The Daily Beast Podcast - The 29-Year-Old Long Islander Coming for George Santos’ Seat

Episode Date: May 19, 2023

Long Island native Zak Malamed is tired of Rep. George Santos’ shit. So tired of it that he decided to run against the accused serial liar for his House seat. He shares with co-host Andy Levy why he thinks Santos won in the district to begin with, how he thinks he stands a chance to win, and his thoughts on Santos’ lies about being Jewish, something that Malamed took personally. Also on this episode: TNA co-cost Danielle Moodie talks to State Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, one of the “Sister Senators” in the South Carolina Senate—made up of three Republicans, one Democrat, and one Independent— who banded together to block an abortion ban in their state. Sen. Matthews shares how her relationship with one of her Sister Senators on the other side of the aisle, Republican Katrina Shealy, began, and what it’s like to be a woman and a Black person, in such a sexist, racist state legislature. 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 excellent show we have today. We'll be joined by South Carolina State Senator Margie Bright Matthews, who's going to talk to us about all the fuckery that's been going on down at that legislature as they pass one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Then we'll talk to Zach Malamud, who's running on the Democratic side to unseat George Santos in his New York district. But first, let's have some fun. I have some breaking news for you and all of our listeners because something has happened in the state of Florida.

And I want folks, you know, brace yourself. Brace yourself. Because this is the place that if I had a saw, I would just go down there and try and take it off myself. But we finally actually have some good news out of the state of Florida. Whoa. Donna Deegan shocked the shit out of folks who saw her be out fundraised. I think it was by four to one, by her opponent win the election of mayor of Jacksonville. For the first time, a Democrat has won.

And I believe for the first time also a woman has won the mayoral race in Jacksonville, which is the most populous city in Florida. And many of which have thought was, quote, thoroughly ruby red, according to political scientists. and she beat her Republican rival Daniel Davis, heads the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce, and had a substantial, according to Newsweek, fundraising advantage by around four points. And basically, her win undermines the idea that Florida is a lost cause. And I continue to realize that I need to stop saying this about Florida and Texas and, you know,

and these ruby red states because there are people there who, believe in progress, who believe that what these governors are doing is absolutely abhorrent. And it signifies to all of us and Democrats in general that if you campaign on the issues that people care about, like you know, preserving our democracy, bodily autonomy, that you will indeed win, even in these ruby red districts. So yay, Florida, well fucking done. Yeah, to have a Democratic mayor, in a city that big. Probably everyone in Florida knows this, but I, for some reason, I had no idea that Jacksonville has almost twice as many people as Miami.

I didn't know either. It was the largest city run by a Republican mayor in the country. And it's just pretty amazing. I mean, I know, you know, this is strictly anecdotal, but the people I know who live in Jacksonville are, what's a nice way of saying it, not Democrats. So I just sort of, you know, out of ignorance, I guess, I just always sort of assumed it was a, you know, a Republican stronghold that was untouchable. And look, I don't know. I don't know if this is a black swan event or whatever, like a unicorn, like just a weird one-off, or if it's a symbol of

something else, I hope it's the latter. It's really interesting in terms of what it maybe says about Ron DeSantis. I mean, Jacksonville is in Duval County, which he won pretty handily in his governor's race, I think, by like 12 points. But it's probably not what he was. wants as he's going into a potential presidential, you know, announcement next week to have the most populous city in his state switch over to democratic rule on his watch. And I can't imagine that that makes him feel very good. And that makes me feel very good. Yeah. I like imagining Ron DeSantis not feeling very good. Oh, I imagine that all the time. And, you know, just to add to that, Ron DeSantis' candidates that he came out and backed didn't stump for because he's too busy with his imaginary idea that he can become president of the United States.

So he's doing events overseas and what have you. So he didn't stump for these people. But the candidates that he came out to support both lost. I think that much in the same way that everything that Donald Trump touches turns to shit or a lawsuit, I think we are starting to see that decline that guess what? banning a whole bunch of shit, spewing a whole bunch of anti-trans homophobic things, banning bodily autonomy and books and wanting to shut down colleges and on the reverse, not offering the people of Florida anything, except for destruction, not innovating, but destroying. I don't think it's a winning message.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see. You know, as you pointed out, he didn't stump for any of these candidates because he was off on his, you know, book tour or whatever, much in the same way that he really wasn't in Fort Lauderdale. while it was being flooded a couple weeks ago or a month ago, whenever that was. It'll be interesting to see if Floridians start to say, hey, wait a minute, I thought this guy was supposed to be our governor. And if maybe the fact that he seems wholly disinterested in anything that, as you pointed out, isn't, you know, transphobic, homophobic, racist, or involves banning books, that maybe that's not what they wanted. I would like to think that that's not

what they wanted, but who knows. But, you know, I can't imagine that the mayoral candidate in Jacksonville that he didn't stump for, Daniel Davis, I can't imagine he's happy. And I would imagine the city and county Republican Party people ain't too happy right now. So maybe this starts a backlash that can spread. And, you know, ideally, DeSantis does not become president and also kind of screws himself over in his own state. and boy, that would be a nice combination. Love to see it. You know what I'm saying? Love to see it.

And we need good news because there is a lot more of it that is happening, but there is also just continues to be terrible news coming out of this state. But this is one of those points of purpose that I think that people need to be organizing around. And nothing is a fluke if you decide to use the momentum that was gained with Donna Deegan's campaign and gained with her way. to push the needle forward towards progress. It doesn't have to be a fluke.

