The Dispatch Podcast - Grievance Politics with Giveaways | Interview: Jonathan Martin

Episode Date: September 29, 2025

Jonathan Martin, senior political columnist at POLITICO, joins Steve Hayes to discuss President Donald Trump’s retribution campaign and the Democratic Party’s messy coalition of convenience that doesn’t stand for anything ideologically. The Agenda:—The role of Trump’s inner circle—Sen. Ted Cruz’s political calculations—Election integrity concerns—The future of Trump’s legal battles—Kamala Harris has nothing to say on what Dems should stand for on policyShow Notes:—Jonathan’s column on Ted Cruz Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, leased a 2026 XC90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event.

Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. This episode is brought to you by MewMew. Introducing Mutein, the new feminine fragrance by the iconic fashion house. Mutine captures the youthful, unconventional essence of the Mew-Mew Girl, brought to life by a gourmand, intimate and enveloping scent of wild strawberry and brown sugar accords. Mutein is not a statement, but a knowing glance, a sweet rebellion, lighthearted and laced with wit, a gesture made for oneself.

Discover the new fragrance, Mutein, now available in Canada. With the indictment of former FBI director James Comey is the Campaign of Retribution, Donald Trump long promised, now running at full throttle. That and so much more this week on the dispatch podcast with my friend Jonathan Martin, and Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Communists at Politico, also the author with Alex Burns of This Will Not Pass, one of the best books written about this fraught moment in American political history. Jonathan, welcome to the dispatch podcast. Thank you, Steve.

Are we in the middle of Donald Trump's long-promised campaign of retribution? Should we have known that this is what this was going to look like when he was campaigning a year ago today? He didn't hide the ball in the campaign. He sure doesn't hide the ball now. nobody should be surprised. He's never feigned about doing anything else. That's one thing we shouldn't be as surprised.

I do think it's alarming. You know, he openly and brazenly told his attorney general that it's time to get moving. Mission accomplished. Dumped the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District, rushed through an appointment of somebody who they knew would bring charges and do so. I think this is important. Do so in a matter of days, really hours. before the statute of limitations expired.

And now we'll see if a judge and or jury, you know, actually takes this seriously. But the intent is deadly serious. And anybody's eyes weren't open. They should be open now. For me, at least, the alarming thing to use your word, this was predictable. He ran on it. He said he was specific about who he was going to go after. James Comey was at or near the top of the list from the beginning.

So nobody should be surprised about that. But I think the fact that he's done it out in the open and not just in the open, but in sort of a chest beating, defy me if you dare kind of way, where I think being so public and so brazen about what he's doing, I am punishing my enemies right now is the thing that's as alarming as anything else about this whole episode. Right. And, you know, Lisa Cook is a member. the Federal Reserve Board who he wants to get rid of. So he's found a pretext to try to get rid of her. That's going to the Supreme Court. Okay, we got to find some charges on Comey. They're flimsy, but okay, let's go with it. This is not the end. This is the beginning, Steve. And he's going to, he's going to have his people find, you know, ways to go after his, his opponents and those who he believes are not part of his team. He does not want any check and balance.

He wants unfettered authority over the whole of the federal government. And if we're being totally honest, the whole of civil society. We know that. He doesn't deny. And the question, as ever with all things Trump is, is anybody going to say anything about it that is part of his movement and is in his party? Or are they okay with this? Are Mike Johnson and John Thune, who lead was ostensibly a co-equal branch of government,

okay with the president undermining the federal? feds independence. Are they okay with, you know, rushing through flimsy charges against the former head of the FBI because Trump doesn't like him? We know Trump's good with that. Trump doesn't hide the ball. But again, what's the reaction to everybody else? And so far, it's silence. And I want to get back to both John Thune and Mike Johnson, because I think you're right. Those are sort of the places to look. But it's also the White House staff and the cabinet secretaries this time in Trump's second term are very different. I think. see themselves very differently than the people who serve Trump in the first term.

In particular, I would point to White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles. I think each of Trump's first term chiefs of staff saw themselves in one way or another as being in a position to redirect his energies or to serve as those guardrails. I mean, certainly, John Kelly saw that as probably his primary role. Mattis, certainly. Mick Mulvaney, Mattis, I think even Reince Previs. Susie Wiles, I was talking to somebody very close to Trump not long ago, who said Susie Wiles came in and just saw herself performing a different role. She sees herself as just going along with what Trump wants to do, not trying to redirect him, not trying to challenge him, but understanding that if she gets in his way or if she ever becomes sort of an obstacle to Donald Trump getting to do what he wants to do, she won't be.

long for the White House. Is that sort of a proper understanding of her role and what's happening at the White House? Yeah. She doesn't see her role as telling Trump no. And I think before her, certainly in the previous administration, I think in the previous iterations of his campaigns, inevitably, people around him saw themselves as something of a check on it. Not every day, but certain that was part of the world. It was understood that you were going to have to say this is too much, or at least slow walk stuff in hopes that he would change his mind or forget about it. I just don't see her doing that. And beyond her, he's installed a cabinet and a senior White House staff that is pliant that sees themselves as their entirely to carry out his orders or come up with orders

themselves, a minimum challenge the norms of American government and society. So, yeah, I I just, you know, there's not that person this time telling him, no. There's not, you know, Gary Cohen taking the paper literally off the Oval Office desk. I think that's why we have pure unfiltered Trump this time. Right, right. Well, let's turn to Congress. I mean, we do occasionally see fleeting as they are, you have moments of defiance. It's rare that you have a Republican senator or Republican member of the House sort of step up to Trump, challenge him by name, challenge him directly.

