The Daily Beast Podcast - Man Who Lost Narrow Race to Lauren Boebert Plots Redemption Run

Episode Date: February 24, 2023

 On this week’s episode of The New Abnormal, Adam Frisch, who lost to Lauren Boebert in the 2022 midterms, explains how he will beat her next time. Plus, Balls and strikes editor Jay Willis talks about the Supreme Court's latest case. 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. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, 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 of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What an exciting show we have today.

Adam Frisch, who lost a congresswoman Warren Bober by just 546 votes in 2022, has announced his candidacy against her for 2024, and we're going to talk to him all about it. Then we'll talk to Balls and Strikes editor Jay Willis about the Supreme Court's latest case, which takes on an extremely consequential ruling that could affect Section 230. But first, let's have some fun. So Danielle, it brings me no pleasure to say this, but we have the latest victim of the woke mind virus, and that is Lego. Mm-mm. Yeah. As Fox News let us know, new Lego sets are going to have what they call authentic, interesting,

and passionate characters that are maybe more widely relatable to people, including characters who have Down syndrome, characters who have missing limbs, and characters. who have anxiety and also new skin tones. Oh, all of these are, as you know, Danielle, all of these are woke. Yeah. So we get to listen to Fox News talking about Lego going woke and being very upset that a Lego character might represent someone with Down syndrome. And thank God for Fox News and thank God because I would not have heard of this because

the mainstream media does not want you to know about this. Yeah. But thank you to Fox News for, as always, speaking nothing but the truth. I love it so much. And I hope that Lego comes out with their MAGA version. What was the guy? The shaman outfit. Maybe he needs to be fucking represented the vegan guy who was really upset that there's

no vegan food served in prison. And maybe the other one who had his foot up on Nancy Pelosi's desk. Maybe Legos comes out with the insurrection edition. And they would readily get. behind that. I am so fucking sick and tired of Fox News in all honest. A channel I never watch. But my God, their everyday in wokeness is wild. And I just can't wait for them to alienate literally everybody that is not white, that is not able-bodied, that is not hetero, that is not cis, that is not a man. Because even if you have a reproductive system, apparently you can get to woke there too. Go after

it. You know, hate on the disability community, hate on inclusivity. on. It's a fucking Lego set. What was the other thing? Like toothpaste is too woke and fucking I just can't with them. But I'm so glad. I'm so glad, Andy, that we have nothing serious happening in America or the world so that Fox News can focus fully on their fuckery. I am a little curious how the Lego is going to, how they're going to do the character that has anxiety. Is it just going to have like a, oh, A wide open mouth. Yeah.

How you portray anxiety in a Lego? I don't quite understand that. Just from a technical perspective, does it just never leave the house? I think it screams and never leaves the house. It's just silent screams all day. Yeah. Maybe it just watches Fox News all day. Yeah, that would be my anxiety, Lego.

So, Bravo Fox for covering the real hard-hitting shit that everyone else misses. Oh, God. Speaking of Fox News, the proud boys. I just feel like there's a connection. there, maybe because I had the misfortune of having to be on the same set with Proud Boys founder Gavin McGinnis a bunch of times. We've got new testimony in a trial going on down in D.C. That the group was prepared for what they called an all-out revolution on January 6th, Daniel. Yeah, this shocks absolutely no one that has been paying attention. I mean, we know from the January 6th

House Select Committee that these motherfuckers were storing real weapons, our attention. Hillary across the river in Virginia from the Stop the Steel rally and that they were ready. They were coordinated. They were wearing headsets. They were working in military precision and formation while entering the Capitol building. They were in, you know, their full on cosplay military fatigue. So I don't know why we continue to be shocked. Donald Trump tweeted to them, January 6th is going to be wild.

He knew that they were armed and ready to go and still said remove the metal. detectors so that his people could get through because they weren't there to harm him. They built a motherfucking gallows to hang their vice president. So like, why are we shocked by the fact that these people, they are still ready for revolution? These are people that have, you know, probably their garages and their sellers filled with guns. Because they're ready to pop off at any moment. But, you know, fuck a regulation.

Background checks or any of that. These are just godfaring Americans that. care about their country, according to Republicans and Fox News. It's the Legos we need to worry about, Andy, not the proud boys. Obviously, yes. And let's not forget that, like you said, they are still ready for revolution. And probably because then President Trump told them to stand down and stand by. And he didn't say go away or stop doing what you're doing.

He said, standby. And standby generally means standby, we're going to need you. And we're going to be calling on you. So yeah, not really a surprise, as you said. But we were talking about this before we started recording. And you said something. It's my favorite line in this entire New York Times article, former proud boys say group prepared for All Out Revolution.

And this is my favorite line. Brace yourselves. Quote, recovering from stab wounds, he sustained during an earlier pro-Trump rally. Mr. Bertino was trying his best to aid his fellow proud boys. boys and what he believed was another American revolution. I just want to take a hot minute. Now, I've been to many a protest in Washington, D.C.

I was at the March for Women's Lives. I was at the March for Our Lives. I mean, have you ever received a stab wound at a Biden event and an Obama event? Were you concerned about your body and safety and needed to go treat some type of wounds from like a women's rights events or a queer event or anything like that? Only if there were proud boys there counter protesting. Correct. So the idea that this is just a normal fucking sentence in this piece that at Trump rally,

like these are your own people though. That's the thing that gets me. Right. It wasn't like, oh my God, a bunch of drag queens got together to go beat up proud boys. Do you know what I'm saying? And stab them with their high heels. That's not what happened here. These people harm themselves and each other.