It has to be the beginning of a sea change. And I think that that's how folks in Florida and outside of Florida need to see this. Amen. And so speaking of other news, which I guess it's good-ish, you know, because I don't really know where this goes. But I am excited to see a group of Democrats get together and decide to offer up legislation, the reintroduction of the Judiciary Act of 2020. And this is being led by Representative Adam Schiff, Senators Ed Markey, Tina Smith, and Elizabeth Warren,

and representatives Gerald Nadler and Hank Johnson and Corey Bush. And essentially, this is what the legislation is proposing, folks. It would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-seat justice bench. The lawmakers, and this is, according to the press release, were joined in front of the steps of the Supreme Court by leaders of other national advocacy groups. And look, we as Democrats never talk about the necessity to expand the court. We actually never talked about the importance of the federal courts or the Supreme Court ever. And this is how we got the Dobbs decision.

This is how we have now are living under the rule, the reign of an unelected right-wing body that is hell-bent on rolling back every single civil right and liberty that has been won over the last half century. And so I think that it is incredibly important that Democrats begin to campaign on this issue and actually use it as one that says, look, all of our rights, they are not one. They have not been won by a collaboration by Republicans and Democrats to pass legislation that further expands our rights. That's not how it has ever happened. It's always gone through the courts, and the Republicans have always known that, which is why they've had Leonard Leo, who leads the Federalist Society, who has rewritten the map.

That's why you have Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump that were able to jam through not one, not two, but three right-wing Supreme Court justices. And so I think that we need to have real conversations about where progress in this country has come from. and I believe that we need to do whatever is possible to expand the court. And I think that this is an important first step. Yeah, I have mixed feelings about this. I have absolutely no problem with changing the number of people on the court. It's been done a bunch of times before I don't think it's nine justices is not written in stone. And whatever number it is, fine.

I guess it does have to be an odd number. But I don't care if it's bigger. Let's say this legislation passes right before, I don't know, the 2024 election. And let's say for the sake of argument, Donald Trump wins the 2024 election. So he gets to appoint four more justices. I don't really think that's what these guys have in mind. But it's absolutely a possible consequence. It feels like a big change that, you know, is for the long term or whatever.

But it almost kind of feels like they're. trying some sort of short-term solution to the problem of a conservative majority court. I just don't know if it works out that way. What could be worse than Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis or a Republican president in general appointing four people to the Supreme Court and giving the conservatives an even larger majority? And if there's still lifetime appointments and they appoint young people, oh man, we are fucked. I don't blame them for trying this. And again, I'm not, I'm not opposed to it on any principle of, you know, this is bad for the court. This is bad for America. We don't, this is not

how things are done. I don't care about any of that. We've done enough wrong things in this country that trying new things doesn't bother me particularly. I'm just worried that this has the potential to radically backfire. So let's say Joe Biden wins reelect. And this thing passes and he gets to a point four justices. Do you think he's going to get four good justices through Congress unless the Democrats have the Senate? The whole thing just, again, it seems to me like it's a little bit like throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. And I don't blame them for trying this and I ain't mad at them. And I just don't know how it works in reality. But please convince me I'm wrong, Danielle.

I mean, look, I am not a judicial scholar, Supreme Court scholar in any way. Well, I am. But if it were me, I think that what we actually need, given the amount of grift that is on the Supreme Court, given the fact that the institution has eroded trust from the public trust, is one, we need robust ethics reforms that actually have consequences. You know, those things that happen to other people. who are not wealthy, who are not well connected, who are not often white cis men. It would be great to have robust ethics reforms that actually have consequences. I also believe in term limits. I do not believe that the Supreme Court justices should be on the Supreme Court forever.

I do not believe in lifetime appointments. I think that we are seeing the issue with that. And I think that if, again, personally, if the Supreme Court is no longer, going to actually represent a law-abiding body and one that believes in precedent and the actual rule of law and they're ruling on politics alone, then maybe they should be elected officials. Then maybe instead of giving that power to the presidency and the Senate to clear these people for lifetime appointments, maybe that power then in a true democracy should go to the people. Because if you go and walk and talk like a politician, then you should be held accountable

to the people. And right now, the Supreme Court is not and has never been. And that was because they were anointed as being this quote unquote supreme body. And what we have seen over the last several decades is the breakdown and the erosion in that supreme body and in the rule of law. So in my opinion, this does not make the body accountable to the people. It gives exactly what it is that you said, which is in the event that we have, you know, a series of Republican presidents, all it does is solidify their rule because you can go ahead and appoint somebody that's 45 years old and healthy as fuck. Yeah.

That will be able to preside over America for 40, 50 years. And I think that that's insane. I completely agree with you. I think eliminating lifetime appointments would be the way to go here. And look, you can make it 10 years, make it 20 years. So it's not tied to one president. And we have a change in court every four years. But agree.

Lifetime appointments are bad. Speaking of which, Senator Diane Feinstein. who is 89 years old and is recently returned to Capitol Hill after being absent for several months, although if you read stuff earlier in the week, she apparently doesn't know that she was absent for several months, which is kind of scary. But the New York Times is now reporting that while she was absent for several months with shingles, the Times is now reporting that this shingles spread to her face and neck, giving her vision and balance impairments, face. paralysis and also encephalitis, post shingles encephalitis, according to the times, can leave patients

with lasting memory or language problems, bouts of confusion, mood disorders, etc. It is time for her to retire. We've said this before on this podcast. This is not ageism. If she were 89 and the picture of health and mental acuity, I don't think either of us would be saying she needs to be forced out or replaced. She is simply put, she is not fit to hold this very important office and particularly her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is ridiculous that this charade is continuing and it is ridiculous that there are other senators and House members like Speaker Nancy Pelosi who apparently quote unquote have her back. This is not having her back. She is 89 years old and in bad health. She does not need to be going to work every day.

