The Daily Beast Podcast - Is Tucker Carlson a True Believer?

Episode Date: September 30, 2022

Is Tucker Carlson really a true believer in the MAGA world? Has he taken a dive too deep in the Republican rabbit hole? Or is this all just a performance for the ratings? For the money? For the clout? It’s a vexing question, according to host Andy Levy on this week’s episode of political podcast The New Abnormal. “We’ve had many conversations about the performative aspect of this and trying to figure out who we think are true believers,” Levy says to guest, the author and CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp. Also on the podcast, Levy talks to guest podcast host Maura Quint, co-founder of Tax March and the campaign director for Americans for Tax Fairness, about a recent Gallup poll finding that trust in the Supreme Court is at a record low. Then Levy tells Daily Beast politics reporter Zachary Petrizzo that the only surprising part of that New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman’s new Trump book was that Trump aides were apparently taken aback by his crude, transphobic behavior. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy, and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. And I'm producer Jesse Kennan, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some great guest co-hosts, as well as some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try to make some sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What an excellent show we have today.

First, we're going to talk to author and CNN political commentator, S.E. Cup. And she's going to try to make sense of what's going on with the Republican Party. Then we're going to talk to Daily Beast political reporter, Zach Petruzzo, who of course covers some of the more wacky parts of the right wing, and he's got a lot to tell us today. But first, we have a special guest host with Mora Quinn, who's a co-founder of Tax March and the campaign director for Americans for Tax Fairness,

as well as a lefty contributor to talk in print media. Mara Quint. Andy Levy. So, first of all, thanks for being here. Thanks for sitting in and guest hosting with us. It's an honor to have you on. It's an honor that people remember I exist. Thank you for inviting me on.

Well, I'm glad we could honor you in that way. It's all honors all around. We're feeling very honored now. Yes, it's an honorable show. Oh, good. Are you ready, Mara, for what is going to happen if the Republicans take over the House after the 2024 elections because I don't know if you are. Am I going to be put on a boat?

I assume that something I'm going to be just sort of set up to see if that happens, right? Maybe. And it's not going to be like a fun. It's not going to be like a cruise. Not a party boat. Ah, damn it. Okay. Yeah.

But we have a bunch of Republicans most recently, Matt Gates, a favorite of this show, saying that the top priority, if the GOP takes back the House, should be impeaching President Joe Biden. He says it's a bigger priority than any policy or any legislation. So that's what we have to look forward to. Any thoughts on this? Pro or con impeaching President Joe Biden? Well, I understand why that would be their first priority

because otherwise everything is great in the country, right? Like everybody's doing really, really well, I think, from what I can tell. We've got like global warming completely under our apps. That's fine. No problem. Hurricane's not an issue right now. Everybody's happy. Everybody has money. Everybody can like afford to live. So yeah, I mean, you know, go after your political rival for no reason. I think that seems normal and not at all. Like we're inching ever so closely to a fascist state every single day. No, it's fine. Yeah. Not even remotely anything like that.

No, nothing like that. What do you think? Are you feeling good about that? Here's my thing. Gates is not the first Republican to bring this up. Senator Ted Cruz, Republican Can't Love him. Earlier this year said sort of a similar thing. Also just recently, I think last weekend, it was Republican Nancy Mace from South Carolina, said that there's a lot of pressure on GOP members to move forward with a presidential impeachment, this according to Steve Bennon at MSNBC.com. And it's interesting because all of these people say the same thing. Joni Ernst is another one from Iowa. They all say that there's going to be a lot of pressure to do this. And I assume this pressure will be coming from inside the house. But none of them say really what they're going to impeach him for.

As Steve Benin actually writes, this was back in 2020. She was sort of asked, well, what would you impeach him for? And her quote was, I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened. So what they're trying to pull here is basically say that Donald Trump, who famously had two impeachments, was impeached for no reason, which is not the case. But so they're trying to, they're basically saying, well, you guys impeach Trump for no reason, so we're going to impeach Biden for no reason. Sure. I like to see people acting like children on a playground. So this is very good to me.

I think it's great when adults can not lose their sense of sort of childish abandon and go back to their roots. No, the temper tantrum party is doing great. They are just on top of their game. What I like is that I know they're going to be able to coordinate. whatever they make up after the fact, because they're really good at it. They have things like text chains. Like, I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi and Schumer and Biden have like a text chain going. I don't think that's happening. But on the right, it seems like they are. They've got like chat groups. They're like, they're working this out in real time. I mean, that's, that's kind of

some impressive coordination. So I'm sure that they will figure out as a group what they decide Biden could have done or maybe look to have done or whatever they've now decided is a problem that of course, and this will be the best part, it'll be something that Trump did like a million times and a million times times worse that they like defended. Like you know that they have to go with that. Like even if there was something unique that they could find on Biden, they have to go with the thing that makes them the most hypocritical because they love that. That's how they know that they are themselves. When they look in the mirror and they go, hey, you, you been hypocritical today? You have good job. That's like, that's how they recognize themselves.

That's when you give yourself the thumbs up and the smile and the wink into the mirror. A little wink and a nod there. Yeah. It feels good. Absolutely. I kind of can't wait to find out. But of course, that is assuming that they get back power in November, which is terrifying and seems kind of likely. Yeah. I just want to say two things about the text change that you brought up. One, you said you don't think the Democrats are doing that. And then the people you you mentioned, I think, have an average age of 97, so that might explain that. But then it got me thinking, like, about this Republican text chain. And you know there's that one person that has an Android phone.

Oh, yeah. And it's just killing it for everyone else with their stupid green bubble. And, like, you can't use half of the little things from I message. A constant question of like, wait, what was that? It's just a box to me. It's just a question mark. Right. What you said?

What you said? And everyone's ignoring it? Yeah, totally. And one person, you know, putting the little response. emoji on like the exclamation point and then it just says so-and-so has just liked your tweet instead of actually putting it. It's just a nightmare. And I was trying to figure out which one of those it would be. And I feel like maybe Nancy Mace might be an Android person, but I don't know. That could definitely be. But you know too that like Don Jr. pops up on these like four days later

responding to something somebody else said, but only in like gift form and just like floods it, you know? So like everyone's phones are going off at like 3 a.m. and it's just like nonstop. like gifts of people like doing shots and stuff and like a monkey pooping and it just makes no sense but it's just like I forgot to put my phone on silent I agree with you but I think he also does like the audio messages the voice messages oh no yes he does that he absolutely does the voice text where it's just like rambling for 45 seconds to a minute each time and everyone is just like I ain't listening to all that every single time and in fact it's probably now inspired see this is the other thing that I think is fun is how many then splinter text groups have started to

complain about the others? Like, there's probably infinite numbers with one of them missing from each where it's just like, God, fucking damn, Gorka. Like, they're just all, like, just bashing on him. But then there's another side one being like, holy shit, did you, and they, you know they've crossed the wires sometimes. Like, someone has accidentally been like, that fucking asshole Stone. And then Stone's just like, what? I'm just like, oh, shit, I meant to be in the other texts like one where we all hate you fuck like it's happening nonstop i think that's all they're doing with their time it's probably why they don't know what to impeach biden on because there's just so much time lost in this management right there's definitely a chain where they all just talk about whatever

