The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT - Jagmeet Singh Gets The Line Of The Week

Episode Date: May 31, 2023

It looked like the NDP leader was in a political jam criticizing the government while at the same time propping it up.  But someone, maybe Jagmeet Singh himself, came up with a great line to get himself to safe ground.  Bruce does his SMT analysis on that plus the Alberta election and artificial intelligence too.  Lots to listen to this week.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Wednesday, and Wednesday means Bruce Anderson, and Bruce Anderson means smoke, mirrors, and the truth. And welcome to Wonderful Wednesday. First, or no, last Wednesday of May. Last day of May. Into June tomorrow. And we all know what that means. What does it mean?

It means we're into June. And that means you can now see summer on the horizon. It's there. It's just waiting for us. We're going to grab it and run with it. It's been a long, hard winter, spring. We're looking forward to summer. Okay, this will truly be a potpourri day because there's not one overwhelming one thing to talk about, but there are a lot of little things to talk about,

all of which have some import. I think we both of us agree. I mean, we can start with the Alberta election. I mean, there's an old saying in politics that a majority is a majority is a majority, and Danielle Smith got a majority for her UCP. The NDP fell short. They picked up some seats in areas they didn't have last time around, but they lost. Danielle Smith won in spite of what a lot of people thought might happen a couple of months ago. It's clearly tightened up in the last month, and then she sprinted to victory. So I guess it becomes, what does she do with it? And her victory speech on election night, she really hammered at,

not Rachel Notley in the NDP, but she hammered at Justin Trudeau and climate change in particular and some of his proposals on the climate front. And the day after the election, she was a little more moderated in her tone about the relationship between Alberta and Ottawa when she sat down and gave interviews to everybody. But nevertheless, it does set up that classic old Alberta-Ottawa fight. We've seen it for decades now at different levels

with different premiers from Lwhed through Klein, now to Jason Kenney, and now Daniel Smith. What are your thoughts at the end of that election campaign and as we now move forward into the future? Well, Peter, I think as you say, you know, a win is a win. You said a majority is a majority is a majority. But in a situation like that, where there's really no other competitive parties, it is almost a two lives, the notion that the NDP would be a competitive force politically in Alberta, that didn't seem that logical. It seemed more logical that the conservatives would always continue to sweep and that a party generally associated with the idea of socialism would not have, in the modern Alberta era, much traction. So in a way, you could look at it if you were the NDP and say, well, this is pretty good. We won one of the last three elections and came close in another.

On the other hand, I think they had victory within their grasp. At least they must have felt that they did only a few months ago. And to see it slip away, I think, has to be a source of some disappointment and probably some internal second guessing about whether or not they ran exactly the campaign that they should have. I wasn't close enough to it to really offer much by way of analysis of that. I do think that it's reasonable to take away from this that Danielle Smith is probably better as a orator and a campaigner than she has been as a manager of the affairs of the province. I think she was pretty accident prone in the months leading up to the election campaign, and she managed to be less accident prone during the campaign. And I think that meant that a campaign kind of played to her strengths, whereas governing perhaps doesn't. Remains to be seen if she took something important away from this brush with political death, whether she'll be a more thoughtful and stabilizing premier

now that she's elected and has her own majority. My jury's out on that. I listened to what she said in the aftermath. Yeah, my jury's out on that. I don't know what you thought about taking the opportunity to really kind of go at the Trudeau energy policies as opposed to maybe taking a point of view that we need to make those policies better for Alberta rather than we need to have a fight with Ottawa.

That's probably what I would have counseled her to do if ever I were in a position to counsel her. It's interesting. I read a number of commentaries from Alberta, actually, suggesting that that kind of stance by Daniel Smith on the night of and the day after actually helps Trudeau. future, et cetera, et cetera, in such a way that, you know, they are at opposing positions. And it may be harder for Pierre Polyev than it is for Justin Trudeau to have that discussion if you're talking about seats beyond Alberta. So, you know, that was interesting.

In terms of the campaign itself and where things kind of went wrong, I mean, for years we've talked about, or it went wrong for the NDP, for years we've talked about the impact of debates, and we usually come down on the side of, you know, rarely does the debate really make that much of a difference. I think it actually might have made a difference here, you know, for the final turn in the campaign, because it was not a good night for Rachel Notley.