question his authority to do X, Y, or Z, but you do sometimes have Republican members of Congress raising concerns in one way or the other. You saw this at the hearing with Robert F. Kennedy when Bill Cassidy said he was concerned, John Barrasso, Senator from Wyoming, has become close to Trump, very supportive of the Trump administration, said he was concerned. Your column earlier this week highlights Ted Cruz, who is not normally somebody who steps up to challenge the President of the United States since what you called their memorable unpleasantness of 2016 between Trump and Cruz. And yet this week, in the aftermath of the controversy with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr,

in effect, threatening ABC, threatening Disney. for comments that Jimmy Kimmel had made, threatening to potentially revoke their licenses, other forms of retribution. Ted Cruz spoke up and said, hey, this is sort of mafioso stuff. This is kind of crazy. I'll read from your piece. He said, by likening the intimidation tactics of President Donald Trump's FCC to the mafia, in the case of the government versus Jimmy Kimmel,

Cruz imparted a valuable lesson, his colleagues, and everyone else in public life should mind. This is still America, and you can speak up about your principles. It seems to me that the Brendan Carr threats were so egregious, so over the top. It wasn't necessarily surprising that somebody like a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul or others would at least register their disagreement. Is there anything more to it? Is that all they're doing? Or are we seeing between the RFK spokes people speaking out, between Ted Cruz, in Rand Paul here. Can we imagine any time that Republicans in the Senate might sort of grow a spine and speak out?

Well, first of all, it's such remedial math that in the first place, I even have to write the fact that this is still America. You can speak up for your principles. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations to borrow a phrase from the 43rd President of the United States. I wrote it, but it's still sad to hear it said out loud. But it does tell you kind of where we are. this country. I don't expect much more. Look, if Carr was to suddenly start trying to yank licenses of networks, yeah, there'd be more of an outcry. But

now that Kimmel's been brought back on the ear, Sinclair, is going to start hearing him again. I think this is a minor, a minor victory at a minor display of independence, but no, I don't think we're going to see an outbreak of profiles and courage

needing a second volume, Steve, here. in the coming months, I think Cruz has picked two spots now, one on freedom of speech and then earlier this spring on tariffs in which I think Cruz is making a long-term bet that at some point, maybe not 28, but maybe in 32, the Republican Party is going to want some version of traditional conservatism again. They're not going to throw Donald Trump away into the thrustbin of history, but I think Cruz has bet that there's something of a course correction. The party does come back to a more traditional conservatism. I'm not totally sold on that, but clearly he's looking for a lane. He's looking to sort of carve out something for

himself. And I think that's why he picked those two issues. I mean, it'd be interesting if he has that foresight and if he's making that bat. He does make his case in, you know, largely in political terms, right? I mean, one of the things he said was, hey, conservatives have to be careful about sort of competency in this kind of behavior because it's going to come back to. to get us one day, which, look, I'd rather have to make that argument than not make any argument, but sort of the practical political argument. Well, he's trying to convince conservatives as to why they should just tow the Trump line. And it's a pretty compelling argument.

It also happens to echo the case that the Wall Street Journal editorial page has been making on a variety of issues for the last eight months, Steve, as you know, which is if you think Trump is doing this is fine and dandy, well, you would. He doesn't like it if the other side is doing it when they're in power next. So I think it's a pretty good argument. But it's hard to tell partisans that they should be worried about the other side doing the same thing. It just feels so distant. And again, the impulse is to kind of defend your own side. Well, and the MAGA, I mean, look, the MAGA counter argument to that is, what do you mean they will do this in the future? They already are.

They've done this in the past. You know, they've been doing this forever. and this is the way that, you know, the left governs by using mafioso tactics. And unfortunately, I will say, in some instances, they're not wrong. I mean, I thought the case that was brought against Ted Cruz in, I mean, that was brought against Donald Trump in New York was an abomination. It was a total stretch. She had, in effect, announced that she was going to go after the president in a way that

we don't like in this country or we've rejected in this country for a while, at least in my Polyanish view. And they point to things like that. and I think make a valid point. Do they, do they have an argument? Look, I think the nature of some of the, the nature of some of the legal cases brought against Trump were, I don't think the strongest, shall we say. And I think part and parcel of partisan politics, like with everything Trump says and does, that's just a pretext for him, right? And

it just makes it go down easier for his side, right, to say, well, what, Tish James did the same thing to him? Well, not exactly, but obviously to your point, it does give his partisans

the opportunity to say that their hands aren't clean either, you know? It kind of reminds me of that Steve, you know, Trump obviously has decided he wants to make a bunch of red states, their maps mid-decade so that he can keep the House majority. And of course, the rationalization on the Republicans who spend half their lives trying to rationalize stuff Trump does by finding

some case where the other side did it too to make it go down easier is, well, Democrats gerrymandered too. Just look at Illinois. And absolutely, both parties have been gerrymandering forever. This is not a new strategy in American politics. The difference is that the two parties typically gerrymanger their states when you have a census and you have the year after the census is done when you draw new maps for the next decade.

Not in the middle of the decade when you're sitting president decides he wants to keep the house through any means necessary and demands that various red states go back to the drawing board and blow up their map so that he can keep the house. It ain't the same, right? But again, the point is

not to find an equivalence. The point is just to find some way to muddy the waters, right? here we are right right well thinking about 2026 specifically um you know the president and his team have raised lots of questions about ballot security vote integrity whether the 2026 elections can go off well um you know the president is uh talked down um cast doubts about mail-in ballots says they're illegitimate wants to go back to all paper ballots it one doesn't have to be paranoid to be concerned about what that might mean in the aftermath of a 2026 presidential election that he loses the house, that Republicans lose the house. How concerned are you about that? And

what's the best way to report that? We were talking about this on our staff the other day. It's a hard thing to sort of get in front of because it is by definition so speculative. I couldn't agree more, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot. the last couple of weeks, in part because this sudden grasp for more house seeds via mid-decade reapportionment, which, by the way, just doesn't happen. You don't have a dozen states suddenly redrawing their house maps in the middle of the decade. This is a moment that's needed to Trump. And yeah, by the way, the Democrats like Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, and Westmore, of course, are going to try and do it for their maps, too, because we're now in the arms race.

