maryland, and now today Mitch McConnell has called him to drop out. A couple of others here and there through their endorsement.

The largest chunk of Senate Republicans and the White House have all done media, the Democrats, and, of course, the woman who came forward. Let's start with the if-true crowd. What kind of additional hard evidence do you think these folks are looking for? Could we start with the fact that there didn't need to be allegations that Roy Moore sexually molested a 14-year-old to know that he was not qualified for this job? Let's just start there. That's a good start. And also, I would like the media to stop dancing around what this is. This is child molestation, if it's true.

It's not sexual misconduct. It's not all the euphemism they're peddling. It's child molestation. And this is a guy who, before these allegations were even revealed, said that a Muslim couldn't be elected to public office and said like all manner of divisive, disgusting things. Well, he spent his career vilifying people for consensual adult relationships. Oh, absolutely. I mean, it is no surprise that he has sort of covered up whatever creepy things he's done in his past with this, you know, disgusting in your face over theocracy that he's peddled from his various positions of power. I mean, he is manifestly unfit for the job

and there's no if true needed on that statement. Yeah, it's there's no small irony in the fact that Roy Moore, who's now asking, you know, innocent until proven guilty, has spent his entire career flouting the law, saying that when a Supreme Court makes a decision, it doesn't count, believing that homosexuality should be illegal, believing that Keith Ellison, because he's Muslim, shouldn't serve in the United States Congress. Now he wants the benefit of the doubt. But let's talk about how the Republican Party has reacted here. So now you've got McConnell and a couple of them saying he should step aside. Let's have a write-in candidate, which they can do. Of course, having a write-in candidate, Moore cannot get off the ballot unless he drops out.

It doesn't look like he's dropping out anytime soon. If you had a write-in candidate, in all likelihood, Doug Jones, the Democrat, would win the Senate seat. Republicans who have decided that it is worse for a Democrat to win a Senate seat than to elect someone who has been accused of sexual molestation of a minor and an allegation that's backed up by 30 sources. Right. And you don't have to view McConnell's actions here as some sort of like defense of moral probity, because he's looking at this and thinking, actually, having Roy Moore win would be as damaging as it gets, right? There's people making the calculus that having Roy Moore is better than having Democrat. And there's people making the calculus that having Roy Moore would be worse than the Democrat, but not enough people

simply saying, well, a few, a few people willing to say, this is just morally reprehensible. Politics be damned. That's the problem with this is like, basically what the margins of the debate you described are political calculations. No one is thinking, is it acceptable to allow a man in this august body, this deliberative body that we all revere, who allegedly molested a 14 year old girl and plied a bunch of other 17 and and 8-year-old girls with alcohol when he was in his 30s. And, oh, yeah, his colleague said, yeah, we all thought it was weird that he would hang out at the mall

and high school football games and shit all the time. Like, there is so much evidence that this guy is a creep. That girl was at a custody hearing. Unbelievable. He was a member of the state picking up a little girl and grooming her when his mother was there for divorce court. Now, let's move on to the defenders, the outright defenders, who are the worst people in this whole process, aside from Roy Moore himself. So their responses range from these women are liars, the media made this up to what about x what about

y the what about ism is all over the place and it's like okay we can have all these conversations some other time but right now there's an election on december 12th and this man might come to the u.s senate so maybe let's focus on that instead of john f kennedy's yeah and coulter saying john f kennedy you know had an affair with a 19-year-old once. It's like, okay, I'll tell you what, I definitely shouldn't have voted for JFK in 1960 then. That's how I feel. That was it.

G.D. Earp was like, you're right. When JFK is next up for election, we should consider these misconduct allegations. Really, we should think about this. So there's a lot of whataboutism. There's the, you know know these women are liars and then the the most insane in a in a in a whole slew of insane responses to this is uh alabama state auditor jim ziegler he said take joseph and mary mary was a teenager and joseph was an adult carpenter they became parents of jesus i mean uh okay so some so so i am someone has not read some one christ Someone has not read, one Christian has not read the New Testament closely.

I will say that. I mean, but also that's right in line with what Moore said. He said it's a completely manufactured story meant to defrock this campaign. They don't want to acknowledge that there is a God, and we have refused to debate them because of their very liberal stance on transgenderism. So he cut to the heart of the matter there. Well, this is the Eric Erickson argument, right? Eric Erickson basically of Red State had this whole long post that makes you want to just claw your eyeballs out

where he says, you know, I understand Roy Moore's supporters and defenders and the voters for Stick With Them because, you know, Democrats are for gun control and abortion. That's basically the argument there. And, you know, they don't think that being transgender is a mental health disorder. Let's just take this piece by piece. Like the idea that it is somehow unbelievable or unsurprising or undercuts the credibility of the accusers that these allegations occurred 40 years ago is actually the exact opposite. I think the Harvey Weinstein allegations showed us that it's in fact very common for people to wait a long time to come out and make allegations like this, especially when the individual, the male involved is a powerful person and they were a young kid. So it's outrageous that they're leaning on that.

Well, it's especially outrageous they're leaning on that because what has happened now to these women since they've come out and done this, the fucking assholes at Breitbart are sending two reporters down there to try to discredit these women, to try to attack these accusers. That's what one media outlet's doing. Sean Hannity had a guest on who said that, yeah, women usually make this stuff up and they usually do it for money. That's what Sean Hannity did. Sean Hannity, who previously interviewed Bill O'Reilly on your show. Right.

Who defended Roger Ailes and all the rest. This is an important reminder because this happens all the time. If a young African-American kid gets shot by the cops, you'll see that they were alleged to have smoked marijuana or were arrested before. Now with these women, it's, oh, they were divorced or they didn't pay the taxes. It is totally irrelevant to the allegations. Whether you got divorced in the future after you were sexually molested as a 14-year-old doesn't fucking matter. Yeah. You know who's been divorced quite a few times and has had an interesting romantic history?