lauren bobert said in the main chain exactly no doubt about that so we're going to be we know for a fact that we're going to be seeing joe biden impeachment hearings if the republicans take the house in the upcoming midterm election which let's be honest there's a very good chance there's a very good they're going to. I think that's not going to be the end of the investigations because there's already talk of an investigation into yet another member of the Biden clan, or as they like to call them, the Biden crime family, Hunter Biden. And apparently our old friend Sebastian Gorka been meeting with Matt Gates because he wants to be involved in this investigation. People are going to be a roll their eyes at, you know, they're going to roll their eyes at this, but I cannot foresee anything

going wrong here at all. Well, really, this is Joe Biden's fault for putting Hunter Biden in his administration. You know, he really shouldn't have done that if that was, no, wait, oh, that didn't. Okay. Sorry, right. Forgot that this is just a random potential drug addict porn addicted kid. Like, there's a lot of those around. It seems if you don't put them in the room where they can, you know, push the buttons that set off the missiles, so be it.

Other than that, who cares? Yeah. You know, we have the same people, like, we have is, was it Bar who was like mad at Tish James? for naming Ivanka and Donald Jr. and Eric Trump in her suit against Trump organization because, oh, you don't go after the kids. Not the kids, the children. Not the grown kids who had two of whom at least had, you know, positions in the administration and campaign. So you don't go after those kids who actually were part and parcel of the administration. But you definitely go after Hunter Biden, who is not part of any of that.

I mean, Hunter Biden has had a tough life. I think. You know, there's a lot going on there. First and foremost, he was named Hunter. There was nowhere for him to go from that point. He's done the best he could with the burden that was placed upon him. I don't know what else we expect. I like the name Hunter. I've had arguments with people about this. Really? Well, like my mom. My mom hates the name. But I like weird names. Like, I think Damien is a great name. Because you like starting fires or what's the? I don't know. I mean, look, there are many reasons that, I'm single, but this may well be one of them. You get to the point of name conversation, and that's it. That just ends the relationship right there. Yeah, basically, yeah.

At this point, I now bring it up on first date, so I can just get it out of play. Because, you know, I don't want to find out like six months in when things are going great, and then suddenly all of a sudden she's gone. She's pregnant, and there's a whole big fight. Right, exactly. Yeah, exactly. I mean, I've been there a lot, Andy. I get it.

Totally. It occurred to me that Hunter was named that at the peak year of Hunter S. Thompson's fame. And you got to wonder, was Biden a fan? Oh, that's interesting. Oh, that's interesting. I can't see Joe Biden being a Hunter Thompson fan. Yeah, I can't either, but you never know if the party edible just lurks under the ballerkey. Oh, I guess.

Yeah, well, look, it lurks in Hunter. That's for sure. I listen, spirit animal. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, he had something to. to talk to corn pop about? I don't know. Maybe that was good. So let's, you know, as we're on the topic of these

investigations, Roger Stone, who somehow has become an important figure in America, which I don't even, we can get into that another time because I don't really get it. But, because he's just, he's an absolute buffoon. But CNN attained footage from some filmmakers of Stone the day before the 2020 election saying, fuck the voting, let's get right to the violence. Shoot to kill. See an Antifa? Shoot to kill. Fuck them. Done with this bullshit. And remember, again, this is a, you know, this is a guy who was very involved in the, in the Trump presidency and very

involved in the stop the steel stuff that's been going on since Trump lost. He finished that off by saying, only kidding, which is a neat little rhetorical trick. That's a great one. I, use that all the time. Thoughts and prayers more? Yeah, no, that's perfect. Roger Stone is fascinating to me because he believes in absolutely nothing. He's the purest distillation of the Republican leadership, really, where it's just, there's absolutely no policy to it. He doesn't care at all. I mean, sure, I'm sure he wants his taxes lower, but like, that's not what's driving him to do any of this. He just loves playing the game. He desperately, just wants to be a mob guy.

Like, he just wants to sit there with, like, I want to say chess pieces, but that's obviously elevating his intellect way too much. Like, you know, the Candyland pieces or something, you know, and just find ways to cheat at the game. Like, that's what he thinks is fun. And so it's, like, it's always these guys who are, you know, oh, yeah, let's start the violence. Let's shoot to kill. Because Roger Stone has been besties with every, like, political leader on the right for

longer than I have been alive. So he knows he's completely insulated from anything. So for him, it's just another game he gets to play. It's like real-life first-person video game shooter. Just like, yeah, yeah, like make all the shit blow up. Come on, where's the part where like, you know, the hooker, you can run her over or whatever. You know, I don't know what is happening in video games now. But I assume.

I think you just described or attempted to describe the Grand Theft Auto series. I think that's where I was, yeah, what was in my head. But that's how he sees all of this. And he means it, but only because he knows that he'll just sit somewhere cushy, wearing some ridiculous outfit and just get to look at his window and watch it happen. Right. No, they always do. And, yeah, we don't talk enough about how horribly he dresses.

And he's so proud of the way he dresses, too, and thinks he's such a dandy, but he just looks like a complete buffoon. I'm saying that in the vague hope that he'll hear this because I know that will hurt him more than anything else anyone could possibly say about him. That is vicious, Andy. You actually bring up a good point because this is a guy who was sort of around back during the Nixon administration, and he famously has a Nixon tattoo, which is somehow cool again. But then he was just sort of this buffoon who, again, dressed, you know, a sort of self-described dandy who would pop up every once in a while and say something stupid or whatever and nobody took him seriously. And now suddenly he's back.

And that's the part I don't get. It's like, how the fuck did we do this? Here's a subject that is actually, actually of great importance. And it's the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has obviously been in the news a lot lately, not least of which for overturning Roe v. Wade, but also for a bunch of other reasons. And one of them is that Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginny Thomas, is a bit of a player in D.C. politics.

and in particular was a bit of a player in the Stop the Steel movement. There were, you know, people who thought that, I don't know, maybe Justice Thomas should recuse himself from decisions that had to do with stuff his wife was involved with. But over a decade ago, he failed to disclose close to $700,000 of his wife's income that she made from working at the Heritage Foundation. As was reported back then, he had checked a box saying none when he was, asked for information about spousal non-investment income, according to Newsweek.

And they are, federal judges are legally required to actually report this income. And he did not. So we've got that bubbling up again. Do you think it's just that he was surprised that women could make money? Like, maybe he didn't know that was something that women could actually do. Or maybe she just didn't tell him. I mean, I don't get a sense that they chat a lot. Like, I don't get a lot of sense that there's a lot of date nights happening there where they're sort of disclosed.

a lot of what's going on in their lives. So that seems, that seems possible. He has claimed all along where she has claimed that they don't talk about work at home, and that's been sort of the bullshit excuse for him not recusing himself. So I don't know, maybe she had $700,000 in an account that he was unaware of, and that was her party money. Oh, God, Ginny Thomas on the party scene in D.C. That's, what a terrible place that whole city is. Just absolutely. You could run into anyone. Gates could be doing in Jenny Thomas could be just fucking throwing dollar bills at you. It's frightening, is all I'm saying.

