The Bulwark Podcast - Karen Tumulty: The Sununu Effect in New Hampshire

Episode Date: November 21, 2023

New Hampshire voters are famously contrarian, and the non-MAGA set is showing up for Haley and Christie ahead of the first-in-the-nation primary. Plus, a Rosalynn Carter appreciation, and the 'Lord of the Flies' vibe in the House. Karen Tumulty joins Charlie Sykes from New Hampshire. show notes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/20/rosalynn-carter-place-in-history/ 

This message comes from BetterHelp. Can you think of a time when you didn't feel like you could be yourself? Like you were hiding behind a mask? BetterHelp Online Therapy is convenient, flexible, and can help you learn to be your authentic self so you can stop hiding. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P dot com.

This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to. At work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself, so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Whether you're navigating workplace stresses, complex relationships, or family dynamics,

therapy's a great tool for facing your fears and finding a way to overcome them. If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit betterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P, dot com. Welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. It is two days before Thanksgiving.

I think we're kind of ramping down for the holiday. I hope everybody has a great Thanksgiving. But before we descend into the long weekend, I wanted to get a view from, well, from the front lines, from the field. And so we are very fortunate to be joined by The Washington Post's Karen Tumulty, who is on the ground in New Hampshire this morning. So first of all, welcome back to the podcast, Karen. Well, thank you very much and happy Thanksgiving. So let's talk about what you are seeing and doing because you have been very, very busy. You've seen Nikki Haley in action. You've seen Chris Christie. You're going to see Ron DeSantis.

So just give me a sense of what's happening up in New Hampshire, because the conventional wisdom is, okay, it's Donald Trump's party. He's going to win. There's a race for second. Nikki's having her moment. So let's start with Nikki Haley. Is there a little bit of Nikki momentum going on there? Yeah, I think there is. And, you know, the other thing that I'm seeing here is a lot of very curious voters. And of course, in New Hampshire, you have not only the Republican base, but independents can vote in the primary. And there's no Democratic primary. So to the degree they vote, they're all going to be playing in the Republican primary. And they're just already, and this is a holiday week, a lot of people showing up to hear these people. But I think the single most interesting factor, the bell of the ball up here, is Governor Chris Sununu, who is appearing with all of these other candidates. And he, as you know, has broken with Trump. He is extremely popular up here. And he is making it pretty clear that

he is going to endorse somebody, probably certainly one of these three. And that when he does, he's going, as he put it with me yesterday, 110%. Now, you can say endorsements don't matter. And as popular as he is, does it rub off on other people? But what he has is an incredibly deep and robust

network. You know, he's a two-generation name up here. And, you know, that really could, I think, potentially make a difference. Well, this is always the big question is whether or not popularity is transferable. You know, we have the Republican governor of Iowa that has endorsed Ron DeSantis, you know, despite the fact that he's running double digits behind Donald Trump. Donald Trump's very, very unhappy about it. New Hampshire is just a different beast, though. I mean, I think we just ought to step back. New Hampshire voters are just notoriously contrarian and independent, right? I mean, there's something distinctive about the New Hampshire primary. It's not just it's the first primary. It's not just the sort of weird artifact of American democracy. So give me a sense of who these people are that are showing up and what

they're looking for. Well, New Hampshire has a history in both parties of kind of whacking back at whoever wins Iowa. They love to do that. They're sort of contrarian. And I do think that where in Iowa, you know, you have a huge evangelical Christian base. Here, voters across the board, I think, tend to be a little more libertarian, a little more independent minded. I mean, this is a place where it says live free or die on the license plates. snubbing them this time around and putting their first primary in South Carolina, you do get a sense that they are quite eager to protect their tradition and their first in line status. And certainly the governor is quite eager. Their primary is relatively early. I think it's what, like eight days after Iowa. So it's nine weeks away and it's starting to feel pretty close. Okay. So, I mean, the Republican Party is really Trump's party. He's

