Pod Save America - "You can run but you can’t Hyde.” (LIVE from Chicago)

Episode Date: June 7, 2019

Trump’s trade war threatens the economy, Elizabeth Warren calls for a new economic patriotism, and Joe Biden reverses his position on the Hyde amendment. Illinois Congressional candidate Marie Newman joins Jon, Jon, Tommy, Dan, and Brittany Packnett on stage at the Chicago Theater. 

What's up Chicago? Chicago! Wow. Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau What's up y'all, I'm Brittany Packnett I'm Jon Lovett I'm Tommy Vitor I'm Dan Pfeiffer

Later in the show we'll talk to a Democratic candidate running to represent Illinois' third district, Marie Newman. But first, we have some news. And before we dive into the other stuff, I wanted to do something that we do when we do live shows on Pod Save the People Now. I want to acknowledge the land that we're sitting do live shows on Pod Save the People now. I want to acknowledge the land that we're sitting on. This country, as you hopefully know, was home to indigenous people and still is. And so where we are located right now is Peoria and Miami land. And I want to acknowledge the indigenous land that we're on and hope that you are listening to the new show, This Land on Crooked Media. It talks all about indigenous issues. Also, my dad is from Chicago.

Nice. Yeah. The south side of Chicago, like 58. Hey! Like 58% of the black people I know are from the south side of Chicago. Another third are, like, from Atlanta. So it's good to be back.

Love Chicago. Miss Chicago. All right, let's talk about some news. So next month will mark a record-breaking 10 years for the economic expansion that began under President Barack Obama in 2009. And yet, there are new signs that Donald Trump is trying his hardest to fuck it up. And yet, there are new signs that Donald Trump is trying his hardest to fuck it up. So right as he's threatening tariffs of up to 25% on Mexico and China,

we learned this week that business investment is slowing, manufacturing indicators have dropped to their lowest level in two and a half years, and the ADP report said that the economy only added 27,000 jobs last month, which is the fewest since 2010. Brittany, obviously Trump has taken plenty of credit for the relatively healthy economy up until now. How much credit does he actually deserve, and how much responsibility does he bear if this thing goes south?

I think we should all know the answer to this. He deserves zero credit. But has a lot of responsibility, And let's be really clear, like he has made it so obvious who he's in this for. So I was doing a little bit of research because my question was like, how did Donald Trump fare the last time the economy started to go south? Because now we know that a lot of business leaders across the country are saying that they predict another recession to come because of these trade and tariff wars that this super smart guy who occupies the Oval Office is doing. Yeah, the business leader said that there's now up to a 60% chance of recession by the end of 2020, according to him.

Which is awesome. Yeah, that's something to look forward to. So exciting. But so that made me wonder like how he fared in the last recession. Apparently in 2006, two years before that recession hit, he said, and I quote, about the bursting of the real estate bubble. I kind of hope it happens, then people like me will go buy them all up. So he clearly is only out for self right now. The people that are suffering are all of the people that he promised to make America great again for. So we should give him all of the responsibility for this thing going south because clearly this is the direction that he's intentionally sending things. I think that's deeply unfair.

Love it. You agree. Donald Trump, in just 27 months in office, has produced 100 months of job growth. All of it at Mar-a-Lago. Very hard to do. So, shame on us. So, Trump's trade war and trade taxes are causing some of the most harm to people in states where he needs to win in 2020, namely consumers, farmers, and auto workers in the Midwest.

Michigan would be the state most hurt by the tariffs on Mexico because of the auto industry. Well, Michigan's never played a role in a presidential election. Yeah, no, we usually skip right over that. role in a presidential election. Yeah, no, we usually skip right over that. How much energy, Dan, should Democrats spend making that argument and reaching out to those voters, even if they have, you know, voted for Trump in the past? More? Some? Lots? Any. I mean, like some Democrats are making this argument, both in Congress on the campaign trail, I mean, like some Democrats are making this argument, both in Congress on the campaign trail, but I think in general, trade represents a huge political opportunity for Democrats,

which is it allows you to make two arguments about Trump I think are very persuasive. One is the cost of the chaos and incompetence of the Trump presidency, which he has started two trade wars essentially out of a temper tantrum he has no path to get out and americans are essentially getting a tax hike every time they go to the store and people are losing their jobs right he has found a way to make beer more expensive by fighting with china and the second argument that's gonna do it yeah That's it. That's the final straw. And the second point is that Donald Trump is full of shit. And that he ran as a hardcore anti-trade populist. He talked about eliminating NAFTA, getting us out of NAFTA. Well, he did that.

And then he immediately negotiated a NAFTA remake that hurts workers at the expense of corporations. And this is the thing that Democrats aren't talking about enough, which is every presidential candidate should be talking about how Trump's new NAFTA is bad for American workers, particularly in three states I'd randomly pick, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. And so every Democrat and presidential candidate should talk about that. If and when Trump ever submits new NAFTA, which he's trying to rebrand to something that comes up to oomph-sa, then Nancy Pelosi should bring it up, the Democrats should have a week of hearings on it, and then they should vote it the fuck down.

Yeah, yeah. How gettable are some of these voters? Because I know after 2016, you know, study after study showed that, you know, racial resentment drove a lot of the vote towards Trump, especially with some of these... I thought they called that economic anxiety. Right, exactly. Well, so, and I feel like some of it's been conflated because obviously racial resentment, you know, from these studies drove the bulk of it.

But clearly we know from 2018 that there were a significant number of people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, who had voted for Barack Obama in 12, and then returned to the Democratic fold in 2018. You know, can we count on these voters in 2020? Do we have to make an argument? What's driving their concern? Is it economic? What do we think about that? Well, the math, like, you know you're not going on these voters in 2020? Do we have to make an argument? What's driving their concern? Is it economic? What do we think about that? Well, the math, like, you know you're not going to get all of them,

or even most of them. But if you got 20,000 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and then you added another 20,000 Democratic base voters who sat out the 2016 election, you would have the next president of the United States and that person would be a Democrat. It's not that hard. Yeah.

