The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, January 31

Episode Date: January 31, 2019

Sen. Kamala Harris stakes out a big position on health care as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz considers a presidential bid as an independent candidate. The government is running again but there's still no agreement on border security, with a deadline looming. This episode: Congressional correspondent Scott Detrow, Congressional correspondent Susan Davis, political editor Domenico Montanaro and political reporter Asma Khalid. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey, guys. We started this podcast in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election, and now we are getting ready for 2020. And we want to hear from you. What do you like about the podcast? What do you think that we could do better? To let us know, just head on over to npr.org slash politics survey. That's npr.org slash politics survey. We can't wait to hear from you. Thank you so much in advance. Hey, this is Santiago on day five of my cross country road trip. And I'm somewhere in Ohio. This podcast was recorded at 207 Eastern on Thursday, January 31st. Look, you know the deal. Things definitely change by the time you hear this, but that's part of the fun. You can keep up with the latest political news at npr.org, the NPR One app, or your local public radio station, which for me

right now is WKSU. All right, here's the show. Oh, that's awesome. Santiago's a great guy. He was driving back from Kansas where he was picking up his car. And he's a loyal podcast list. I didn't know all this. Do you in real life know him? Yeah, in real life.

Oh, okay. Did you rig it, Domenico? I do. Cool guy. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. Been another busy week in the early days of the next presidential campaign. Kamala Harris is staking out a big position on health care. And former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is getting a lot of heat for a possible independent run.

Meantime, Congress has about two weeks to cut a border security deal that President Trump will sign. We will talk about all of that and, of course, can't let it go. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress. I'm Susan Davis. I also cover Congress. I'm Esma Khalid, political reporter. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor.

Sue, this is the first time I've been on a podcast with you since like June. Oh my God, you're right. It's exciting. Happy New Year, Scott. You too. How have things been? We've got a lot to catch up on. All right, you guys ready to talk about Howard Schultz?

Can we bring the anger level of liberal Twitter to this conversation? How many latte jokes are we allowed to make? Three. I have so many jokes. Go ahead, Asma. Let's just get them out of the way, everybody. I have a lot of jokes. Okay, but can I just say my favorite hot take was when I saw someone say, you know what Howard Schultz would do in this campaign? What? He's just going to open up way too many campaign offices. Oh! Right across the street from one another.

Ooh! Wow. That's good. Domenico, can you top that? Well, you know, we know that this has been a latte to handle for a lot of Democrats.

So you could have made a get burned joke. Yeah, well, mine got burned on Twitter, so that was fun. But, you know, I was just trying to espresso myself, as we say.

There's a cold brewing around that campaign. Okay, before everybody stops listening to the podcast, let's... Okay, to the news! So Howard Schultz, former CEO of Starbucks, says he is thinking about seriously running for president as an independent. Like I said, a whole lot of Democrats got angry. Here is Schultz being heckled at a book launch in Manhattan. Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world.

That's not what democracy means. Go back to Davos, man. Go back to Davos. The guy also said go back to getting ratioed on Twitter, which is such a 2019 burn. All right. So, Domenico, why are Democrats so angry? Now, I would say some of that might be astroturfed because before that happened, there was actually Hillary Clinton's former head of rapid response was tweeting out that people should go protest him at this event. So, you know, I do think that that is part of the Democratic anger and the backlash to him because Democrats feel like there is a very strong

block of resistance to Donald Trump. Trump's polling numbers are not good. Some 57 percent of the country in our poll said that they would definitely not vote for Trump. And Democrats feel like they've made all this progress. And the one thing that could stop that progress and maybe let President Trump win with, you know, something like in the low 40s, you know, of the vote would be if you had some centrist candidate with billions of dollars come in and peel off some of their voters. So Howard Schultz spoke to Morning Edition and Steve Inskeep earlier this week. Steve asked him about this very point. Let's listen to what he had to say. If there is a choice between President Trump and a progressive, liberal-minded person on the Democratic side, it would kill me to see President Trump be reelected. And I believe that's what would take place. You think the Democrats are going to be too far left to win?

That's what I believe. It's an interesting argument. And we're going to talk in a little bit about what the positions that much of the Democratic field is staking up. But Sue and Asma, I don't know what you think about this, but it was interesting to me that somebody running as an independent, you know, there's data that makes a whole bunch of different arguments about whether previous high profile independent candidates like Ross Perot have cut more into the Republican or Democratic side. I haven't really seen that many Republicans upset about this campaign. And there have been reports that President Trump thinks it would be good for him.

That's right. And what I think is probably one of the clearest signs of the way that Democrats actually feel about this and why they're so concerned to what Domenico is saying is because some of the strongest criticism that I've seen has come from a fellow billionaire of his. That's former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. And he said specifically that, you know, the reason he has decided not to run as an independent, even the reason he didn't run as an independent in 2016, is because he feels like that would split the anti-Trump vote and that it would essentially benefit President Trump. And I find that just a fascinating thing to hear from a guy who himself was a former Republican. Here's my head scratcher about Howard Schultz, and I would love to have any and all of you weigh in on this, is that the oxygen or the area he's trying to fill in this country is his

argument is that there is this like orbit of socially liberal and economically conservative voters out there who just want a pragmatic businessman like Howard Schultz to fix the problems of the country. And I'm just really skeptical that there is that voter. I mean, this is the mythology of the independent candidate, right? Like that's the voter that they appeal to. And I'm just not convinced that that is a critical block of voters. And as Asma, especially you, as you've traveled out in so much in the country talking to people, I mean, do you meet a lot of voters that you think, oh, this is a Howard Schultz voter? I have not. I mean, right, there certainly is a small segment, I think, of the population like