Donald Trump. Yeah. Somebody was like, somebody pointed like, oh, man, one of these accusers has gone bankrupt several times and has gotten divorced several times. It's like, well, not only should we believe her, we should make her president. And Roy Moore, like, he's not. Yeah, yeah. Especially like the 12 women who've come out and said that Donald Trump has sexually assaulted and harassed them. Maybe we should maybe we should believe them since, you know, he he's a guy who's been divorced three times and gone bankrupt.

And again, Roy Moore is only denying the one incident with the 14-old because that one is the only one that's technically illegal. He's not categorically ruling out that he dated teenagers. His explanation about why he couldn't have given them alcohol because it was a dry town was that factually wrong. Alcohol was readily available in the town he lived in. So there's a record of him lying and quibbling with the facts here just to sort of deny only the part that could get him in the most trouble. And everyone's sort of like, okay with the rest. So let's talk about how deep the rot of tribalism on the right goes here. So in Hannity's case, a couple of sponsors for his show have decided to stop sponsoring the show, stop advertising the show after he,

you know, had people on who were defending more, giving more the benefit of the doubt. One of them is the company Keurig, makes the coffee makers. And yesterday, because Keurig pulled their ads from Hannity,

you know, a bunch of Hannity supporters decided to video themselves throwing their Keurigs out the window and destroying them. Guys, if Parachute Sheets decides to stop advertising on our show for some reason

because we defended a child molester or something like that, please don't burn your Parachute Sheets. Don't do that. Hard disagree. If there ever comes a time, for whatever reason, Parachute stops sponsoring their show, I want to see the fires burn for days. I want it to create weather in Europe. stop sponsoring their show i want to see the fires burn for days i want i wanted to i wanted

to create weather in europe guys i just is there anyone show you'd throw your appliances out the window for that you enjoy that much not even for the show because an advertiser decided to go a different way right right no that's the the irony of it they don't even get the irony they're like how dare you boycott his show we're boycotting you for political reasons. It is so ludicrous. It's not really how a boycott works. You already bought the product. Yeah, they're just breaking their own shit.

You're just making yourself a little less caffeinated in the morning now. Someone found that somebody said, so Hannity, enjoying this because he's a sleazy little goon, said, I'm going to give away 500 coffee makers. And one of his supporters was like, I hope they're Keurig so then we can smash them. And it's like, wait, now you want him to go out and buy extras because of the visual gag? It's like, you know, memes aren't real. Like memes aren't the world, buddy. So the question is, will this work? Will this work in Alabama?

There's a couple polls out. The latest one said that Doug Jones is actually up 48-44 with leaners. There's one that shows it even. Of course, taking polls in the middle of a crisis like this, you're unsure what kind of responses you'll get. Sometimes maybe Republicans don't go to the phone. So we have to wait a week to see what the polling shakes out. NBC went down to Alabama and did a story where they interviewed 15 Republicans in Alabama, all of whom said, of course, we're still with Moore.

This is just, you get a lot of, it's the media. The media is fake. They're doing this. Or they say, you know, he's a good guy. These women are making up. They were Democrat operatives. And also 29% of Alabama voters told the pollsters that those allegations make them more likely to vote for Roy Moore, which I assume is based on all the sort of tribalism. Oh, he's just being attacked by the big Democrats. Yada, yada, nonsense. But it's depressing.

I mean, this to me is, I think like there's two pieces of this that show the kind of rot that not only Trump took advantage of, but that Trump makes worse. One is this notion that, oh, if the news is bad, it's partisan. I don't have to trust it. You know, that you can that it makes you more likely to support someone just as a fuck you to whoever reported it. And that's a sort of this weird right wing thing that sort of bubbled up into the mainstream of the culture. But the second piece of this, which I thought was fascinating, a poll came out that showed this incredible shift among evangelicals, that before Trump, people were asked, like, do you believe, basically, I'm going to, you know, paraphrase this, but basically, do you believe someone needs to have good morals to be good at representing

your values when they're in office? And it used to be that evangelicals were the one that said, those things have to align, right? That you have to have good morals in your personal life and in your private life to represent people well once they're in office. And that the election of Trump caused this massive shift where now 70 percent of evangelicals say you don't have to have good morals in your private life to pursue the right policies once you're elected. And once you say that that's okay, once you say character doesn't matter, you see what happens with Roy Moore. That I don't think you'd see as many apologists for Roy Moore if people didn't spend months before the election apologizing for Donald Trump. Well, and it seems like it's this negative partisanship. It's not that the supporters love Roy Moore

or love Donald Trump. It's that they literally can't imagine anything worse than a Democrat winning. One of the interviews in Alabama in that NBC story said, if he killed Obama, we wouldn't care. Yeah, that was a cool quote. This is a Republican. I mean, the original joke during the campaign,

Donald Trump, if I shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, my supporters wouldn't care, seems truer every day. This is someplace, you know, we've talked about this before, like, oh, what if everything was reversed and there was a Democratic version of Trump running against Dick Cheney or whatever the hypothetical we've gone over again and again. I can tell you unequivocally,

right, that if the Democrats nominated somebody that was a crank and then in the weeks before the election it turned out he was a fucking pedophile. You put up the L. We lost this one. Yeah, we lost it. It's okay. There are things worse than losing a fucking electionophile. You put up the L. We lost this one. Yeah, we lost it. It's okay. There are things worse than losing a fucking election, Hugh Hewitt.

It's not the end of the world. Hugh Hewitt, constitutional scholar Hugh Hewitt, saying that maybe we should cancel the election. We don't like the news. Cancel the election. He's like,

oh, well, we can't allow the people to be trapped with a manifestly unqualified nominee like you guys just handed us with the president of the United States. What are you talking about, Hugh? Yeah, I know. he cited the fact that one time democrats replaced bob torselli with frank lautenberg right before the election fine if they want to replace replace roy moore with

someone right before the election do that you don't cancel the fucking election also where are we is our moral standard the worst thing new jersey democrats ever did like like that's where in the where in the fucking new testament is that i want to move on to the to the foreign trip but before we get there i just want to talk about bannon yes especially this has been getting you particularly so right before the more stuff really broke you know bannon does this interview with the new york times where he talks about a strategy to defeat mcconnell and he's this brilliant strategist and it's all about a war against mcconnell and all this kind of stuff you know it goes unsaid during the interview that, you know, Ralph Northam just won in Virginia after Bannon basically said that Gillespie was going to win

because he embraced Corey Stewart's, you know, Confederate campaign. Is Bannon overrated here? Yes. Why does he still get this? First of all, all political operatives are overrated. You're good until you're not. We all lose some, we all win some. But let's be clear about who Steve Bannon is.