So, Tommy, on the tariff issue, Republicans in Congress, particularly Republican senators, say they're finally gonna stand up to Trump over these tariffs. Should we hold our breath or no? I mean, is this threat real? You know, why are they choosing this issue, and actually more specifically these tariffs to pick a fight on,

because they were mainly silent on the trade war with China, but for some reason the Mexico tariffs are really getting them going here. Yeah, I mean, I saw the reports that you did, that they were hopping mad in a closed- caucus meeting. And Ted Cruz came out beating his chest and said, how dare you do this to Texas? Like, whatever. Do something and we'll believe you. I mean, I think the tariffs on Chinese goods, I think, increase the prices of consumer goods for a lot of people. And that's particularly bad if you're a low income person, if you're poor, because it's a greater proportion of your total income. But I think that these

tariffs on goods coming in from Mexico are hurting businesses. They're hurting auto manufacturers. They're hurting, you know, companies that put together refrigerators. So I think in this instance, Republicans are hearing from CEOs. They're hearing from the Chamber of Commerce. They're hearing from people that cut them massive campaign checks, which is why their ears are perking up and they're paying attention and they're listening and they're suddenly upset about tariffs again. I mean, specifically, they'll really hurt Texas, Michigan, Ohio, California. So Illinois, too.

Illinois as well. Sorry, I forgot. Didn't mean to leave you guys out. I was going to say only states Trump cared about, but then I threw in California because, you know, 40, 50 million people. So, you know, it makes sense that some of the representatives from those states would finally speak out. I mean, the last news I saw before we came out here was that the Mexican government said they might put 6,000 or so of their National Guard troops on the border, which would give Trump a way to call it a win and not implement tariffs. We'll see what happens.

But, I mean, I think that's more of a likely outcome than Congress actually standing up to him. What do you think, Leavitt? Oh, I just think it's amazing. You know, they were pretty quiet when he put kids in cages. And I just think it's shocking to learn that all we needed to do to get them to pay attention quiet when he put kids in cages. And I just think it's shocking to learn that all we needed to do to get them to pay attention is put some transmissions in there. Did someone say Malort? No tariffs on that.

Well, where is that from, actually? Yeah, that's a good question. What is Malort? Malort is the aroma and full-bodied flavor of an unusual botanical. Its bitter taste is savored by two-fisted drinkers. It used to be made in Chicago. Now it is produced primarily in hell.

But because Trump plans to go there, he's not willing to put a tariff on it. Heyo. Here, all right. All right. Let's just do a little bit. Oh. Take one off the top.

You know what? I'm so sad my cup is already full. Yeah. I brought cups. I brought cups. Oh, good. I'll just use the bottle. It's worse than I imagined.

Oh, yeah. And I was imagining something quite bad. We had Peter Sagal on this stage. He said I was a doofus for liking it, that I was falling for a tourist trap. But you know what I say about traps? Sometimes it's fun to fall right in. It smells like rubbing alcohol.

It does. It tastes like it, too. Not that I've had that. Speaking of falling into traps, let's talk about the Democrats. Awesome. So the Trump campaign has said that they're going to go after some Democratic candidates on this issue, namely Joe Biden, for being free-trading globalists who supported trade agreements like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Obama negotiated and Trump abandoned.

Brittany, how politically damaging is this argument? And how do you think Democrats in general should sort of respond to Trump calling them all free-trading globalists who don't care about the American worker? I mean, it is potentially damaging, and we shouldn't underestimate the potential effect of this. But here's the response, right? The response is that economists predict that these trade temper tantrums, I think that you should trademark that because that's quality, these temper tantrums and clearly xenophobic efforts

are going to cost American households at least $900, right? Which is a lot of money, especially when you think about the fact that this administration also wants to cut $220 billion in SNAP benefits, which we all know as food stamps, over 10 years, that this will cost up to 400,000 jobs across the country, and that we are paying double and triple time when we think about the fact that the costs of this trade will be passed back on to American consumers. That the bailout that farmers are getting because of a fight that Trump started and now wants to get credit for fixing is costing taxpayers another $20 billion. And then on top of it, because of a buyback program for surplus that farmers have when they can't trade and export to other countries, that we're actually going to be paying some of those billions of dollars

to foreign countries. What Democrats have to say is the things that he promised you are not coming true, and they will never come true under this guy. Yeah. Yeah, I mean... Period. I just think, like, I hope they try to make this argument. And it's interesting that they're leaking this to everyone who will listen

because, I mean, Trump has not stood up to China. He has flailed around like a child, issued threats, thrown tariffs on goods, and gotten absolutely nothing accomplished. And they're not even talking about, like, the core issues that are really a problem with the relationship, like Chinese companies or the Chinese intelligence services stealing intellectual property or technology from the United States. Those issues aren't on the table because we're fighting about like soybean prices and other sort of extraneous shit. So I would go right at them. I would say you've failed to win these

negotiations. You've alienated all of our allies. And if you're worried about American competitiveness vis-a-vis China, invest in schools. Invest in infrastructure. Do all the things we need to do here to build a stronger country. But right now, you're just being an asshole. Brandy, you mentioned something. So Trump starts this trade war.

It hurts American farmers. And then he says, okay, because it hurt American farmers, and these are a lot of the people who voted for me, we're going to have this American taxpayer-funded bailout to help the farmers that were hurt by my trade war. So it's like, well, that's pretty stupid, but fine, right? You're going to help them. Except, tens

of millions of dollars from this bailout fund is going to foreign companies, including $60 million has gone to a couple Brazilian pork producers who have been found corrupt. So corrupt Brazilian pork producers

are getting American tax dollars that's supposed to be going to the farmers that Trump hurt with his trade war. If a Democrat can't make that argument, give up. But there's a whole other part about this. The money that he is giving to these corrupt Brazilian pork producers, he's borrowing from China.

Okay. This is going to be like my... I just want someone to yell about the Brazilian pork producers that's running for president right now. You are, but this Brazilian pork, it has stuck with you. It's like the Romney dog on the car thing from 2012. He's got the American agriculture in a little crate on top of his car.

Yes. Perfect metaphor. One example of a potential Democratic response to Trump on this came from Elizabeth Warren, who this week released what she's calling... There's some Warren fans in here. Shout out to the ladies. There we go. Warren's dropping.

Who released this week what she's calling a plan for economic patriotism, which she says is all about, quote, using the tools we have to boost American workers and American industries so they have the best opportunity to compete internationally. While those tools can include certain things like tariffs, our principal goal should be investing in American workers rather than diminishing our competitors. Warren's plan even got some praise from Tucker Carlson.