Yeah, and I love that the context in which this was brought up, according to this New York Times article, is that the group became increasingly hostile to the police because of the violence that they themselves were part of at these pro-Trump rallies. And it's just the way the article puts it is, the knife attack he suffered turned him and the other proud boys against their perceived allies in the police who they believed had protected the assailant.

And it's just, first of all, the fact that they perceived the police as their allies, which I'll just leave that sitting there, and you can read into it whatever you want. But the fact that they then turned against the police because in their violence, he got stabbed. And then that's now the cop's fault. Because as far as they were concerned, the cops were their body cards. You know, they're like their personal bodyguards, their Pretorian guard or whatever you want to call it. But yeah, they basically, they thought of the cops as an extension of themselves. And again, I'll just leave that there as to whether you think he was correct in that assumption or not.

I personally don't think he was wrong. Let's just say that the proud boy have the complexion for the protection. Okay. Let's just say that. They share a lot of similarities in terms of who is perceived to be the ones that you want to protect and serve, and then the ones that you want to stomp and beat the hell out of. Because I don't know if you were to be at a Black Lives Matter rally where you are peacefully protesting, but you got motherfuckers arm to the teeth and rolling out tang.

But the proud boys go to their rallies fully armed in military cosplay costumes and the police just are like are taking selfies like they did on January 6th. So yeah, I think that they know who they roll with. Yeah. Going back to the fact that they were prepared for all out revolution, as part of the trial, it was revealed that Bertino was despondent after January 6th. And he wrote, half measures mean nothing. they need to be hung, setting aside the fact that I assume he meant hanged, because it's a slightly different meaning to what he wrote. But I'll give him the, I guess the benefit of the doubt here is that he thought they should be hanged, I guess. Somehow that's the benefit of the doubt. But yeah,

that's what they want. And as you said, you would have to be extremely head in the sand to not realize that that's what they wanted. But I still say, like with the Fox News, revelations, from, you know, last week that, yeah, we, you know, in that case, we knew that they were lying and didn't believe the shit that they were saying on the air. But like with this, to actually see it in black and white and to see it from their own fingers in these cases, because these were typed things, it really just puts it in stark relief that you can't really exaggerate when you're talking about these people. Like, no one can say to you, oh, no, they just, you know, or as we heard from, again, people on Fox News, oh, these were just people vacationing in D.C. And it's like,

no, when we said that this was an insurrection and that that was their goal, we were right. And we weren't exaggerating and we weren't making shit up. And when people say, you know, as we said many times that, you know, these people on Fox News don't believe the shit they're saying. And then you see it in black and white. It's like, yeah, see, we were right. And until you see it in black and white, it's very easy to say, oh, you're just exaggerating, you know, you're just the woke mind virus has you. And then, and then you see it in black and white and you see it in these trials. And it's like, yeah, told you. Andy, I really wish you would stop believing your lying ass eyes and just believe what Fox News tells you. Like, I just, I don't see what's wrong with you.

I know. Right. Like, why are you trusting what you see and what you hear and what Donald Trump and all of them, you know, like you have to, you have to let go. You have to. You have to. You have to. have to let go of this wokeness of yours. I just can't, and you know who won't let go, but some of them seem to be, which are Trump's followers? They're claiming in a Washington Post article where a poll was done of 150 Trumpers across different states about who they will vote for, who they will back in the 2024 presidential election.

And while they're saying that they are not never Trumpers, they're letting go of Donald Trump as their presumptive nominee. And don't think that he has the cachet anymore to be able to carry the party to the White House. And the person, of course, that they are floating instead of Donald Trump is the younger, smarter Donald Trump, and equally, if not more so dangerous, Ron DeSantis. as the quote unquote Florida guy. And I think once again, I will just air this out. I cannot fucking stand all of these articles, segments,

and investigations into the white racist mind. If I have to listen and read yet another analysis of like, what is really driving these people when the obvious is facing you, like right in front of you? Why do they like Ron DeSantis? Because he's young. He's 44 years old. He's just as racist, right?

He's just as xenophobic. He's just as homophobic and transphobic as they like. And is offering them a return to the America where white people are on top. Everyone else is erased and or criminalized. That's why they like him. They think that Donald Trump has a little bit too much baggage because he got about eight lawsuits against him right now. And maybe one will come to fruition by 2024. So then that would put their guy out of the race.

But like they're not losing. their grip on Trumpism. They're not losing their grip on the ideology that ushered and booies Trump and all of his accolades. They're just saying that the 77-something-year-old hot air balloon may be past his prime. No, I totally agree. And I think that's the main takeaway from this piece. And I will argue that because generally I am 100% with you. I do not need to see another New York Times piece about a reporter going to a diner in Nebraska and talking to Trump supporters and getting some kind of sympathetic view of Trumpers. I don't need to see another one of those ever again. I do think this was a little different. And I think even as you were saying,

you don't need to read another one of these again. I do think you hit on exactly why this is different because as you said, this has nothing to do with moving away from Trumpism. It's strictly moving away from Trump. And I do think that that's actually a value to know that. And the reason why I think it's a value to know that is because I talk to way too many people who loath Donald Trump and all of that and are like, well, yeah, DeSantis would be bad, but at least he's not Trump. And I'm just sitting there going, no, you have to stop thinking like that. And this piece, I think, gets to exactly why. It's not that these people have changed their views, their political views, their philosophical views, which is giving them way too much credit to even couch it in language like that. They have just decided, you know, again, as you pointed out, that Trump might not be the best standard bearer for that message.