He is an opportunist. He is not some genius political operator. He got fired from the White House after six months. He failed to pass any significant part of Trump's agenda. And the things he did work on, like the Muslim ban, he fucked up royally. He declared Trumpism was on the ballot in Virginia and then got worked. The candidate he recruited to run for Senate in Alabama was accused of child molestation. No one has ever been worse at his job than Steve Bannon.

He's a guy who works at a racist blog that defends child molesters and lies for a living. And for the fucking New York Times to walk him through the office and do this puff piece bullshit video like with this chummy garbage ending where he tells them how great their product is and they kiss his ass like he's some svengali genius it's fucking outrageous like they are pathetic supplicants to this guy like not just the new york times but the press cover him like he is a candidate like he's some shadow president he got run out of the building and he's and he's a conspiracy peddler right like he's a liar he's a liar he was he was up in fucking new hampshire spreading a conspiracy that the the election was stolen in new hampshire in 2016 when there's no fucking evidence of that when everyone has proved it wrong when republicans in

the state say it's not true he's out there now saying that all the allegations are against roy moore are some conspiracy by fucking jeff bezos in the washington post yeah when it's not true he's out there now saying that all the allegations are against roy moore are some conspiracy by fucking jeff bezos in the washington post yeah when it's a trump supporting republican who accused him of doing this to her when she was 14 years old like steve bannon is a fucking liar stop pretending he is a political operative that is on the fucking level he's a liar he's a he's a crank he is a crank that was elevated by Donald Trump because Donald Trump was surrounded by the dregs of conservative public life. And that he is taken seriously now because Donald Trump pulled an upset. Because he won.

Winners are held in the highest esteem in Washington above all else. You can have any kind of sin, but if you are a winner in Washington, you will get taken seriously. You will get invited to the dinners. You will get invited to the New York Times. And the thing is, though, he doesn't... That's what it takes. All you need to do is win.

And he won. And that's true. But that didn't validate every single thing that Steve Bannon ever said. It didn't make Steve Bannon a strategic wizard. It made him, in many ways, a very lucky crank whose ideas are taking much more seriously now than they should. And we see that in Virginia. We see that in Alabama. We see that across the country. He's got a proof point of one. He's just the worst. And also like the Republican Party, the House Republicans sent an emissary over to his office to kiss his ass to make sure he

wouldn't be intervening in their elections like he is in the senate elections it is so pathetic the way they're bowing down to this guy all he is is a a white supremacist backed up by a whole bunch of money from robert mercer and like what we don't need to fear this guy and his lying bullshit he doesn't also it's like oh wow what a philosopher you know it's like what links roy mo Moore to all these other people that he's recruited? He's a guy that, you know, he's a troll. He's a billionaire funded guy. He's causing chaos. Right. But like ultimately, what does this all amount to?

It's nothing. There's no there's no heft there. There's no intellectual rigor there. There's just a racist crank who has some Seinfeld money. Bannon. Bad. Stop kissing his ass. Yeah.

Stop kissing his ass. New York Times at all. Okay, let's talk about the foreign trip. Everything seemed to be relatively quiet during Trump's 11-day Asia trip until he had a bit of an episode on Saturday. I guess he got a little tired. Meltdown. First he said that he believes that

Putin believes that Russia didn't interfere with our election and called the heads of our intel agencies political hacks. His direct quote was, every time he sees me, Putin, he says, I didn't do that. And I really believe that when he tells me that he means it. And he said Putin feels very insulted. Yes, feels very insulted. They did do that.

So Trump later seemed to walk back the statement and say that he's with our intel agencies as currently constituted. He was holding a fucking newspaper while General Kelly stared at him from off screen. You say what I said to you to say. Distinction without a difference here. He's like, yeah, I'm with our intel agencies. But I do believe that Putin in his head believes that he didn't do it, which means that you believe Putin. Don't even get into the nonsense. He's so confused because he talks about he's like well people don't realize how much uh they've been suffering under sanctions and if you know if we maybe if we stop that and we

had a better relationship we could help get help from them in ukraine and syria and all these places he doesn't understand that the sanctions that are squeezing putin are the result of like invading crimea right right going to war essentially with Ukraine. I mean, he just is like, he will go to any lengths to try to explain away what happened in this election. And he's just giving up the farm to Putin, giving up the farm to Xi Jinping. It is embarrassing. Well, talk about that.

What are the consequences of Trump's statements besides, you know, driving us all crazy? Like how do Putin and other world leaders see that and how do they react to that kind of thing i mean i think the story of this trip like it was sort of a fine trip like nothing nothing really bad happened there wasn't some huge deliverable that was a that didn't go well but what all these countries have figured out is trump lives and breathes hyperbole usually it's him saying it about himself if they give him the red carpet treatment if they kiss his ass a little bit he is happy as a clam they don't actually have to give him anything in terms of like you know deliverable priorities that we want as a nation they just need to kiss his ass so he just sort of skirts through this meeting and he just wants to give him a five-star yelp review exactly

he meets with a guy like rodrigo duterte the the president of the philippines who is literally a mass murderer and does this chummy handshake and they have a bilateral meeting and they don't press him on the fact that he's like indiscriminately rounding up people and killing them because they're suspected to be drug dealers. I mean, so like we are, we're giving up our moral leadership on the world stage. We pulled out of TPP, which was a big trade deal with all these countries. Everyone but us announced a deal while he was there for a new sort of TPP minus America deal, which in any other world would be seen as a huge humiliation for the United States. But it kind of just gets glossed over because it's seen as like bananist politics to walk away from trade, even though

these countries are now, you know, moving on without us. Yeah, we've got a major international trade agreement now without America. We have the paris deal which climate accord which now has every country including syria syria joined from the idiots who used to say that leading from behind a background quote in a new yorker story was the worst thing ever to happen to our foreign policy now we're not leading at all uh be remiss if i didn't bring up the north korea tweet from trump that was weird why would kim jong-un insult me by calling me old when i would never call him short and fat? Oh, well, I try so hard to be his friend.