Wow. He read parts of it verbatim on the air and said, isn't this a great idea? It's a trap. It's a trap. It's definitely a trap, sir. It's a trap. It's a trap.

That Death Star is fully operational. Dan, is it a trap? What do you think? Obviously, because it's Elizabeth Warren, it's a very good plan. It's detailed. She obviously beats everyone to the punch to come out with one.

Democrats have been running on economic patriotism for 20 years now. Wrote a lot of speeches about that in the Obama White House. That's right. And it is particularly relevant against Trump because generally Republicans in the pre-Trump era have run on free trade. Yeah. But Trump is trying to steal populism from Democrats.

And so it is always helpful to have a plan because plan beats no plan, right? So if we don't have a specific approach to dealing with the legitimate issues around the people who are hurt by trade, then we are going to lose out to Trump's demagoguery. So I hope that other candidates following Elizabeth Warren's footsteps and put forward how they can thread the needle between the fact that we have a world in which trade must exist. We buy products that are made overseas. We want to ship our products overseas. But how can we find ways to minimize the impacts on that,

on American workers, and prepare those American workers to thrive in this new economy? Yeah. Lovett, last word on this? Yeah, you know, it is really important. It is worth, jokes aside about Tucker Carlson, there's a reason he's praising it.

You know, Tucker Carlson is someone worth watching only because he is... Not his show. Not his show. I mean, it's one way to find him. But he is outlining a smarter, more sophisticated, and ultimately dangerous version of Trumpism. And it's one in which you go back to the dog whistles. You know, the bullhorn can only get you so far. It did get him to the White House, which is pretty far,

all things considered. But you go back to the dog whistles, you try to downplay some of that, then you make it more about a kind of nationalist, economic argument. You make that salient. And that can be very, very powerful. And, you know, Donald Trump became president

by identifying two places where there was a bipartisan consensus that millions of Americans felt disaffected by. One was on immigration. One was on trade. Democrats have been saying for a very long time, you know, we're going to end the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas and we're going to have a tax break for building jobs right here in America. Years, years and years and years. And I think a lot of people felt. Polls at like 90%. Polls at 90%.

And yet, when people look at the architecture of our economy, you see an increasingly global system in which Americans felt as though, and correctly felt as though, manufacturing and other jobs were going overseas, that the diffuse benefits of trades were acutely harming a great many Americans. And so I think when we talk about Britney's critique

of Trump's trade policy is exactly right, but we have to have a positive version of it, and I think Elizabeth Warren's outlining it. Okay. Well, we'll have more news in a bit. Now it's time for OK Stop. We'll roll a clip, and the panel can say okay stop at any point to comment. Piers Morgan. There's an actual hiss sign.

Someone has a sign that just says hiss, which I greatly appreciate over actual hissing. Also, though, very thoughtful to the disabled community. Thanks for that closed caption. Great. Truly. Truly. Love that. Piers Morgan. He's like the British Ryan Seacrest.

Ryan Seacrest hacked a bunch of people's phones and then still got to host Eurovision or whatever. But Piers sat down with Donald Trump on his trip to the UK, and the two got on great. Take a look. Okay, stop. Listen, y'all. I'm the child of two preachers

and I try really hard not to do two things in public. Cuss and drink. But if I have to look at these two ugly mugs and listen to this complete and utter fucking bullshit. For two minutes. Bottoms up. That is pure rat poison. I love it.

Restored Britain is your number one special relationship. I have a good relationship with many of the leaders. Prime Minister Abiy, very special, just got by. He invited me as the only country, he invited me as representative of the United States and the First Lady to be the only people at a special ceremony for the new emperor. Okay, stop.

I have one friend whose name I just mispronounced. It's also like three letters. These little symbolic things like inviting a president to be at a special thing for the fucking

emperor, those are not supposed to affect policy. You're supposed to be at a special thing for the fucking emperor like those are not supposed to affect policy like you're supposed to be like this is why they're doing this to get in your good favor over a set of issues that are really important far more important than where you sit at a dinner

you broken narcissist he's also the only he's the only president that could be at the ceremony for the new emperor because they just named the new fucking emperor. There wasn't a lot of choices. Right, that's a really good point. That's a really good point. 102 years.

It's a 3,000-year bloodline. Do you like to have a 3,000-year bloodline? I think it would be great. I don't know what I'd be doing for the rest of the time, but I think it would be great. Okay, stop. Listen, don't worry. Honestly, he cannot have a 3,000 year bloodline. He's like

two generations in and they've already got Habsburg shit happening. Like it's not... Some branches don't flower. Like it's not... Some branches don't flower. It was a great thing in Japan. It was great. How do you feel being here in this center of power? This is the generator, the power of the war. I think it's incredible because I'm a big fan of Winston Churchill

and I studied Winston Churchill and... Okay, stop. This feels like the day that he talked about Frederick Douglass being a guy who did really great things. It just feels like he just learned Winston Churchill's name two minutes before he got on camera. He's like, I'm trying to say hi to him before I leave.

Right. I don't know where he is. He told me he wanted to come golfing. Look, everyone has a tell for when they're lying. And Trump says when he says, I studied. It's so, like, there are things that we deserve that we won't ever get. And one of them is just, hey, okay, tell us everything you know about Winston Churchill. All the time you need. I would pay, like. I would pay boxing

heavyweight championship pay-per-view prices for Donald Trump just like getting a question. Alright, everything you know about Japan, go. You make all the phone calls to FDR, to Roosevelt and President Roosevelt, and they were showing me, here's where he made that call,

here's, you know, they have everything documented. How did that make you feel to think that could have been you? Well, it's just an awesome responsibility. I think I have a very good relationship with the people in the United Kingdom, but is it me or is it the country? Our country loves your country. I love your country. We have a little gift for you because we're in the Churchill Warrens. This is where Britain's greatest leader fought the war. Okay, stop. For people listening, someone has brought in a hat box

and removed a hat. Now, I'm not going to say that I'm not sympathetic to Donald Trump, but I am sympathetic to being surprised with a hat. That is a tough position to put someone in. It's politically, as a rule, politicians, when they're surprised with a hat... Don't wear the hat. It's a mistake. It's going to end poorly.

You're in a tank, and you're losing to George H.W. Bush. If you ever wondered what someone's dignity looked like when they took it out of their body, it turns out it's a bowler hat. This hat's from the hat maker Locke. On behalf of Good Morning Britain and ITV, we would like to present you with a Churchill hat.