And they are, you know, gravitating towards Ron DeSantis because they correctly realize that he is part and parcel of Trumpism and that all the things he. he is pushing for in a lot of ways pushing for harder than Trump ever did. And Trump is, I think, in a lot of ways now having to play catch up because DeSantis has, you know, focused so much on his quote unquote anti-woke bullshit. The idea that, you know, well, at least DeSantis isn't crazy. That's what I hear a lot, you know. And okay, I get that. And yes, DeSantis is probably a lot less likely to fire off a nuclear weapon in a fit of anger because his, you know, know, Big Mac didn't have onions on it or something like that. But he is just as bad, if not potentially worse than Trump on the issues. And it's time that people who are not part of the Trumpism

movement recognize that. And I think that hearing it from Trump's own supporters may actually help with that. And so that's why I do think, you know, that this piece in particular and at pieces like this are actually important because they should serve as a wake-up call to people on the left, to people in the middle, to whatever's left, you know, the four or five moderate Republicans that are still alive in this country. I think unlike the interviewing folks in a diner bullshit, we do need stuff like this. Fair point. So there. Fair point. Folks, I am very excited to be doing. join by Adam Frisch, who you may know came to national prominence because he had the closest

house race in the 2022 midterm cycle against none other than Lauren Bobert, losing by just 546 votes, but has recently announced that he is going to step up to bat again to take on Lauren Bobert. Adam, welcome to the new abnormal. I got to tell you that your raise as a I'm sure you've heard from other Democrats and other progressives was the one that I was watching biting my fingernails in my living room in New York because I will confess, I can't stand Lauren Bobert. I think that she is a representation of everything that has become problematic and wrong in our politics, in our culture, in the way that we speak to one another, in the way that politicians act. I think that the likes of her have degraded.

the office and have degraded the institution, one that I was very proud and have been proud to be a part of throughout my career in both direct and indirect ways. And I just want to start off with the automatic recount and then we can move into why you decided to jump back in the race. You and your campaign took what you refer to as the high road against someone whose politics is nowhere near the high road, I would argue that Lauren Bobert's politics, the politics of Trumpism and MAGA-ism, is sewer politics. And so I want to talk to you about the number 546 and why you think you came so close and why you think that taking the high road against someone who does not was a good idea. Yeah, no, good morning. A lot to unpack there. You know, a couple of things. One is I'm kind of a

high road guy, I guess. The things that resonated in a district. it's only 24% Democrat and 31% Republican and then a lot of unaffiliates. And the reason I knew that from day one we were going to need to double our count to have non-democrats involved in the voting conversation. And the things that resonated most successfully across the political spectrum as I talked to people, backed up everything you just said. I talked about people wanting the circus to stop. I spent time talking about people sick and tired of this anger attainment industry,

which my buddy Dean Phillips, who was a member of Congress. I grew up with them in Minneapolis, talked about people wanted that anger tamedment. And even when I was speaking to some of the most conservative groups I did, they put down their head and nodded, and they understood exactly what I was talking about and who I was talking about. So before we got to the issues of water and rural health care, it was really just the issue of there's a person in Congress representing them, quote, unquote, that's not really focused on the job. She's focused on herself. And you see the Marjorie Taylor Green to the Jim Jordan and the Mac Gates of the world. And a year and a half ago, I looked at some statistics, and Lauren Bobert was the only one,

sadly, that had any chance of losing. And I thought that if a moderate Democrat could build a coalition, my mom calls it the pro-normal party coalition. I like that. Yeah, that's getting together, Democrats, Republicans, and Independence. It's just the math that needs to be done. You know, I've said for a long time, if there was a get stuff done party, I'd be in that party. And so I just knew in my heart that actually a lot of people kind of want that circus to stop. And I think about 30 to 40% of the Republican Party, maybe closer to 30, wants that as well. And so I knew that they were open to listening to someone else. It was just building trust and relationships across a district. It's half the size of Colorado. There's larger than the state of Mississippi and 20 other states.

It was just driving around and my son and I got into our red pickup truck and we drove 24,000 miles over those seven or eight months through the primary and the general election and connected with a lot of people. And what you find out is when you get to the ranches and the farmers and the small business towns that a lot of people, again, they want that circus to stop. And then you could get into conversations about how important water is and the rural access, not just the cost of rural health care, but how like you're driving two hours to get to your care provider. And just kind of some common sense what people are sitting around talking about. What people are not talking about in Western and Southern Colorado is what's going on in this oversight committee, kind of this

ghost and Goblins Committee of chasing up what happened a long time ago and this laptop. She should be focus on water and ranching and ag and she's yelling at Twitter executives why she doesn't have more followers on her personal account. That just sums up what she did a couple weeks ago of her issue, that she's not focused on the job and she's focused on herself. So do you think, you know, because here's the thing, I obviously on this show and just in life really focus on national politics. And what has struck me about Trumpism, aside from the racism and the misogyny and, you know, all of those other things is the grievance politics of. it all. And I think that, you know, to your point about anger attainment is that it is a politics of

grievance. It is not the politics of getting stuff done. It is the politics of I am wronged. I'm going to scream about how wronged I have been. I'm not going to do anything about it, but I'm going to make sure that you know how wrong I've been. Tell us about the people of the third district in Colorado who you have spent time with now over the course of those, you know, 24,000 miles that you traveled with your son. What is it about Lauren Bobert that you think that some of those people relate to and just in general that have become overcome with this kind of anger, Q&ON, conspiracy, nonsense as opposed to who is helping me with my day-to-day life? Yeah. No, and I think you brought up a good point, a couple of things. One is the vast majority of people I talk to, whether the left,