And maybe someday that will happen. I would actually say that the second half of that quote is the... What is he trying to be his friend for? Maybe... What was that? I don't know. He's got a hundred word vocabulary. He's lost in the world.

He was very tired. We don't understand any of it. Trump 280 Twitter, by the way, is the fucking worst. Yeah, it's too much. 280 characters on Twitter is awful for everyone. And it's the worst thing He was very tired. We don't understand any of it. Trump 280 Twitter, by the way, is the fucking worst. Yeah, it's too much. 280 characters on Twitter is awful for everyone and it's the worst thing Twitter has ever done. But with Trump, it is magnified. Honestly, it... Although he's lost some of his step. It's gonna

cause an... Like, the extra characters is gonna cause a war. It's gonna get us there. It's just, the guy is like... It's so embarrassing. I guess it's like General Kelly saying that he doesn't follow his tweets. No, I'm sure you don't, General Kelly. Right. There are all these little political lies that everyone's okay with.

Like when Barack Obama was like, well, I don't look, I don't listen, look at the polls. Like, yes, you did all the time. So we give this little wiggle room to all these operatives and candidates. But in this case, it's like, hey, bud, dereliction of duty. He's talking shit to a nuclear-armed lunatic in North Korea. Again, I get when people say, oh, we pay too much attention to his tweets at home. I can understand that to a point.

But in foreign policy, the president's statements are policy often. As Sean Schweitzer said they were, right? I mean, I sort of divide. And it gets much more dangerous internationally. I divide Trump's behavior on these trips into like the two baskets. And one of them are the moral and like public facing calamities. And like that's him getting all chummy with Duterte and him saying to that, look, Putin looked me in the eyes and said something. And because I'm a vulnerable mark whose ego can easily be stroked, I believe him.

And now I'm in love with him and I'll do whatever Putin says. But then there's like the larger right. Like the trade deal is the bigger deal, right? Like I almost feel like we're having on the trade thing, like, oh, that's China taking advantage of Trump. That's China getting to skip a few spaces ahead because we elected our worst person. The Trump conversation with Putin,

it just felt like deja vu. Like I feel like we've been through this exact same news cycle before. Trump talks to Putin, He gets charmed. He says we have great chemistry because he talks like he's on the fucking love connection in 1987. And then the press gets mad and then he gives another statement where he says what the staffers want to say. And then we're right back to baseline. I can't tell if it's him getting charmed by Putin or he is so stubborn and proud that he knows in his mind he's like, oh, when I'm going to have this meeting with Putin,

the press is going to say, oh, now he likes Putin again. And I'm not going to give it to them. I'm not going to say I was wrong. I'm not going to be tough on this guy because the press wants me to be tough on this guy. And so I'm not going to do it just to spite them. And of course, undergirding all of this is the strange reluctance to be critical of Putin, where sometimes people want to be a mark because it seems that for Trump being a mark. Almost as if he has something on him. I think it's all of the above. I think he was charmed by Xi Jinping, who like walked him around the old city and, you know, kiss his ass. I think, you know, Putin confuses him. He doesn't want to believe that they interfered in the election because it makes him feel inadequate.

And then like you look someplace like the Philippines. I mean, I think he doesn't push Duterte on human rights because he probably fundamentally doesn't care. But also he's got a hundred and fifty million dollar project going up in Manila. OK, this guy is compromised all over the planet. And don't tell me for a second that that's not his first priority because he acts like it is because we visit Trump properties everywhere he goes. I mean, if Trump whenever Trump is not president, at some point he is going to not be able to stop himself for saying, I made money on this whole thing. And that's coming. I did great.

Yeah. I mean, you look. Look at the country. The stock market did great. I did great. And that estate tax cut, too. That really helped me. So that pass-through?

Oh, man. I'm doing great. I made a big time. But I feel like that handshake, that deeply strange kind of crossed over arm handshake where Trump looks like he's taking a dump because he's – Or can't. Or can't. Because he actually has never stretched before, right? Because he's like completely – he's never done any exercises at golf. So he's like – his face is all contorting.

He's holding these people's hands. It's both – it's a reflection of everything, right? Because it's like staff should have prevented that from happening, right? You don't do fraternity handshakes. I hate making fun of the pictures because everyone did that with Obama. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. These are such little things. Barack Obama did not do a fucking –

Barack Obama did not do a double-fisted handshake with a mass murderer. It's something funny. I don't think it's reflective of anything else. I think the Duterte part. The handshake doesn't bother me. It's the Duterte part. It's the Duterte part. The handshake doesn't bother me. It's the Duterte part. It's the Duterte part. That's what I'm saying.

That staff would have stepped in and stopped him from doing a weird double-armed fucking dance with a mass murderer. And same thing with, by the way, him not taking questions when he's in China, right? That there's no one good with Trump

who's like, hey, this is a place where we should push back. There's no one around him who has the kind of capacity to push back. Shutting out the White House for target. Doug Mills couldn't get a picture that day and everything. I mean, this is a place where we should push back. There's no one around him who has the kind of capacity to push back. Shutting out the White House for target. The Doug Mills couldn't get a picture that day and everything.

I mean, this is just it's basic staff work that doesn't happen. That's why Doug Mills posted that picture. He's like, yeah, I'll take this of a screenshot and make you look ridiculous. In 2009, we did not take press questions with Obama in China. That was a mistake. In 2014, we did. But like when you're a press staffer or an advanced staffer or you're preparing for these trips, it is incumbent upon you to fight for this kind of access. Whether it's a news conference or whether it is simply getting the pool into pool sprays or whatever it might be.