It's horrifying, exactly. So sort of along with this story about Clarence Thomas is a new Gallup poll that shows that the public trust of the Supreme Court is at a record low. It's at 47%. It's under 50 for the first time ever. The lowest it had ever been was 53% back in 2015. And a year ago, it was 54. So we're seeing this sort of downward trend in the view of how people look at the Supreme Court. And Justice Samuel Alito, who, by the way, is the one who wrote the decision overturning Roe v. Wade,

he is upset at one of his fellow justices for saying, although he doesn't say it by name, but Justice Kagan has made comments publicly about the sort of five, four conservatives. majority of the court about the conservative side, sort of diminishing the credibility of the court with a lot of their decisions. And so Justice Alito the other day said that saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line. I guess there's two ways to look at it. And one is that saying that crosses the line. And the other one is that doing that. And so to the point where people point out that you're doing it is what crosses the line. Yeah, it's almost like he feels like his autonomy is being

taken away from him. Like, perhaps he won't be able to make choices for himself as though it's being imposed by some sort of outside force. I don't know. It's, it's very new to me. I actually find it the fact that people are losing confidence in the Supreme Court. It's, it's both a little bit scary and a little bit heartening to me, actually, because. The Supreme Court definitely has lived outside of the idea of politics, I think, for a lot of people for a really long time. It's supposed to be separate. It's, we think of it as like this separate institution that is not necessarily a political player in the muck of politics in the way that the rest of it all is. Right.

And now we're, you know, I think people are kind of saying that, oh, no, nope, nope, that's not true at all. In fact, these are entirely political people. And that's, that is good if people are kind of waking up to it. It's a little bit scary only in a sort of like, hmm, are they, are they waking up to it in that good way? Or are we seeing people just have no faith in any sort of government whatsoever and look for reasons to try and burn it all down, which I'm not opposed to, but, you know, as long as they're on my side, it's tricky. Right. No, I was going to say there's like the, there's like the left wing, you know, sort of pot. populism like the Bernie Sanders populism, where it's like the system is rigged against people and we need to change it so it's not. And then there's the right wing populism that's like the system is rigged

and we want to be part of it, basically. Right. It's one thing if we're looking to say, all right, how can we reform the Supreme Court so that we are effectively making it less political? And it's another if it's like, but what if we just had a mob of people show up at the Supreme Court and then they just tried to burst in and like, you know, kill people and take it. it over. Like, those are the two sides. I actually think you hit on a really good point. It is sort of heartening that this, this sort of this drop in the Supreme Court approval has come as the court has become more conservative and is doing things like overturning Roe v. Wade, which there's, I mean, there's absolutely no way. There's not causation there. Right. The scary part becomes when you

get into the, was it Andrew Jackson who famously said about a Supreme Court decision, fine, let them, you know, send out their army to enforce it or whatever it is. It's a little, so it gets a little scary when it's like, okay, are we going to, do we want a world in which it gets to the point where people are like, oh, the Supreme Court ruled that? We don't care. Right. Yeah, that seems like maybe not the best route to go if what you want is some semblance of a democracy or a Democratic Republic of any sort.

Like that seems bad. And again, because I don't tend to. to want to be put on a boat and set out to sea, which I see is like the best possible outcome from some sort of fascist to take over here. Right, because you're still alive. Well, potentially, yeah, yeah. That seems like I still don't want it. I'm still kind of hoping that as the Jew, I don't get kicked out of the country yet, you know?

Right. But it's still nice to know that people are recognizing that we do have systems that, in fact, are not just infallible, but are failing. They're failing all over the place. And we need to actually take some steps to address that and maybe change the way that we have been doing things so that we can actually preserve some of the democracy that at least, you know, a lot of people claim to love. Yeah. And again, the interesting thing is that this is coming at a time when what the court is doing essentially is sort of restricting rights. So I kind of like the fact that people are like, no, we don't like that. And that we didn't see this.

You know, obviously there are people who oppose things like gay marriage. And apparently there are people who oppose interracial marriage. in the year of our Lord 2022 and birth control and things like that. But the fact is the court's legitimacy wasn't ever really called into question when it ruled in favor of those things. In other words, in favor of expanding rights and giving more rights to individuals. So that is, as you said, I mean, that's the heartening part for me, is that this is coming at a time when the court seems to be going the other way and rolling back individual rights. I think it's even more than just the rulings that the court is putting forth, because we've certainly seen a conservative

court for some time now, it hasn't always had this level of disapproval and dissent from the public. A lot of it, too, is that we are seeing how much influence a Trump who did not have a popular vote now has over something like the court. So we have this person who was incredibly unpopular as our president who was impeached, who, you know, is facing all sorts of lawsuits and has done all sorts of illegal things. And he had the ability to put people on the Supreme Court to create these little fiefdoms where he gets to kind of live on in a way, sort of in perpetuity, or at least in terms of these people's lives in perpetuity. And that, I think, is kind of waking people a little bit up to this system seems problematic a little bit.

You can see her on CNN and read her at the New York Daily News. It's author and political commentator, S.E. Cupp. S.E., thanks so much for joining us. You and I go back a long, long ways, and it's really great to have you here. This is fun because we're old friends, but, like, we also still talk, like, regularly. So it's not like, it's kind of like we're just chatting, which is fun. Yeah, absolutely. So my first question is, why do you suck?

No. Uh-huh. Right. Why didn't you call me back that other night? Exactly. So my first question is, you know, I can't think of too many people on the right who are more vocally anti-Trump, anti-Maga than you are. But I realized there's a question I honestly don't know the answer to. Are you still a Republican?

And to be clear, I'm not asking if you're still a conservative. I'm asking, are you now a member of the Republican Party? Or have I ever been a member of the Republican Party? Party. Yes. Well, I know you, I know you ever have been. Yeah, it's weird. I don't feel like they would think I am a part of this party. You know, the Republican Party of today is not a Republican party. I know. I don't understand where they're going. I mean, I can see what they're doing, and I don't like it, but I don't understand, like, the long-term vision for condensing this party to conspiracy theorists and cooks and white nationalists. And I also don't understand, like,

the jettisoning of long-held conservative orthodoxy and principles that I thought we all cared about. So we are not familiar to one another. I almost feel like what I call myself is irrelevant because I don't know this party. As you said, I'm a conservative because that's a fixed set of values. That doesn't change no matter who's in office or whatever their Republican Party is doing. But I've had mixed feelings on this because, you know, the folks who left the party very sort of, you know, dramatically like George Will and people I respect and like, I'm not sure what that does. I also felt like I'm not going to let this asshole kick me out of a party that I know he wants to change, but I really think should be good again. I want a strong Republican party and so should Democrats.