Okay, stop. I'm just sorry. Did he present it on behalf of the people of Britain? He does not have that authority. Absolutely not. You can tell from Donald Trump's face because he gets politics a little bit. He's looking at that hat like, I don't know what I should do with this.

I don't know whether he gets politics or not, but he really understands his own hair. He knows two things. He knows three things. He knows how to avoid accountability in the American legal system. He knows his hair, He knows three things. He knows how to avoid accountability in the American legal system. He knows his hair, and he knows TV. And those two out of three are about to come head to head.

You know how I feel about his hair. I cannot with that. If I liked him, I'd set him up with a good weaveologist from the south side of Chicago. But I don't, so I let him live like that. Incivility. Wow. You want to try it? I'll try it, you know? from the south side of Chicago, but I don't. So I let him live like that. It's a real emotion. Wow. You want to try it?

I'll try it, you know, right? Because one thing I've proved by being a politician, it is my hair. They would have found out a long time ago. Do you think you or Boris Johnson has the best hair? I don't know, but I do think he's a good person. I think it's going to be a very interesting... Who's the British Trump?

Is it Boris or Nigel Farage? I guess... Well, Nigel's another one. I like Nigel. Who's the British Trump is it Boris or well, I guess I guess well Nigel's another one I like now who's the British Trump? I don't want to say I don't want to destroy me I don't want to destroy anybody's career if you had a job No, it's a little big That guy gets shot first in a Chicago gangster movie. Oh, my God. My take was that this was the worst version of the Deadwood movie.

I was going to say that, like, Kevin Costner was in The Untouchables, but this is a movie called The Unfuckables. Does that stay in? I think... So Winston Trump. I think Winston looked much better in this one. Not a hair move. Not a single hair move.

Oh, man. That was hard to watch. And that's OK Stop. Very, very glad I drank before that. That was worse than the Malort. It is pretty terrible. Yeah, I know. Jesus.

Like in Rat Boys. It's not a joke. I like it. Oh, boy. Okay, let's talk about the Democratic primary. Drink. Okay, let's talk about the Democratic primary. Drink.

So this week there were a ton of new policy proposals from the presidential candidates, but what got the most attention was actually an old policy position from Joe Biden, which was his support for the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding from... Just wait till the end, guys. Just wait till the end. Which prohibits federal funding from being used to cover abortion care for women who are on Medicaid. In response, almost every Democratic candidate reiterated their support for repealing Hyde, and a few candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Beto O'Rourke said that the vice president was wrong. But just tonight, in remarks made just an hour ago, it appears that Joe Biden has reversed his position. just an hour ago. It appears that Joe Biden has reversed his position.

He said in a speech that in an environment where women's health is under assault, especially in Republican-led states, he can, quote, no longer support an amendment that cuts off funding for abortion access. So obviously, I want to talk about Biden's reversal here, but let's start by talking about why this amendment is so harmful. Brittany, the argument from some supporters of the Hyde Amendment goes something like, you know, I support legal protections for abortion access, but I don't think taxpayers who are against abortion should have to fund that. Why is this problematic? Why is this wrong? Because if you are opposed to being able to fund abortions, you are not in support of a woman's right to choose. Like the two literally don't go together.

There are 8 million people with ovaries on Medicaid, which means that abortion for them is legal in name only, and that's simply not enough. Newsflash, newsflash, women's health has been under attack since the dawn of time. And I'm glad the Democrats are finally now saying, like, we're actually not going to be ashamed of believing that fundamentally women should have control over their own bodies and people with ovaries should have, I don't know, fundamental access to all of the things that go along with their humanity. But there are some basic things we should all understand about abortion. One is that one in four women in their lifetime will have an abortion. It is a normal medical procedure. That is how we should discuss it.

That is how we should think about it. Number two, we have to realize that outlawing abortions, whether it is a state and run on road that's happening across the country, especially in places like my home state of Missouri, or if it comes from the Supreme Court, that abortions will not stop. They will simply become more dangerous. that abortions will not stop. They will simply become more dangerous. And that will primarily affect poor women, women of color, and LGBTQ folks. They will be the folks dying most from that ban.

And we also have to recognize, lastly, that this is fundamentally about power, right? That this is actually not about ovaries. This has never been about morality because if you actually look at the known history of the creation of the religious right, there are folks, evangelicals, who essentially lost the fight against school segregation. And when they lost that fight, they said, we need to create a new political supermajority. And the plan was, if we take up birth control and abortion rights, then we can get together with Catholics and we can essentially create the religious right. So this was never about morality.

This was never about a right to life. This was always about maintaining power. This was always about ensuring that oppressed people remain oppressed. and lastly pretty fundamentally if you don't have ovaries if you don't have a uterus i do not care what you think about my right to do what i need to do with my body so i just want to establish those baseline things as we should establish before we move forward. Yeah. So obviously this has come up this week because of Biden, but the Democratic Party has had a long history with the Hyde Amendment, and many Democrats have, or some Democrats have supported the Hyde Amendment. You know, repealing it was only in the Democratic Party's platform

for the first time in 2016, last election. So, Dan, what is the history of the Hyde Amendment, the Democratic Party's platform for the first time in 2016, last election. So, Dan, what is the history of the Hyde Amendment, and how have the Democratic politics around this changed over time? The Hyde Amendment is named after a congressman named Henry Hyde, who's from here in Illinois. And what it says is that, as Brittany pointed out, that no federal funding can be used to fund abortion. It was first put in bills in the mid-'70s,

right after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land and women's constitutional rights usually came enshrined and then it was essentially cut and pasted into every appropriations bill for the next 40 years and Republicans have been very for it and Democrats have been pretty silent about it because it was an unchangeable thing in a world in which you needed 60 votes in the Senate. So that's the legislative history. The political history is of a different era in democratic politics and one that we are

trying to move away from, first in the Obama era and now in this 2020 election, which is this world where there's essentially a transactional progressivism, where in order to be for a women's right to choose, where Catholic politicians the Democratic Catholic politicians would come out for Supporting women's right to choose but in order to feel like they could do that they would then say yes I am for women's right to choose but you taxpayer not your taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund it and that has been a world in which we are Democrats have played on Republican turf for too long where essentially And in the case of the Hyde Amendment,

this is what is so troubling about the politics of it and why it's so important that everyone be on board to repeal it, is what it essentially said is, in order to appeal to anti-choice taxpayers, we are going to sacrifice the rights and the health care of poor women. And that is the sort of sacrifices and transactions that have too often guided democratic policymaking on social issues that we've tried to appeal to largely Catholic working class voters

in these Midwestern states. And we don't have to do that anymore. So it's important that everyone takes a stand to put that behind us. Yeah. to stand and put that behind us. Yeah. It's also... I think the fear that a lot of Democrats or the silence that Democrats have had on this issue

also revolves around politics, and it's sort of like... It's some of the same caution which Democrats have approached a lot of other issues, because when you look at the polling, right, if you phrase it, you know, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used to fund abortions.