writer's center are focused on the problems of daily life, which is safe schools, good schools, safe communities, good jobs. You know, we have a very low unemployment rate, even in Colorado, but the quality of those jobs matter as well and the dignity of those jobs and the energy, domestic energy production transition going over. And these are the conversations people are concerned about most of them. We're not concerned about the yelling and screaming. You know, you can go back to Pap Buchanan and everything else about that grievance and not to go get back in a history lesson, but, you know, in 2008, 2009, there was a huge, obviously, economic disaster across the country. And a lot of people saw the banks, Wall Street, and government kind of bail out,

the little people, the average working person, whether average working in urban in Brooklyn or out in Western Colorado, they just felt like nobody was really standing up for them. And that used to be the role of the Democratic Party over those years. You know, so I would say that there is some, I guess, understandable grievance about just being left behind. And I'm focused on having conversations with those people. There's obviously some grievance that also popped up at the same time of this economic calamity in 0809. A lot of people looked up and all of a sudden they saw a black person with a lot of power

and a president. And that scared a lot of people as well. So that was unrehensible grievance of that came from. But I'm really focused on those that just felt like the system really wasn't stacked, not just in their favor, but completely against them. And, you know, I think Donald Trump really figured out a way to dive into that. and obviously just went to the lowest common denominator of people's fears, as opposed to, hey, listen, all of us left, right or center that are kind of, you know, middle class and below,

just feel like we've been shafted. So that is really some of the conversation that I'm trying to at least acknowledge where people have a right to be frustrated. But as you go on, and again, a lot of people want the focus to come back on them. But the Democratic Party, you know, there's about 2,000 rural counties in the country. There's about 3,100 counties total. You know, Bill Clinton in 96 won more than half of these rural counties in the country, of which I have 27 counties in Colorado's third district and the vast majority of them are ruling rule,

and they're all ruled on a common sense basis. Barack Obama in 2012, when 25% of those rule counties down from 50% in 1996. And Joe Biden, with due respect, President Biden, won fewer than 10% of those rule counties. Oh, wow. Yeah. And so the country, you know, the Democratic Party has gone from more than 50% of rule America to fewer than 10%. And so a lot of people that are ranchers and farmers out here feel like the Democratic Party has kind of lost a connection with them. And I think it's less about the policies that are coming

out of the Democratic Party and more about some of the language that's been used on a national stage once Fox News gets a hold of it and really butchers it to really scaring a lot of people in rural America and the white working class, those without, you know, only one third of adult Americans actually have a four-year college degree, and it's a little bit less than Western and Southern Colorado. And that population just feels like they've been abandoned by the system and abandoned by Democrats. And so I'm spending a lot of my time kind of going around and letting people know that, you know, I'm here to be a listener and I'm here to kind of push forward, left, right or center, a more respectful conversation and something your kids can be proud of around that kitchen table.

And let's get back to the issues that really matter. Again, the rural aspects of health care, the rule aspects of education, water is a really big deal. in western and southern Colorado and focusing on that and not focusing on, again, the circus, the agertainment, those that yell and scream and then send out press releases to generate a bunch of money across and it just turns into that type of cycle that I think a lot of people get frustrated with across the country. You know, I love the point that you brought up because I brought it up myself, which is that the Democratic Party has ceded way too much ground to Republicans, whether it be in the southern regions of the country or the Midwest, have just come.

kind of said, well, those counties, those cities, those states are red. So we don't need to invest in them or it's going to be too much, too much of a lift to invest in them. Do you think that if Democrats at a national stage, like if in the 2024 presidential, if it is Joe Biden that is the candidate, which we believe that he will be, needs to spend more face-to-face time, needs to not just assume that because areas maybe in 2020 and 2016 were, you know, know, 30, 40, 50 percent in the bag for Donald Trump, that that means that like there are no inroads to make. What advice do you give from looking at your narrow, narrow, narrow loss to Democrats at the national level that when they're looking at the map, they're just throwing

away whole states and whole regions? What advice do you have for them on how to regain ground? These are the conversations I'm offering pushback to the Democratic leadership in Congress and with all due respect to the White House as well. And I do it respectfully, but we do have lessons learned. And listen, I went to school in Bolver. I lived on the Upper West Side of Manhattan for 12 years. Like, you know, and I grew up in Minneapolis and an Indian reservation in Northeast Montana. Like, I get where a lot of the Democratic Party base is. But when you spend time the last 20 years in the Western Slope of Colorado, you realize that the brand of the Democratic Party is very, very damaged. And I don't think it's because of the policies. But the problem is those policies are kind of embedded in page 847 on chart 2 of a 2,000-page bill. And what the Republican Party is pointing out, there's been some unfortunate comments made by some national leaders that have been divisive of people that work in the energy business, demissive of people without college educations, demissive of ranchers and farmers. And so, again, you know, a Democratic strategist once said the Democrats do a great job of showing up with a cookbook. Republicans show up with a brownie. Oh, that's good.