The country functions better when we have two strong parties. So I don't know. That's a, that's not a very satisfying answer I know, but I have mixed feelings on it. And yeah, I have not left the party, but I clearly don't belong to this Republican party. And vice versa. It's mutual. Yeah. No, that's why I realized I honestly wasn't sure because I, for exactly the reasons you said, like, I just didn't know if you had made like a, if you would just say, screw it, I'm out of here. Or no, I'm going to stay and try to make this party back into what it used to be, what I think it should be. So I just wasn't sure. And I was actually going to call you an apostate. And then I realized you're not because an apostate actually is the person who sort of renounces their convictions.

And you are the opposite of that. I feel like people sometimes get the incorrect impression that folks like me, a never-trump person, and folks like me who criticize the Republican Party are doing it from the middle, when in fact I'm doing it from like a more conservative position because I don't think they're conservative enough. And so I know it doesn't sound like that when I talk about things like not overturning Roe v. Wade and like not being racist. Like I know that sounds like it's the middle, but really that has nothing to do with ideology. I critique the Republican Party from a conservative position. I've doubled tripled down, you know, on a lot of my conservative principles.

No, absolutely. And to that end, you've got a video up over at CNN.com about how a lot of Republicans, people like Florida governor Ron DeSantis, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, how they'll only criticize Trump in private and they won't do it publicly. Is it just strictly that they're afraid? I think, I mean, it's so craven because in the piece I talk about how Kevin McCarthy was actually trying to tank Madison Cawthorne, like, behind the scenes through donors.

But publicly would defend him and actually said he would vote, you know, he would support his re-election to the House. And that's just so craven and cowardly. His instinct is right. Madison Cawthorne is bad for the party. He's a problem child. He's a grandstander. He's a fame seeker.

He is right. And he should come out and just say that publicly so that other people could come out and say it publicly. And same goes for Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Bobert and Matt Gates. And the other problems in the party, it shouldn't take a lot of courage to just call those people out. But they are. They're afraid of, they're not afraid of the Madison Cothorns. They're afraid of the voters, the Trump voters.

And they're afraid of losing their job in Kevin McCarthy's case he wants to be Speaker of the House. In the case of Ron DeSantis, you know, he wants Trump voters if he runs in 2024. So it's for self-preservation, which is really a terrible reason to do anything, but especially a terrible reason to like, craft a political project. And that's what I've just seen, you've seen it too, I'm sure over the past six years in the Republican Party, it's all self-preservation and very little courage. Yeah, and you would think that someone particularly like a Kevin McCarthy who has the word leader in his title would, you know, want to lead. And like make his own mark, right? Like make his own mark on the party. And yet really just being led around by Trump and Trumpism still. Yeah. And it sort of reminded

me, as I was reading it, it reminded me in an ironic sense. There was a quote from J.C. Watts, a former Republican congressman who said, character is doing what's right when nobody is looking. They're sort of doing that, but except J.C. Watts didn't mean and then doing the opposite in public. Yeah. I mean, a similar version of that is conviction matters when it's hard. Right. The problem in the Republican Party, so I always hear this prescription or this, I guess this description of the problem, this diagnosis of the Republican Party, which is that you've got the Trumpism versus like the Mitch McConnell's. That is not the problem. Mitch McConnell is happy to help Trumpism carry on if it gets him votes. The problem is that no one is willing to lose votes and lose voters. They're not

willing to lose their own seat, save in cases like Adam Kinsinger or Liz Cheney, but they're also not willing to lose the voters that the party is bending over backwards to keep happy. And these are like, again, the white nationalists, the proud boys, the oathkeepers, the QAnon crowd, and like the aggrieved forgotten man. Like, these are the people they're doubling down on at the expense of the Kinsingers, the Romneys, the good conservatives, they're being shown the door. So if you're not willing to lose this far right, I think, deeply dangerous, you know, pocket of the party.

And in fact, that's the only group of people you want to keep happy, then this is just going to keep going. It has nothing to do with Mitch McConnell or even Kevin McCarthy. It has everything to do with being okay, losing this crowd. And no one seems to have the courage to say, I don't want these voters. Yeah. No, I think that's right. It's the very extreme version of playing to the base, where it's sort of, that's all you're left with is the base and hoping, you know, or I guess in their case, thinking that that's enough. Like there's going to be enough of them for a long enough time to ever win a national election again. I understand it can work in these pockets.

But like I said at the beginning, what is the long-term vision here? Because you can't just say, you know, forget the past six years, we're going back to who we were. That's not how it works. These things are generational. And there's a reason so many young people

were Democrats for so many generations and why it was really hard for Republicans to get millennials. And I was on that project in 2012, right? To find new messaging ways to get millennial voters, LGBTQ voters, women, minorities. And I thought we had some pretty good ideas. And then, you know, Trump came along and blew it all up. But it's going to take generations to wash out. I think what is the damage that the Republican Party has done, like to itself,

to its brand. Right. And then get new voters when you're, when you're just tripling down on this one kind of voter and condensing the party to its purest, most fringy kind of form. Yeah, I mean, right now, you know, obviously we've got a GOP where Liz Cheney gets absolutely crushed in a primary, something that would have been unthinkable, you know, six years ago. Like, I was going to ask you if you see sort of the, the mageness of it all as a temporary madness or if you think the party is too far gone to ever come back. But I think I think what you said is right. it's not that it can't ever come back because things are cyclical, but it ain't coming back in

two years or four years or maybe even five years or ten years. It's going to take a long time probably to wash this stain away, if ever. I agree. I mean, if ever is right, because, you know, I think these, the memory of this of these moments, like the insurrection, for example, I think one of the darkest days in modern American history, these are not things you just kind of move past, people have to account for their behavior and their actions. And they haven't even done that yet. And that's like step one. Right. And then you have to disavow it. And then you have to explain why you did it. And then you have to at a tone. And then you have to want to do different. And they're not even at step one yet. And so I think it will be a long time. And I have this conversation with Joe Walsh all the time who also thinks like,

I don't know how long, like years and years and years, if ever. And I think there are some people who the Republican Party will just have to start over one day, like from scratch, like rebuild and start over. There's no warping it back, you know, to what it was. Yeah. I want to move to another piece you wrote recently because this is not maybe even just an American problem now. You wrote about the rise of this right-wing populism in, of all places, Sweden. And now we've got this victory in Italy for Georgia Maloney's coalition, some dare call it fascism. And, and at So my question is on a scale of one to every real Housewives series has been canceled, how scared should we be?

Don't even say that, Andy. I couldn't think of anything that would be scarier for you. No, just on a tangent. The other day I was thinking about this very phenomenon. Like, what would happen if someone at Bravo decided we're done with the Real Housewives franchise? Like, what would I do? I'd protest. Like, I'd have to protest.