Steve, I think that's just the beginning. I mean, I'm with you. I worry about how far Trump will go going into the election during the election and after the election next year to ensure that he keeps the house. He views the prospect of a third impeachment as this stain, as this black mark that would be totally humiliating in some ways even more than his criminal indictments. And so I think he's going to go a long way to try to keep. the house. And I just think, again, we have to be eyes wide open about this. He is who he is. We shouldn't be surprised. And the question is, yeah, how do you report it? Because, I mean, I think there are a few things he could do. But yeah, I mean, it's sort of hard to say he's going to do it

until you have some sense that he actually is going to try. But I think it's safe to say that we're only at the beginning of this, you know. I make that argument to my Republican friends and say, hey, I'm legitimately concerned that he and his team could mess with the vote count, mess with the vote totals, could declare certain elections in certain places that didn't go his way, illegitimate. And, you know, my concerns are met, I'd say, with great skepticism. And, you know, there's sort of this attempt to poop. Oh, you know, you're crazy.

He's not going to do that. Of course, you're not going to do that. But now when you make an argument like that or you express concerns like that, it's not hypothetical. I mean, that is what he did in 2020. I mean, we have the recording of his call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger. We're getting more votes. Go find me 11,000 plus votes. This isn't theoretical.

This is what he does. He declared that the 2020 election was stolen from him. There's no evidence that it was stolen. There's very little evidence that there was widespread fraud. And yet you have 50 plus percent of the Republican Party that believes what the president says. How do you kind of contend with that? Well, he's, he did it in the 2016, see, the 2016 Iowa caucuses for crying out loud. That's right.

That's right. Any election that that does not go the way he prefers, he finds a way to delegitimize it. And clearly, he's now willing to use the arm of federal law enforcement against his rival. So why wouldn't he do the same? in a political context. And I just think we have to be prepared for, you know, extra constitutional behavior from him, right? And again, it comes down to, you know,

are folks going to say no? Look, obviously his staff's not going to say no. We just remember that. His cabinet's not going to say no. Okay. All right. So who else we got? We got judges.

We got members of Congress. We got two co-equal branches. All right? What are they going to do? You know, are they going to say anything? I mean, it's a big question. what's what's the red line i mean i would think that what's the red line something like this indictment of james combe maybe not even because of the indictment itself i mean the indictment

itself will i think we'll be able to take a look when um when the federal government reveals more there's been i think widespread incredible reporting that um the prosecutors had advised against bringing this indictment uh that was one of the reasons that eric cybert left uh as the U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia. We'll see. We'll learn more when the government makes its case. But what's troubling about this as much as anything and you made this point earlier is not so much the indictment itself, but all of the things that led up to the indictment,

all of the work that the president did, the directives that he gave, again, in public to his people to get to this outcome all before the statute of limitations runs out on this next Tuesday. We're recording this Friday next Tuesday. Joe Scarborough, yeah, Scarborough said something that was very smart on morning Joe the other day. He said, this is not Watergate where you have to go meet deep throat in the garage and Rosalind to get the goods. All you got to do is check your iPhone and see what Trump is saying out loud. And by the way, I think that because he does it in public and because there's so much Steve every day that in some ways it kind of it blunts the impact of this right he says Pam talking about his AG using her first

name this is embarrassing we got it you know we got to get at these folks it's right out in the open and um and so that's exactly what happened yeah I think you make an important point about the the context of this and it happens so fast it's so overwhelming that we haven't totally adjusted yet, but it's important for your listeners to grasp this. The Eastern District of Virginia, very prominent jurisdiction, kind of similar to the Southern District of New York. You have really impressive prosecutors there, always have had them over the years because the proxy made to Washington, D.C. It's an Alzheimer's the injury of Virginia. And you have somebody, so respected attorney, approved by both Democratic senators in Virginia,

And, of course, he's not going to bring flimsy charges against the former head of the FBI. And so they moved him out. And they had no reason to move him out. Trump came up with the idea that... And he was a Trump. He was a Trump appointee. It should be pointed out. I think Trump said, because Kane and Warner, the two senators from really liked him, that he shouldn't be there.

No, he got moved out because he would bring charges against Comey. So they bring in somebody who will do it. No prosecutorial experience. before, who was a member of Trump's legal team, who hasn't even found the washroom in the office yet, and she's bringing charges against Comey hours later. And again, doing so because they're up against the wall on the statute of limitations running out. And then, Steve, the charges are so flimsy that they can only bring two of the three counts because the third count is so laughable that a grand jury won't even approve it. I mean, grand jury, as the saying goes,

will, you know, hand down a ham sandwich, right? And they couldn't even get all three. So it's just, if it wasn't so serious, it'd be preposterous. I mean, Lindsay Halligan, who is, which Trump has tapped to lead the Eastern District of Virginia, was one of Trump's defense attorneys, has experience as an insurance lady here, has zero prosecutorial experience because the qualification for the job was to go after these people that Donald Trump has named, which is, again, you know, if this were sort of on its own had happened under a different administration and it happened in secret and we found