She needs to be taking it easy and enjoying the rest of her life without having to worry about any of this. Yes, she needs to do this for the country, but she also needs to do it for herself. And it is absolutely, it's disgraceful what's going on here. And it's just, it is time for her to go. Any type of legacy that Diane Feinstein was going to have and what her staff and family and friends thought was going to be her legacy has now died. It is over. What people are going to remember are the images that the New York Times published and that we saw when she was wheeled into the Senate chamber. Half of her face is frozen. One eye is shut. She is extraordinarily frail.

She is unwell. If she were my grandmother, great-grandmother, like, this is not the condition that I would want her to be in outside of the home. It's not okay. And just to put a point on this so people don't think that it's ageism, the other day, I had the wonderful honor to share the stage with Gloria Steinem, who is also 89 years old. Gloria Steinem, however, is like the picture of health is completely and totally fucking like with it, still a major badass, like giving speeches, making jokes doing the most. That is 89 years old healthy. This is 89 years old on the doorstep. And it is not fair to the country, to her, to continue on with what exactly you referred to it as, Andy, a charade. She is not the senator of a state that is going to go red. We're not holding on for

dear life here because otherwise the country falls into autocratic hands. There are people that are willing and able in the wings to take on a special election, win, and continue on with the work of the Senate. At this point is absolute bullshit and frankly, elder abuse. Yeah, and let's talk about, like you said, she's from a state that is not only not in danger of going red, it is the most popular state in the country. California has 39 million people. They effectively have one voice in the Senate. That ain't right. None of this is right. And again, you know, you said you share the stage with Gloria Steinem. I am not allowed on stages because of some incidents, but we don't need to go into that now.

But you're absolutely right. And this is what we've been saying. Someone like Gloria Steinem, who is the same age, but is still mentally, she is 100% there. And look, the physical stuff with Feinstein is bad enough for her own sake. But it's the fact that she is very clearly just not all there mentally. at this stage of her life. We cannot have that in any state of the country, but particularly in a state as large as California,

which again has one senator at this point. Wyoming, I believe their population is under a million people, has two senators. Like, does that make sense to anyone? How does this make sense to anyone? None of this is ageism. It is strictly a function of she cannot do the job. It would be very, very easy.

You have a Democratic governor in California who would appoint a Democrat to finish out her term. So there's no danger here of losing a seat to the Republicans. There is no downside to doing this whatsoever except this sort of, I almost want to say, phony respect being paid to her. Because as you said, she is destroying whatever legacy she had. And the people who are saying we need to respect her, We need to show her respect. They are complicit in destroying her legacy. I 100% agree. And it's time. It's been past time for Diane Feinstein to retire. This is not the way you treat people who you, you know, hold up as a leader, as somebody with a legacy.

This is how you destroy it. And frankly, we shouldn't be rolling out, literally, rolling out people on stretchers and in wheelchairs that are so incredibly frail. It is a disservice to the state and to the country at this point. Folks, I am very happy and excited to bring to the new abnormal for the very first time. Senator Margie Bright Matthews, a Democrat out of South Carolina, and part of the sister senators group of brave women made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and one independent, who, with through your courage, are thwarting the Republican, legislature's desire to ban abortion outright in South Carolina.

Senator, first question for you is, how did this group come together? Because we have been taught through mainstream media over the last seven to eight years at this point that there is no such thing as bipartisanship in this country. There's no such thing as bipartisanship in the body politic anymore and that we are to see each other as solely foes. And so how did this partnership come together? Thank you for having me, but let me first start out by saying that I came to the Senate in 2015 as a result of the unfortunate murder of Senator Clemente Pintney, the senator that was murdered in his church. I replaced him in a special election. One of the first people that reached out to me after I was

elected was Republican female senator Katrina Shealy. First, she reached out to me when I was running to tell me of the things that she did as a female using her personal touch. And she didn't have to do that. She didn't do it because I was a Democrat or because I was a Republican. She did it because she understood how it was to run in South Carolina as a woman, not as a white woman, not as a black woman, but she understood how it was to run as a woman, and she reached out to me before anybody and gave me those pointers. That's when our relationship began. And I took a lot of her personal touches on the campaign trail, like leaving stick-it notes on people's doors when they weren't there, just reaching out and being like moms do. Senator Shealy has a daughter. I have

four daughters. And we talked throughout my campaign. And once I got to the Senate, she was one of the first people there, pin me with a special bedazzled Senate pen. I'm not wearing it today, but it's a jeweled Senate pen. And quite frankly, to answer your question specifically, I was elected in 2015. The divisiveness was not there. It seems that that's a dichotomy that has happened after that time frame with the rise of what I would call the Mago-Republican movement. It seems like there's a divisiveness like I have never seen. Senator Shealy and I were just talking probably 10 minutes ago. We were talking about that same thing. So one of the things we did is we appreciate the diverse perspective of having women in the room on all decisions. And that's not a partisan issue. That's a

diversity issue because we know that South Carolina looks best when we have the input of all of South Carolina, especially women. And so when the other women that bond continued to grow. What I found most interesting, and there are so many pieces of the story, and thank you for giving us the historical context of you running in the special election and the unfortunate tragedy that led to you entering into the Senate. I saw in the New York Times article that you were featured in with your other sister senators that it took South Carolina until 1969, to formally ratify the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote and was passed in 1920.