got more than 60% of the vote. Are New Hampshire Republicans different than the National Republicans? I mean, that's what I'm trying to get out of here is that the people who are showing up to hear Nikki Haley and Chris Christie, clearly they have not all bought into Donald Trump. Is the New Hampshire Republican Party significantly less MAGA than other states? Again, I am talking to people who are showing up to hear Nikki Haley, so these are not, and they were wearing these little buttons that say NH, hard emoji, N-H. So it's a luck of the draw that her initials are perfect for a little slogan up here. But I do get the sense, like I said, that a lot of people are shopping. And the thing is, too, if you look at the poll numbers, here's the big question for me. I mean, if you look at the poll numbers, if you were to take Nikki Haley

and add it to Chris Christie and add it to DeSantis, all of these people are kind of within the margin of error of each other. But if you add it all three together against Donald Trump, you got a race. So another question is, is anybody going to step aside? Is anybody going to drop out? Because as long as there are all three there, it works to Trump's advantage. Oh, very much so. I mean, this is the replay of 2016. Are you working under the assumption that all three go right up through the New Hampshire

primary, that if there's a sorting, it would only take place afterwards? What do you think? You definitely get the sense that both Haley and Christie are in it. I mean, Christie's ignoring Iowa. He's putting all of his chips here. I don't know, though, if DeSantis doesn't do well in Iowa, where he is putting most of his resources, you know, there may be a way to nudge him out. But again, I have not seen him up here. We still have nine weeks. But I think if any of the three is likely to be nudged either out or to the sidelines. Right. Okay. So DeSantis supporters, though, they're not necessarily just going to break for another non-Trump candidate. My sense is looking at some of these numbers that

Ron DeSantis drops out that Donald Trump is basically their second choice, that he was sort of MAGA without the baggage. So you take him out of there and then might as well go with the original MAGA, with the OG. What do you think? Yeah, exactly. And also Chris Christie, who's been the most kind of direct in attacking Trump up here, on the thesis that there's a very different electorate here and that this is a way to bring in some of those independents who can vote in the primary here. But you have seen his negatives go up very

sharply with the Republican base. So what is Nikki Haley's message there? I'm trying to get a sense of how they are pitching themselves. I mean, look, we know that they're politicians, so they're going to pitch themselves differently to New Hampshire voters than to, say, Iowa evangelicals. And something's working for Nikki right now. We'll get to Chris Christie in a moment. What is her pitch? Why Republicans should ditch Donald Trump for her? Or does she not put it in those terms?

She uses a lot of the lines that we've heard her use quite effectively on the debate stage. She talks a lot about the need for a generational change in this party. She talks a lot about the need to get beyond the drama. And she also digs pretty deep into foreign policy. She is really the only candidate who is touting her credentials there. She has a really clear lines of difference with the other candidates on Ukraine. So does she bring up Ukraine on the stump, Ukraine and Israel? She does. The way she portrays it is that this is a unified field, that what happens in Ukraine is going to affect what happens in the Middle East, and that's going to affect what happens in Ukraine is going to affect what happens in the Middle East, and that's going to

affect what happens in Taiwan. That, you know, all of these autocrats are watching each other, that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, that's going to embolden China. If the United States doesn't stand up for Israel, that's going to, you know, the argument she makes is this is one issue, not three. What kind of a reception does she get, though? How do Republicans in New Hampshire react to this? I'm putting this in the context of this rising isolationism, America first, that you're seeing in polls, you're seeing in Congress. And New Hampshire has kind of an isolationist streak, anti-war streak. So how does it play there?

Again, I have mostly seen her in front of audiences who have come out to hear her. Because they're pre-selected to agree with her. Right. But they are receptive. And the other thing that she does is talks about the border as an issue that is not just a southern issue, but a northern issue. And that is something to know about here in New Hampshire, where, you know, they have had a big border problem, which is fentanyl coming in over the border. The Canadian border. Yes. is fentanyl coming in over the border, over the northern border.