Right? Isn't that great? Yep, because it's so accurate. And it goes back to, you know, you need to, first of all, they need to show up. And, you know, people appreciated me showing up in some of the smallest towns that we have in our district, in our state, in our country, you know, towns of four or five hundred people, a thousand people. And showing up, A, and being a good listener and realizing that the party or the group I'm

associated with has a little bit of amends to make out. and then that brings down some of the guard, and then you can get into a conversation. And whether it's politics or culture or a lot of things in life, a lot of it's an emotional conversation, not just fact-based. And the Democrats are really good with facts, and they're not very good connecting with people emotionally and feeling about where people are and showing up there. And you can't do that unless you actually are sitting in places like, you know, the Fifth Street Cafe, Nucla, Colorado, or in other places in Lahara, Colorado, or Antinito

at the Dutch Mill. And so it is actually just showing up and being a good listener. And, you know, President Biden has it in his bones. He's proudly gruffs at some of these Ivy League educated people that he's surrounded with. He's proud that he's not from the Ivy League. He's proud he's from Scranton, Pennsylvania. So there should be a natural path for the president to get out there and connect with people. And I think he can. But sometimes the national Democratic wins and voices have not been helpful. And so, you know, I bring up these statistics to every I have a chance to spend time with. And, you know, if they want to continue to do well at a national level, they really need to kind of reset the communication strategy and trying to get out there

and let people know that there have been some successes that have been very, very good. But the last thing I'll say is, like, you hear this a lot, like, why does the working class and some of the farmers and ranchers vote against their interests when their view as a Republican policy is not helpful? And my view is they might be voting against their economic interests, but they're not voting against their interests of dignity and culture and who they are. And before you get to the economics, no matter how much you might be struggling financially, the dignity is one of the biggest drivers. And that's not just a flippant dignity thing.

People just want to feel like they're truly respected and heard. And the Democratic Party needs to work on making sure that the Democratic message is heard in rural America and heard in blue collar America again. It used to be and it hasn't been of the last 20 or 30 years. With a couple of minutes that I have left with you, tell me what is going to be different? friend, Adam, with this run versus your 2020 run. What are some of the lessons that you learned and are going to apply in order to get that 546 vote to 546 in your favor or 1,000 in your favor, or 20,000 in your favor? What do you think that the shift is going to be? Yeah, again, so this is a district that is R7 to R15 depending on who you talk to. And again,

the 538s and the Cook political reports and a lot of insiders and the Democratic Party as well, they all blew it off. They just didn't think there was any chance to do it. And my convention was, especially ranchers and farmers and people in small towns, they like pragmatism. They want the circus to stop. When you make up 99.8% of the 45,000 vote assumed deficit, I think not to be stubborn, we're pretty much going to stick with the same plan. The better thing is, is that we just have a lot more time. And it's not just what Bobart is bad for the district. It's why I, with due respect, are good for people in the family. And we have a much bigger and a much longer opportunity to tell that story. So that's going to be helpful. The name recognition, which was a problem last time, is mostly gone.

And that's a whole weird thing I'm trying to manage. That's another story. We spent about $3.8,4 million and Bobrat was able to spend about six. Now, we actually raised more money than she did in the heart of the general election campaign. It took a while, but we were able to do it. But she just started with a much bigger bench. And so we're off to a pretty good start, a great start. We've, we raised a quarter million dollars in the first day. We raised $500,000 in three days. If I can make a plug to go to Adamfor Colorado.com. Adamfor Colorado.com. And there's ways to donate from $5 up. There's also ways to just get on a volunteer list. We had a lot of people help us across the country with phone banking and texting and everything else like that. But, you know, we just have more time to do it. And, you know,

I'm in an agricultural conference now. I'm going to a water conference next week. It just gives me more time to get out there and have a chance to meet people and realize I'm a normal human being that truly cares and connects with, I think, better than the alternative, the current alternative when it comes to them and their families and their businesses and their communities. The one hurdle we do have now that we didn't have before is we didn't want this to be a surprise, but obviously we turned it into a surprise of the country, is that obviously they're going to take us more seriously. There's some internal Republican pictures that have been floating around over the past couple days that she's like in the top three or four of endangered Republicans

or incumbents. And so there's going to be a lot of focus on the Republican side and supporting her. But again, to me, it's less about Republican red versus blue versus, you know, it's 70% team America and 30% team extremism. Come on. Yep. Right. And so the question is, as I told people, I don't care how you voted in your prior years. Just think about who do you want representing you in the halls of Congress for you, your family, your business, and your community. That's how we made up a lot of votes. And basically it came very, very close in the district.

It's only 23 or 24% registered Democrat. Well, Adam, we will be watching you. We will be watching this race. I hope to have you back on the new abnormal because you seem to have brought a bit of normal back to not only back to Colorado, but back to our politics in general. and maybe all isn't lost. You've given me a little bit of hope to start my day with. So I appreciate that.

And again, tell folks how they can support you and your campaign. Yeah. So thank you very much. There's a couple of things. One is go to Adamforcolor.com, A-D-A-M-F-O-R-Colroto.com. And obviously, we need money. And it goes from $5 all the way up. You know, we've had donations from 27 counties, everyone,

and we've had donations from every state. And we've had donations from five bucks all the way up to, you know, a couple of thousand, whatever the limit is. I don't know. It's a lot. But also, in addition to the donate page, we do have a volunteer link as well. And you can get updates. Hopefully we don't bombard people too much. But at some point, the national outreach, not just on the financial support, but people willing to help. We had people fly out to help a store knock. We had people writing postcards. We had people phone banking and calling. My 17-year-old son got 130 college kids. Last cycle, and those 130 kids and Felix made 700,000 phone calls.

This is the type of field operation we're going to need not right now, but as we can start to build the database of people that want to help from around the country, that's really great. We appreciate a chance. So Adam for Colorado.com. All right, Adam. Thank you so much for joining the new abnormal. We will be in touch. We'll wish you luck. That sounds great, Danielle. Thank you very much. Nothing is more abnormal than the rise of the radical right. Fever Dreams is a daily beast podcast, taking you inside the rights push to retake power from the Magas, Acolytes to the straight-up grifters. They recently released their 100th episode, so there's no better time to listen.