And now I understand why Senator Shealy would reach out to you regardless of party because of the weight and pressure of running as a woman in South Carolina. So can you just speak to, Senator, the energy that bubbled up in you to want to take this what seems still like an extraordinarily daunting task as a woman to enter into politics in South Carolina. First of all, I didn't expect that I would ever run. I always stood behind the scenes and supported other candidates. What made me want to run was just the anger and frustration of things not getting done. Since I've been there, I've been a part of meetings whereby men give their perspective of things, and then how dare we speak up? It's never said, but it's always, oh, yeah, okay, you again.

And Senator Shealy had to go through comments as the single senator in her Republican caucus with comments about women being of a lesser cut of meat. I can tell you, even in my caucus, when I was there as a single female in the caucus, the looks I would get when I would say, why don't we do it this way? Isn't this more efficient? Why don't we have set rules to go by? As women, we're used to structure. And so a lot of times, I would feel it even in my caucus. Where are you new? You're young. But in my mind, that equated to we've been doing it this way all along. Let's continue to do it that way. If you want me to say that there's been much change, no, there hasn't. That reference you gave to the right to vote.

Well, what about the fact that in South Carolina today, we still have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment? We're one of only two states that have failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. And that's why I've told them it's ironic that the same state, one of two, that has not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, and one of two states that still refuses to allow a bill to be discussed on the floor regarding hate courts. We're way behind. But yet, we won't talk about hate crimes. We want to talk about guns. We won't talk about the Equal Rights Amendment, but yet they have fast forwarded and we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue the abortion issues that affect women. So far, there have been three votes in the last eight months that have been brought into the chamber to ban them.

abortion. And you just lifted up at least three other major issues, guns, hate crimes that are happening in this country and in your state. A hate crime occurred for you to become a state senator. Exactly. And so to overlook really significant important issues to solely focus on banning abortion, what is that signal to you? And what is your belief about? the women of your state and how this is sitting with them? I cannot tell you how often I hear from women that some of them I know are Republicans and have always been Republicans, but we're counting on you. Please, please, please do not let them roll back the clock on Roe versus Wade.

They keep telling us fight. I hear from men, Republican men saying, please do not let the state. of South Carolina be taken over by the upper part of South Carolina that is deep, deep red. Generally, we call that the Bible Thump region. I'm a religious person too, but they believe that you should practice your religion the way they feel that it should be practiced. They don't truly believe in religious freedom. They don't seem to understand the concept of separation of church state, nor do they understand the concept that the religious freedoms that we have or lack thereof, that's also a constitutional protection also. So throughout the state, women are there.

And I'm hoping now that this abortion issue has come forward, they've been silent on everything else. They've been silent on critical race theory, which passed both bodies very easily. they've been silent on giving public school money to private schools. They've been silent on that. But this abortion issue, I think moderate Republicans and all Democrats and independents all agree unequivocally that some say 12 weeks, some say 6, but across all of those spectrums, we all agree. Put it to the voters of South Carolina. Because quite frankly, those folks that are pushing the far right MAGA Republicans, If their agenda is truly valid and if they're right and they really believe that this is the right course for South Carolina,

why not put it on the ballot? If they had done this two years ago, and quite frankly, a lot of their Republican counterparts have filed bills to make the abortion issue a referendum issue on the ballot, it could have been heard last year. We would have saved the state over $200,000. dollars. But they won't do that because they wanted to be their way and women should just shut up and do what they tell them to do because they're in control. And I've always told people this is not only about abortion. This is about control. Control by the MAGA party to control the masses of South Carolina. It's not only, and this is just a progressive issue, and I say

progressive with tongue and cheek, meaning it's a sliding scale. They will take the six-week now, but they want total ban. Oh, yes. The way they have this bill, the amendments that were done in the house, they have told us they want a total ban. And with that, if it takes them wiping out the Supreme court and putting their justices in so that they can get it the way, in other words, they're using the Donald Trump playbook. They want to stack the court. They've stripped out court of a female, an option of having a female justice. And they said that they're only going to put folks on there that will be ultra-conservative. And the only way they can do everything they want to do is to continue to somehow stoke the

fire so that we will be divisive and not talk. They hate it that us five women are together. They've told us they're coming for us. I don't know what that means. I've always felt that they were coming for me. What worries me, and I first want to ask you a question about, what just transpired in North Carolina this week. So in North Carolina, the will of the governor, who is also a duly elected official, has been overrun by the Republican supermajority. And they have

now instituted a ban on abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. And it goes against the will of the governor. It goes against, frankly, the will of the people in North Carolina, your neighbor. state because of what is happening around South Carolina. The fear is that in many ways, South Carolina is going to become or is becoming already a sanctuary for women and people that need abortions in the South. And so what do you make of that and the worry that the rate of abortions are going to rise in South Carolina, not because more South Carolinians are getting abortions, but because of what is happening in the draconian legislatures around the state? I think that's a good thing.

I heard some of the Republicans have said, oh, this is horrible. They're coming here. I think it's great. If we can fight these draconian abortion laws off enough so that we can provide safe abortions to women and give them other options and South Carolina is the destination, I think that's a great thing because women deserve, I don't care of what your borders are or what your address is. If you are a woman, you deserve safe, effective reproductive care. I am not going to buy into stoking the fears of people coming across the borders as if they're illegal immigrants.

They're coming here for a service. They're coming here for reproductive service. And if the actions of me and my fellow senators, and mind you, yes, it's five women, but there are three Republican men that have stepped across the aisle, all of who have asked for a referendum, three, those are eight of us. If we can keep fighting this off, maybe the folks, a woman in North Carolina, now that bill, if they've overruled the veto of the governor, maybe the folks in Charlotte and maybe the folks in other parts of North Carolina, If they need adequate health care as it relates to their reproductive freedom, I welcome them in South Carolina because every woman deserves to be treated properly. Senator, the last question I want to ask of you is one about political violence. We opened up talking about the hate crime at Mother Emanuel that led to your special election.