out about this, I mean, I think there would be discussions of impeachment. Like, that's, that's how serious this would be. But because he does it out in the open and because he's sort of unapologetic about it, it doesn't, it, it tends not to have. And because like, there's no pretense that the the Department of Justice is independent any longer or free from presidential intervention, right? It's like, we know that he's running at himself. That's why he appointed him. And he says it. And he says it. Right. I know. Now, now, Steve, you mentioned red lines. And he has said repeatedly he wants to go after Tish James, who's the Attorney General of New York, was a sitting elected official in New York state in law and enforcement official in New York State. And Adam Schiff was a duly elected senator from California. Now, unlike Comey, both of them are currently in office. That to me, if he does find charges on

either or both of them, then you're dealing with next level stuff. He is, okay, you're talking about somebody who's an elected official and you're going to try and bring charges against them. You know, what are the nature of the charges? How does that work? Is there pressure on the prosecutor's office in New York with James? does that look like, you know, with Schiff, how does that work with his Senate seat? I mean, it's a whole different kettle of fish, you know. Well, and I mean, look, we've seen, you know, in the firing of Lisa Cook, who you mentioned earlier, who's the Fed governor, you know, there were claims that she had committed mortgage fraud.

Those claims didn't really withstand scrutiny, but that was the cause given to remove her. There is obvious double standard here. There are Trump administration officials, senior Trump administration officials, prominent Republicans, including Ken Paxton in Texas, who's running for Senate, who have done the same. The fact pattern is similar to what the Trump administration had laid out against Lisa Cook. They don't care. And I think the thing that strikes me about this is there's no pretense at consistency. No. No, all.

Of course not. And nobody's going to say otherwise, right? And again, Trump says it out loud. He says he wants full control of the Fed. He wants to control the Fed. And she's, you know, I think of the way of that. So we know who he is. We know why he's doing it.

And the question is, is there any way who's ever going to stop? Period. So let me ask you that question directly. John Thune was somebody who had been skeptical of Trump for a long time since Trump arrived on the scene, had shown a willingness. to kind of stand up and buck President Trump on issues important to his constituents in South Dakota, issues of principle. I would say he hasn't done that very often here.

He hasn't, there have been moments, you know, the recess appointment thing before he was elected, majority leader he stood up. There have been moments, but we haven't really seen John Thune or anybody else in leadership in the House and Senate say, hey, this crosses the red line. Right. And this is a moment for me to speak out. Do you anticipate that we will see that? And who would be the person to do that? What would be the precipitating event? I think it's going to take a lot more. I just think that the partisan tides are so strong, some magnetic pull toward Trump and Trumpism. And I think it's going to have to go a lot further. But obviously, I mean, some of this stuff is embarrassing because it's hard to justify for all the obvious.

reasons. Trump does not need Congress for that much. And so it's not even like, you know, they have leverage over his agenda at this point, right? They're speeding up the confirmation of his nominees. They passed the one big big ticket bill he wanted to get done. Otherwise, Steve Trump wants to sign executive orders all day. He doesn't even want to work with Congress. So, and furthermore, his OMB director is doing these recisions. which are, you know, undermining one of Congress's constitutional prerogatives, which is the power of the purse, they control spending in this country. That's being undermined. And you don't see much pushback at all. And I just don't anticipate barring some, you know, profound change that happening. And I think they think they have cover because he ran on retribution. I mean, that's their defense on.

on everything. Well, yes, he may be crossing the line, but he said he was going to do it. He said he was going to do it. Yeah. The donors like it. The activist base likes it. Trump is way too popular with their voters, is the bottom line. Okay. And with their vote. And overall, he's not popular. He's in the low 40s. But he's still, you know, he's still hanging in there. Well, if we go into a recession and Trump's numbers fall into the 30s, you know, then you start hearing the L word, which is lame duck, which you haven't heard. at really at all. And that will change. If Trump does fall into the 30s, I just don't think barring that you're going to see much in the way of a big shift. You know, look, if Lisa Murkowski,

Susan Collins, Tom Tillis, who's not running for re-election, throw in Bill Cassidy, who's going to have a tough, tough primary, Steve, if they wanted to be in together, oh my gosh, you know, they could, they could have a voice. I just don't see it happen. You know, they're embarrassed by Kennedy. They use the hearing with Kennedy to criticize him. But there's nobody calling for him to resign, right? Even in light of the Tylenol announcements, which I think many of the Republican senators were embarrassed about it. I mean, if those senators went to Trump and said, this is terrible politics, it's breaking through with normal voters, and it's hurting us and it's hurting you, can you please move him out?

I don't know if you do it or not, but they'll even try. They don't even try, right? Privately, let alone publicly. What does Tom Tillis have to lose? He's not running for re-election last year. He said he was going to be, you know, a big voice. Okay. You complain about Kennedy of the hearing.

What else he got? You know? Yeah. Well, you mentioned the fact that he's not, he's popular, very popular with the Republican base. He's not popular much beyond that, with independence and obviously not with Democrats. I want to turn to the Democrats in a moment, but first of a. I think we need to take a break from all of this serious politics. Can we please?

Can we please? All right, we're going to take a quick break, but we'll be back soon with more from the Dispatch podcast. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is, the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious.

That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of 5-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's E-T-H-O-S dot com slash dispatch. Application times may vary, rates may vary. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, you're right. or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site

and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. and Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated.

Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. You are currently coming to us from Memphis, Tennessee. We're recording this 4.30 on Friday afternoon, which means a meal is in your not too distant future.