She didn't look comfortable. She looked nervous at times, certainly at the beginning, where it is Smith's kind of natural playground as a, you know, former broadcaster. She knows how to deal with certain situations uh that come up in a in a debate format so i actually i you know i think that was the beginning of the final slide for for rachel notley if one assumes that she started the campaign in a good position she certainly didn't finish it that way uh and and the debate may have been the final chance to recover for her.

Anyway, sometimes it's awfully hard to predict how these things are going to turn out in terms of the relationship between Ottawa and a key province. I mean, look at the Ontario-Ottawa relationship. Who would have thought that these two guys would be like, they look like they'd go to the pub and knock back a couple of beers together and cut up the cash on how to make things happen. I think that's right. It's impossible to say in part, I think, Peter,

that because the maybe the bigger challenge some days that Danielle Smith has isn't really a disagreement with the federal government, but discord within her own caucus. There are people who do not believe that any version of the federal climate policies make sense. And there are people and lots of people in Alberta who believe that policies to fight climate change do make sense and that a transition in energy is going to happen around the world and it is going to affect the investment market and the economy of Alberta and that the right choice for Alberta is to adapt to that and be smart and nimble and agile about that. And it's plausible to me that that's where Daniel Smith is coming from as well. But because of her own internal party dynamics, she may not want to say

that. So in other words, I'm saying what she might have been doing to say the things that she said about Trudeau on election night was really more about internal party management rather than sending a message to Ottawa about how she intends to negotiate or advocate on those policy issues. Okay. Moving to topic number two. And topic number two for me is sort of line of the week so far. Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the NDP, has been trying to find a way to look like he's just not spending every day waking up saying, how can I prop up Justin Trudeau today? Because that's certainly the way the Conservatives are portraying it. And so the Conservatives and their newfound buddies in the Bloc Quebecois

really went after Jagmeet Singh this week on terms of, you've got to pull the plug on these guys because of the johnson report you think the johnson report was not the right answers there's only one thing you can do about that is you've got to demand that trudeau gets rid of johnston and you know sets up a public inquiry you got to do that you got to do it now so you've got to you got to pull the plug on them which could cause an election could cause doesn't necessarily mean there would be one. So Singh goes back to his office and I guess talks to his advisors and said, what am I going to do to come out of this?

Well, I thought he came up with the line of the week because he's now saying, excuse me, I've got the hiccups here today. I've had them a lot lately. I don't know why that is. I mean, is it like an age thing? Hiccups? I don't think so. I'll Google know why that is. Is it like an age thing? I don't think so. I'll Google it. I don't think it's an age thing.

Anyway, he comes up with this line, which is, I'm not going to bring down the liberal government until I know we have a safe election process. Now, I thought that was a smart answer. Well, it's borderline brilliant. And I know we're going to get lots of people going, that is not brilliant. But look, I think that he, as you put it,

I mean, he needed to avoid this constant kind of, well, if you don't like this that the government did, why aren't you bringing them down? That's the jail of an opposition leader in a scenario like this. And he just got himself a stack of get out of jail free cards, and he's kind of put them right on his desk in the House of Commons, and he can use that same argument for everything. And because the conservatives have become so invested in this election integrity issue, which is a good thing, we should all be concerned about it. It's hard for them to criticize him for saying, I want to wait until we get to the bottom of this before we have an election. It's a very savvy, savvy move, even though I don't think that underneath the surface of it, it's really his view that we can't have another election until we sort that out, because who knows whether we'll ever get to the bottom of it,

whether we'll ever be able to prevent it. He hasn't really established, other than the idea that there should be a public inquiry and it shouldn't be led by David Johnson, he hasn't really established what success would look like in terms of the conditions where an election would be acceptable, nor do I think that he needs to. I think basically he's just sort of laid out a parameter for the kind of opposition that he wants to present that most people will hear and say, well, I don't want an election anyway, and it's a reasonable thing for him to be saying.

And therefore I'm going to listen less to the criticisms of him as propping up the liberals. I, again, I say borderline brilliant. I agree with that. You know, I think it was, I'd love to know who came up with it. You know, who is it? Like we know that Jerry Butts is the one who came up with it. You know, who is it? Like, we know that Jerry Butts is the one who came up with the line because it's 2015 when, you know, prepping Trudeau for the, what would be the obvious question about the gender balance in the cabinet when it was first announced in 2015.