Not only do they not fight for them, but when the press was brought into the Duterte spray, he called them spies and started making fun of the press corps. Trump just yucked it up in reviews to take their questions. That to me is the most unforgivable thing that he did. Just let that happen. As people pointed out, accusing reporters of being spies is often how they're tortured. It's not a joke. No, it's not a joke.

Especially when you have a fucking mass murderer there. Okay, let's talk about something we can do something about, which is tax reform. The Senate Republicans outlined their tax plan last Thursday. This week, the House is going to try to pass their plan. The Senate's going to try to get their plan out of committee. Here's the differences with the House bill. The Senate bill delays the corporate tax cut for an extra year.

It preserves the mortgage deduction and the medical expense deduction, and yet it gets rid of state and local tax deductions altogether. It doubles the estate tax deduction from $5 million to $11 million, but doesn't end it. So all these sort of accounting gimmicks, it's the same kind of crap because the Nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which is something that is cited by Republicans, says under the Senate plan, 20 million households earning less than $200,000 would see a tax

increase. 20 million under $200,000. Another 50 million households under $200,000 see no tax cut at all. And yet, millionaires get an average tax cut of 48 000 dollars it's like a comic book evil version of what a republican tax speaking of that speaking of that here's comic book evil it retains the tax break for owners of golf courses come on how's that shut up that's true that's true so trump this morning throwing another grenade into the negotiation, says he called for a deeper tax cut for people making over $500,000. Paid for by repealing the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, which would cause everyone's premiums to rise. So in order to give people making over $500,000 an even bigger tax cut, we're going to have premiums rise on middle class people. That's where we're at right now. And here's the problem, though, guys.

There are no confirmed no votes in the Senate on this bill, which is our only hope because the goons in the House, you know, Paul Ryan's going to get them to pass anything. By the way, you've got all these Republicans in California and New Jersey and New York who are basically voting to raise taxes on a whole bunch of their constituents. On a whole bunch. I can't wait for the fucking ads in California for the seven Republicans in this state. Seven Republicans in this state are sitting in districts that Hillary Clinton

won. Those seven Republicans. This is a bill to fuck California, to fuck New York, and fuck New Jersey. That is what this bill is designed to do. It is designed to say to wealthy, blue states, y'all can go fuck yourselves. California Republicans and New York Republicans are going to go along with this, even though it is literally designed to punish their constituents. That is the goal. It is the goal to take money

from middle class and relatively affluent New Yorkers, Californians, D.C. residents, San Francisco people, and take it and just give it to heirs. Just a quick note to those Republicans and the people living in those districts. If you vote for this bill, the three of us will be visiting your district to talk about it. I promise you that. Oh, we will be doing a number on the California Republicans who vote for this legislation. I bet there will be a whole lot of other digital dollars and surrogates visiting your districts.

Like, we're just all, we're going to talk about it. That's all we're saying. We're going to talk about it. The path to 218 in the House already ran through these California districts and some of these New York districts and some of these New Jersey districts. And now they're all going to vote to raise taxes on their constituents so that Ivanka and Don Jr. can get a big tax break. It's almost as if Paul Ryan, between the health care votes and this tax bill, it's almost as if Paul Ryan created a series of votes to make sure his colleagues lose like it is designed to make them lose. If this bill passes, Eric and Don Jr. will be able to cut the tails off of at least four more endangered elephants. Maybe they'll get that last white rhino.

Yeah. So here's the problem. There's there's a like white rhinos. There's no no votes in the Senate yet. And I think one of the reasons is they think they can just sneak this through. They're already employing the full lie about this strategy. Both Paul Ryan and McConnell said that there would be no tax increases on the middle class. Paul Ryan's office had to walk it back because obviously he's too cowardly to do it himself.

McConnell himself walked it back. So they're already getting caught in these lies. I think what we have to do, this week is very important for everyone who's listening to put a tremendous amount of pressure on the Senate especially to say no to this bill. People like the John McCains, the Jeff Flakes, the Bob Corkers, the Susan Collins, the Lisa Murkowskis. None of them, so all of them have expressed various levels of concern. None of them have been as opposed to this as some of them were on the health care legislation. So it is extremely important to call your members of Congress this week and to let them know that you're opposed to this bill. There's also going to be the Move On folks are organizing a protest rally Wednesday outside the Capitol. This is definitely something that we can do something about if we put enough pressure. If people like Corker and

Murkowski and Collins adhere to the standards they've set, they should be no votes. Right. All each and every one of them has said various markers for what this bill should do. And it means none of them because it's completely insane. And, you know, the thing about the what Paul Ryan said, what Mitch McConnell said, right, that, oh, they went too far. Right. Because they said everybody gets a tax cut. There's a deeper lie here. Right. Everything about what Paul Ryan says, like this is a bill for the middle class. This is aimed at the middle class. It's just flatly untrue, right?

It's untrue in a way that you can get away with a PolitiFact rating. But like this is not a bill for the middle class, right? It's mostly for corporations and the tiny chunk that's left over for people. The vast majority of that is for rich people. And honestly, it's not even for the working rich. It's not even for your wealthy people with businesses it's for the idle rich it is a bill for the idle fucking rich but it's not just not for the middle class it actually fucks the middle class it's it raised tax it's gonna raise taxes on 20 million middle-class families making under 200 000 a year

that's a lot of fun and it's based on an economic theory that's been called supply side economics or trickle-down economics that has been tried again and again and again. It doesn't work. And you know what these companies will do? Companies are making record profits. When they get a big tax cut, you know what they're probably going to do? Buy back a bunch of the shares in the company so that the shares they currently own go up in value. They're not hiring people.

It's not like we've done this before. We've done this before. They have the money to hire people. We tried it. There was a great analogy on the Daily this morning about trickle-down. Did you listen to it? About the horse and the sparrow?