What are you going to eat in this famous eating city, foodie town? And what restaurant are you going to go to? What are you going to order? I'm sitting at the end of Beale Street. I'm looking at the Mississippi River. Precisely, I'm looking at the bridge that spans Tennessee and Arkansas and Mud Island. is below it. If folks have seen the firm, the movie based on the John Grisham

novel, they know what I'm talking about. I love Memphis. It's got character. It's got soul. It's got hard. It's a great river city. Kind of like my favorite city, New Orleans. In fact, it's the same damn river, it turns out. We are going to go and

have the great dry in wet rubs at rendezvous, one of the great American institutions, perhaps the greatest American rib joint. owned by the Virgo's family and our friend John Burgos, to be exact. And then we're going to see a great show. Branford Marcellus, speaking of New Orleans,

a son of New Orleans, just happens to be playing a show here tonight while we're in town. So we're going to catch him. And then head on down to Oxford for the LSU Ole Miss matchup tomorrow between undefeated's first time since 1959. And folks will recall Billy Keenan's famous Halloween run in which LSU beat Undefeated's, to Ole Miss, that the two teams have played each other undefeated,

which is incredible, actually, to think about that they have... It's a pitched rivalry, even when they're not undefeated. It's huge. And look, we all-Miss beats LSU. It's like Christmas and Oxford. It's like the biggest game of the year for them. They're just, you know, they're over the moon. So we're going to eat ribs tonight.

I love Memphis. What's better? What do you prefer the dry rub? I like them both. And there's also this app they serve with, like, cheese and sausage. which is a really classic Memphis app with some crackers that we like. It's a great spot.

Folks that know it, just across from the Peabody in the alley, you go downstairs. I also love, there's a place here in Memphis where I almost always give a sandwich. It's called Paines on Lamar Avenue, P-A-Y-N-E-S. They got, I think,

the best barbecue sandwich for my money in Memphis, and it's got this mustardy coleslaw. It's a great sandwich. But ribs, where we did we talk about that one time with Howard Ford we definitely did I think that's his I think that's that's we definitely have talked to Harold Ford did I say Howard for Harold Ford yeah Harold Ford definitely have pains is a great spot I love all kinds of barbecue but like my my approach is when in Rome kind of

Steve so it's like yeah if I'm in Texas give me the sausage give me the brisket and the ribs I'm in West Tennessee I'm in Memphis like all right like I want I want you know, ribs wet and dry. If I'm in Carolina, out east, you know, give me the hush puppies and the vinegar-based barbecue. It just totally depends upon where I am. So I'm happy to be back in Memphis here, though, now. So you are what, I mean, you do a ton of traveling.

Yes. Done this for a long time. Yes. Lead an itinerant lifestyle. Yes. And you have the opportunity to eat in some of the best restaurants or most notable restaurants in all the places you visit. I don't miss one of meals.

Neither to I, unfortunately. And we've had many together. What's the best campaign meal or most memorable campaign meal you've had as you've traveled, traveling, covering politics? Oh, my gosh. That's, I can't answer that question because there have been so many. Pick two or three? Well, so many in Iowa over the years.

I think I was with you at one of them. There's a place called Archie. Wayside, which is out and Lamar's Iowa and Northwest Iowa. It's a classic Midwestern style supper club that's got phenomenal steaks and wine. I actually wrote about it for the Times in 2016.

It's a special place. Love, love Archies. You know, in South Carolina, I eat eat a lot of barbecue in South Carolina. Rodney Scott's is a fantastic spot. The original one at Hemingway, and obviously he's now open

one downtown Charleston, too. but there's a great spot in Charleston also on Upper King Street in an old bank called the Ordinary and the Ordinary is a seafood joint and they've got these Hawaiian roll oyster sliders. They're just phenomenal. But again,

I'm a strict, you know, one in Rome type eater. So it's, you know, I tell my wife best, I just play to strengths. You know, play to strengths. All right. I think Johnny Appel We had memorable.

We had memorable. Johnny Ample once said, We have memorable... No prongs at this altitude, which is amazing alone. No prongs at this altitude. Johnny's a widow of Bessie, he's a friend of ours and a great American.

And I think about that line a lot. No prongs of this altitude. So, yeah, like, if I'm in Memphis, I'm not going to have a halibut tonight. You know what I'm saying? Now, if I'm in San Francisco or Seattle, it's like, yeah, obviously, I want to get Dungeon Ness Crab. I want salmon, I want it.

I want halibut. It just, you know, where are you? Play the strengths. So you, uh, you now travel, uh, from New Orleans. Yes. We're part-time New Orleans residents. Yes. The world's greatest that New Orleans would have one, one meal in New Orleans.

And one meal only. Let's say I've got a friend who's coming there in a business trip next weekend. And he can get in anywhere. Yes. It's not a matter of being able to get in. What's the, what's the restaurant and what's the order? Is it lunch or? dinner? Dinner. Okay. It's dinner in New Orleans, and you can only have one? Only one.

Can you have two dinners at the same night? Like, have a 530 dinner or 830 dinner? We've been known to do that. Yes. Okay. If you want to practice total gluttony. So here's my answer, because there's two different versions of New Orleans. I love both of them equally. I think what I would do is I would go to a place called Mandinas, which is a classic Italian creole spot in New Orleans. in Mid-City. This is not that widely known, but a lot of the best in the neighborhood places

in New Orleans are actually Italian Creole places owned by old Sicilian families that serve a mix of both red sauce and staples like shrimp Ramelot and gumbo.

In fact, our friend Brett Martin is a great food writer, lives in New Orleans, has written about this genre called Italian Creole. So I would go, I would get a shrimp

Ramelad starter, a side of peas, and then I would get a chicken palm or a spaghetti and meatballs at Mandinos, and I'd share it early. Then later, I think I would go to Herb Saint, which is a fantastic restaurant on St. Charles Avenue. And I would get the gumbo to start, some of the fried oyster appetizer as well. And then for dinner, I don't know, if I still had some room, I'll probably get a fish, wherever they had fresh. And there, isn't there, what is it, airplane chicken is also? The chicken there is really nice, yeah.