And they'd been prepped an hour and a half or so before, and Butts had said, hey, just say, you know, well, it's 2015. And boom, that came out of Trudeau's mouth at the news conference, sounding like it was the first time he thought of it. And it was a great line. It made headlines around the world. Now, this one won't make headlines around the world, but it's worth headlines in this country because it make head you know it's it's worth

headlines in this country because it's a good answer a smart answer well you know and it could be the answer as you say for a long time he's got a stack of j get out of jail cards and he can use you can use it on any subject okay um topic number three um some might say, you know, in the States they have this phrase about Washington inside the Beltway. It's kind of talk that only people who live inside the Beltway, close to Capitol Hill, sort of get and talk about and understand. In Ottawa, it's rarely used, but I think it's a good comparison. It's like inside the Queensway, which is the kind of highway that runs through the center of Ottawa. And inside the Queensway, some of the talk sometimes becomes such that the rest of the country doesn't really, you know,

either understand it or want to even try and understand it. Well, here's an inside the Queensway discussion point and probably should be better known outside the Queen's Way. And that is the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council. Sounds very kind of, you know, official, and it is kind of official, but it's the top civil servant in Canada, federal civil servant in Canada. Has enormous influence with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office, and a running of government as a whole in the country. Well, this week, a new Clerk of the Privy Council was announced, replacing the outgoing Clerk of the Privy Council, Jan Charette.

It was well-known, well-liked, been in a number of top positions, deputy minister. I think she was high commissioner to the UK at one point, but of late has been the clerk of the Brewery Council. She's retiring, and a new guy gets the job. So give us the snapshot of why the new guy not only is important, but who he is. Yeah, look, I agree with you that a lot of people probably don't know the ins and outs of senior level public service appointments, but that, you know, the deputy level is a really important function in our system of government. And at the top of the deputies is the clerk. Very important role, both in two respects. I guess one is as an advisor to the prime minister and to the cabinet.

And second, as the person who oversees the operation of the many, many, many thousands of people who work in the federal public service. John Hannaford. First of all, I'm Janice Charette. I agree with your description of her, very well respected, very well regarded, has done a good public service for a long time. I met Janice, I think, back when both of us were doing a little bit to help Jean Charette back before she entered the public service and when she was more involved in the political side of things. But she went on to support governments of different stripes and very, very well. So kudos to her for an important public sector career.

And I hope she enjoys her retirement. John Hannaford, who will replace her towards the end of June, I guess, the latter part of June. Also a very well-regarded public servant who has most recently been the Deputy Minister at Natural Resources Canada. I particularly look for in his appointment is the continued influence that he's having with the minister that he reports to Jonathan Wilkinson on these important policies that relate to an energy transition, more clean power in Canada, electrification, climate-fighting policies that really require a perspective on how we transform parts of our economy. Mr. Hannaford has been significantly involved in that in the last little while. And I think that it's a measure of how confident the government is that he has helped Jonathan Wilkinson put those policies in a good

path, that they could take him out of that role and put him into the clerk role. And I think for people who believe that those are important policies for Canada, whether it's people in the mining sector or other sectors that are more directly impacted by those policies, his appointment will be a signal that there's somebody who's really knowledgeable about industrial issues, economic issues, natural resources, and energy issues. And I think that's an important choice for Mr. Trudeau to have made. Okay. We can take a break because I want to get back into it. In some ways, kind of the major topic for today,

if there is one major one, it's at least one that I've been fascinated by in the last couple of months, ever since Michelle Rempel-Garner was on our program, saying artificial intelligence, better pause here for a minute and see what we're dealing with because it could be getting out of hand if there's no way to kind of regulate it. This is a conservative speaking about regulation, about gatekeeping.

It was interesting coming from her, but she's very well versed on this subject. Anyway, some new details about AI, or some new warnings about AI AI coming from the AI sector itself. So we're going to talk about that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth, the Wednesday episode of The Bridge. Bruce Anderson is with us. I'm Peter Vansbridge. You're listening.

That's my ring doorbell. This program is not brought to you by ring, but because it keeps ringing, and then it'll say, you know, there is a person at your door. Amazon just left something for you. Well, you look at the door, and what it is is a truck going by in the distance. Oh.

And they've figured, you know, obviously I have the settings wrong, but whatever. You're listening on Sirius XM channel 167. Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. Or because this is Wednesday like Friday, you can also see us on your YouTube channel, our YouTube channel, and we're glad to have you with us. All right. I'm reading from a CNN summary of the news yesterday.