Yes. So border security does have a resonance up here that I think all of the candidates would do well to understand. Okay. So does she raise that? This always feels surreal when we're talking about this Republican primary, because of course, you know, the great orange elephant looming over all of this is the fact that, you know, Donald Trump is the front runner, is the, you know, expected nominee, and he's facing multiple criminal charges and seems to become, I'm trying to finish this

sentence without using the word fascist, but I'm going to fail, you know, continues to signal exactly what kind of regime he would bring in if it was a Trump 2.0. Does she talk about that at all? Or is that just something that I know that Chris Christie raises it, but does anyone other than Chris Christie talk about the fact that the Republican Party might actually nominate a convicted felon or certainly somebody who is under criminal indictment? Does that ever come up anywhere other than a Chris Christie event? No, Charlie. And that is what really struck me last night, because Chris Christie is the only one of the candidates who is talking about the charges against Trump on their merits. Nikki Haley kind of tries to sidestep it. She talks

about how, well, they don't treat the Democrats this way, and that's not, you know, it's a deflection. She certainly, though, doesn't go as far as Vivek Ramaswamy, a name, by the way, I'm not hearing much here, to say Trump should be pardoned. But it really is only Chris Christie who actually deals with the substance of the charges against Donald Trump, again, on their merits. Let's talk a little bit about Chris Christie. I talked about this with my colleague Will Salatin on our podcast yesterday. Chris Christie's made it very, very clear that he was basically a one-man wrecking ball going after Donald Trump. It seems to me, at least from the outside, that he's really sort of stepping into this role that he's kind of sharpening his critique. I don't know, how does he appear on the stump? Because, you know, I'm sitting here in Wisconsin thinking, you know,

Chris Christie is this magnificent beast who's also seems like the happy warrior. He seems to be enjoying himself. And he seems to actually, when he talks about, say, moral clarity, the moral clarity of calling out dangers to democracy, it feels like the longer that he's in the race, the sharper his critique is. Do you have any sense of this? Oh, I absolutely agree. And he's also, at least, you know, from what I've seen lately, just the most engaging candidate on the stump. And you're right. He is a happy warrior. He's funny. I also find that he is taking on not only Trump, but his opponents, his other opponents in the primary. I mean, he is telling people, look, you know, these other people that I'm running against, they will tell you they will send the

army into Mexico. They're not going to do that. They're not going to be shooting people on site at the border. That's just not the kind of country we are. But, you know, but basically telling them they are selling you a line. Again, it's an argument that nobody else is making. He also talks quite a bit about his own experiences as governor. Somebody asked him last night, would you appoint Democrats to your cabinet? He said, I appointed Democrats to key positions when I was governor. I was the governor of a blue state. So he's making the electability argument, I think, as well. The question is, though, the more he does all of this, the more he drives up his negatives with the MAGA base. Well, right. And that's why this is great political

theater, but it's not going to end up, I have spoiler alert, with him getting the Republican nomination. I thought you tweeted about something that he said last night. He's also willing to take on the Republicans in Congress, including the new speaker, Mike Johnson. Let's play this little clip where he talks about all the celebration of the fact that the new speaker, Mike Johnson. Let's play this little clip where he talks about all the celebration of the fact that the new speaker managed not to actually crash the government, managed to not shut down the government. This was Chris Christie. You look at Washington, these jokers take a victory lap for not closing the government and think like they deserve a big round of applause for that. Congratulations, you didn't close the government.

You're supposed to be down there running. I don't think that deserves any great round of applause. But they do because they haven't had a president who has worked with them and made them understand that our job is to work for you. So tell me why you thought that was interesting. I just thought it was interesting to hear a Republican candidate for president repeatedly referring to the Republicans who are running the House as clowns. You know, it's well, I think he's pretty much expressing how a lot of people feel about Congress right now. You did write a piece a little while ago.