That's a very real scandal. It's up there. with the rise of fascism in terms of how scared you are. I mean, it's right there, man. Well, I'm scared because, as you said, Sweden. Like, it's in Sweden. And you think, you know, the land of IKEA and Swedish meatballs and, like, pure progressivism. And, like, you know, if you look at some of the rankings, Sweden consistently ranks among the friendliest, the least racist, the friendliest, the friendliest LGBTQ travelers, like all the antithesis of communities where you think.

fascism and nationalism could thrive. And it's not thriving yet. It's still a minority faction, but it is now more popular than the moderate party in Sweden. And that's very troubling to me. I'm not surprised about Italy. Italy has history of fascism in it, and a rejection of it, but still, there was, you know, there was that there. And, you know, it's hard. Schengen politics in the EU is, I've said for a long time, like wanting to ignore your cultural differences. and your borders might be a nice idea, but it's going to have real ramifications down the line. And I think that's what you're seeing is like a reaction to that. I'm just, I'm very surprised it's in a place like Sweden, less surprised that it's in like Hungary and Venezuela and Brazil.

Right. But yeah, that is surprising. And I think that should make all of us pause and think, what is it that is appealing in places that seem anathema to this kind of agitation? Why are people suddenly open to it? It has to be more than just they're racists. I mean, that could be true in part, but in total, there's got to be, there's got to be more going on here. And I'm not sure, you know, I don't have the answer. No, I think you're absolutely right, though.

And then to just sort of jump off that and move it back to America, what did you make of sort of the response of what seems to me anyway, to be a large segment of the right to Maloney's win, sort of cheering it on, referring to her as one of their own. Yeah. We've all sort of reached the point where we're shot. by anything, I think. But it's like, come on, are you serious? Like, now you're claiming her as one of your own? I'm not surprised at all because CPAC Hungary. CPAC Brazil. Like, Victor Orban is a welcomed speaker at CPAC. So I'm not surprised. It's gross. I'm disappointed. But I'm not surprised because this has been happening over the past few years. And, you know, we saw people embrace Putin on the right, right? Like, I grew up with Reagan.

Like, tear it on this wall. I mean, you couldn't imagine this kind of stuff, I think, five, ten, certainly not 20 years ago. So it's not surprising. And I've also seen like weird contortions now. I don't know if you notice this around the death of Queen Elizabeth. A lot of these right-wing personalities defending like colonialism. Yes. Yes.

And monarchies. Yeah. That's a head scratcher. Didn't you all see Hamilton? Like, I think the answer to, you know. That is no. Definitely not, but like all of this stuff is so upside down. And it almost feels like performance art, Andy.

Like, you know, like this is some like Cajun Cunningham street performance. Like how weird can we get and how opposite to all the things we've ever said we care about how can we do? First of all, it seems, I've said this before, it seems very weird to me to get all sort of pearl clutchy about President Biden. referring to Maga World as semi-fascists and then just literally come out and be happy that an ideological heir to Mussolini is taking charge of a country. I don't really get that. But you and I have had, we've had many conversations about sort of the performative aspect of this and trying to figure out who we think are true believers and who we think are doing it for the ratings, for the money, for the clout, whatever. And it is, a lot of times it's easy to figure out who's doing what, for what

reason. And sometimes it's not. Yeah, it's vexing. Yeah, it's, it is vexing. And ultimately, it doesn't matter because the thing you pretend to be is the thing you are. Yeah. I mean, so it really doesn't matter. But it is still an interesting question of how many of these people, like, is Tucker Carlson, has he just gone completely down this rabbit hole? Or does he just look at the ratings every night and say, yep, I got to keep doing this? He's the one that vexes me most, because you know, I know him pretty well. I've known him. a long time. And I cannot figure it out. I, you know, I can look at like a Charlie Kirk and I know what he's doing or like a Candace Owens. Like I'm pretty clear. Right. Of course. They're just straight grifters. But Tucker is tricky because when I first met him, he was very libertarian. Right.

And so he would always criticize sort of establishment politics on the left and the right. So that's not new for him to reject like an establishment wing of the Republican Party. That's not new. I mean, there was a populism in him, but it wasn't as pronounced as it as now. But it's very hard for me to imagine that the Tucker I knew somewhere in him had this impulse to praise colonialism. Right. And be like, no, I mean, they were great because they brought Protestantism to the world. Which is like a version of what he said. And that's bizarre to me. Like, I can't imagine that that was, that lived in him somewhere. And it's just now, it's just now coming out. because the queen died.

But I don't know. I can't wrap my mind around it. And I'm not, I don't want to be presumptuous. Maybe this is him. But a lot of it doesn't sound like that Tucker I would have, like, written as a character 10, 15, 20 years ago. Exactly. And like you said, for a lot of them, it's really easy. And you're just like, oh, grifter.

And for a lot of them, it's like, okay, you know, they always sort of had this streak in them. And now they're just letting their fash flag fly, I guess, if you want to say it that way. I love that. But there are those. And again, you and I have had many a late night phone call trying to figure this shit out. Yeah. Yeah. So it is just, it is just amazing.

Essie, thanks so much for coming on. I really appreciate it. Hopefully we can have you back maybe to talk about like January 6th committee and stuff like that. And never, never real housewives. No, I'll come back anytime. This is so fun. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Essie. Appreciate it. S.E. Cup, everyone. And now we have Delhi Beast politics reporter, Zach Petrizo, who covers some of the more ridiculous parts of the right wing. Zach, thanks so much for joining us today. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

I'm a big time fan, especially of your Twitter, Andy. I love the tweets. So, Zach, I want to talk to you about some things you've written about lately. New York Times political reporter Maggie Haberman has a new book coming out about Trump. I believe it comes out next week. It's called Confidence Man. You got an advanced excerpt that shows, I guess, maybe some insight into Trump's character. I believe you describe it as showing him as a boorish homophobe obsessed with sexuality

and appearing masculine, which I have to say came as a shock to me. It's much of the same that we already know, but I think, you know, Maggie Haberman's new book, of course, paints it, you know, in vivid colors. I mean, one of the excerpts, The Daily Beast, had obtained, you know, ahead of its, you know, released next week, you know, described a scene in 2016 ahead of the second presidential debate where Trump was super excited about debating Hillary Clinton and, and of course, his advisors, one being Ryan's prebiths around him, were kind of a bit worried and wanted to pepper him with questions that he previously had gotten tripped up about, one being a question about transgender and the policies around same-sex bathrooms. Of course, you know, Trump, you know, in this

scene, you know, they're in Trump Tower and he makes, you know, remark when he's asked this question, he asks a question back. And he says, is the imaginary transgender student that Ryan's prebis is playing, is this person, quote-unquote, cocked or decocked. It's these types of comments that Maggie Haberman is able to kind of zero in on and really paint a picture of someone who's, you know, like you said, not only obsessed with sexuality, but obsessed with, you know, I think we said in the piece, you know, he's oddly obsessed or kind of strangely obsessed with all these things, just because he always brings up, you know, if a person's gay or not, right? Yeah. And, you know, I was reading this actually.

or you're writing, you're write up of this excerpt. And the only surprising part of it to me was that Haberman apparently writes that his aides were taken aback. And I was like, really? You were? Like, you didn't expect this from Donald Trump? You know, it is really interesting there. The aides in the room, some of them are unnamed, which, you know, is kind of interesting to me as a former media reporter at the Daily Beast. But clearly, I mean, some people were talking about this, and especially, you know, now talking about it. But I imagine. imagine many of Trump's AIDS now, you know, wouldn't be taken back by that, right? Right.