Do you support this or not? General public, 55% of American people say they support the Hyde Amendment, 29% oppose. And then among Democrats, it's split, 41% support, but 44% oppose, right? So this has been the way the question has been asked for a long time.

And so Democratic politicians look at this question and they say, oh well, you know, even though a lot of people are pro-choice, you know, this federal taxpayer money being used to fund abortions, this is too far and so I'll compromise on this. So then in 2016 pollsters decided to start asking another question. And they asked, however we feel about abortion, politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman's health coverage for it just because she's poor. 76% of voters agreed with that in battleground states. And then they said, do you agree with this statement? When Medicaid covers pregnancy care but withholds coverage for abortion,

we're taking away a low-income woman's ability to make important personal decisions based on what's best for her. 62% of people agreed with that in battleground states. So these are controversial. So it is one of these things where Democrats have just been afraid of their own shadow for so long because probably white male pollsters have asked the question, and they've framed it in a certain way. It's political fear, but it's not just like if only Democrats had phrased the question differently in polls 30 years ago, they'd have a different position. It is that they have allowed conservatives to define the issue and to drive the conversation.

We have been doing this from a defensive posture. Yeah. So let's talk about Biden. Tommy, why do you think Joe Biden reversed himself? He has been, you know, hit from the left from some candidates on other past positions he's taken that are more moderate and conservative, and he's basically said, no, I'm going to continue those positions. But this is the first time he has actually reversed himself. What do you think? I mean, good question. Look, I think that they saw that it was hurting him politically. I mean,

that's the simplest explanation. And that is interesting to me because he has been criticized for a lot of parts of his record over the course of the past several months and they have not responded really in any great detail on a lot of issues that I think we all thought might cause him trouble politically until tonight. And so I think

we'll see if this is this position change actually makes people feel better about supporting him, makes him feel better about his choice record. But I think the more important question we have to ask ourselves as a party is, how did so many Democrats support the Hyde Amendment for so long? I mean, Biden talked about his support for the Hyde Amendment in terms of his Catholic faith and his belief that life starts at conception and that he believes that for

himself personally, but that he wouldn't apply those views politically and try to restrict abortion access. But the Hyde Amendment does exactly that. I mean, it treats women who get their health care through Medicaid like second-class citizens. So I do think, like Dan was saying, we really need to rethink what a standard democratic position for decades said to women in this country and go on offense on these issues and start talking about women's health care as health care and not some stigmatized secondary version. Well, I think, I mean, there are two points on this. One is, one of the reasons, other than just simple political fear that Democrats went along with it,

is if you refuse to vote for a funding bill that had the Hyde Amendment attached to it, the government would have been shut down for 30 years, right? But also our party has not been unified on this, not even close to unified. We were passing the Affordable Care Act. Bart Stupak, who was a congressman from Michigan and a group of other conservative congressmen almost sunk the Affordable Care Act unless Obama would sign an executive order that was essentially symbolic but that reasserted that the Hyde Amendment would apply to the Affordable Care Act. And so we're not just fighting Republicans.

We've also been fighting elements of our own party who are much more conservative on this issue, which is something we'll talk about with our guests in a little bit. Many of them from Illinois. But what we should be doing as a party, right, to Dan's point, is redefining the issue and recognize that we actually are the pro-life party.

And here's what I mean by that. If you are a party that cuts SNAP benefits, that will not regulate guns, that will not do anything for poor children, children of color, that locks children up in cages, you cannot tell me that you are the pro-life party. I will never believe you. And we need to stop conceding that ground. If we actually come forward with the kind of plans that support life and actually reduce the number of abortions because women don't have to make that

choice so that they enter a cycle of poverty, right? I think that like, I really think, sometimes I just think these guys like don't talk to any of the women that they know because I think people think that we're just like out here frivolously choosing abortions like we go through a drive-thru or something and we're like a number two and an abortion. That's not how it works. It's a really difficult, challenging, life-altering decision that women and people with reproductive organs like that are bravely making every single day. And if we actually understood it in that way, then we'd be thinking about comprehensive care

for the folks that can bear children so that we can be having a fundamentally different conversation about the quality of life that people can have if they decide to have children. Period. That would solve this conversation, but nobody's willing to talk about that. Leva, what do you think? I do think it's a question of, like Dan said, Democrats have been just too afraid of this issue, and they've been too afraid of their own party. I thought that Elizabeth Warren on Chris Hayes' town hall made a great argument last night when she's like,

look, no matter what happens, no matter what restrictions are passed, rich women are always going to be able to have access to abortion. This is about poor women. This is about young women. This is about women of color. This is about trans folks. This is about LGBTQ folks. These are the people that are not going to be able to have access.

And this is a question of equity, fundamentally. Donald Trump is a cancer on our politics. He is. And I think a lot of people are looking around and saying, we got this fucking guy in the White House. I don't want politicians who are going to come in here and compromise with Republicans before we're even out of the gate. I want people who are unabashedly going to defend the things we believe in,

who aren't going to compromise just because they're afraid to say what they really think. You know, we've combined for a really long time discomfort with abortion as an idea with access to reproductive care. And, you know, if our position, if our position is the state should not dictate when a human being has to give birth to another person, if that is our position, and I think it is, I think that that is a deeply held conviction, an invaluable conviction of democratic voters, if that is our position, If that is our position, and I think it is, I think that that is a deeply held conviction, an invaluable conviction of democratic voters. If that is our position, then it is our position, whether we're talking about Roe versus Wade, which would, if overturned, deny people that right or force people to give birth against their will. But it is also something that would force people to give birth just by dint of their financial circumstances. And so

I think that we need to disconnect notions of access from any concerns and desire that people sincerely have about reducing the number of abortions that take place. Because one of the lessons of the last 30 years is access doesn't lead to increased number of abortions. Actually, access to comprehensive care reduces the number of abortions. And so Joe Biden in the last 48 hours has been forced to confront a Democratic view that wasn't shared by a lot of Democratic voters and actually just didn't stand up to scrutiny. And that's a cool thing about this primary. That's an incredibly important thing that's happening. And it's actually significant that this is the first time that

we've seen Joe Biden as a frontrunner kind of adjust based on recrimination and law and argument from the rest of the field, which is actually what a primary is all about. Yeah. It's fundamentally a good thing. Yeah. It is. That he was forced to change.