Head to beast.pub slash fever dreams to check it out. 27 years ago in 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act. In the CDA was a section entitled Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material, which is now commonly known as Section 230. Broadly speaking, Section 230 does two main things. It gives what it calls interactive computer services, things. on the internet like social media and video sites, forums, etc. Immunity from liability for their users' posts and allows these sites to decline to host third-party speech at their discretion.

In other words, you can't sue Twitter because of the content of a user's tweets, and you can't sue Twitter for making you remove a tweet or for banning you from its site. This week, Skodas heard oral arguments in two cases that deal with Section 230 protections, and here to tell us how they went and what they mean and whether we will survive the coming apocalypse is the great Jay Willis, editor-in-chief of the legal website, balls and strikes. Jay, welcome. Can you imagine if you could sue Twitter every time you saw a bad tweet? I wish. I wish. I would be so wealthy. I would have no fear because all my tweets are fantastic. Oh my God, Madaglacius would owe me so much money.

So Jay, let's start with the first of the two cases that the court heard oral arguments in, and that was Gonzalez v. Google. In my expert opinion, this case involves ISIS and algorithms. Am I correct? That's right. That's an excellent summary of the relevant legal jargon. Gonzalez is really the main, I would say, the main case about the scope of Section 230, which, you know, we talked a little bit about what Section 230 does,

but the reason that there was so much attention on this case, particularly among people who are getting very tired of governance by right-wing Supreme Court grievance, is that Section 230 has become this sort of bogeyman that conservatives tend to bring up every time one of their posts, like, doesn't get enough retweets. Right. During his pre-insurrection heyday, Trump was railing against Section 230 a lot. Same with people like Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, have introduced legislation to peel back its protections. And as you mentioned, Congress passed this law back in 1996, but hasn't done a whole lot with it since

despite how much change has taken place on the Internet since then. So when the court agreed to hear this case against this sort of culture war backdrop, it's like, uh-oh, generally when the conservative court weighs in on culture war stuff, hasn't gone well of late, let's put it that way. So talk to me about because I was reading about this case, and the interesting point Part of this involves the algorithms because I guess it's YouTube in this case, which is owned by Google. This is not a necessarily a YouTube hosted a video that it shouldn't have. It's a YouTube put videos into a user's feed that it shouldn't have based on its algorithm.

Right. So as you mentioned at the top, Section 230 protects platforms like Google, like YouTube, from publisher liability for the content that their users put on the platform. So to try and make their case against YouTube here, the plaintiffs said, well, this isn't actually about any individual video. It's about the fact that the algorithm that YouTube relies on and that all of these big tech companies rely on, the algorithm sort of made choices for the user. It presented users with information in a certain way. It elevated these particular, you know, ISIS-adjacent videos over like cat videos.

And that's not a coincidence. That's not, that's the product of an algorithm. And Google should be held liable for how that algorithm works. And so in this particular case, it's being brought by the family of a woman who was killed in an ISIS attack. And the suit is arguing that Google basically violates. the Anti-Terrorism Act and that it in a sense aided and abetted terrorism by putting things like ISIS videos running it through its algorithms and then recommending it to users who want to see that kind of thing. That's right. And if you're listening to this and finding sort of the twists and turns of the legal

background confusing, you are very much not alone because that was sort of one of the big takeaways from oral argument in this case is that the justice is that the justice is that the themselves were in just way, way over their heads in trying to parse this. I went through the transcript. Sam Alito described himself at one point as completely confused. Kataji Brown-Jackson described herself as thoroughly confused. And I think thoroughly is less confused than completely, but like I will need to, I will need to like check a conversion chart of some kind.

Sure. You have to parse that. Also, there was a great quote from Justice Kagan. And I think what she was basically saying is like, look, this is an issue that's better resolved by Congress, not us. And she said, quote, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. Yeah, understatement of the century there, right? Yeah. From the reading I did, I did feel like, and with the usual caveat that oral arguments aren't always a perfect indicator of how justices end up voting.

But it felt like a majority of the court might be on Google's side here. As you alluded to earlier, is maybe a bit of a surprise given the conservative hatred of Section 230 and stuff like that? Is this one of those like even Clarence Thomas type situations? I agree with you that the sort of well-grounded worst fears by some observers of this case about what the justices could do in a potentially sweeping ruling that rewrites, reinterpret Section 230. It doesn't seem, again, from oral argument, big asterisk, it doesn't seem that those worst fears are going to be realized. And you're right that multiple justices sort of talked about like, hey, this is really complicated. These are policy decisions. Isn't it best to just leave this to Congress?

And like, first of all, yes, correct. I agree, Justice Kagan. You and literally Sam Alito are not experts on the internet. But I also want to emphasize that this is. not like the product of some newfound respect for the principles of judicial restraint and deference to the legislator by this Supreme Court. There were a couple really revealing moments during oral argument when Roberts and Kavanaugh and Kagan, but I'll focus on Roberts and Kavanaugh for now since their coalition is the one that controls the court, they talked about the financial

liability that a judicial revision of Section 230 would create. And that's, not just for big tech, but it's for really any business who has the internet as a big part of its business model. So I'm quoting here from Roberts, hundreds of millions, billions of responses to inquiries on the internet are made every day. And then without Section 230, he said every one of those would be a possibility of a lawsuit. This Supreme Court is a lot of things, right? But above all else, it is a very pro-business, pro-corporate court. Right. One study paper released last year.