I think, you know, Trump, you know, in his post-presidency era, has really turned into these far-right, you know, homophobic tendencies. I mean, think about it. He's listening and he's absorbing things, you know, as we have reported over at The Daily Beast, like, you know, Steve Bannon's podcast, which, I mean, is just as far, right, as it comes. And, you know, I think before he had become president, he had a lot of people that, you know, quite frankly have been described to the beast as, you know, team normal, right? Which was a team in the White House that, that, that, you know, was a bit more level-headed

compared to the people he has around them now, which I knew is strange and it's a bizarre concept. Yeah, but I guess, you know, he tends to weed out those people and, you know, either he gets rid of them or they reach a point where they're like, I just can't do this anymore. I'm assuming that's what it is. so that then you're left with, you know, only the freaks. Yeah, I mean, you're left with people like Cash Patel. Right. Who's like dropping Q&O mentions and being like, you know, signing children's books with where we go one, we go all,

and appearing on podcasts and, like, giving the hint and nod to Q&O. So, I mean, Trump has really surrounded himself, especially in these post-presidential era, with, I mean, just some of the most extreme kind of crazy fanatics, if you will. Yeah. And one of the things that you wrote about was you said Trump also tended to bully those who were gay, but not to their faces, which I found interesting, but behind closed doors. And then you talked about how a former Trump organization exec said that Trump would often belittle another executive who Trump believed was gay and bragged that he paid this guy less, which strikes me as isn't that illegal? Yeah, but that's illegal. And of course, in covering Trump more, you know, I see this quite often.

And Trump will say things quite frequently that are just like just loads of BS. Of course. Sometimes he just plants BS in people's heads around him too. Right. In that way, he is kind of an operative. But I will say, like, you know, he brags about this, according to Maggie Hirman's book. Yeah, no, I found that part interesting. The whole thing about belittling people that are gay behind his back.

In public, for example, you know, he was touting Rick Cornell as basically the first openly gay cabinet member during his administration. And now to see all these revelations, like, was Trump, you know, secretly bashing Rick Grinnell behind his back? Man, that's a really interesting question. So I think the book definitely paints an interesting picture here. And I think there are definitely more questions and more reporting even after the Aerman book to be asked. Oh, absolutely. And look, I'm not arguing that it's not important for this stuff to come out.

But my main thought when I read these excerpts is I can't imagine this moving the needle on Trump at all, right? Like this stuff is at this point, it's baked in. the people that like him are going to think all this stuff is hilarious. And they're probably, they probably think and say the same exact things. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, one Trump advisor that's currently within his orbit, you know, messaged me after I ran parts of the excerpts and thought it was hilarious, right? Right.

So, I mean, this is, this tends to be the way in which Trump has always been. And it is interesting to see, especially as we look forward, we see many of his advisors, hoping that he goes back to this type of stuff, right? People think that maybe in 2020 he was too scripted. He wasn't Trumpian enough, right? He wasn't golden elevator and kind of, you know, saying kind of all the crazy things that he was saying, like, you know, Mexicans are rapists and things like that. During the 2016 campaign. So people, you know, in Trump's orbit are like, let's go back to 2016.

Let's make this next election a throwback. And, you know, let's do that type of stuff, which, of course, is definitely a big part of the Trump brand and something that Trump, I think, could possibly get behind. Oh, I don't think there's any doubt he would get behind yet. I mean, you mentioned Cash Patel sort of flirting with this QAnon stuff. Trump himself has been doing that, right? Yeah, exactly. I mean, Q&ON, I mean, for those who kind of aren't up to speed here, you know, of course, true social is Trump's social media platform, right?

It's kind of this Twitter alternative, long and three short, much of the platform has been devoted to some of the most extremist elements of kind of the MAGA movement, if you will, right? So unlike Getter, where you have Steve Bannon on there, who's just far right, you know, Jason Miller over on Getter. I think truth social has really appealed to kind of the more extremist movement. So like the people that don't necessarily have a leader like Q, but are just a bunch of users, right? So basically the platform has just swelled with Q&on content and pretty much anywhere where Trump turns, like if you look through Trump's comment section, right, like below his

posts, it's like, thank you Q, Q, praise President Trump, all this type of stuff. And it's like lokey Q mentioned. So basically anywhere Trump turns on the platform, he's basically running into the content, which is kind of what a Trump advisor had conveyed to me. So even if he's not looking for it, he's going to run into it. So that's kind of Trump's new world is absorbing all this Q stuff, basically just through truth social. You know, quite frankly, he's really loving it because he keeps promoting it, sharing the content. Of course, the Daily Beast Will Sommer had reported Trump shared a bunch of videos of like blatant Q stuff about, you know, breadcrumbs and all this type of stuff that is really hardcore Q stuff. It's pretty unbelievable to just look around.

and see where we've gotten. And just imagine where it's going to be by like 2023, 2024, because it's not going back to even the 2020 Trump. It's going in the other direction and probably even beyond the 2016 Trump is my guess. And he's been talking to advisors about this, but basically this idea of, and he said it publicly too, basically pardoning January 6th defendants. Right. This would be pretty crazy. I mean, one defendant was accused of, you know, taking a baseball bat, a metal bat, and beating. officers. This is violent stuff, this January 6th stuff. And all of a sudden, Trump's not back the blue. He's back J6 defendants. So everything about, you know, another Trump run, I think,

would be, it's hard to even think about, but it would be, you know, more kind of extreme than the last. And I do think, you know, with Trump coming back, a lot of his most fervent supporters online, you know, he let him down when he came to the wall, for example, right? Right. And other topics like that. So Trump really wants to come back with vengeance and really, really do more when it comes to those kind of extreme policies than he ever had before because now looking from the outside in, I think there's some regret about what he wasn't able to accomplish. Look, as you pointed out, it's a little scary that their thought is, oh, well, he was too soft in 2020. And so it's just like, we are so fucked.