Okay. When we come back, we'll have an interview with Democratic congressional candidate Marie Newman. Thank you. She is the Democratic candidate for the nomination of third district of Illinois. Please welcome Marie Newman. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, thank you so much for being here. As a general rule, to the extent that Positive America has rules, we generally try to stay away from Democratic primaries. But we thought what was happening in the third district of Illinois was so interesting and important that we wanted to have you on stage tonight to discuss it. And we will, a lot of the national touching of race has been around your opponent. But we will get to that, trust me. Sure.

But before we do, I want to talk about you. Sure. So before you took, made the tough decision to challenge a entrenched incumbent in a Democratic district here in Illinois, you became an advocate for, you became an anti-bullying advocate, right? And you were, you had a very successful career in advertising, and then you took on, you started a non-profit. Tell us about how you, tell me about how you came to that decision and how that, your activism in that arena led you to run for Congress. They are tied quite a bit. My son at an early age, around fourth or fifth grade, had been bullied to the point of hospitalization and traumatization.

And it really changed our family forever. And I actually studied bullies and went through the rigor of understanding it. And I wrote a book on it and then built a non-profit called Team Up to Stop Bullying. And the reason I did all that is because there was no manual 11 years ago. There was no manual for parents and schools how to collaborate together to end bullying. And I felt like it was really important. So a mom friend of mine and I got together and did that. And I did not know at that time that it was going to inform me on a bunch of different things. I actually went to President Obama's summit on bullying and helped inform what ultimately became

a bunch of data and work that led to the executive order. And it's one of the few executive orders that hasn't gotten overturned, thank God, right? The best. Yeah. So, but what that informed is there's lots of different types of bullies

and I've taken on a lot of bullies in my time what I realized is the biggest bully is the Chicago Machine and you guys know right? you guys know and when Trump came along

and I had been watching Dan Lipinski's record for the longest time, I knew. I knew this guy was just completely ill-fitting to the district, because I was born on the southwest side of the city, I was raised in the southwest suburbs, and I'm raising my babies that are not babies anymore in the southwest suburbs, right? I know how we roll, and we don't roll the way he rolls. We don't roll the way the machine rolls at all. So I knew that I needed to stand up to this particular bully and to the Chicago machine. You know why? Because no one else would do it. I have a background in advocacy. I've worked for civil rights on a bunch of different topics, and I just knew no one would stand up. So I did. So as you mentioned, you're running against Congressman Dan Lipinski.

Dan Lipinski's positions include he's anti-choice, anti-marriage equality. He opposes the Affordable Care Act. He refused to endorse President Obama when he was running for re-election in 2012. That's right. And Hillary Clinton. And Hillary Clinton. Are these the views of the people of the third district of Illinois? No, let's share a little data to put a fine point on that. So Bernie took the district by eight points in the primary in 2016. Hillary took it by 16 points in the general. It is deep, deep blue. This district needs a real Democrat with a real plan. Some of the folks here in the room tonight who are more familiar with Chicago politics may have a better sense of this, but for our listeners at home, help them

understand how it's possible that someone who has the positions I just outlined can represent a district that Hillary Clinton won by 16 in Barack Obama's home state. Right. It's really interesting. So we have to go back literally 40 years, right? So it's a deeply blue district. He hasn't had a Republican in 60 years. So it's a deeply blue district. Although there are pockets of conservatism, for sure. There's some social values that are slightly different than mine. That said, that is not the overwhelming case. It's very small pockets. It is 70% of the district believes that they are pro-choice.

Over 80% of the district is very pro-LGBTQ rights. 70% of the district believes in Medicare for All. And right now, Dan Lipinski not only makes fun of Medicare for All, but says that it is a pipe dream when he knows the data, and he's just flying in the face of most of the American public because my district is really a microcosm of the rest of the nation. They have the same values as the rest of the nation. So to answer the question more directly is that we are a standard Democratic district. The difference is the Chicago machine rules the

southwest side. And so trying to break through that is really, really difficult, particularly when you have a generational name, which is Lipinski, because his dad had the district for 22 years before he did. And then his dad gifted the district for 22 years before he did, and then his dad gifted his district. And I'll just share that quick story because it's super fun. So his dad, Bill, had the district and then decided that he wanted to retire, but he waited until after the primary. So in the primary in 2004, he got through the primary very easily

because he's the only Democrat in town there. Gets through and then waits until September before the general and says, I think I'm going to retire. And who, who, who with my last name could take my place? Who? And he turned to his good friend Mike Madigan and Alderman Burke and said, gosh, do you know anybody with the name Lipinski that could take my place in the next six weeks? And so he did. So he slid in, and I often refer to it that he was gifted the seat because he was that way. And it's completely unfair and undemocratic.

So fast forward, you know, it's 2018. I'm running against him. He is absolutely indignant that I had the audacity to challenge him. Literally, he would say things like, well, I can remember when we were asking him to do debates, and he wouldn't. And he'd call and say, well, who is she? And I was like, really? You know. So that's how that happened, is that just sheer name ID.

And I went from absolutely no one knowing my name to getting 49% of the vote because, thank you. But it wasn't me. It was because the district and I ran this race together. The district and I ran together in lockstep and held each other up. And I still maintain, that's why in the last six weeks of the race, we pushed him to $15 an hour because he said absolutely no 12 weeks prior to that, next to me in an interview. And we pushed him to do $15 an hour. We pushed him to sign the Dream Act, which just went through. And it's not the Dream Act I wanted. So we pushed him to sign the DREAM Act, which just went through. And it's not the DREAM Act I wanted. So we pushed him hard.