And there has been a rash of violence that we have seen against Democratic representation. representatives across the country. Most recently, in Fairfax, Virginia, in the office of Representative Connolly and his staff. And I want to ask you about whether or not you have concerns about your own safety and the safety of your sister senators in your state. And if you do have concerns, what are you doing to keep yourself safe? It is amazing that you asked that question, not even five minutes before getting on air, I had that discussion similar to that with one of my sister's senators because she was worried because she dreamed about me. And we have endured a lot. And so I know it's dangerous. My car has been keyed. I've had to put up more cameras at my

office, my place of business, my home. And my husband is concerned. The other senators, they're concerned too because these people who say that they want to end abortions because they have to protect the life of the unborn fetus. These are the same people that are the meanest and rudest to us. These are the same people that have brought their young children. And when I say young, I'm talking five, six, seven, up to the Senate, up to the State House in front of the governor's office. As we come up the escalators, they have it, and I call it sicken, they send their children to us and say, please stop killing the babies. Or either they call us. baby killers. This is how radical they are so that I know that they'll stop at nothing. They'll

run to us and try to block us and all sorts of things. And I will tell you this, the response, when I complained about this, because this was doing COVID when they required that we come to the state house in order to vote and deal with matters affecting the state. The abortion issue was up. It was personhood, I believe, then. They placed their sign and placards. on the railing that we had to walk through whereby they were in so close proximity, it was not safe. And when I complained about that openly on the Senate floor, you know what the response was? Well, maybe you should take a different route. Why should I take a different route to go to my job to serve the state of South Carolina

when I deserve protection from security and from the Senate police to keep these protests, is that they know they're very rabbit, and I mean the word rabbit, on this issue. Where's our protection? And so, yes, I do worry about my safety. I worry about, I have four daughters. I worry about their safety. My staff, I worry about her and the calls that we receive, some of them I don't even want to hear, to be honest with you. We usually refer those straight to sled. State law and enforcement division. But yes, I do have to be concerned, but I know that if that's the case, if I could just save one woman from killing herself in her house from an unsafe abortion, or if I could save my granddaughters and the other people that cannot speak up for themselves,

because it infuriates me to hear a man say, you know, if that 10 or 11-year-old girl was raped or either her father impregnated her or her uncle, you know, she needs to have that baby and I hope we can learn to just she can learn to love on it. Those are comments we have heard from the floor and I stood up and I because it alarmed me. So you're going to look at that young 10 or 11 year old's womb as if it's a chattel. That's what you're saying. But then I said, is the state of South Carolina going to provide her with care for that child? No, because we haven't expanded Medicare. care. Is the state of South Carolina going to provide that child with a good education? No, because we've stripped from that. Is the state of South Carolina going to give that mother mental health? I've heard

in this abortion issue that the major proponent of it, he said, well, I don't really believe that mental health is physical. Are you kidding me? So you're going to ruin because this man has raped this 10-year-old or 11-year-old, she needs to have that. child because the state of South Carolina really owns her womb. That's the state we're in. Oh, Senator Matthews, I can't thank you enough and your fellow sister senators for the work that you're doing in South Carolina in the legislature, the bravery that you're showing the resistance that you are putting up to patriarchy and to an authoritative regime that is in your state and that we are seeing percolate around the country. I greatly appreciate you and really hope that you do

stay safe and stay vigilant and hope that you will join us again on the new abnormal. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. Back in 2019, Zach Malamad co-founded the donor group The Next 50, which focuses both on raising money for younger Democratic candidates from the local to federal level and identifying in recruiting younger Dems to run. Well, this week, Zach became one of those candidates as he announced his campaign to become the Democratic congressional candidate for the seat currently held by George Santos.

Zach, thanks so much for joining us. Andy, thank you so much for having me on the program. So what made you want to go from one of the people finding candidates to actually being a candidate? And was it Dick Cheney's example you were following? So after a comparison, but truth be told, look, Andy, you know, I spent the last four years defeating extreme MAGRA Republicans across America. And I really, I truly never imagined that the most dishonest MAGER Republican of them all would

be representing me and my home congressional district. And just to give you context on how embarrassing, how much of a stain George Santos is on this district, you know, he's not just a local embarrassment. He's not just a statewide embarrassment, not just a national embarrassment. You know, over the past couple of months when I've been in both the UAE and Israel, I've had people come up to me and ask me about George Santos, not knowing that he was my member of Congress. So he's an international embarrassment. When you see your home or your family or those closest to you struggling, you really have two choices. You run away, avoid them, or you help and serve. And in this moment, I'm choosing to help and serve in large part because, you know, actually,

we were just talking, Andy, before we got started about the school board elections that we had here in Great Neck, where I grew up, I'm a third generation Great Neck resident. When I graduated from Great Neck public schools, I had the same school board that my mother had when she graduated from public schools here in Great Neck. For a while, the continuity and leadership here in Great Neck in Nassau County and Northeast Queens worked. But in 2021, we saw that leadership rejected, both the new leadership at the law. the primary level, but then even more so at the general level where the maga madness really took

hold. And so I'm looking at my hometown, my community, and I'm seeing values that didn't raise me starting to take over the district. And the values of the district are what raised me. And so I'm stepping up to serve to make sure that the promise of public education in part that my grandmother moved to the district for as an immigrant over 60 years ago to raise her three children, that my mother then raised me and my two siblings in the district for remains true, remains the bedrock of the district, and that all of those values that reject the mag madness are ones that hopefully one day I'm able to raise my children through in this district. So you're entering a crowded field of Jews. Besides you, there's former Democratic State Senator Anna Kaplan who's announced for the Democratic primaries and Nassau County legislator Josh Lafazan. And of course, there's the famously Jewish George Santos himself.