Listen to this. Human extinction. Think about that for a second. Really think about it. The erasure of the human race from planet Earth. That's what top industry leaders are frantically sounding the alarm about. These technologists and academics keep smashing the red panic button, doing everything they can to warn about the potential dangers artificial

intelligence poses to the very existence of civilization. On Tuesday, hundreds of top AI scientists, researchers, and others, including OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman, again voiced deep concern for the future of humanity, signing a one-sentence open letter to the public that aimed to put the risks the rapidly advancing technology carries with it in unmistakable terms. This is the sentence. Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal scale risks such as pandemics and

nuclear war, said the letter signed by many of the industry's most respected figures. It doesn't get more straightforward and urgent than that. These industry leaders are quite literally warning that the impending AI revolution should be taken as seriously as the threat of nuclear war. They're pleading for policymakers to erect some guardrails and establish baseline regulations to defang the primitive technology before it is too late. Now, talk about scary stuff, but suddenly we've gone from

AI, isn't that neat, look what chat GPT can do, to this is as big a problem, potential problem, as the threat of nuclear war. Now, it's hard to say, oh, these guys are over the top. These guys know what they're talking about. They're developing this. And they're pleading for the public's help in engaging, I guess, governments to say, okay, we've got to slow this down. We've got to see what we're dealing with. Where are you on all this?

Well, look, I think Peter it's, it's fun and interesting to try out chat GPT and to, and to see what it can do. I, the other night, you'll like this. I, I asked just, I was kind of fiddling around. I said, what's the best Italian restaurant in Ottawa? And immediately it spit back Northern Navy, which is a restaurant that I'm a partner in. And I was pretty happy with that. And of course, it only has data up until the end of 2021. So it doesn't have data about Cantina Gia, two plugs for our favorite restaurants in Ottawa. But all of that having been said, there's lots of obviously good things that will come of artificial intelligence.

Many, many, many, many good things that will come. But this is a really important question. And I agree with you that we've seen some politicians like Michelle Rempel-Garner and others talk about it in Canada. There is some policy work that's going on. It's good that these inventors and innovators are talking about it as well. I've seen in the past when people try to raise alarm about certain developments, what goes well, what works well, and what doesn't work quite as well. What doesn't work that well is if you can't specifically tell people what the risks are. And so that line of thinking that you just sort of quoted says, well, it could be as bad as nuclear war or pandemics. But they probably do need to spell out a couple of examples of the kinds of things that they're thinking about. I can imagine some of them, but they're going to be better at imagining what

those are. I think we just need to get beyond the, it could be as bad as nuclear war, and offer some specifics so that people can go, oh, I didn't realize it could do that. And if it can do that, then yes, I can be really terrified by it. The second thing, which I think is vital, is you have to have some idea of a solution. So you and I and others have been talking about, well, there need to be guardrails. But I can't take it beyond that. I don't know what the guardrail should be because I don't know what the capabilities are. And I think that there's a measure of everybody being a little bit hesitant to put their guardrail or gatekeeping, as you referred to it, idea on the table for fear that you'll immediately get pushback. People saying, well, that won't work because,

or that's the wrong way to do it because, that sort of thing. But I think we need to get into that conversation more directly in order for it to move beyond this kind of group of people outside government saying government needs to do something and there being kind of no reverberation that turns into very specific agendas. Now, I know that the agendas and the ideas will come. But if these individuals, as knowledgeable as they are, had some ideas about what those should be, it would be great to hear what they are. It

would be great to have governments start to look at those solutions born from the thought processes and the intelligence and the expertise of individuals like those who signed that letter. And the last thing for me, Peter, and I study this a lot around climate change, is if you make things sound hopeless to people, Does that make them more engaged in finding the solution? Or does it make them wander away from the conversation because they're depressed by it? You can tell by the way I put that question that often it is the case that the more dystopian the description of climate change, for example, is the fewer people will pay attention to it. It's kind of a human nature. It's a defense mechanism that gets triggered where people go, well, I can't think about that because I can't do anything about it or I can't do enough about it.

And I just don't want to be worried about something as existential as that. So I feel like we're in the very infancy of this conversation, hugely important conversation, and good for these individuals to be hitting the red alert button, stamping on the accelerator, saying, let's go down this road and figure it out quicker rather than slower. Because they're right that if too much development happens before there are guardrails, then it gets very, very difficult to muster the political will to put those guardrails in place. Lots of things happen that make that harder and harder to do the longer and longer it takes to get started. One of the, you know, I agree with you.