So the district is amazing, and they work really hard, and we're a good team. So the DCCC, which is the campaign arm of the House Democrats, has endorsed Congressman Lipinski, which is not a surprise. As a policy, they support incumbents. As they did in your 2018 race, they supported the congressman. But this time, in this race, they did something different, which is they implemented a policy, which they put in writing, that said that anyone who, any consulting firm that worked for a Democrat who was challenging an incumbent Democrat would be blacklisted. So I wanted to get your reaction to that policy in general, but also how that policy has impacted your race.

Yeah. So first of all, I don't agree with that. As I would expect. Yes. Now, I will say in terms of leadership tenants, so let's talk about that for a second. The DCCC's charter is to protect incumbents and to expand the party. So that's okay. That part is okay.

But as I've told the leadership is that there's nuance in leadership and there should be cases where you should have a different view. So if you're taking the stance that, and I have talked to the leadership about this and registered my complaint in a very respectful and friendly way, that while you need to treat everybody the same, all incumbents the same, right, there are cases for extreme bad apples. And Dan Lipinski is an extreme bad apple. I mean, this is a gentleman who does not believe in birth control. This is a gentleman that did some things that would

literally curl your hair and really upset you if you knew what he did to me in the last four weeks of the campaign. We're not discussing that tonight, but this guy is a bad dude. I'm just telling you right now. So the reality, when I had that discussion with the leadership, I said, this is an extreme case. Can we talk about nuance in leadership? And that is part of, and I've run national organizations. I've rolled out national programs. There is nuance to be had. And they weren't interested in nuance, right? So how it affected my campaign was, is that it was very, very, very expensive. I lost four consultants that were communications and mail houses. I lost several pollsters because everyone was so afraid of this

dictum. And honestly, they got horrifying phone calls from the detripsing with lots of threats, right? So it was expensive and very time consuming. But as my mom always says, get up over that and up and over and back beyond it. So, you know, we are beyond it. So your 2018 race got a lot of attention. You came incredibly close to unseating, to beating the Chicago machine, which is, that's how that happens very often. Right. But it feels, but this, one of the major dividing issues between you and Congresswoman Pinsky is women's reproductive freedom. Yeah. And that issue is obviously even more at the forefront in this election because of the very legitimate fears that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe,

but also, as we just discussed on stage, Republican states passing bills to ban abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. Has that changed people's response to your campaign or how you're thinking about running your campaign? 100%. These are totalitarian laws, straight up. That's what they are. Because if you're enslaving one gender in this country, that's called totalitarian and authoritarian. So for me, this is a moral imperative in this country to get this guy out

and anybody that's supporting it. And just to put a fine point on that, not six months ago, he stood up in front of a room and said that, yes, I'm actively supporting the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Yeah, he's a Democrat. So as I always say, when I talk about women's reproductive rights, it doesn't even get down to science, politics, or who said what, where, when. I just trust women. That's all I do. I trust women. And so this is an oddly critical race because we can't have two sets of rules for the genders, right? And let's add three or four sets with non-binary, right? So the reality is that we can't have this as a nation. And these laws, they're just going to continue unless we stay on depth. There's six states that are banning right now, but there are other states. And I will tell you one very quick story. I was in Minnesota over the summer and I was, I ran out of the car. Oh,

love that. I ran out of the car because in Minneapolis, these, I call them yellow jackets, were protecting women that were going into reproductive care, escorting them in. They were from Idaho and Montana and South Dakota where there was one abortion clinic and now shut down, by the way. And so what if Minnesota wasn't there? So we need this. So my last question for you is, for the folks here in the room and listeners at home, who the DCCC cannot blacklist, how can they help your campaign if they want to support you in your efforts to defeat Dan Lipinski and get a real Democrat in that district? Oh gosh, there's a lot of ways, but probably the best way to start is to go to marienewmanforcongress.com and you can volunteer,

you can donate, you can give me your ideas. One of the things we like to do on my campaign is have meet and greets. Last time I had 190 over the expanse of the campaign. We've already had 80 this campaign. We're on par to do 300. So if you live in the district or around the district and want to have a meet and greet, I want to hear your ideas because politicians forget that people with the challenges have the ideas. And I want to hear your ideas. I'm not there to listen. I want your ideas. So you can do a meet and greet, you can volunteer. And this campaign, I'm not taking corporate money at all, and Dan takes 60% of his funds from corporate money.

And I want to tell you something really important. While reproductive rights are very important to me, as are everybody's civil rights, our economic rights are the most important thing on the planet right now, and we should all be laser focused on it. The income divide in this country is dramatic and it's dividing us culturally, societally, psychologically, in every way. It's not just a financial divide. So I am laser focused on fighting income equality and getting paid leave passed, universal child care, raising wages, and empowering unions. That is great.

Marie, before we let you go, we'd love to play a game. Oh, I love games. Hi, hi. I've had a lot of malort. Hello. Chicago. Chicago. Your hearts are clogged with love.

But while this city may be home to Pizzeria Uno, sometimes your politicians treat you like numero dos. So sorry. Honestly, I looked up the Italian for two, but I couldn't do it. I know it's... I just... I'm sure. Now it's true, we here at Crooked Media, we have a policy when it comes to primaries. We don't take sides.

We don't want to get in the way of voters making their choice. That's why you don't see us in doors anywhere, whether it's the Democratic primary for president or Dan's failed campaign to become the moderator of his neighborhood next-door message board. Somebody has got to put a stop to all this leashless dog walking. And I think Dan's the guy to do it.

Woo! His campaign slogan, sure sure you trust your dog, but what about that dog? This is... Jesus. Slightly racist. More malort. Like, just a little. Yeah. Slightly racist. More Malort. Just a little. I tried. I tried.

All right. I didn't hear it. I heard love you, love it, so it's good. But sometimes you have to make an exception just to feel alive, just to know you can, just because Dan Lipinski deserves it. And so now for a game called Close Your Eyes. Imagine Illinois' 3rd Congressional District is represented by someone who wasn't handed

his job on a silver platter while praising Trump and siding with Republicans on some of the biggest issues facing this country. Now open your eyes. Whisper, it's possible. Would someone out there like to play the game? Travis is in the house. You jumped up. You got it. Just stay there. Just definitely stay there. Hi, what's your name? My name's Amanda. Amanda, how you doing? I'm great. Where are you from?