It's a very nice chicken. But I just think, you know, you've taken me there. That's great. Now, look, you know, the two Grand Doms of New Orleans are Commander's Palace and Galatouaz. Commander's Palace is in the Garden District. Galatouaz, as most folks know, is in the French Quarter on Bourbon Street. There are spectacular places, great fish. you know, traditional kind of dressy white table-cloth spots.

I love them both. I just think most of your listeners probably have been to one or both. And if you got to get one meal only in New Orleans, I don't know. Mix it up. Do the Italian Creole thing in the neighborhood. I have never been to the Italian Creel. I'm very interested to try that next time I come down. We're going to get you set up with a good shrimp rumelot, followed by a red sauce, chicken farm,

and we'll take good care of you, Steve. I'll worry. I love it. Well, I've had herb saint. That was phenomenal. It was as good as you described it. The dispatch yesterday hosted Justice Amy Coney Barrett at our inaugural Scotus Blogs Summit here in Washington, D.C. And she was a daughter of New Orleans.

Yes, she is. And the judge who was asking her questions, interviewed her on stage, did a terrific job, and asked her where she would go for her one meal in New Orleans. And she said, she said galitouz. Yeah. I mean, it's, you can't go wrong. Classic New Orleans. It's classic New Orleans. You get a Sazirac or a bourbon.

You get what are called souffle potatoes, which I think may actually be illegal in some states. They're so decadent, or at least you have to be above 18. I'm kidding. But the soufflea potatoes, they come out. They're piping hot, a little of salt, and you dip them in burn A's. And it's like the cool ranch Doritos, man. You know, you can't eat less than 14 of the things.

there's so that you cannot stop. Wow, you're really selling it. You cannot stop eating a soup-flake potatoes, all right? Anyways. Don't you think the chef at Galatouille would be so, would resent using cool ranch dervians? The addictive nature is similar. There's a similar narcotic put in both products, okay?

I can't speak to what Frito Lay is putting in the cool. Anyways, after you get done with the, um, the souffle potatoes, I like to get a gumbo, typically a seafood gumbo. and then whether it pompano or redfish some kind of fish from the Gulf and just drown the thing in butter get the crab on top and it's just it's just dynamite

it's just dynamite making me hungry I'm gonna touch one more place at you though it's a very uptown it's an uptown bistro kind of like Gallup was but tucked in a neighborhood deep uptown

as our friend Jeff Duncan is the great sports column that the Times Picking Uncalls it deep uptown it's called Clancy's Hard to get a table there. They've got these fried oysters

with Brie cheese as a starter. I mean, talk about decadence. Talk about it should be out in some states. It's just unbelievable. Fried oysters. Yeah, and they've got a massive pork chop there and great fish too. Clancy's anyways. Do you put anything on fried oysters with Brie or do you just eat

them that way? You can toss some crystal hot sauce on them if you want. And by the way, pro tip in New Orleans, Tabasco ain't the jam. It's crystal. All right. Realheads know this. You've got to go crystal hot sauce, not Tabasco. Tabasco is a little bit to the west. Yeah, Tabasco, exact.

Avery Island, down in Cajun country. Exactly. Okay, well, I mean, I think we could keep talking about food for the rest of our time together. But we shouldn't. Maybe we should start. Maybe we should launch a food podcast. I think people might appreciate the distraction from politics. People have either long turned this off or they're just like hanging on every word.

That's right. Or they're taking notes. They might be taking notes. If they knew how into food you are in your interests parallel mine, they would be taking Cope's notes or rewinding this, print out the AI transcript of this, and just make a point to go to all these places. Full props to Steve Hayes here, point of personal privilege, betty and I for our anniversary a few years ago did Door County, Wisconsin, which for those of you who have not experienced

the pleasure of the Badger State in full, is that thumb of Wisconsin, which, judson juts into the into the bay uh door county one of the great swing counties now by the way in american politics door county wisconsin we were there in late may we ate so well thanks to the advanced work of one steve hayes fantastic place um probably had more cheese courage in that three day period than i need for the rest of my life but man they're good they're so good that's great you know what's funny is jonah gulberg uh takes pride in disagreeing with me about just about everything. And if I like something a lot, Jonah makes a point to dislike it. So I love Spanish wine.

Jonah Down Talks Spanish wine. I love Wisconsin. Jonah Down Talks, Wisconsin. But he took a trip. That was the other place. Madrid, Spain, Steve. You set us up in Madrid with a dynamite restaurant. What was that place called? Angelita. Yeah. If you're a Madrid.

It's my favorite restaurant in the world. Favorite restaurant in the world. By the way, the commanders are playing a game there in November in Madrid. So any football fans going to that game in Madrid, go to Steve's place. Yeah, it's, it's phenomenal. But Jonah went to, Jonah went to Dorr County at the behest of Fair Jessica, his wife. And they both loved Door County. And Jonah, for Jonah to admit that in public is big of him.

It speaks to how great Dorr County is. The supper club culture there is so fun. I love the supper club, man. you get the salad bar you get the prime rib you know the the the bourbon it's like a nice dusk sort of cool night i don't know man something you have a silver club buying it's just great the best one is donnie's glidden lodge and sturgeon bay yes great midwest man incredible yeah yeah all right should we do politics here at the end we're going to take a quick break but we'll be back shortly with mx platinum access to exclusive amex pre-sale tickets can score you a

spot track side. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at mx.ca.ca. slash yamex. Did you lock the front door? Check.

