The Daily Signal - Silenced Dissenters: Congressional Leadership Punishes Their Party Mavericks

Episode Date: May 9, 2025

A revealing look at how congressional leadership in both parties can target members who break rank. Former Rep. Tom Garrett compares his 2017 experience with Sen. John Fetterman's recent treatment. Keep Up With The Daily Signal   Sign up for our email newsletters: https://www.dailysignal.com/email⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Subscribe to our other shows:                  •              Problematic Women: https://www.dailysignal.com/problematic-women⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  •              The Signal Sitdown: https://www.dailysignal.com/the-signal-sitdown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  •              The Tony Kinnett Cast: https://www.dailysignal.com/the-tony-kinnett-cast Follow The Daily Signal:                  •              X: ⁠⁠https://x.com/DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  •              Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  •              Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  •              Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  •              YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  •              Rumble: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rumble.com/c/TheDailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Thanks for making The Daily Signal your trusted source for the day’s top news. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk. Business. Thanks for listening to this bonus episode of the Daily Signal podcast. I'm your host, Joe Thomas, Virginia correspondent for The Daily Signal. Before we dive into today's interview, I want to thank you for tuning in today. If you're a first-time listener, The Daily Signal, brings you fact-based reporting and conservative commentary on politics, policy, and culture. And I hope you join our band of regular listeners to our podcast.

If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and also take a little bit of. moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcast. You can find additional content at DailySignal.com. Now, let's get started with today's conversation right after this. Joining us, a man who bless his heart, you know, there's a certain amount of bravery that goes into anyone who runs into the lion's den the first time. Anyone who does it multiple times is either just a little bit crazy or really determined to make a difference. He is former a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, former member of Virginia's Senate and current member of their House of Delegates,

one of the oldest representative bodies on the planet, and also documentary filmmaker. Look for the film Exile documentary there, and hopefully someday somebody gives you some run there. They can't keep rerunning old shows on Netflix. They've got to give you at least a few bandwidths there. Tom Garrett, how are you, sir? How are you, sir?

Well, you know, I'm like a Cocker Spaniel. Pay attention to me, and it's the greatest day ever. So that being said, I wanted to ask you, first off, we've mentioned you a couple of times this morning. I don't know if you were tuned in, but I just find this whole situation, this scenario with John Federman and his former chief of staff detailing to the political reporters. Oh, I don't know. John's lost his last marble. His wife's been emailing me telling me to give him. I was like so familiar to what I was.

what they did to you. Well, I mean, the chief of staff won his election by a much greater margin than John Federman did. And I think when the people of Pennsylvania selected that chief of staff, that they certainly wanted that they certainly wanted to give that chief of staff the power to control what happened in the U.S. Senate, right? I mean, of course. But you speak to the problem, isn't it?

These professional staffers that go around and populate all these offices. It's funny, they all scream about. Elon Musk being unelected, but your point about it. What's worse, those staffers or the politicians who take counsel from them? What if you had a successful governor who had someone whispered something in their ear about, oh, we can't have this kind of run through? I don't know, but office, maybe lieutenant governor, because here's what I'm hearing. What about that?

Well, you put the responsibility in a right spot. I mean, it is up, but you see what Machiavellian monkey floggers these people, are when they then turn and then they're in the press saying, hey, you know, he argued with a flight attendant about a seatbelt. He's crazy. We need to, you know, and it's all the stuff that they said Mehmet Oz was bad for, and now they're, now it's okay. Dude, I heard, or I read that, like, some staffers say that his wife expressed frustration in their relationship. I mean, I guess this is a family show, so I have to catch myself before I say, what the? Is that all about?

Fog is the word. Yeah, it's so frustrating that these staffers who, you know, God bless them, they have, you know, they're 25 years old and an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a degree from a fine institution like the University of Virginia. And my gosh, God forbid the senator or the congressman or the lieutenant-governor candidate should make their own decisions. Yeah. It's just so pathetic, but ultimately the fact that we elect people who listen to these chiefs of staff or what have you, right?