I want to ask you, because this debate comes up every time it seems that there's a new book from a political journalist. We get this whole debate on whether it's ethical for reporters to save stuff for their books instead of, you know, reporting it at the time. Where do you fall on that? It's an age-old question. As a veteran of the Daily Beast Media desk, and as someone who's worked in covering media, I think it's a really interesting question. I think it gets asked maybe not in a fair way every time one of these books comes up. I think there are a lot of partisans kind of out there that that kind of immediately are like, you know, you could have saved democracy if you would have shared this. I think there's a fair argument, quite frankly, on both sides. But I would say,

look, many journalists in this industry, unlike, I think, perhaps maybe not the Maggie Haberman types, but journalists, you know, lower journalists aren't making a ton of money, quite frankly, doing this whole journalism thing. And it's hard at times, right? So I think the book provides an opportunity for journalists to really dive into an expertise and get paid for it. And be able to do something like put a down payment on a house, quite frankly, and provide for their families. So I really do think it's a double-edged sword here. And I understand why journalists have to do it, because ultimately they have to sell book copies. And, you know, if you just regurgitate a bunch of old stuff, quite frankly, no one's going to read your book. So I think it is a unique problem. But at the same time,

I understand the argument where, you know, I mean, this is stuff about Trump, the leader of the free world. And quite frankly, if it was out there in the public, you know, maybe, probably, probably, not, but maybe there's something people could have done about it. But I would say Maggie Haberman has reported, I mean, throughout the Trump administration, I mean, scoop after scoop after scoop, and had delivered big ticket items. So I don't know how big a sin it is to hold certain things back for the book. How do you see it? I see it on sort of a case-by-case basis. Like, I think, you know, I think there are things where it's like, oh, that's an interesting detail or like, like the stuff that, the excerpts you got. Like, okay, I don't think, like I said, I don't think that

moves the needle in any way whatsoever. It's more like interesting color and it just further shows exactly what a, you know, just hideous human being he is. So stuff like that. It's like, yeah, sure, of course. Then there's stuff like, I think she has something in her book. I think I read somewhere about that Trump told her that he took a bunch of classified documents to Mar-a-Lago, and she saved that for the book. And I see something like that. I'm like, you know, that's the kind of thing. Obviously, we don't know what's in those documents. but they're classified top secret, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're like existentially important to the United States. A lot of things get classified. But they could be, knowing that this guy

has this, you know, these documents at his hotel might be something that you want to let people know about when you find it out and not save it for a book. So I, and maybe, I don't know, maybe I'm being unfair about that and maybe like the Justice Department was already on this. And so it's not like we didn't know, but maybe they already knew. My point is, like, I literally do take this on like a case-by-case basis. I agree with you. I think there are times that it's like, okay, sure, you know, I understand. You got to sell books. And there were other times when I look at it and it, and it's like, well, that actually would have been good to know, you know, seven months ago or a year and a half ago. Yeah, no, I think you're completely right. I mean, the Daily Beast had

obtained other book excerpts from this thing. And there was a scene in which, you know, Trump basically he mocks Jared Kushner over having a quote-unquote skinny ass. And it's like that's like, you know, like that, that's the important. Now, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about where, you know, if I had known nine months ago that Jared Kushner had a skinny ass, that would have affected my life. Yeah, exactly, Andy. No, but I do think, I do think, I have to agree with that. I think you're right on the money here in the sense that, look, there are things that are important and important to voting and national security and just so many other things like the documents. And then you have stuff like Jared Kushner having a skinny ass on a camping trip and stuff,

color like that. That I think it's really interesting. I think people, I don't know if I would go about that the same way and save it for a book. But, you know, I think it's less of a problem. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. All right, moving on, I want to ask you about your last weekend. Did you do anything interesting? This past weekend, I went to a event, actually in Washington, D.C. here.

It was billed as the biggest J6 event that basically had ever, quote-unquote, existed. It was a big rally. Turns out there were a couple dozen people there. So, yeah, that was the big weekend event. It was interesting. There were more people almost demonstrating, you know, your activist types on the left, than actual rallygoers. So the big event was a dud.

And, of course, the Gateway Pundit, which of course is this right-wing kind of blog site, Yeah. You know, just kind of mucks up some of the crabiest material you've ever read in your life with, with weird ads about, you know, kneecaps in the middle. I'm sorry, did you say kneecaps? Yeah, you know what ads I'm talking about. The ads that are like the offshore ads because they got kicked off of Google ads. So it's like, you know, this knee cream can solve knee pain for decades.

That type of stuff, right? That's amazing. Yeah. So it's just like, you know, the gateway punant said this would be the biggest rally ever. for J6 defendants, turns out to be a major dud. I'd run into a bunch of, like, D-level conspiracy theorists

there that were pretty interesting to talk to. But they thought that basically, you know, these January 6th defendants were persecuted. One thing I did find really interesting was when I was talking with like normal running the mill attendees,

the very few that were there, none of them could really get their story straight. So some said, look, this is a big trap. This whole thing, this whole J6 thing, it's a trap. Then you had some people say, the J6 defendants,

sentence did nothing wrong, right? You had people say they never committed violence. So all their messaging was different, and they really couldn't land on like a specific theory behind J6, which I thought was really interesting. And especially the people that completely denied, for example, when I gave the example of the metal baseball bat or the Jake Lang violence and stuff like that, you know, of course they don't, you know, when they're faced with actual examples of the violence, they go from saying it wasn't violent to being a trap. So it was really kind of an all over-the-place type response in that sense. I was actually going to ask you that next because there was that one woman who did exactly what you just described,

who at first said it never happened. And I think didn't she basically say it was actually Antifa? Or maybe she didn't say that. Maybe she just said it never happened. But then when you present her with something, then she says, well, but it was a trap. Yeah. I mean, it is amazing how they can hold these diametrically opposed views in their head at the same time, apparently. It's like a superpower, I guess.

Yeah. The weird thing is it's not all that different from like from the Republican Party's response to J6, which started off as we had like the text messages from people like Marjorie Taylor Green and people like that who were legitimately scared as they should have been. And then like hours later, they're like, oh, this was clearly Antifa. And it's like, it's interesting to see how they put out all these stories and they're all in conflict with each other. And then these people just internalize all. of them and pick whichever one fits the question they've been asked, it sounds like. Yeah, no, exactly. I mean, this lady, I think her name was Maria. We talked to at the Daily Beast for this story. And she was kind of circling the event. She had her hands up in the air and she was praying over people. And so I went up to her. I said, what's going on? You know, all this type of stuff. We get to talking. And long story short, I say, so what's up with the J6 defendants? And of course, like you had said, she says, basically they didn't commit violence. You know, no violent acts.

I gave her some examples. I even showed her my phone. I pulled up like an article. Like I think it was like a local DC news, you know, local news. Fake news. Yeah. I mean, this is like local reporting, right? So it's like, okay, come on, give this a shot.