Close the garage door? Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts, a secure VPN for a private connection and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web. I'm looking into it. Stress less about security.

Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit tellus.com slash total security to learn more. Conditions apply. Reluctantly, let's return to politics because I do want to ask you about the Democrats. You've written about the Democrats in 2028. You've written about what's likely to unfold with the primaries. They're nominating contexts. But what strikes me right now in the Democrats,

this moment. Kamala Harris has just released her book earlier this week. It sort of landed with a thud. She takes a bunch of shots. She seems to try to settle scores. My impression is she didn't, I have not read the whole book. My impression is she didn't make much of a case. She sort of used a book to explain why she didn't win and maybe couldn't win. I mean, the title of the book is 107 days, which I think is itself suggestive, but didn't spend as much time making a positive case for her in this current Democratic Party. Question to you is, who are the Democrats today?

What do the Democrats stand for? And why, if Donald Trump is so unpopular on the center left, so unpopular with independents, are Democrats having such a tough time making inroads against them? Well, the first answer to your question is easy. Democrats are not Donald Trump.

I mean, the basis, the organizing basis for their party is not being Donald Trump. Trump, right? I mean, that's, that was the basis of Biden's candidate scene, the primary in general in 2020. And that's what folks voted for. Stop Trump, stop COVID. They didn't vote for the entirety of Biden's agenda, as it turned out, as Abigail Spanberger had been in the House of Representatives told me the day after the election in 2021, when Democrats lost the governorship in Virginia, nobody elected Joe Biden to be Franklin D. Roosevelt. Okay. Right. They elected him to stop

COVID and beat Trump. And he did. Biden's challenge was he then didn't fully appreciate that he was leasing the car, not buying it, so to speak, and he was a bridge. And he was mostly there as a vehicle to stop Trump. So Democrats haven't organized for almost 10 years around the idea of not being down on Trump. And by the way, in special elections and midterms, works pretty well because their electorate tends to come out in those elections. The problem is it's tougher in general elections because Democrats have the problem now that Republicans used to have, which is that they struggle in presidential cycles because the nature of the electorate is a lot bigger. So Democrats don't stand for anything besides being against Trump. Look, they're a

they are a cacophonous coalition that includes everybody from folks who would have been moderate, you know, Republicans not long ago to actual socialist. You know, it's everything from the Cheney's to AOC. You know, they're, they're, They're not hanging together on the weekends, right? It's a coalition of convenience. It doesn't stand for anything ideologically, except for being against Trump. Now, you could say right now that's an emergency coalition to stop the insipion autocracy in our country, some would say.

But no, there's no agenda. And Steve, I don't think there's going to be until there's a nominee in 2028. I don't think it's going to be Kamala Harris. You know, our friend Dave Weigel had a really good insight on her book, which is there's nothing in there that is prescriptive about how Democrats can fix their problems. It's all personal about her own experience as how she was wronged and trying to explain away her loss. Connell Harris has nothing to say about what Democrats should stand for on policy or what their vision should be. That's not her thing, right? She doesn't even bother in the book. So I think

it's going to be a rough couple of years until they find a nominee in terms of what they stand for. but until then, Steve, you know what they are. They're not Trump. I mean, you know, one of the biggest lessons of 2024 has to be that it's not enough to not be Trump because they lost. And Trump made inroads with a number of groups that had previously been more supportive of Democrats. So it would be political malpractice for them to try to sort of run that same race. I wonder what this is something I've been sort of obsessed with and I want to run by you and get your reaction. And one of the reasons Democrats are having so much trouble creating an identity or projecting an identity. If you go to Democrat, you know, longtime Democrat voters and you say, what is the Democratic Party stand for today?

I think they have a hard time articulating that vision or those principles. And one of the reasons I think for that is because Donald Trump himself is relatively non-ideological and has embraced a big role for government in virtually every sphere, whether you're talking about immigration, whether you're talking to, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. spending the National Guard to quell crime, spending more, fighting against entitlement reform that Republicans used to stand for, protecting, quote, unquote, social security and Medicare, spending, spending, spending, Democrats had sort of cornered that. That was the main argument that they had made for decades. And he's kind of making it now. He doesn't make it enthusiastically.

It's much more sort of grieving politics with giveaways. but they seem unable to come up with a different argument. Is that part of their challenge? And what do you hear from the smartest minds on the Democratic Party about how they create an identity? What do they do? I mean, it's not like there's a lack of issues to confront, right? You look at the education data that's come in the last couple of weeks, you know, decades low scores in reading and math. We have an education crisis in this country.

I wrote a column at the end of the summer, start of the school year, about what I think is one of the great bipartisan achievements in the last couple of years, which is state by state, red America and blue America, banning cell phones, bell to bell in school. But again, that's happening at the state level. Obviously, we have profound challenges. You know, when it comes to, you know, the fiscal solvency of the federal government, the role of the country abroad. an aging population, and neither party, Steve, you make a really good point. Neither party really has a theory of the case on what they're going to do about. I mean, we're really in a moment where, you know, neither party is prosecuting a coherent ideological agenda, right? The Republicans are for whatever Trump cares about, and Trump has no legislative agenda.

And that's Trump's legislative agenda is already over. Right. Yeah. He needed a vehicle to pass a bill that was going to extend the 2017 tax cuts and do a few sweeteners that he talked about McKee and Patriot. And guess what? They did it. And like, he doesn't have any big desire to do much else. Now, you hear the business community fantasize about the idea that you could do Nixon goes to China.