I mean, I want to elect people who will make decisions for themselves because I've never seen the chief of staff's name on the ballot. But the first documentary you appeared in was the swamp. And I remember you and Tommy Massey, who's amazingly survived, you know, all the slings and arrows. But I remember, you know, just watching this agog at the power that the parties have through these chiefs of staff. So if you don't do right by the chief of staff, that it was assigned to you by the party leadership or suggested vehemently to you, they'll be in the hill or Politico or Lord knows where, Richmond or Magazine. have the filmmaker who did the swamp on and asked them how many members they couldn't get a hold of because the chief of staff wouldn't convey the request. Oh, that's great. And then ask yourself exactly what our founders had in mind when they created representative government, you know.

Yeah. So it's frustrating. It is. But somehow we still manage to muddle along there. And I think it's because we still believe in the idea of freedom. And it's always been my mission to say, hey, you know what, humanity has gone through this cycle before of liberty to apathy, to servitude, to battle for liberty again. And maybe we have to do it again. I'd like to think we have enough technology now to spread the words so we don't have to go through the bloodshed that always comes after we fumble the Liberty football on the five-yard line, Tom, there.

I also wanted to add because political parties seem to be this, and I remember growing up in New York, the political parties didn't have the power to nominate somebody. You just paid a fee to get onto the ballot, and then you went out and tried to get endorsements for your campaign. And is that a better solution is to take away some of these parties guaranteed ballot access and just turned it into, hey, give us, you know, give the state $35,000 or $3,500? I don't care. Come up with a figure and then that would get you onto the ballot and then go out and work. Maybe the Green Party endorses you. Maybe the Hunter's Party endorses you. Maybe the Second Amendment Party or the Right to Choose party or whatever. You know, you would have different parties that would whose endorsements would mean various things for you. And I think it worked visiting with a former congressman who's been on the receiving end of the same thing. John Federman's getting now.

And it's nice to know that my point about the UNA party is not conspiracy anymore, as we're watching the exact same thing being done to a Democrat office holder as was done to Republican office holders like Tom. Is the party apparatus too powerful from where it is? I think the party apparatus was designed. And of course, Washington warned against political parties and then every single president since Washington has been a member of a political party. But I think the party apparatus was designed to ensure that the working person had the opportunity to be the representative, be the person on the ballot, right? Because if it is simply determined by quote, unquote, how hard you work, then oftentimes money is a pretty good surrogate for work. You can hire someone else to do the work for you.

And so the party allows essentially theoretically. The problem is that the people who seek power without rest, that is the sit sort of a Machiavellian twilight tapping their fingers as they scheme, they figured out that they just need to co-op the party. And so I've talked for a long time about how everybody wants to turn on with the elected representatives, the real answer is the term limit to high-level staff. Yeah. Because literally there are people who have never stood for election who have floor passes

and who are chiefs of staff. And I'm thinking of actual names of people, some of whom are from the local area. And some of them are good folks, too, but who have floor passes and access and power far beyond that of the people who've been elected in Washington, for example. And that's not something that the founders contemplated. and the reason we hold elections is so that there's accountability. So if you're never up for election, then certainly you're never going to be held accountable. Well, but I mean, I go back, and I was doing a piece for the Daily Signal, who I write for now.

And I was doing background on campaign finance reform. And really, it begins with people legislating campaign finance reform. You go back to the New Deal and FDR's big government spending. And sure enough, within three or four years, we have issues with campaign corruption where people are being, you know, bought and congressional seats are being purchased. And then you start to have laws to regulate it and then new laws to regulate it. And it becomes sort of like a whack-a-mole game where each one becomes harder to get around. I mean, I'd say great pride in having been outspent a whole bunch of times in Iran for office. But sort of the cliche is that you can't get outspent, but by so much, right?

because at some point it doesn't matter how hard you work or how good a candidate you are, the money wins. So that is exactly where we are with that campaign finance reform thing. And the party's designed again to keep the metaphorical Elon Musk who the left rails against but seems like just fine when they're on their side from winning all the elections because the resource chasm. So I don't know. I mean, you know, I've always thought Fetterman was a strange bird, but he's a strange

who was duly elected by the people of Pennsylvania, unlike the chief of staff or the editorial team at the New Yorker or whatever outlet decided to run the hit piece at the behest of the leadership of Federman's very own party. I can assure you because I've seen it. So it's just, you know, was it Mark Twain who said that the American people deserve exactly the government they ask for? And they deserve it long and hard. That might have been Mencken. I'm not sure. Somebody, it sounds more like Menkin to Mark Twain. And that's the sad, you know, state of affairs is that, you know, the parties have this power because government has this power.