One estimate says that this is the most pro-business court in at least a century, and the court's six conservatives are the six most pro-business justices in a century. So, like, in a lot of these culture war cases, what I'm saying is the interests of your average Fox News viewer align pretty well with the bottom line of, like, the big money donors who keep Republicans in power. Second Amendment cases, like the gun lobby, is huge, and it's very wealthy. Campaign finance, obviously, redounds to the benefit of corporate interests.

And even these, you know, religious liberty cases, cases like Hobby Lobby, right, they're about freeing businesses from the sort of pesky burdens of complying with laws and regulations. And this is just one of those cases where they diverge. Tucker Carlson fanboys want Section 230 gutted, but business wants Section 230, 30 saved. Right. If there's one thing that Republicans hate more than the excesses of cancel culture, it's the prospect of mega corporations having to reallocate some percentage of their profits from C-suite bonuses to next year's litigation budget. Yeah, and I guess, look, I guess we can count ourselves lucky if in a case like this, they maybe come to the right decision,

even if it's for the wrong reasons. I think that is a fair and maybe the most optimistic way of looking at the court right now is that we might get a not disastrous decision because these guys just love corporate money too much. Well, I am nothing, if not known, for my cheerful optimism.

I want to bring in Wednesday's arguments in another case that was brought against Twitter. This also involves ISIS and also was filed or has to do with the Anti-Terrorism Act. Basically, this is not as much of a Section 230 case if it is at all. as Gonzalez versus Google, but it still is, I guess, an interesting question as to whether Twitter

itself is liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act. It seemed like the words from the reading I did again, like the justices kept focusing on words like knowingly and substantial. And those are, I assume, the sort of key words to determine whether you can hold something like Twitter liable for aiding and abetting. That's right. And I don't want to downplay this case too too much. Like, certainly a hypothetical court finding that tech companies can be liable for what literal terrorist organizations post on their platforms would make it very hard for a lot of internet platforms to do business. But again, I would just sort of bring it back to the way the, like, this court's sort of prime directive to protect corporations and business. And I very much doubt that they are going to gut a law that has

allowed the internet and it's like the industries, the, you know, trillion-dollar industry of the internet to grow and proliferate, I very much doubt that justices are going to throw it into chaos. Okay. I saw you and other court watchers and people who know what they're talking about, kind of actually wondering why the court heard these cases. And maybe I can't remember if in particular it was more to do with the Gonzalez case or the Google case or the Twitter case. But I thought that was interesting. Can you speak to that a little bit? Yeah, it's obviously all idle speculation, but as always, everything I say is correct. So let's talk about that a little bit.

I do think there's something to the idea, as Professor Gautum Hans has argued on Balls and Strikes, balls and strikes.org, check it out, great website. I do think there's something to the idea that the court sort of has heard of Section 230. It's seen it in headlines a lot, especially from their fellow Republican politicians, and saw this as a chance to like weigh in on a case that in their view, like requires their sage wisdom. The court has done a lot of this over the past couple years as the conservative supermajority has taken shape. They will grant review on cases where like the technical legal reason for intervention is murky and kind of dubious at best, but they just sort of take this approach that when an issue is very important, surely,

these nine sage lawyers are the ones who can provide an answer. I am not foolish enough to believe this will be a trend, but I do think oral argument in the Gonzalez case in particular sort of exposed the foolishness of this, where again, I just thought the justices were in way over their heads. They were trying to sort of parse these different angles, different standards. The lawyer in particular for arguing against Google was sort of a technical term for this, he was quite bad. The justices were not able to sort of hide their frustration with his lines of answers to their questions. Again, I don't think that this is going to stop the court from weighing in on stuff like this, but I do think it very much exposed the weakness of a Supreme Court approach to

policymaking that is just like, this seems hard and it's up for us to solve. Okay, first of all, for our listeners who don't speak legalese, I just want to say that a phrase like quite bad is used in legal circles to mean really shitty. That's right. Yeah. Again, I'm sorry for the Latin. Yeah, I hate it with lawyers through Latin. That's okay. But yeah, it just seems weird to me for the court to take a case and then spend a lot of that time basically going, I don't know what this means. I think that's right. There are many smart people who suggest that the court might ultimately resolve. this case by doing what's known as dismisses improvidently granted, which is like a very funny legalese phrase that is just like, oopsie, we shouldn't have taken this. I love the passive voice in the phrase dismissed as improvidently granted.

It's like, granted by whom? Who did that? Right. Right. Yeah, which would basically, again, dismissed as improvidently granted or dig is basically just saying, never mind, punt it, we'll think about it another time. or maybe not at all. It just seems weird to work your whole life to get to the point where you only have to deal with stuff that you choose to and then pick something and be like, why the hell are we doing this?

I mean, as a journalist, I can very much relate to the idea of sitting down with what you're pretty sure is like a world-changing idea and like two or three paragraphs in being like, ooh, man, it's hard. I wonder if there have been any good tweets lately and then you're just, you're done. Right.

All right, well, before I let you go, Jay, I have to ask, you recently came across something that I know, I think, heavily depressed you, I think is the best way of putting it. And that is the fact that young Clarence Thomas was swole. Oh, man, you're just going to drop this on me like this, huh? Need a mentor process. Okay. I mean, it's called sandbagging. It's a legitimate interviewing tactic. You got me good. It pains me to say this, but Young Clarence Thomas was, again, to use a technical a legal term. He was jacked as hell. He was sort of legendarily a fitness nut. One biography of

him mentions that he would wake up every weekday at 4 a.m. to lift weights before going to church. Sort of a lot wrapped up in that. We can leave that for another day. There's a picture that's kind of bouncing around on the internet in which you got to hand it to him. He looks awesome. Like arms absolutely bursting out of a polo. And I want to be clear, this is like a tastefully fitted polo. Like this is athletic fit. This isn't one of those like garbage bags that you wear.