Yeah. You know, on top of all that I described about the stain that George Santos is on this district, he really made a mockery of my Jewish faith. He, in some ways, belittled the fact that many of us carry relatives who died in the Holocaust or survived the Holocaust. It's that disrespect that he's bestowed on myself as a Jew of my community, you know, Great Neck where I grew up, in many ways, wasn't just the beacon of Jewish life on Long Island. It was and is still a beacon of Jewish life across the country and across the world. I belong to a synagogue that has one of the most eclectic Jewish populations in the world. We have Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, Sephardic Jews, and those of other denominations under one roof praying together. And I think it's beautiful to see this eclectic field of Jews

step up to run in this district. And, you know, for me, my Jewish faith, the values again that raised me will be central to this campaign. Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, look, George Santos has brought great shame on himself for a lot of things, but among the biggest things, I think, is the false claims of not just Judaism, but of the Holocaust survival and stuff like that. It's just so disgusting. His connection to 9-11, his no fake charities. Anyway, you know, it's endless. So it's going to be a crowded primary. There are three other Dems who have already declared. We don't know yet what Robert Zimmerman, who lost to Santos in 2022 will do. and same for Tom Swazi, who held the seat before that.

What do you think sets you apart from them and separately, what are the most important issues for you? For sure. So the field that is developing is primarily, you know, full of known quantities. And as I go back to the point I made earlier about the school board situation, the continuity and leadership that we've seen in Nassau County and in Northeast Queens, it worked for a while. And now it's proven to not be working for Democrats here in Nassau County and in Northeast Queens. You know, either some of the candidates who entered the field, they were reject handling

in the primary, or they lost in the general election. And it's clear that they haven't been able to defeat the MAGA Madness. Now, at the next 50, we back 50 candidates, 50 years old and under, primarily in some of the most competitive districts and states in the country. And we defeated some of the most extreme MAGRA Republicans that exist. I know what it takes to defeat the cancer that is the MAGRA Republican brand and the Mago Republican ideology. And let's be clear about something.

George Santos is not alone in representing the MAGA Madness here in Nassau County. The others who have been rumored to step up and run in his stead, should he be removed or should he not win the primary, are folks who stood with him, stood next to him, endorsed him, not one cycle, but twice. I don't think we can risk running candidates who haven't had a track record of defeating MAGA Republicans here. And I believe I'm going to bring the energy to this race that this district needs. I had someone local who's serving in a position of leadership here say to me the other day,

like, Zach, you're the most exciting candidate in the race. People are looking for a fresh face. I think the election of George Santos actually may be an example of the fact that this district was looking for something new. They just weren't looking for his lunacy. They're one now a normal seat. And that's what I have to bring to the table. Yeah, I was going to say Zimmerman losing to Santos was, let's say, a bit of a surprise.

And I'm curious what you've learned from that and from watching that campaign and how that will affect how you run regardless of who the Republican nominee is. Andy, in some ways, it shouldn't have been a surprise because, you know, only seven days before on Halloween, right before the midterm election, I was voting in a library race in my district that we ended up winning, I've been saying in prior interviews by 25 votes, I was corrected yesterday by seven votes to prevent book banners from taking over our libraries in the democratic heart of the district. Now, that happened just before George Santos was elected into office. This cancer that is macro-Republicanism also took over the town on North Hempstead, only a year prior

in 2021. For the first time in 30 years, Republicans controlled the town of North Hempstead. And, you know, that to me signified that this should not have been a surprise. When we lost in 2022, not just by a slim margin, but by a pretty substantial margin, it signified to me that people were really looking for new and fresh leadership from the Democratic side that we hadn't proposed yet. And so I'm excited to be stepping up here to present that vision, to present not just a politics of fear that I think has dominated Nassau County in Northeast Queens for some time. But now a politics of hope. That's what I hope to represent here through my candidacy. Yeah, you mentioned that, you know, before we started recording, we were talking about the Great Neck School Board elections and that

I guess it was a fairly close thing for people to get elected who want to ban books and stuff like that. What accounts for this? As you say, in these, you know, at least one time, Democratic strongholds. Well, look, I'm really glad, Andy, that public education prevailed and book banning failed in my district. I think we need to keep pushing that message forward because, again, it's truly one of the key issues that unites people because the district that I live in here, you know, the community that I live in, about 25 to 30 percent are immigrants. That doesn't include those who are now second generation folks whose parents were immigrants. And many of those immigrants, much like my grandmother, moved to this district because of the promise of public education. And right now, I think that's under threat in large part because during the pandemic, people were stuck in their silos.

They were stuck online. And they've been consuming content that propagates fear and propagates hate rather than is focused on connecting the diverse and eclectic fabric that is the Great Neck community. You know in this congressional district, we're talking about a community that is 15% Asian, 10% Latino, 5% black. And I don't know that that actually accounts for the Middle Eastern population that exists in the district as well. And then, of course, as I mentioned earlier, 25 to 30 percent are immigrants. So this is a really diverse suburban community that I think is stuck in a moment post-pandemic

where we're facing a new normal, a new world. They're skyrocketing costs. I think you asked earlier and I didn't answer and I will now. The priorities for me, first and foremost, is going to be focused on reducing costs. I think we need to make it affordable for the next generation to move to their home to raise families right now. That's hard for folks like me. It's hard to make ends meet. So we need to bring costs down.