The reason I was bringing up the 30s is once government became this big spending machine, this investment vehicle, that's when the corruption really started, even though Washington warned about it early on. I don't think he ever envisioned a government that could be such a big spender. Alexis de Tocqueville got it before Washington Washington was talking about political parties but look I mean ultimately yeah when the government picks winners and losers it's worth investing some private capital to determine who the government is and and there's your problem right because what you what we were supposed to have is a referee not a judge but anyway we are where we are so he's been yelled at by Donald Trump in the Oval Office and live to tell the tale he is he is standing with us at

on the newsmakers line. He is former Congressman Tom Garrett, filmmaker, exile, but also a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. And I want to pivot to a question, Tom. We'll come back to the power of the parties and everything. But I was in a group discussion regarding the lieutenant governor's candidate that you mentioned earlier and our governor, which is now apparently a daily mail headline. The British are reading about our issues with the gubernatorial race. the statewide races and what damage this might do to Glenn Yonkin's political future for being embroiled in this. But beyond that, there are serious things here. And I just wrote a piece for the Daily Signal that I don't know if you have time to read, but it's basically on the premise, okay, if the controversy is done, does that mean the campaign is finished? Because the way this all kind of ended with everyone walking away saying, all right, you know, we're finished. Are we really finished because Virginia, like many states, are facing those post-Dob's battles over what they will legislate abortion being in defense of the indefensible or the defenseless. Talk about, you know,

the legislative peril that this statewide national embarrassment of a headline has done towards the possibility of being able to block a constitutional amendment that I've been believe you're the one who used the phrase would be the most liberal abortion law on the planet. Not, you know, think about France and Sweden and all these other places. The most permissive abortion legislation on the planet would be part of our constitution. You know, if people don't wake up and realize that these are the kind of things that are afoot in the election, Tom. Right. It would be abortion up to the third contraction.

Not trimester. Sure. Yeah. Not trimaster, contraction. And that's not hyperbolic. They go, well, you know, you still need a medical professional's approval, but they don't tell you that the abortionist counts as the medical professional, right? Or you need a mental health professional to tell you that having a child could be impactful on your life. Well, gee, I mean, I'm not a mental health professional,

but, you know, having a child could be impactful on your mental health in your life. I mean, this is insanity, right? and you can't defeat the bill without taking control of the House because it's formed as a constitutional amendment. We get one bite at this apple. And that really rides not on winning the governor's election or the attorney generals, but winning the House of Delegates because the Senate's not up.

So it's 51 to 49. And a consultant, it appears, was so unhappy with the fact that they didn't have a statewide cash-making machine that they've attacked our lieutenant governor nominee so that they could, it would appear, substitute their own nominee without a democratic process for selection so that they wouldn't lose that on those hundreds of thousands of dollars in their pocket because that's how married they are to policy and core principles. And I say that sarcastically. So if you think you heard it that way, you are correct. Right. So right now, what would be here is that it was so important that someone have a nominee from whom they could defer 10 to 20 percent of the money they raised whilst running for. statewide office in their stable that they've upset the apple card and created potentially a scenario where we have in Virginia abortion until the third contraction.

That's where we are. Is that, oh, you know, go ahead. Now, finish your point. Well, ultimately, you know, I believe in a higher power that will determine that everything ends exactly as it's supposed to, but that doesn't mean that there won't be unpleasantness in the interim. And we are in the midst of a horrifically broken process with a broken system that I fear will yield very broken results. Well, it's as somebody once said, you can pray all you want for a nice garden, but God expects you to pick up a shovel at some point.