And of course, she saw it. And she said, you know, she was from Texas. She had traveled to this rally. And she said, well, you know, turns out actually, you know, I'm going to take back my original statement. It was all a draft. So, so that was interesting. But yeah, no, I mean, these people and especially the few rallygoers that were

there. I mean, definitely, seemingly to me, we're trying to come to grips with, like, what the message was. And it's like they were trying to test out different messages. I know there were a bunch of different speakers like David Clemens, who, of course, is this D-level conspiracy theorist. Who would claim that, you know, these people were basically still in jail on, you know, non-felony charges. Of course, there are felonies. So, I mean, that's just wrong. There's a lot of different things there. And they were just trying to see what stuck. But, you know, one of the things I did find the funniest was, of course, speaking of Antifa, as you mentioned, Antifa is always a big thing

with these type of folks, right? Especially the people that come to D.C., these type of right-wing activists tend to think, the only people that live in Washington, D.C. are Antifa members, right? No one else, Andy. No one else. There aren't D.C. bureaucrats. There aren't people that are just teachers or, you know, cooks or

you know, server. Any type of profession is just Antifa. Whole city's Antifa. So there's this local Mexican kind of festival going on right by where they were, probably block away, you know, near the Capitol building. They'd closed down one of the main streets in Washington, D.C. for this big festival. And it was funny because there was like Marriachi bands playing really loud, you know, kind of mariachi music. I mean, it was like really, you know, energetic

event, tons of people, probably in the thousands. And these rally goers were convinced, you know, that was Antifa. And of course, there were trees. There were trees along the backside of this event that was held on Capitol ground. So you really couldn't see over it in all fairness. But But at the same time, it's like, okay, I think that's just mariachi music. No, it was clearly Antifa running a sciop and just, you know, blaring music out of loudspeakers to mess with the truth, Riley. That's amazing. Absolutely amazing. Zach, thank you so much for coming on. This was all really fascinating.

And hopefully you'll come back again soon. Thanks for having me anytime. Mara Quint. Andy Levy. So we come now to our favorite segment because it's our only segment. Fuck that guy. So who is your fuck that guy for today? It's so hard to choose just one, but I have narrowed it in because I live in Pennsylvania, and so he is in my face in a lot of ways. But I got to go with Doug Masteriano,

who is currently running for governor here in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is like one of those states that gets like thrown to the side a little bit. You know, we're not the most anything. We're like, you know, we have Philly, which is like it's second to New York. It's not even second to New York, because Chicago's got that with the second city. Like, we're just, we're just not quite the best at anything ever, but every so often, every so often the Eagles win a Super Bowl, you know? And here we have. We'll edit that out.

As a Giants fan. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Nice try. Nice try. You leave that in. Every so often, we really get to excel. And I think that, like, for once, we have one of the craziest candidates in the whole country,

which is saying something. But, like, I think we're, we're at least. vying for that here. Mastriano is extreme. Like he's just, he would be winning the X games of right wingism. He's like way off the rails.

And this past week, it was resurfaced some remarks he made. We already knew he was very anti-abortion, anti-choice. But what resurfaced was that he has decided that women who have abortions should be charged with murder, which is like

Well, this is a little bit difficult and problematic and complicated. It's like one in three women are likely to have abortion. So, you know, you're locking up a third of your constituents. Yes, you're locking up a third of your constituents here. That is slightly problematic. And at the same time, it fully gets to the heart of what he wants, which is just he would love for all women to just sort of be in cages and, like, just come out when he tells them to do what he's like.

That's exactly where he's going with. this, which is kind of scary being in the state, and, you know, he's probably not going to win. But what if he does? I don't know. Just fuck that guy in general. He just needs to no longer be in my world in any way. But it's nice because he just launched now a thing for his supporters, a way for them to show their support. They are engaging on 40 days of prayer and fasting, which is great, because, you know, if you're fasting, you're not going to be, like, doing a lot of door knocking or phone calls, right? You're going to be too exhausted. So, like, I'm all for that strategy.

Go ahead. Stop eating. That's fine. We're just lie in bed all day and hope. And that's, I think, should be, it seems to have been his political strategy so far. And I think that's exactly where they should keep going with it. So, yeah, that's my guy for the week. Who's your fuck that guy, Andy?

Well, before I get to mine, I just want to, I was thinking about this 40 days of fasting thing. I wonder if he is smart enough to know that, you. That doesn't mean you fast for 24 hours each day. We're going to find out really quick, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Honestly, I don't know how upset I'd be if he doesn't realize that,

but I question his intelligence enough to wonder if he does. I actually understand being in the state, sorry, I'm going to go off the rails for one moment, but like being in Pennsylvania, we have Oz and we have Mastriano. And at the very least, I understand when I see Mastriano signs, because I'm just like, oh, okay, you stay up all night wondering what messages the aliens are communicating with you because, you know, they are talking to your cat who is an evil demoncrat and you can't get the cat out of the house, but, you know, it's just stealing from you. But this is a guy who understands that problem and he can talk to, you know, the badgers.

Like, they're that far gone that, like, I get it. But when I see Oz signs, actually, I'm just like, what is happening there? I don't even understand. That's not even, I don't know why anyone has any reason to support him. Anyway, sorry, total aside, Masteriano, hate him, hate him. Okay, so my fuck that guy is a guy I did actually, he was my fuck that guy one day last week as well, I think. So last week it came out that Majuski, who is a veteran, he had been on the campaign trail sort of touting his service in Afghanistan and talking about how many days in a row he was in country and all of that and talking about how he missed his grandmother's funeral because he was in Afghanistan. Afghanistan. And basically reporters dug, the Associated Press, in particular, dug up his records that show absolutely no service in Afghanistan and show that he was based in, mostly in Japan, I believe it was. So then he played the, well, that's because my Afghanistan service was classified, which let me just say is an absolute crock of shit. And it's the card that posers play all the time.

So, no, there would still be a record of your service in Afghanistan. You wouldn't know my service. It went to a different war. Right, exactly, right, exactly. Yes. So there's that. But then, you know, a funny thing that people had sort of noticed, particularly people who are veterans, was that Majuski left the Air Force as an E2, which is the second lowest rank in the army

that would be a private, I guess in the Air Force, it's an airman or maybe an airman second class. That's an incredibly low rank to leave service as usually, you know, a lot of people come in as an E2 or an E1, which is, you know, a buck private or whatever, a airman. But as you spend time in the military, you gain rank and you rank up. But he left as an E2, and it turns out that he was demoted. He said that he was demoted for, because of a brawl in the barracks, which, you know, guess sort of sounds like sort of macho if you're of that mindset, even though if you've served in the military, you roll your eyes when you hear that too, because the last thing you want is a brawl

with your squad mates or platoon mates or whatever. But for outsiders, it has that air of machismo. But it turns out that's not even true. And basically, he was caught, he got a DUI. He was caught drunk driving in Okinawa, Japan on the airbase there. Not only was he bumped down in rank, he was barred from reenlistment. In other words, he had no chance of reenlisting in the Air Force, even if he wanted to. They basically said, no, we're dropping you in rank. You're going to finish out your service and you're gone. So the fact that this guy is out there running on his military record is heinous. And it's one thing to just say, look, this was a long time ago. I was a fucked up kid. yes, I did all these things, fine. If it happened 20 years ago, I can go along with that to

at least some degree. But to be out there lying about it and is just about as low as it gets and pretending you served in a war zone when you didn't and making it sound very mysterious as if you were running special ops and stuff like that is just the lowest of the low as far as I'm concerned. So J.R. Majuski gets the rare two weeks in a row, fuck that guy from me. I'm so glad you said his name because I only knew him as the GOP lying vet guy. Like, I didn't even know what his name was beyond that. Hope you enjoyed checking out this episode of The New Abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday.

If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. See you next time. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Dailybeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider become. becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the dailybeast.com

slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.