We need to make sure we bring energy costs down while going through a just energy transition. And on top of that, we need to make sure people feel safe. You talk about the issue of gun safety in 2009 and made my first trip to Albany to advocate for gun safety with New Yorkers against gun violence. The trip was organized and I was invited by my then assemblywoman, Michelle Schimel. In 2020, I lost a friend to gun violence. And so these issues of public education and safety, gun safety in particular, the issue of affordability, they're personal to me.

And I think we need to connect that which binds us rather than focus on that which divides us in this district. And that's the work that I hope to do over the course of the next 13 months in the primary and 18 months through the general. Okay, so you talked about costs and bringing costs down and how important that is to you. I'm curious what wing of the Democratic Party you would say you identify with because I sort of, I would have guessed the progressive wing from looking at the next 50s website. There's a lot of talk about justice and equity-minded candidates. You know, in preparation for this, I read a Huffington Post piece that said you describe yourself as a quote-unquote common sense Democrat and that you identify with the views of the more business-friendly new Democrat coalition. Is that more accurate? Well, look, Andy, I think what we've seen since launch is that I have a candidacy that unites the ideological spectrum on the left.

You saw progressive Congressman Rokanea elevate this campaign, and then there are a handful of new Democrats who are preparing in some way, shape, or form or have behind-the-scenes been support. of this campaign. And so that's my commitment to this community, to this district, to the country, is that I want to be somebody who both unites the left, but also is able to bridge divides across the partisan spectrum. So I want to get things done with Republicans. I want to get things done with progressives. I do identify as a new Democrat. I really do firmly stand against all forms of extremism. But this district's not looking for someone who's going to grandstand on issues. This district is a place that's looking for someone who gets the job done. And I know that I have the trust and the relationships to get the job done at the next 50. We invested in some of the most

competitive and consequential races in the country. Many of the congressional candidates that we backed were new Democrats, although not exclusively new Democrats. And by the way, when we made our endorsements last cycle, we were the first endorser, three of the five most competitive congressional races in the country. Those candidates who we backed, two of whom, by the way, one, were new Democrats or aligned with the new Democrats. So that's to me what it takes to win a district that is as competitive and consequential as this district, but it's also what I know is in line with the values that raise me and the values of this district. Pro public education, pro growth, pro public safety. That's where I'll stand when I'm elected to Congress. So I want to ask you about safety because that's an issue that

seems to have been, I guess, for lack of a better word, ceded to the Republicans. And they then run with it and they make it into a, you know, we need more draconian powers for the cops. And somehow Now they interpret that as meaning we need more guns in communities, which, okay, I don't really understand that, but that's what they do. How do you define public safety? What do you think is important for the government to do in terms of public safety? Let's state one thing and make it clear. Public safety is paramount.

People need to not only be safe, but also feel safe in their communities. And what's clear right now in this moment is that people, no matter their zip code, no out of the color of their skin, no matter where they were raised, they do not feel safe in this community. And we need to make sure that they feel safe. I think in the long term, we need to invest in education and job training and youth programs that make sure our communities are thriving and radically curb crime. And at the same time, I'll note that, you know, right now the Magro Republicans, the extreme Magro Republicans in this community have supported and elevated a candidate who in the wake of a school shooting will wear an AR-15 pin on his lapel. That signifies to me.

that we're dealing with a party that chooses AR-15s over children, and that must not stand. That is not the value. That is not a court tenant of anyone in this district, whether they're Republican or Democrat. And so from my vantage point, we must do work like Senator Gillibrand has done, to reduce the gun trafficking that has definitely hurt our communities here in the New York area. I am in favor of an assault weapon ban to make sure that we do not see school shootings and the way that we have in recent years. It is an epidemic. We must solve it. Any politician or any candidate who's elected to office, any government official, any public servant who doesn't work night and day to address that,

it is a dereliction of their duty to protect and serve their communities. And so I will stand on the side of that every single day and work tirelessly to get that done. So we curb the violence, curb the gun violence and make sure our communities feel safer. And what about policing? Because that's sort of a, I don't want to say a third rail. I guess I'll just say it's sort of a split. between the more progressive elements of the Democratic Party and the more centrist elements is the role of police in the community? How do you feel about that? In this district and most of Nassau County and Northeast Queens, we have some of the greatest law enforcement in the country. And what we need to make sure that we provide them with is an increase in funding to provide better training and

perhaps even increase patrols to make sure that we have a stronger law enforcement. But we also know that our law enforcement makes the community feel safer. And we need to make sure that we support them while also investing in making them a stronger and better force for and in the community. There are folks in this district who are part of families that for generations have served in law enforcement. It's been a part of their duty. It's that public service is embedded within their DNA. Much like I feel like it's embedded in my DNA, having three of my four grandparents who have served in the military, You know, that idea of service and sacrifice is core to so many people in this community. It's something that I think is absolutely embedded within my DNA, my character, my vision for how

I want to serve is to make sure that it is a part of everything that I am and the actions that I live out every day. And so as a member of Congress, I'll make sure that we continue to invest in strengthening our police for as well. So making sure that they're serving the community in the best way possible. And before I let you go, we haven't really touched on social issues at all. You know, obviously, we're at a fractured time in this country on things like abortion, gay rights, trans rights, the rights of minorities. What are your takes on those? And how do you see a Congressman Malamud handling stuff like that? We saw in June of last year how the rights of women to make decisions over their own bodies came under threat by the MAGA radical Republicans. And it is important that this district has somebody in office who respects.

a woman's right to choose. And it is important that we also respect the various identities that people carry with them in this district. I think it's most important as a representative of Congress that I bridge divides and strengthen the fabric of this community over furthering the hate-based narrative that the Maga Madness is fueled here in Nassau County and Northeast Queens. So you can count on me as somebody who's going to fight for the rights of those who come under threat by this Maga Madness. and I will be at the front lines with them every single opportunity I have. Zach, thanks so much for being here. I've been talking to Zach Malamud,

who's announced his candidacy for the Democratic primary in the race to unseat Congressman George Santos. It still feels weird to say that. Zach, best of luck to you, and thanks so much for coming on. Well, thank you, Andy, for having me out. I'm looking forward to staying in touch throughout the duration of the campaign. Andy Levy. Danielle Moody.