Trickle-down is bad enough. And I was basically saying that you feed the horse extra so that there's more shit for the birds to eat. That's how they're treating us. The horse and oats. Number for Congress. 202-224-3121. That's number one this week. You're going to call your Number for Congress, 202-224-3121. That's number one this week. You're going to call your members of Congress, especially if you're living in California, New Jersey, and New York.

Call those House members who are going to definitely probably raise taxes on you. Number two thing you can do this week, go donate to Doug Jones in Alabama. There is a chance we have to do everything. It was a moral imperative. We said this on the Thursday board. It was a moral imperative to defeat this on the thursday board it was a moral imperative to defeat roy moore before these allegations came out because he doesn't believe in the rule of law and has proved that his entire career isn't even more moral imperative now he is more dangerous than donald trump he is the most dangerous person we have

elected in as long as any of us can remember and this is five bucks 10 bucks 15 anything you can do and this isn't a long shot anymore. We can win this thing. We can win in Alabama. And that actually puts the Senate in play. There is so much at stake in Alabama right now. End of thought. When we come back, we'll be talking to the host of Pod Save the People, DeRay McKesson.

On the pod, we have the host of Pod Save the People, DeRay McKesson. How's it going, DeRay? Hey, I'm good. How are you guys doing? It's cold over here on the East Coast. It is. I was just back and it was very cold, which is going to be a challenge when I wear the holiday-themed romp-hem I bought as a challenge to you. Did you actually buy one? I purchased it, DeRay. That is amazing.

What is it like? Is it red and green, or is it some other holiday? It's Hanukkah-themed, and it says it's lit. Is this real? It's happening. When are we getting it? Oh, my goodness. So I'm just, DeRay, I'm letting you know, and the ball is in your court.

Elijah's content eyes just lit up. Oh, God. So, Dre, one story we didn't get to today I want to talk to you about is there are a couple stories over the weekend and from last week about how Trump is reshaping the judiciary. this guy, Brett Talley, 36-year-old who has never tried a case and who's received a rare not-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, and yet has a nomination advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday on a party-line vote. This has happened now in quite a few cases. It's been completely under the radar. How do we get people to sound

the alarm on this? Yeah, it's sort of wild is that you think about there are four people nominated by Trump who have been judged not qualified by the American Bar Association. And two of those were found to be not qualified by a majority of the committee and the other two were by unanimous votes. So it's like that is that just not happened in many cases in the country. And you also think about what he has done to the appeals court is that Trump has already appointed eight appellate judges, the most this early in the presidency since Nixon, and then just sent a ninth nominee. So he is very quickly going to change the courts in a way that, you know, these people appointed for life. He is very quickly going to change the courts in a way that, you know, these people are appointed for life.

And like that is it's like one of the things that just doesn't get as much press as some of the other awful stuff that he's doing. But we have to talk about it. That 36 year old is wild. Is that like how brazen and bold is that to put somebody on the court who's like never tried a case before? Like that's insulting to everybody. And you just see the Republicans just allow this to happen is also wild. Yeah, I mean, it's it should be noted that two people who voted this guy out of committee

are Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake, two people that are ostensibly the best that I can do in terms of being anti Trump. And man, very good at talking about it. But this was an easy case where they could have done the right thing and did not. Another another stat that jumped out of me today is like 91% of Trump's nominees are white, 81% are male, they're not even trying to have any sort of diversity, ideologically, race, gender, they are just packing it with the youngest, most conservative men they can find. Yeah. Yeah, I did this event once and somebody this is before the election and somebody said if Trump wins trying to undo the damage will be like trying to unring a bell yeah and that this is like a good example of like we'll be living with these decisions for a long time and the courts have often been like

the third party check on the other power but what happens when they're all in collusion yeah right right and i think it is one of the most damaging things he's doing in his presidency because at least so far his legislative agenda has stalled. He hasn't been able to pass much at all. And a lot of his executive orders, if we get a Democratic president there, we can undo a lot of the executive orders. Like we said, these appointments are for life in the judiciary. And we should know one of the reasons they're happening is it used to take 60 votes to confirm some of these judges. And because Mitch McConnell held up every single one of Obama's judges and we couldn't get anyone through, Harry Reid got

rid of the judicial filibuster. And now it only takes 51 votes to get a judge through, which also makes, by the way, the 2018 elections all the more important in the Senate. And this is the Doug Jones thing plays into this, too, because if wevada we flip arizona which are two very flippable senate seats and doug jones now goes to the senate they lose their majority and we can stop them from appointing judges right but hey guys i mean not to be alarmist but if you were trying to sort of lay the groundwork for an autocracy yeah you would systematically undercut the press. You would systematically undercut institutions like gutting the State Department. You would pack the courts full of ideologues who will not act as a check on you. I mean, this is something that's incredibly

worrisome. And it's also it's an instance where there's almost nothing we can do about judges except for win the next election, which is why people need to be fired up about this. Doug Jones for Senate. win the next election, which is why people need to be fired up about this. Doug Jones for Senate. And a lot of local judges are elected. So it will be important that we stay tuned to this so that any judges who come in with these wild ideologies that people can organize, because nobody organizes their own judge elections across the country.

Like, it's just not a hot topic, but we'll need to pay attention to this in a way we haven't before. That's a very good point. Yeah. I mean, when we were in Philadelphia, a bunch of the Pennsylvania judges were elected. In a lot of states, judges run for office. So it's something to keep an eye on. DeRay, who's on Pod Save the People this week? We have David Kamen, who was a former, he worked with you all. He did, yeah. I'm a White House, he is a tax expert. We also have Marcia, who wrote The

Color of Money, who is an expert on the racial wealth gap, and she's joining us. So I'm excited for us to have another conversation about how we close the racial wealth gap and to add some more nuance to the tax conversation. Yeah, I'm guessing Kamen's not a fan of this tax plan, huh? He is not a fan. It helps us figure out why we should all not be a fan. Yeah, no, we were just talking about that too. It's another one of these things. It's sort of going under the radar here, but something that we could stop if we all hit the phones this week

because they're both trying to pass these plans out of committee and they are very bad plans that will increase inequality in a huge way. And always again with the government by sucker punch, which is delay, delay, delay, and then, oh, we're having a vote and this is going to happen now. That's it.