This like hugs. Every contour, every vein is on display. Really just remarkable. So like, again, bad person, super reactionary, bad for the country.

But also like we got to give credit where it's due. The man knows his way around a squat rack. Yeah. I just want to say before we end that there's nothing wrong with getting swall for the Lord. And I think the fact that you take issue with that says more about you than it does about Clarence Thomas or society in general. He's going to sue me once he repeals Section 230, isn't he? Absolutely. Jay, thank you

so much for being here. The website is balls and strikes at balls and strikes.org. It is a fantastic resource if you want to learn about what's going on with the courts in this country today. So please do check it out. Jay, thanks so much. Right on. Thanks for having me. Andy Levy Daniel Moody Who is your winner of fuck that guy? You know I'm almost hesitant

to say because it's it's the usual suspects It's Ron DeSantis Or at least someone in Ron DeSantis's office And something that the Ron DeSantis administration is now doing They announced that they are no longer

going to be talking to any reporter from NBC or MSNBC because they're mad about a report from Andrea Mitchell. DeSantis' press secretary, Brian Griffin, on Wednesday, tweeted that that will be the standard response from their office until Andrea Mitchell apologizes and your track record improves. What they're mad about is that Mitchell, in an interview, asked, what does Governor Ron DeSantis not know about black history and the black experience when he says that slavery and the aftermath of slavery should not be taught?

taught to Florida school children. And Griffin thinks that that's a shameful question. And Mitchell herself, she sort of clarified her question a little later. But look, let's be honest, the main thrust of her question wasn't wrong. You know, Ron DeSantis may not actually say that slavery should not be taught to Florida children, but he's doing a pretty damn good job of absolutely destroying how. how it should be taught to Florida schoolchildren and how the aftermath of slavery should be taught to Florida school children and what slavery meant to America and how it portrays America and what it means that this country was built on the back of slaves. None of those are questions that Ron DeSantis wants Florida school children to even consider, let alone answer.

So there's that. But beyond that is the bigger idea of the press secretary for a governor who is more than likely going to be running for the Republican nomination for president, saying that they're boycotting an entire news organization because they're unhappy with a question that one reporter asked is, quite frankly, I think the word for it is insane. And I'm trying to think of how conservatives would react. if Joe Biden or a Democratic governor said they are not taking questions from Fox News. And we would hear about cancel culture. And we would hear about how these people hate America and how they're communists. And we would hear all the standard things we hear when it's even, you know, suggested that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization, even though we know that they lie on air for profits. So I was just trying to think of what the reaction would be from conservatives.

because I'm sure it would not be right on and you go the way it has been for DeSantis. So for all those reasons and many more, a big hearty fuck that guy to Ron DeSantis and his entire administration. If Ron DeSantis and his fucking team are so proud of the work that they are doing to erase the black experience, black contributions, black history, which is American history, then just fucking say so. Answer the question. Like, be bold about it. Don't pretend that, oh, it's NBC or Andrea Mitchell and Andrea Mitchell coming out to clarify her fucking question.

What was the clarification that was needed? There wasn't any. Ron DeSantis does not believe that black people have made any contributions to this country that are worthy of advanced placement education. So just fucking say that and stand by that. Don't turn around and then be a snowflake as you refer to everybody else and say that you can't handle hard fucking questions. Like, give me a break.

And that's what Democrats, that's what people should come out and say. This is what journalism looks like. It doesn't look like softballs. So if you want to run for president of the United States, then you should fucking man up. How about that for all of these toxic masculinity, you know, documentaries and bullshit that they do. Fucking man up, Ron DeSantis.

You can't handle a tough question from Andrea fucking Mitchell. Miss me. I hate him. We need a wall, right? I know. Yeah, we need a wall. for all of our fuck that guys. I know, we've been talking about this.

So who is your fuck that guy, Danielle? You know, the original motherfucker, the original Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, but why? Because there are so many reasons. I'm just going to read you, Andy, the title of the Business Insider article, which just speaks volumes.

Donald Trump, who rolled back rail safety regulations and slashed environmental protections, donate Trump, branded water to East Palestine residents. I mean, I'm surprised that he did not bring them paper towels because that's what the fuck he's good for, right? Throw them some paper towels, throw them some Trump branded water that you probably, I would be shocked if those water bottles were not filled with the very water in East Palestine and then they just wrap the fucking label on it. I would not trust a piece of gum from Donald Trump. Okay. Trump's steaks got.

defunct Trump University got defunct like the Trump organization is branded with lies, but you're going to accept water from this man? I mean, are we sure that it's not the bleach that he told people to inject themselves with in 2020? I can't with Donald Trump and his tattered Make America Great Again hat flanked by a bunch of just people who look like real live versions of Yosemite Sam. I can't with Donald Trump. I can't with your fake ass water and your fake as concern for people that you don't care about and that you think are dumb, as quoted by other people on Fox News, they're just so easy to do. Folks in East Palestine, don't take that water.

Don't drink your water and don't drink Trump water because nothing ain't safe. Yeah, I think at best, at best, that water comes from the taps at Mar-a-Lago. It may even come from other places at Mar-a-Lago that I don't want to get into. Hope you enjoy 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. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens?

Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studed The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider 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.