I want to get back to Rhonda Sandis in a moment. Mike Johnson might be more skillful than expected. That was written before the final deal went through. By the way, second paragraph of that piece is more skillful than expected. That's a pretty low bar. Yeah, that's a pretty low bar. Yeah, that's a very low bar. Well, and actually since then, I mean, so we had that one deal, they didn't close down the government. And then it was just one clown car crash after another under the speakership, including the failure to pass any of these individual appropriation bills.

They couldn't even get the rules through. And then they essentially just kind of threw up their hands and went home. There's no indication so far, well, and correct me if you have other evidence on this, weirdly enough, and we live in these weird times, there's no indication that all of this chaos and dysfunction is actually costing Republicans in the polls. There seems to be this massive disconnect between what's happening in the presidential race or in the Congress. And then you see how voters are processing it, and it doesn't seem to register. I think in part it's because voters have gotten so cynical about Congress ever getting anything done other than lurch from crisis to crisis. That's become normalized.

They just sort of assume that it's going to be like this. Exactly. And going back to Mike Johnson, I mean, Mike Johnson as speaker seems far more pragmatic than Mike Johnson as backbencher was. First of all, the people who are causing all the chaos on the House floor and not letting them proceed to even pass what they call the rule to get a bill onto the floor are the exact same people who keep claiming they want regular order. What we have with this very short window before the next time we look at whether the government closes down is, you know, could they at least try and pass one or two of these 12 appropriations bills, which I think is something they haven't done since, I believe, 2016.

It's been a while. They just keep rolling up all government spending into these hairball bills that get written in the leadership offices with no transparency. What the heck is the Appropriations Committee doing? Well, I always wonder this. Now, so you mentioned that Mike Johnson seems more pragmatic as speaker. And yeah, in the first few weeks, he seems that. But on the other hand, he presides over a caucus that is anything but pragmatic. And it's sort of this Rubik's Cube. How do you get things done? How do you get the aid for Israel? How do you get the aid for Ukraine without being blown up by the same people that blew up Kevin McCarthy and without relying heavily on democratic votes. I mean, I frankly don't see how he does.

Now, he may want to get it done and he may have this mild demeanor, but he's never chaired a committee. He has no experience doing this. I mean, this is a guy who is way out of his depth in a situation where even if you were a master legislator, you'd probably have a hard time navigating this. Well, he's going to need the Democrats, and he got the Democrats to get the government to remain open. The thing about it is because I think the MAGA Republicans in the House still view him as one of their own, I think even they have to realize how mortifying it was for the country to see them go three weeks without being able to come up with a speaker. you do get a sense that Johnson's going to get a little more leeway than Kevin McCarthy got to do exactly what Kevin McCarthy did and got fired for. If he ends up doing exactly the kind of thing that Kevin McCarthy would have done. But is it Mike Johnson's house or is it Matt Gaetz's house? Gosh, who wants that house?

Well, exactly, yes. It's nobody's house. It's Lord of the Flies in there. Okay, let's go back to New Hampshire. I'm really intrigued by the role of Chris Sununu. You said he's kind of the bell of the ball, very, very popular governor. It's a very small state. He knows everybody. He's got these deep networks. He's showing up with the various candidates and he's going to go in, as you point out, 110% for whoever it is. I'm guessing it's not going to be Ron DeSantis. So is he waiting to see who is the strongest opponent to Trump? I mean, if we go into January and Nikki Haley continues to rise. What do you sense? What does he say at the events that he shows up at? He just keeps reminding voters of how important they are, but surely he is taking an assessment of who's got the better shot. You know, and there's also something to think about

here. And again, he insists this is not part of his calculation. But, you know, say you had a female governor from South Carolina get the nomination. She could pick worse running mates than a New England governor from a swing state. You know, who knows what all is going to go into his calculation. But I do think he does bring a lot. He is one of the more articulate people I've ever heard in making the case against Donald Trump. And he's not afraid to do it. And you do have, as he was saying yesterday, a network where whoever he endorses, he can introduce them to every selectman and every school board member and all the people that the Sununu network, going back two generations, has cultivated. We ought to clarify that even though he's broken with Donald Trump and makes the case against Donald Trump, he is among those Republicans who has said that he will support the nominee. He tried to finesse that months ago by saying, well, I'll support