Andy, how are you rounding out this? good, good week in America with your fuck that guy. I am going to round it out with a woman who is from the state of North Carolina. And she was a Democrat named Trisha Cottom and a state representative. And back in April, she decided to switch and become a Republican. And that gave the Republicans a supermajority in the state legislature. In other words, it gave them a two-thirds majority. And that allowed them to pass a bill preventing pregnant people from having abortions after 12 weeks.

And this bill passed earlier this week. She voted in favor of it. And two other legislators who had said they were not going to vote in favor of it, they also changed their minds. And this woman caught him. She won election. It was a re-election, I believe, in November as a Democrat. And then she went on to say in April that she was switching parties because she'd been bullied. She's been bullied, Danielle.

One of her big complaints was that she said Democrats didn't clap for her when she was honored as the youngest woman ever elected to the North Carolina State House. Everyone who was there has said, what is she talking about? Everybody applauded. Democrats and Republicans. But she decided that Democrats didn't applaud for her. So she needed to change parties and become a Republican. So now this bill has passed. North Carolina used to have a 20-week ban.

It's now a 12-week ban. This is according to Emily Sugarman at The Daily Beast. It limits the amount of time people have to seek abortions in the case of rape, incest, or fetal abnormality. It also requires patients to meet with a health care provider, 72 hours before having an abortion done, which that just makes it harder for people to get abortions, which is what they want, because who knows how far you have to travel to meet with someone.

And you now have to do it twice within three days. It's just, it's absolutely shameful. And the fact that this woman switched parties because she felt slighted for something that's not even true is why she gets my fuck that guy to end this glorious week. She is clearly a Republican because she is a fucking. fragile snowflake. And that makes total sense. And frankly, my feeling about people who switch parties and pull like a rope-a-dope after the fact is that you should have to be forced to run in a special election as now your new switched party and see if you would be voted back in. Because what she did

was lie to the people that voted for her, that supported her, that funded her. If I were those donors, I would also, I don't know, see if there's a civil lawsuit in order to be. able to get your money back as well because she lied. So there you go. There you go. Good one, Andy. Thanks. So who is your fuck that guy to close out the week? You know, this man stays as a fuck that guy, Hall of Famer should be chiseled in our Hall of Fame and marble or probably in emerald diamonds that were stolen from enslaved Africans in South Africa. But I digress. Elon Musk. And you'll say to me, Danielle, well, which angle are we pulling from today? And I will say, Andy Elon Musk had the audacity in an interview with CNBC's David Faber to say that working from home is, quote, morally wrong when service workers still have to show up.

So let me just air this out. Elon Musk's net worth is constantly declining. So we don't actually know what it is. but it is in the billions of dollars, like a disgusting, greedy billions of dollars place. And how did he get this money? You know, I believe that his family owned, you know, emerald mines. And I believe that, oh, I'm certain that there were what they probably refer to as black interns that were working there in order to harvest those good, good emeralds that he used to carry

around in his pockets. Because, you know, that's what hardworking people do. nonetheless. Elon Musk is the last person that should be talking about morality. The last person that should be talking about and trying to shame people who, because of a pandemic, number one, were still required because of capitalism and that grind and greedy motherfuckers like him to continue actually working, right? So the audacity that then we would realize that society did not collapse because people

were able to work from home. They were still highly functioning and didn't need to be in this magical encasement called a cubicle in order to get things done, that they could actually, as adults, be able to walk and chew gum at the same fucking time. So the idea that he would want to point to service workers as the reason why people shouldn't be allowed to work from home, maybe, I don't know, these people that you were clapping for and applauding because they were on the front lines of the pandemic, maybe just pay. them. The fact of the matter is that Elon Musk has been able to acquire so much disgusting wealth because he has done so on the backs of other people. So God forbid that those that are hanging on to the middle class by a thread have the ability to be able to do their jobs and live their lives at the same fucking time that allow for him to continue to stuff his pockets with more and more wealth. It just drives me fucking crazy when you sit down with the ultra-wealth

and ask them their opinions on the working class. Elon Musk, go fuck yourself, honestly. And really, the appointment of the female CEO that is coming into Twitter in the next few months, the thing that I want to just say to that is that it is always so interesting that whenever something, whether it's a company or an organization, finds itself in the shitter,

it is always a woman or a person of color that is brought in to be the janitor for white cis men. I would love to be proven wrong in this fact and see maybe she actually does do cleanup that removes the anti-Semitism that he's so willingly ushered in and the racism that he's so willingly courts, but time will tell. But for today, my end of the week, Elon Musk, fuck that guy. It's almost impossible to imagine that he'll let her. Correct.

I believe it's called the glass cliff. When you appoint a woman to a high position knowing that she's going to end up falling off the cliff because of how you've set her up. And I also want to point out that I guess it's not. working from home, but he's the CEO of three companies, which means that he is remote working at least two jobs every day. So I don't really want to hear from him that working from home is immoral or anything like that. Because, buddy, you are not working all three jobs on site every day. So you are a fuck you guy and a fuck that guy.

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.