I'm from Los Angeles, California, but I've lived here for five years. Wow. Like clockwork. Marie, I'm sorry. Because the second someone from out of town. I think she lives here now. I live here. I've been here for five years.

I'm a registered voter. Hey, hey. When are people going to learn to lead with that? We come from presidential speech writing. Lead with that. I was going to say, everyone is very friendly, but the second someone from out of town plays a game, they want to build a wall.

And I apologize. It happens everywhere. We're all fallen. Sin. Amanda, are you ready to play the game? Yes. Question number one. How did Dan Lipinski win his first primary to represent Democrats in his

race for Congress? Is it A? Door to door, talking to voters with his famous slogan, not lip service, Lipinski service? Or is it B, you see, Lipinski was the simple gardener at a large manor house, and after the homeowner died, he ventured into the world basically for the first time. Advice for cultivating plants, his only family reference reference was mistaken for sage wisdom by moneyed interest who rallied behind his candidacy. Okay. Alright. Or is it C? His dad, Bill Lipinski,

won the primary, then Big Bill retired and got his own name replaced with his son's name on the ballot. Or is it D? I still can't believe the dad thing. Or is it E? On a cold't believe the dad thing. Or is it E? On a cold winter's night, the bean opened, revealing Dan Lipinski,

covered in green sludge next to a stack of placards with his name on it. Everyone who saw that happen was called crazy. And now they are dead. What do you think, Amanda? I'm going to have to go with C. You got it. Bonus question.

When did Lipinski last live in the district when his daddy got his name added to the ballot despite not living in the district and not running for the position? Five years ago? No, it was 1989. 1989. Bonus question. Did I really get an X? You got it wrong so long ago.

That was it. Question two. Dan Lipinski voted against the Affordable Care Act, against the DREAM Act, and refused to back a bill to raise the minimum wage. Plus, he's long opposed access to contraception and reproductive health care. Wait, I missed a...

Shut up. Dan Lipinski... Dan Lipinski... Dan Lipinski... You are embarrassing me in front of the next member of Congress from Illinois' third district. Dan Lipinski voted against the Affordable Care Act, against the DREAM Act, and refused to back a bill to raise the minimum wage. Plus, he's long opposed access to contraception and reproductive health care, including abortion rights.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Health care, wages, immigration. Those are some big-ticket items that go to the core of what we stand for as Democrats. But don't worry. He was also the only Democrat who refused to sponsor this piece of legislation. Is it A? The Everyone Must See Hamilton Act. Or is it B? The Everyone

Must Stop Making Hamilton Jokes Act. Or is it C? The Equality Act. Or is it D? The Can We At Least Stop Inviting Lipinski to Lunch Act. Or is it C? The Equality Act. Or is it D? The Can We At Least Stop Inviting Lipinski to Lunch Act. Or is it E? The I Feel Bad But It's Like We Have Such A Fun Group And When He's There It Changes The Vibe Act. What do you think?

I think it's the Equality Act. It is. It's the Equality Act. Bonus question. Bonus question. Lipinski ultimately relented and voted for the Equality Act after pressure from which person on this stage? Miss Newman. It was it was you got it nice that's your first vote bonus

question number two Lipinski said this person would be a champion for immigration reform. Donald Trump? Yeah. Wild. Question three. In 2018, an organization with ties to Dan Lipinski sent text messages to potential voters claiming his opponent Marie Newman would do what? Is it A?

The text claimed Marie Newman operated a satanic pedophile ring out of the basement of her family pizza restaurant. The unfortunately named satanic pedophile pizza parlor and salad bar. Or is it B? The text claimed Marie Newman denied the Holocaust and would, quote, jail nuns. Or is it C? The text claimed Marie Newman wanted to legally define deep dish pizza as casserole and not pizza. Or is it D?

The text claimed that Marie Newman hadn't lived in the district since 1989, opposed the Affordable Care Act, and only ran because her dad said, in this family, we run for Congress. Now you put that suit on, you grab those yard signs, shake some hands, and get out of my sight. I want to clap for that. Or is it E? The text said, yeah, I helped Marie Newman hide the body.

I hope the American people don't find out. Then it was followed up with, might be wrong number. What do you think? I don't, I, um, I don't, there's part of me that wants to say it was the pizza thing, you know, like, because, uh, you're, you know, pulling at the heartstrings. So now we're, this is sort of the behind the music of the answer, but what is the answer? Oh, oh, oh, gee, I don't know. Whatever Dan said. You got it.

Jailing nuns. Final question. Now, it's common for the DCCC, the Democratic Party organization focused on winning House races, to back incumbents. But the DCCC actually went further and threatened to blacklist political vendors and consultants who helped to primary conservatives like Dan Lipinski.

This despite the fact that Lipinski refused to endorse Barack Obama in 2012. But a lot of people have gotten behind Marie Newman anyway. We're going to hit you with some names. If they've backed Newman, say true. If not, you say false. We're just going to go in order.. If they've backed Newman, say true. If not, you say false. We're just going to go in order. Here we go. John, kick us off.

Emily's list. True. Got it. Don Jr.'s list. False. Got it. The National Abortion Rights Action League. True.

Yep. Governor Jay Inslee. True. Yep. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. True. Senator J.J. Binks. False.

Yes, that's true. Jar Jar Binks did not endorse. Maybe you just didn't understand him. He was too busy handing over the republic to Palpatine. Next. Senator Bernie Sanders. True. Colonel Harlan David Sanders.

False. Yep, Colonel Sanders not involved. The vice chair of the Progressive Caucus, Representative Roeckon. True. MoveOn.org. True. Bill Lipinski. True. No, no, that one's false.

Yeah, I want to hear that sound. Planned Parenthood Action Committee. True. No, no, that one's false. Yeah, I want to hear that sound. Planned Parenthood Action Committee. True. The good folks at Pod Save America. Aw. That is, that's true. That's true. Amanda, you've won the game.

Thank you so much for playing Close Your Eyes. Imagine Illinois' third congressional district is represented by someone who wasn't handed his job in a silver platter while praising Trump and siding with Republicans on some of the biggest issues facing this country. Now open your eyes. Whisper, it's possible.

Guys, give it up for Marie Newman. Thank you for playing. Thank you for being here. Fighting a good fight. Thank you, Chicago. Thank you, Brittany Pagnon. Thank you, Chicago. Thank you, Brittany Pagnot. Thank you, Marie Newman. Thank you next time.