the nominee, but it's not going to be Donald Trump. So I don't really have to make that statement. What does he say now? Now that it's increasingly likely that it's going to be Donald Trump. He is not being asked that anymore. And of course, I mean, come on, Charlie, you know, I mean, if Trump's the nominee, they're all going to support Donald Trump. Well, when you say all of them, see, this is what's interesting is that cognitive shift from saying, you know, this man is, he's crazy. He's a danger to the Republic.

He's become detached from reality. Yes, but by all means, I will vote to put him back in the Oval Office. I mean, it's just, I mean, we know that partisanship and tribalism can be a hell of a drug, but this year it's really, it's amazing watching some of these guys make the case against Trump now. And then, you know, with the gravitational pull of partisan loyalty coming back home after it's all over. And then all we're going to hear is, well, he's not Joe Biden. You know, it was interesting. I was sitting next to one voter yesterday at the Haley event, and she was saying, she's a staunch Republican. She said her kids are both Democrats. But she said, I don't know what I do if it comes down to Trump versus Biden, because I can't vote for Trump and I can't vote for Biden.

And I'm going to go to the polls and write somebody in. These are the double haters. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm wondering, too, I mean, our assumption has always been that having Trump on the ballot drives turnout on both sides. But if we end up having two nominees that at least all indications now are people just aren't enthusiastic about, I wonder if turnout just goes through the floor. Yeah, well, it's hard to predict what the mood in the country is going to be. So let's talk about Joe Biden for a moment. It's going to be very, very hard to get even some of these anti-Trump Republicans to vote for Joe Biden. But we had another one of these panic polls this week showing

that Donald Trump is actually leading Joe Biden, his approval ratings being down at pretty much historic lows. Give me your sense of like, what is Joe Biden's problem? Why is Joe Biden having such a hard time connecting with the American public? What do you think is going on here? I think number one, if you're talking about why he personally is having trouble connecting his age. Ronald Reagan had a supposed age issue. When he was nominated, he was three weeks short of his 70th birthday. I mean, when he was about his age, but I do think there's just kind of a sour mood in the country that, yes, there's economic growth and, yes, inflation has slowed down, but you go to the grocery store and everything still looks pretty expensive.

And the world is outside our borders is looking like such a scary place. But I honestly think that polls this far out and when you don't have an actual defined race, I genuinely don't think they are dispositive. OK, because so many voters are still in denial about the fact that it's going to be Trump versus Biden. Yeah. And also an election is a choice. So if you ask people, what do you think of Joe Biden? It's one thing. But if you say, if you, you know, if you got to look at these two people and vote for one, I just think these numbers are just too close. And in most people's mind, an election that is a year away is still too theoretical. Does Joe Biden have a Jimmy Carter problem? Not like Jimmy Carter had a Jimmy Carter problem. I mean, there was that perception that he, you know, people might not have disliked him,

but that he was kind of perceived to be weak, did not bestride the world state in a relatively forceful way. And then there was just the accumulation of reasons to be dissatisfied with what was going on in the world. There are presidents that connect with the American public. The American public says, I am with that guy. I trust him, even if I disagree with him. There seems to be a lack of connection. And I know that Democrats are immensely frustrated by this because they say,

but look, look at all of the programs and policies he has put into place. You know, they are all successful or they say that they poll well. And yet, for some reason, this is not translating into support for Joe Biden, the person. But Jimmy Carter had so many specific crises going on at the same time. I mean, we had Americans being held hostage in the Iranian embassy and Ted Koppel counting it down the number of days every night. We had lines at the gas pump. Well, we have hostages in Gaza. It still, I think, feels like a far off thing. And again, who knows how this plays out over the months. And by the way, it's worth pointing out