If you're going to start saying that it poses a bigger threat as a nuclear war, you better spell it out what you're actually talking about. And one of the areas that you occasionally hear being talked about, and it's no small thing, is the elimination of jobs. And we're not talking about, you know, hundreds of jobs or thousands of jobs. We're talking about millions of jobs that could be impacted by this. And this cuts to this sort of, you know, the end of the human race as we know it. Because, you know, take the, you know,

we tend to fall back sometimes on journalism, but you could talk about it in terms of government. You could talk about the public service. You know, the potential for eliminating lots and lots of jobs because you have a computer that can write all this stuff on its own, that you don't need them, is a real and pressing danger, right? I think the economic aspect of it is important, but I think I've been a little bit more of the view that the threat that they're describing is less about the economics.

Could be wrong, but I think it's less about the economics, and it's more about the potential for bad actors to use AI in ways that creates war, conflict, suffering, destruction. And partly I say that because I think that human nature being what it is, there will be an economy that gets created to replace the economy that gets disrupted. I don't think we know the exact scale of it. And there's going to be a lot of fighting over how to manage that and what areas there should be protection for the human activities involved, that sort of thing. There's a lot of work that's going to be done over the next 10 or 20 years in that area that

is going to figure out how to mitigate some of those economic impacts and dislocation. But I feel like if artificial intelligence could essentially recreate a version of you saying the things that you think people need to hear about and you advocate for violence or kind of an incorrect understanding of something that's going on. We've seen on a much smaller scale than AI can deliver in the future misinformation and disinformation and the effect that it has on politics and indeed even on areas of conflict. I think what these folks are saying is that we can magnify, we can imagine that impact being magnified significantly, whether it's how to deal with a pandemic, whether it's where a

conflict is occurring and who's responsible for what, whether it's giving people false information about who's doing what to whom and why, without controls, the ability to cause massive, massive conflict and damage is very real, I think. Have you, you know, beyond Michelle Rempel-Garner and a few other MPs who are now, you know, with her on this, do you see it as somewhere on the government agenda? I do. Yeah, I do. I think that there's a kind of an international version of the discussion that is the right way to look at it.

And then there's a domestic version of the discussion. It's hard to know how far along to say it is on the path between the starting point and what will be a finishing point, because I don't think we know what the finishing point will be. But if I'm looking for hopeful signs, the hopeful sign for me is that you don't right now have those who are the inventors of these tools forming some sort of an anti-regulation block. In effect, what you have is the opposite. want it to be regulated so that it manages to serve some sort of larger public interest, or at the very least doesn't undermine the public interest. Yeah, I do think that there are a lot of a lot more politicians who are alert to this. I think there's work going on in the public service in Canada and in other governments as well. Do you think these men and women who were part of

that announcement yesterday were over the top? Sometimes you have to be over the top to grab the attention. I mean, it certainly grabbed the attention, the words they were using. Yeah, I don't think that they were over the top. I think that what they did was they accomplished what they were trying to do, which is to get everybody talking about the significance of the issue. I think that if that's all they did for the next six months, I don't think that would be a good use of their voice. I think they should turn their platform to characterizing in more specific terms the specific risks that they see, even though they're all hypothetical, but so that people start to get a handle on, well, okay, that would be bad and we would need to do something to prevent that.

I think they need to play a significant role in coming up with ideas because they know how AI can be governed or adjusted or controlled or limited. What would some of those ideas be. And I think they need to kind of help prevent the creation of a dichotomy, a kind of a no regulation versus over-regulation. I think that it would be a mistake if we so limited the potential of AI that we deprived the world of the benefits that it can deliver, and it would be potentially an even bigger mistake if we went too far in the other direction. on building are not at this juncture owned by massive corporations that have a vested interest in protecting them from regulation, which is some of what we've seen in recent years. We should get at this work before we get into that kind of a situation, because the public interest really is what's at stake here and not just private interest.

All right. We've got a couple of minutes left. So, you know, like Jagmeet Singh has his stack of get-out-of-jail-free cards in front of him, you've got a couple of you-can-whack-Donald-Trump-one-more-time cards if you want to use one before we sign off for today. Well, I'm not going to, but the reason I'm not going to is that I wrote a piece that's going to be published and will probably post it on National News Watch today, which said that if you're one of those people, maybe like me, who's been kind of hoping and thinking that Donald Trump won't be elected president again, it might be time to recognize that as optimism rather than analysis.