They say that like, one of the things that David talks about is that the timeline is to get this done by Christmas. Like, that's nuts. Yeah, it is. And this week is critical because they think that if they can pass it out of committee in the Senate and then pass the House this week, by the end of this week, they'll have enough time to do it by Christmas. But

if we can delay that somehow by throwing a wrench in this, then the timeline slips. And the more it slips, the better it gets for us. And especially if Doug Jones wins, again, McConnell would have one less vote for this in the Senate. It would make the path even tougher. So everyone get on the phones this week to stop the tax plan. DeRay, Positive People drops Tuesday.

Thanks for joining us. And we'll all be sure to check it out. Cool. Talk to you guys later. Romp him. Buy the romp him. Bye-bye. Bye, Jared. On the pod today, we are very lucky to have the former anchor of the CBS Evening News and the author of the new book, What Unites Us, Dan Rather. Dan, welcome to Pod Save America. Glad to be with you. Thank you very much for having me on. So you were on the front lines reporting on the struggle for civil rights, the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran-Contra. How does the

Trump presidency compare to these other historical moments of crisis and challenge that you've reported on? Well, the Trump presidency, first and foremost, and I think increasingly people who didn't know it before beginning to recognize it, is unique. Of course, every presidency is unique in its own ways. But we have never had a president who, among other things, many other things, so relentlessly and so personally attacks the whole idea of a free and independent, fiercely independent when necessary, press. He's directed his venom at individual reporters. He's directed it at specific journalistic institutions, and then he's indicted and found guilty the entire press by saying they are, quote, enemies of the people. It's the rare president in our history, in fact, I can't find any, who didn't have any ill feelings

about the president at any time. Every president goes through a period and sometimes several periods and says things about press coverage, sometimes valid, sometimes not. But even during the Nixon administration, it was nothing to compare with what we are seeing now. The tone and tenor of his presidency has been negative and frankly seeks to divide us for his own partisan political and personal benefit. So this effort to convince people that, well, this is normal. Yes, Donald Trump's a little different, but he's shaking things up. But, you know, maybe it was necessary. This is not normal. It is not in keeping with the American spirit. And overall, in the main, and that includes what he does about the press,

it's divisive, not unifying. Dan, when I see things the Trump administration does and says, I often fall into the trap of hyperbole and assume it's the most hostile they've ever been to the press, or this is the most egregious lie I've seen out of a White House over some period of time. But you covered a whole series of presidents. How does the hostility to the press and the dishonesty you see compare to, say, the height of the Vietnam War, when we had generals and politicians alike telling us everything was going well, when in fact we were losing on the battlefield, or other such sort of times of heightened conflict during the Nixon administration? Well, very good point.

However, none of those who criticized the press, none of those in power, including President Johnson. President Johnson got frustrated with coverage of the press because it wasn't reporting the war on the ground the way he wanted it reported. However, none of them, from President Johnson on down, including the generals, number one, they never attacked journalism as a whole. They never said anything even remotely approaching that the press is, quote, enemies of the people. On occasion, they directed their frustration and anger at individual reporters, but always they directed it at what the reporters had reported, not at the reporters personally. I have a frame of reference here. You remember during the campaign when President Trump, what a terrible picture it was, ridiculed an individual reporter who had physical challenges and mimicked him.

In the Vietnam War, we were a divided people. Just as many or more people were deeply worried for the country would hold together during the Vietnam War, but attacks on the press were of a whole different level, far below anything we're seeing during the Trump administration. And I mentioned before that President Nixon didn't like the press at all, and through surrogates, he had attacks on the press. But again, out of the president's own mouth, nothing approaching what President Trump has said. And even with the surrogates, they rarely really came down hard on individual reporter personally. He says, I can't emphasize enough because this is not just an issue that affects journalists. Of course, it affects us, affects our reputation, affects our credibility. reputation, that's our credibility. But this is something that goes to the very heart of our core beliefs and, frankly, what has united us for all these years our country's been in existence. And

that is a recognition that a free and independent press is the red-beating heart of freedom and democracy. And if you don't have it as part of the check and balance on power, then you're going to have a different kind of country. So you have had something of a renaissance on social media. You've become like a Facebook star. Now, usually Facebook stars tend to be very young people jumping off of buildings into pools from great heights. How have you managed to compete with that you know what what what is this sudden appeal to to a lot of people kind of looking to you in this moment well you know i i continue to be amazed by what's happened on the content i file on social media i never expected uh anything approaching this kind of reach i say that with uh humility because i there are plenty of

people that have more reach than I have. But to reach on a regular basis two and a half, three million people on a Facebook page and sometimes have posts reach three, five, occasionally 20 million people, frankly, I never expected it. I'm still rather amazed by it. I never expected it. I'm still rather amazed by it. I know what I'm trying to do on Facebook. I have my own Facebook page and then a companion Facebook page called News historical perspective, and try to present an experienced and maybe at my best stated voice. I can only conclude that that's been the appeal of it.

I am, among many things I'm amazed about, and I use that word measurably, is that there's so many people that are included in our audience now. And let's face it, you know, I haven't been regularly on full-scale television for almost 12 years. I left CBS News 12 years ago. And while, yes, I expected some people who remember when I was on the evening news and remember when I was on 60 Minutes, to find a whole new audience of people who range in age roughly 18 to 35, a large part of our Facebook audience, is, well, amazing doing what I can think about it. It's also gratifying. Do you think it has anything to do with a sense of mistrust?

I mean, there has to be some connection with people feeling like they don't trust what the news is doing now and then going to somebody they maybe associate with their childhood or with a different era in journalism? Well, this is a constant challenge. There are two parts of that. First, there are those people who for a very long time have believed that the press is heavily skewed to what they call the liberal or progressive side. Those people have been around for a long time. Then the other main group are younger people who don't have memories of the civil rights struggle or the Vietnam War, who just have grown up with so much coming at them that they tend not to trust anybody.