And Trump can say, I close down the border and now I'm going to do what Bush, Obama and Biden couldn't do. I'm going to solve the entirety of the immigration challenge in this country by fixing the entire system. The problem there is you and I know that his staff would stop him from doing that, and the temptation would be, I think, killed pretty fast in the crib. So from a policy standpoint, yeah, the Republicans are for, you know, what Trump's sort of impulses, plus the high-end tax cuts that their donors crave, which they've kind of already taken care of already by keeping the 17 tax cuts in place. And Democrats are against Trump and largely against, you know, spending cuts in issues like Medicaid. But besides that, like, I couldn't tell you what Democrats are for, you know, besides being against Trump. Is the answer, I mean, I hate to think about it this way.

Is the answer for Democrats to be competitive to put out an end. entertainer? A non-ideological entertainer? I don't know if it has to be entertainment. It's got to be somebody, Steve. What I believe is I think Democrats need somebody that can do two things. One, somebody that can break through and hold your attention in the attention economy. Who can get you by the lapels for seven seconds watching a video on your phone? Okay. That's number one. Number two is who could run credibly against the status quo and against both parties in Washington? If you look at the Democrats who found success for the last half century and you take Biden out of the equation, because Biden's the exception that proves the rule for the very reason that we just mentioned a minute ago, Biden's a vessel against Trump and against COVID. He was not a candidate in his own right in a lot of ways. Carter, Clinton, Obama, 76, 9208. There's the three Democratic candidates who won the presidency besides Joe Biden, you're going back for a half century. All three of them ran against Washington, against the status quo and against both parties and promised to clean up the mess in D.C., right? And each of them

generationally was on the younger side. And I think, you know, if you can do that and if you can break through on an iPhone, I don't think you have to be an entertainer. I just think that you've got to have those two skills. Now, I just, it's not going to be a 17 point PowerPoint. It's not going to be white papers, right? It's not going to be op-eds. You know, you've got to break through, right? Last question on politics. You talk to Republicans these days, and there's, and this is a long, long ways off, of course, but there's a certain assumption that J.D. Vance is the heir parent, that he is sort of MAGA plus, that he steps in. Obviously, Marco Rubio, very ambitious. I think we've seen that in his willingness to say the things he's had to say to be.

Secretary of State and to stay in Trump's good graces making arguments. I think many times he doesn't believe. So he could be somebody who would be a Republican candidate in 2028. But there's an assumption that I don't buy that it's sort of J.D. Vance is for the taking. Is that, is it too early to say that? Do you think he's the frontrunner on the Republican side? This is all assuming, by the way, that Trump doesn't try to stay for a third term. Let me wrap up the point that I was making before, too, because I think this is important. The last two presidents couldn't be more different, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

They have one big thing in common. Both of them transcended political culture and broke into pop culture. Trump was already a celebrity in his own right. Obama became one, and they did it in ways that were bigger than American politics, right?

These were not John Kerry, Mitt Romney type figures. They were bigger than politics. On the question of who's there apparent for Trump. I don't think Trump wants a primary, Steve. I think Trump wants to have the apprentice in the White House. He wants to decide this.

He will tell the Republican voters what the ticket's going to be, thank you very much. And he ain't going to do it a moment before he has to. He does not want to be a lame duck. He does not want to have to see these guys Trump around Iowa and New Hampshire litigating his record. He wants to decide. So I just think he's going to find a way to do that. The voters, I think, will still be fine.

I want that because he controls the base, and that's certainly the primary electorate. Today, I think it's Vance. Who knows? We're sitting here in the fall of 2025. That's ages away from now. And I just, I think it's too early to say, you know, people with Trump tend to have challenges. I don't think we're overstated in the case to say, you know, the nature of his relationships can be tempestuous, right? So we'll see where Vance and Rubio are by 27, 28.

I will say this. Rubio clearly has real talent on the stump. He's a charismatic figure. He goes to Charlie Kirk's Memorial Service and he talks about Christianity in a way that's very accessible and very concise for a minute, minute and a half. And that goes viral. And you have people like Franklin Graham who are posting sort of the explainer, if you will, Marker Rubio explaining Christianity at a memorial service. And I don't think he planned for that to do a viral. I don't think that was Rubio's strategy. I don't think they're hatching that and foggy bottom. He just has those kind of chops. And so I don't know if there is any kind of primary, maybe he'll be formidable. Steve, I just think that Trump doesn't want a primary. He didn't want one in 24.

He told Ronald Romney, don't have debates, don't have a primary. What are we doing? And that was for him, he's now in control of the party. He's the president. I just think he's going to want to dictate the terms of this in every possible way. No. Well, he may want a primary because he may not want to leave. We saw that he didn't want to leave before. You now have people like Lindsay Graham actively encouraging him to stay. That's the next podcast. Dangerous and scary. That's that's the next podcast. We're going to let you go, Jonathan Martin. We're going to need strong drink to that one, buddy. We're going to be strong drink to that one. We'll go to Wisconsin and have an old fashion. Or three. Brandy old fashion. Thank you for joining us, Jonathan. I hope you have a great dinner. Will you do us a favor and send a picture of your ribs so we can pop it in the show notes i will happily do that i i'm usually very shy about talking you about food taking pictures of it i tend to be kind of um almost reckless

on that stuff i sort of keep it private but i think this one night i'll make an exception to even do that for you well you know we we appreciate you coming out of your shelf for us uh i'm sure it was you know the fact that i love food every bit as much as you do and that we spend a fair amount of our time together talking about it. That may be teased it out of you. All right, brother. Thanks for joining us. Have a great meal.

Enjoy the game. Thanks, Steve. Go, Tigers. Good Packers. See you, buddy. You know what I'm going to do.