So the question remains. And whether or not it's Munchausen's by government where we want to cause crisis so we can be seen as the hero riding in to fix it, or it is just, you know, the debasement of I'm not connected to this campaign, so I'm not getting any money from it. At some point, like you mentioned in the last segment, you know, the elected officials have to say, no, this is wrong. You know, these things have to go forward. And we have to put these things aside. Can it be put aside? As my column said, you know, the question is, okay, if the kind of, you know, if the kind of,

controversy is done is the chances of Republicans taking the House finished. And I think it is. I think there's so many Republicans right now, and there will be people who will blame me for this saying, well, if you're not talking about it, they're not thinking about it, Joe. But I mean, I'm listening to Dana Lesh, tell me about the Texas General Assembly that stopped all these bills. The Republican governor of, I believe, now I'm forgetting which state it was, that vetoed a life, and Second Amendment protecting legislation despite being a Republican. You know, what is it? Are we watching a unit party pushing us into this middle where, you know, ordering abortion pills by mail is just, you know, good commerce and, and, you know, economic development?

What is it? I don't know the answer to your question. I mean, so if the question is, can we still win the House of Delaware? it's racist in the midterm. The answer is, of course. But first thing we need to do is stop shooting ourselves in the metaphorical foot. And so anyone who blames you, Joe, is essentially shooting the messenger, right? Because you're only reporting on the things that are going on. I just think that we need to stop worrying so much about who a particular consultant is milking for a cash benefit and start talking about the issues upon which we are almost uniformly right.

that the House of Delegates elections in Virginia will come down to just how long it takes for the economic benefit of some short-term, the undeniably painful policy manifests itself and just how late Virginia is to the party by virtue of the fact that we have a disproportionate number of federal employees, right? So I think, to paraphrase James Carvel, it's the economy stupid. There will be downward pressures there on while some things adjust that had to ultimately be changed or else that have only gotten worse. Here's the crazy thing. And I'm going to digress for a moment. It's like you get things like Doge and people are railing against it. And no one has ever put it this simply. You simply cannot spend more than you take in forever.

You shouldn't do it at all. Yeah, but we've been every single year. It's not even a question of eliminating the dead. It's how big will the deficit be? So we start from the premise that we're going to spend more than we take in. How is this a good idea? So the things that Trump has done as it relates to tariffs, which I don't think he actually likes, I think that they're a tool to get to a destination, et cetera, where things that had to be done,

and it's as painful as it is now, and it's going to be painful. It would have been worse if we'd have waited longer, and there's still a question as to whether we pulled the plane up metaphorically in time. So can we win the House of Delegates elections? I think the economy is going to get better. Does it get better in time? I don't know. Virginia will lag because of the dependence on federal employees. But last one for you, Tom, because I was in a conversation group and I brought up the abortion amendment, and I was told by eight of the ten members, oh, we don't want to talk about that.

Is that the problem is that saying, hold it, we're going from third trimester to third contraction and people not wanting to talk about it, the problem? Well, it's hard to win an argument you know all to have, right? When we've been told, DCU did a survey, we said 62% of Virginians favored access to abortion. Okay, I accept that survey on its face. But the survey didn't say 62% of Virginians accept access to abortion up until the moment that you're literally driving the hospital to deliver, which is what this bill gives us. Right?

This is nothing to do with the right to choose. It's the question of how long you have the right to choose and what you do when you choose that right at the last minute. And you mentioned Sweden and France. I think off the top of my head, that's a 15 week and a 21 week respective ban. Right. I mean, so we're literally talking about the day of delivery. And that's the debate that I think we have.

we win. Sure, people, he said Virginians, the majority of Virginians support the right to access and abortion, but when? That'll do it for today's show. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button, so you never miss out on new episodes from The Daily Signal.

Every weekday, you can catch top news in 10 to keep up with the day's top headlines in just 10 minutes, and every weekday afternoon catch Victor Davis Hansen's thoughtful analysis for the Daily Signal. If you like what you hear on this show, Would you take a minute and leave us comment?

We love hearing your feedback. Thanks again for being with us today. The Daily Signal podcast was made possible because of listeners like you. Executive producers are Rob Bluey and Katrina Trinko. Hosts are Virginia Allen and Tyler O'Neill. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, John Pop and Joseph Fons Spakovsky. To learn more or support our work, please visit DailySignal.com.