And the reason I say that is that I was looking through a lot of U.S. research in the last couple of days. And in the, I want to say the five polls that have been done since the jury in the civil suit found him liable for sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, head-to-head polls, Trump versus Biden, Trump has won four of those polls in the period since that decision was announced. When I look at the internals of the GOP race, the DeSantis, Pence, Asa Hutchinson, the other potential candidates nikki haley tim scott they're all dwarfed by his by trump's level of support and uh harry enton cnn's uh polling analyst who i'm sure you've seen many times really smart fellow he, he wrote a piece for CNN that talked about the lovability gap between Trump and DeSantis. And I thought that was a strange term because I don't, you know, personally, I don't find either of them very lovable. But what he was saying is that among Republican voters, the number of people who feel very favorable towards Donald Trump is high. And the number of people who feel very favorable,

really love Ron DeSantis is lower and is getting lower still. So that DeSantis is losing some lovability as people get to know him a little bit better, but Trump isn't. And the other name that I was really struck by is Pence. This was obviously Trump's vice president. And in these polls of Republican voters asking which of these candidates will you support, Trump gets 10 times the support that Pence does. 10 times, even though, you know, it's hard to imagine why people there might want to go back to Trump. But I think my big takeaway from it all is I don't think that there's a line he hasn't crossed. I don't think there's an outrageous thing that he could find to say that's more outrageous than the things that he said before. As his legal problems deepen, his lead over his rivals widens. And I don't know if he can beat Joe Biden, but it looks pretty clear that he can beat the other Republicans. And he looks pretty competitive against Biden right now. So not taking a bat to him. In fact, I'm saying

the rest of the world probably needs to buckle up because we could be in for another term of Trump in the White House. At this rate, Bruce will be wearing a mega hat by next week you can see it already big red hat i don't think that's what i was saying but uh it's open to interpretation i suppose like everything else well there's one thing that can that seems to be sure is the race is going to get even wider which plays to trump's advantage at least did last time around in 2016. But, you know, Chris Christie and others are, you know, are going to get in. I still think the guy to watch is Sununu, the governor of New Hampshire.

I think he's the guy who can stop Trump. But who knows? You know, you may be right. I mean, look, I think Sununu, you mentioned him the other day, I think he's a good candidate. I think there are all of those candidates with the possible exception of DeSantis. No, they're all better than Trump, in my opinion. But some of them are, you know, quite, I think, plausible as presidents. But I don't think there's any evidence that beyond hopefulness that the Republican base is interested in picking them.

Yeah, I'm going to be interested to watch Christie. He can't win, but he can really dirty it up. And he wants to dirty it up against Trump. He is so upset about what it's doing to his party. Well, it's an act of public service. He wants people to clearly understand. I hope he does. I hope he does.

But I also feel like there's been a kind of a quiet understanding among the media, maybe not an understanding in the sense that they share what they're doing. But it's been a couple of years where the coverage of Trump has been relatively limited. Relatively. Don't tell CNN that. And that's going to change. I mean, as we get further into this race, he remains ahead. Everybody's going to give him the coverage that he wants, or at least a lot more coverage than he's been getting.

Yeah, but the court TV isn't everything. He loves a fight, though. He loves a fight. So Chris Christie will come after him and he'll love it. I mean, last night he was tweeting bullets at Kaylee McEnany, who was his press secretary because she mischaracterized his lead over Ron DeSanctimonious, is what he called him, said he was only up by 25 points when she knew that he was up by 32 points. And why did she say that?

I mean, this guy is, well, I'm back into my. Yeah, get your hat out. We all know. We've all thought all along that you were a delic deeply. You know, the Bruce Anderson that came up front was a deep fake. The real Bruce Anderson was the, was the MAGA hatted guy. Now you're finally, it's coming out now. Now we can see. Yeah. Okay. Good. Good. All right. Listen, that was good. Good.

Good conversation. Look forward to a Friday. Chantel joins us. You know, it's, as I said, we're into June as of tomorrow and we'll all be looking forward to a summer break in a few weeks. So these last sessions before that takes place are really important. They're critical in terms of

setting the table for a summer off and get ready for another exciting fall. So thank you very much, Bruce, and we'll talk to you again on Friday. Thursday, tomorrow, we have your turn. So if you have thoughts on any of these subjects or what we've heard already this week,

please send it along to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com, the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Include your name and where you're writing from. Get it in today if you want it on tomorrow's episode of Your Turn. I'm Peter Mansbridge for Bruce Anderson. Thanks for listening to us today. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.