when the Americans were first taken hostage in Iran, Carter's numbers went through the roof. People really rallied around him. And that basically killed Ted Kennedy's challenge of him in his primary challenge. But the fact that it dragged on was what really, I think, killed him. Well, and the fact that they had the one-year anniversary right before the election. So speaking of Jimmy Carter, and I'm sorry to bring him in in sort of a negative way, you wrote a wonderful appreciation for Rosalind Carter. So let's talk a little bit about the former first lady and what she represented. You opened your column by noting that the former first lady, who died on Sunday, wore the same gown to her husband's presidential inaugural balls in 1977 that she wore to his gubernatorial inauguration.

This was a gown that was actually bought off the rack in Georgia. That still seems kind of refreshing. And in the context of the times, it was kind of a moment of like someone who was like us. So talk to me a little bit about her because you've written a fantastic book about Nancy Reagan. Rosalind Carter, very, very different first lady. Yes. And this decision of hers to wear the same dress that she had worn six years before and had worn at least once in between was, believe it or not, criticized at the time. How dare she? The New York Times was kind of sniffy about it, right?

Mutters were heard from members of the fashion industry who felt the first lady could ill afford such a sentimental gesture. But, you know, part of it spoke to her humility and her frugality. I mean, this is the first lady who had let us know that she was bringing her sewing machine to the White House. But I think, too, it was a signal to the country that Rosalind Carter did not intend to be just an ornament on her husband's presidency. And certainly, we have seen that many of the first ladies in history, and especially first ladies in modern history, were in fact highly influential in their husband's presidency. But the deal was, you weren't supposed to let the world know that you were influential. So they would all, with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt, would just sort of

pretend as, was it Bess Truman or Mamie Eisenhower who said, my husband runs the country and I flip the lamb chops. But Rosalind Carter made no pretense, nor did her husband. It was considered a radical act when she showed up at cabinet meetings and sat there quietly taking notes. And she was really frustrated by some of the reactions she would get from breaking against those stereotypes, even in the 1970s when, you know, second wave feminism was in its bloom. And I thought it was interesting that it was her predecessor, Betty Ford, who gave her a piece of advice that she really took to heart. She said, look, you're going to get criticized no matter what you do, so you might as well do what you want to do. That sounds very Barbara Bush.

She wrote in her autobiography that Jimmy and I had always worked side by side. It's a tradition in Southern families and one that is not seen in any way demeaning to the man. I also think there was not a very subtle implication. The cabinet meetings were no place for a wife. I was supposed to take care of the house, period. And she knew that this would raise eyebrows, that she would show up at the cabinet meetings. But you also point out she challenged traditional constraints that had been put on other first ladies and maybe making it easier for people like Hillary Clinton. She traveled abroad. She met heads of state on matters of

actual substance, right? I mean, as you reminded us, she also would interrupt her husband at White House dinners to explain something more clearly than he was doing. It's pretty remarkable when you think about that. And I really do think that the First Ladies who have come since really owe her a great debt for, you know, kind of clearing a path that gave all of them a lot more ability to kind of decide for themselves. Because First Lady is such a tough, you know, it's a role that comes with so many expectations, but, you know, no job description. I mean, each of them has had to make this role their own. And also, each of them, you know, as they find themselves in their own moment in history, you know, as a partner to someone whose weaknesses and strengths they understand like no one else does. I do think Rosalind Carter made it easier

for those who came after her. You also pointed out, though, that her instincts were not always perfect. I mean, she kept a very, very close eye on politics. She was very much a political creature, but she was the one who urged Jimmy to shake up his cabinet and to give that famous crisis of confidence address to the nation, which is often called the malaise speech, even though he didn't use the word malaise. That's what I was actually thinking of before that sort of that sense of Jimmy Carter, the malaise speech in some ways defined him in a way that I don't think that he intended. Maybe it was completely unfair, but that was her idea? She was very much on board and pushing him to do this. Now, would he have done it without her influence? Who knows, but the other thing is, and I found this as I was researching my own book, the wives often carry the scars, even in a way their husbands don't.