The best we can do as journalists and what I try to do is, first of all, I try to listen to people. And one of the suggestions that I make and what unites us is we need a more civil tone and need to listen to one another. So I try to listen to criticism. I always try to make the following points in a short list. Number one, we make mistakes in journalism. I've made my mistakes. There's no way to do journalism perfectly. It's a rather crude art.

It's not a precise science. But try to explain to people that what I try to do for most of my career and what most journalists try to do is be an honest broker of information. So in answer to your question, how you deal with it, you try to listen to people, try to address their points, including, well, yes, we do make mistakes and we make mistakes, we should come full, but never buy into the idea that, well, the press should be completely discounted, that none of them are doing very much and they're dealing, quote, fake news and they're, quote, enemies of the people. This is, quite frankly, unreasonable.

And I do find that if one listens and then tries to make your point about what good journalism is and how many people are striving to do it, we can make some headway, but you're never going to convince everybody. So the New York Times recently rolled out a new social media policy that basically prohibits all reporters from posting anything that would jeopardize the appearance of objectivity. It says, if our journalists are perceived as biased, or if they engage in editorializing on social media, that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom. What do you make about this growing worry among mainstream outlets about even the perception of bias, you know, from other people? It seems like you're not as concerned

about that when you're posting your Facebook essays, not that they're biased, but you've been sounding the alarm about Trump. What do you think about some outlets just being almost more concerned about balance than they are about anything else? Well, first of all, I consider balance a very, I won't say dangerous, but a problematic word for journalists because all too often, striving for balance, laying down a policy of balance really can take you pretty quickly into false equivalency of saying, well, there are two sides to every story and the two sides are pretty much equal. First of all, some stories have four, six, or eight sides, not just two sides. But also, the fact that the equivalency cannot be and should not be always drawn even.

But to your point about the Times policy and others that are worried about, quote, objectivity, it's not in me to criticize the New York Times, which is a great journalistic institution, and I think a national treasure is, is Washington Post and some other newspapers and print people who are trying to do the job. However, I think it's very important, and particularly in the post-digital divide, our heavily technological electronic journalism age, to make it clear to news consumers that this would be my preference. To first of all explain there's so-called, quote, straight news in which we try to present the facts and bear witness to facts and direct quotes.

Then there's analysis which tries to connect the dots. As somebody once said, you can know all the facts and still not know the truth. So there's straight news reporting, there's analysis, which seeks to take the gathered straight news and make a pattern out of it, connect the various parts of it. Then there's commentary. Commentary is just, well, okay, this is what appears to be the situation. Let me tell you what I think about it. It's commentary. It doesn't necessarily urge a course of action. And then there's the editorial in which it suggests, if not indeed strongly suggests, a course of action. So you start by explaining that those are the four general

headings under which journalists operate. I would think that a major newspaper, and let me not single out the Times, rather than center on, listen, we're very concerned about the perception, just the perception of objectivity, to explain to their readers what it is they're trying to do and allow their expert staff of journalists to do straight news reporting, do analysis, do commentary, and yes, from time to time, do editorial and present a point of view that suggests a course of action. It seems to me that would be the better way to go, but I do want to emphasize that the New York Times doesn't need any advice from me. Dan, for a long period of time, there was network news that while they were often accused of bias by conservatives, I think we would all argue tried to play it down

the middle. The advent of cable news seems to have led to more partisan news channels. I mean, Fox News, I would argue, is borderline a propaganda network now. When you look back at the rise of cable news, do you think it was a net benefit for the news gathering business and news consuming public when you look at it, what it has become? Well, let the record show on radio, I'm smiling. Recorded. Duly noted. This is a muscular question.

I think the answer directly is overall in the main it's a net plus. However, it certainly has had its negative aspects, some of which you've mentioned, that at least one of the channels, and you could argue at least two, are outright propaganda networks. And I do agree that Fox News, and I've gotten in trouble from saying this before, but I say it again, particularly in their primetime news area. It's pretty hard to come to any conclusion other than they are a basic propaganda operation for a partisan political point of view. But back to the core question about cable news, that it is true that back in the day where you had the so-called big three networks, there was a concentrated effort.

It was a matter of policy and more than policy. It was what was in the heart and journalistic soul of the people who worked at ABC News, NBC, and CBS to be what I described before as witnesses and honest brokers of information and to drain out insofar as possible, any commentary or editorial. Remember the four areas talked before, the deal in straight news and analysis. Now, cable television, along with the elimination of limitations on radio, one doesn't want to underestimate that talk radio, once the FCC changed the of showed cable what was possible for cable television. So we had a combination of talk radio, the Rush Limbaugh's in the world, and what cable news became with Fox News leading the way there. No question it's had an overall negative effect. But I come back and you say to me, well, is the news consumer better served now in the second decade of the 21st century than he or she was in, say, 1970 or 1980?

I take a deep breath and say I think overall probably yes. Thank you, Dan Rather, for joining us. The book is What Unites Us? Everyone Go Buy It. And this was Dan Rather, former CBS Evening News anchor. Thank you very much for your time and interest today. Courage. All right.

Awesome. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Dan, so much. We appreciate it. Well, listen, I really appreciate you having me on. And I know of your work. And I wish you good luck and Godspeed. Thanks, sir. We appreciate it. Well, listen, I really appreciate you having me on and I know of your work and I wish you good luck and Godspeed.

Thanks, sir. We wish you the same. Take care. Thanks a lot. All right, that's our show for today. Thanks to Dan Rather and DeRay McKesson

for joining us and we'll talk to you guys on Thursday. Guys, keep your heads on a swivel. There are Keurigs falling from the sky. Watch your feet.

Keep your wits about you. There are new signs going up around highways that say watch for falling Keurigs. Falling Keurigs. Don the sky. Watch your feet. Keep your wits about you. There are new signs going up around highways that say watch for falling Keurigs. Falling Keurigs. Donate to Doug Jones. Watch for falling impotent attempts at seeming like a person who cares about things.

MAGA. Bye, everyone. Bye. I'm I'm I'm