And when Jimmy Carter lost in 1980, someone said to him, you know, you don't seem all that bitter. And she says, because I'm bitter enough for both of us. Which is really interesting, because when I read that, I was thinking, well, that's, that's really not the persona that you think of. But, but it is true that I think one of the hardest things in politics is to be the spouse of the candidate or the official, because you're taking all the arrows, but you don't always have the ability to fire back in the same kind of way. And I have noted this in the past, but yeah, that quote, I am bitter enough for the both of us. What was she bitter about? I think that her husband's achievements were not recognized, which certainly they have been, I think in some ways, a lot more by history than by

the population. Then she was mad at Reagan. When I was writing my own book, one of the great mysteries to me was why did Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush hate each other so much. And it was George Will, who was very close to Nancy Reagan, said, because, you know, the wives sometimes can't get past things. And the two of them never got past the 1980 primary. Wow. How did Nancy get along with Rosalind Carter? Oh, they didn't get along either. Maybe it was a Nancy issue. Well, it could have been. In fact, so as Nancy Reagan is getting in trouble for a number of things early in her own time as first lady, the biggest you might remember was in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. She raised private money to buy a set of $1,000 a place setting China, new China for the White House. Basically, Nancy Reagan would get up and say, basically, that

Carter should just let the place go. And finally, Rosalind Carter gets up and says, you know, I thought it was sort of charming to mix place settings. And we always tried to make it, I mean, she had just sort of, Rosalind just sort of had it. And the other thing Nancy Reagan did was she called up, you know, people who were running the White House and asked if it was possible for the Carters to move out a little early so that they could start redecorating. That didn't go over well either. No, you wouldn't expect that it would. You know, you think back, I mean, I was thinking as you were describing the long history of very, very influential first ladies. It is such an interesting story because, of course, you had some who were not particularly,

at least as far as we know, not particularly impactful. But then you have the Eleanor Roosevelt's, you have the Edith Wilson's, and you have Lady Bird Johnson and, of course, Nancy Reagan. And then, of course, leading up to Hillary Clinton. In some ways, Melania Trump is really the exception, being one of the, obviously, quite glamorous, but really, in the tradition of influential first ladies, probably the most negligible. What do you think? Yeah, I think her big initiative, which was to, you know, that Be Best initiative where she was talking about anti-bullying. I couldn't tell

whether she was trolling her husband. Yeah, I don't think that people like historians are going to look back and one of the turning points in civility in America was the Trump administration's Be Best initiative. I suppose if you looked at it askance, you could say, yeah, this is her way of trying to distance herself from the husband. I mean, it is extraordinary when you think about how close many of these couples were and how much their stories are intertwined. Donald Trump is going through some things right now, and Melania is never at his side. And I'm trying to think, is there a historical parallel to that? I mean, it's just odd, don't you think? It is unusual. And I think another contrast here, there's a wonderful Netflix documentary based on this Lady Bird book that

came out a few years ago, where they're playing the audio from Lady Bird's diary. And again, as I point out in the column, it shows her influence, but the fact that she stipulated that these diaries couldn't come out until after her death was evidence that she didn't want people to know how influential she was. But what she would do, she was an incredibly important source of support and strength to her husband as he was suffering what sounded like some pretty severe problems with depression. And again, this is certainly not the sort of role you hear about from Melania, but who knows, maybe there's a Melania audio diary that we will get to hear someday. That's possible. It could be there somewhere. I'm not going to hold out a great deal of hope for all of this. Karen Tumulty is associate editor and columnist for The Washington Post on the ground, on

the front lines in New Hampshire. Thank you so much for taking time out from the field to talk with us today. I appreciate it. And have a happy Thanksgiving. Thank you, Charlie. It is always a pleasure. And just a reminder that with everything that's going on, we still actually do have things to be thankful for. And thank you all for listening to today's Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. I will be back next week, and we'll do this all over again.

The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.