that. But even when we look at the bulk of the population that does not vote, all the surveys that we've seen in terms of what those non-voters look like, is that they're actually really progressive on economic policy. And so this argument that, you know, the Democratic Party is sort of way off base when it talks about raising the minimum wage or expanding health care doesn't really seem to resonate with where the population is. And I would make the case that we actually have seen that when we look at like ballot initiatives, you know, in this past midterms cycle, we saw Medicaid expansion, minimum wage raises in pretty red states when they were put on the ballot directly to the voters. And the thing about that is like, you've seen a whole lot of results on the national level and local level in both parties that I think if there's one thing that Democratic

and Republican voters have in common, it is this trend to be repelled by like the technocratic professional politician candidate, right? You want passion. Right. Yeah. So some sort of like, I'm going to run things really well feels like it's a hard sell. But Domenico, aside from all of that, you did some reports this week on whether it's Howard Schultz, whether it's name your third party candidate. It's just really hard for a third party candidate to get any traction at all. Yeah, it's really difficult. There are some structural disadvantages for anybody who tries to run independently.

Now, where you want to start out is having a lot of money because you need to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Howard Schultz, as a billionaire, certainly has got the consultants who can show him where and how to get on those ballots. He's got enough money to do it. He's got enough time. So he certainly could overcome that. But you know, the thing is, as far as broad appeal goes, with somebody like Howard Schultz, I would bet that more than half the country probably doesn't even know who he is. They know Starbucks, they don't know him. And you know, he strikes me more as kind of guy who gets himself on TV because he makes he's got a lot of money and knows a lot of friends, talks about civility, but doesn't have an ideology that can really bring a whole lot of people in the middle

together. And there's good reason for that. I mean, the fact of the matter is he might talk about how there's some 40 percent of the country that identifies independence. That's mostly because the parties don't have very good favorability ratings. People don't look at the parties very well. There's really only about 10% or so of the country that's truly swing voters. The thing that I keep getting stuck on is that especially if you look at how the high unfavorability of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton last time around, right, to have that high on both sides had not really been a thing we'd seen before. So between that, between the fact that modern political parties are weaker than they've ever been, and between the fact that you

can use the internet to organize and get your message out at a much lower cost than before, it feels like if there was ever a moment for a third party to step out and really get a big chunk of the vote, it would have been last time around. And it was what, like 5% of the vote total? Actually, a lot of the people I talked to for my story actually said the same thing, that 2016 might have been the time. And why there was such an opening was because you had Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as two historically unliked candidates, that there was room for somebody to come in. Say, for example, in 2017, Pew did political typology, and they figured that there were something more like eight political parties potentially in the country, not two, not three.

And when you think about those eight, when you get them together, they don't really agree on a whole heck of a lot in the middle. So it's a very difficult thing. What one consultant told me was that essentially, if you're an independent, you're starting at zero with a ceiling of about a third to 35%. When you're part of a political party, because of how locked in and entrenched they've been, you're starting at about 30 to 35%. So I heard the interview that Stevens keep did with Howard Schultz on Morning Edition this week. And he said that he doesn't believe Donald Trump was qualified to be president. And I'm sitting there being like, well, what makes the former CEO of Starbucks think he's so qualified? Like, I didn't really understand the logic there. I do think like, yeah, they were both CEOs.

But I think especially as more really detailed reporting on the Trump organization has come out, like I think Howard Schultz legitimately grew Starbucks from a small handful of stores in Seattle to like this national international brand where there's like tens of thousands of stores of them. You know, like I do think you can argue he had this this massive success on that front, whether or not you think their coffee is burnt. And you're accountable to shareholders, which is in a microcosm of being accountable to your voters, where like Trump was a private businessman is essentially runs a small family business. I mean, among like business types, I think that's where they would get their chips on their shoulder. All right. So Howard Schultz made a lot of news this week. He did not go back to Davos. He is continuing to explore an independent bid for president. A whole lot happened on the Democratic side as well. Actually, a little bit happened on the Republican side. Jeff Flake, the former Arizona senator, said he's not actually going to challenge President Trump in a Republican primary.

I'm sure we'll talk about the possibility of a Republican primary sometime soon in a show. But on the Democratic side, so a few things happened. First of all, you have California Senator Kamala Harris. Last weekend in Oakland, 20,000 people show up to hear her formally kick off her presidential campaign. I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for president of the United States. Scott, you were there, right? What was the vibe? It was interesting. You know, I was walking around.

It was the big plaza out in front of Oakland City Halls where she had the rally. And the night before I was walking around, early the morning of the event, I was walking around and I was thinking, wow, they have really set a high bar for themselves. They've blocked off several city streets in all directions to traffic. Like this is going to be hard to fill. And if she doesn't fill it, that would not be the greatest visual. But then you just saw people pouring in and 20,000 people is a whole lot of people, especially on day one of the campaign. I think that more than anything else is what what jumped out. But, you know, I talked to a lot of people there. There were some people who were like, I'm definitely voting for Harris. But there are a lot of people who said, you know, it's a big field. And I'm honestly just excited that the campaign

starting and we can start the process of electing a Democrat. So, Scott, what jumped out at you from what she actually had to say when she initially said she was running for president? We were talking to the podcast about how she had this message of for the people kind of trying to frame it around her time as a prosecutor. She did talk about that a lot. But to me, what got the crowd most excited and where the speech really seemed to pick up and have a message was talking about this argument that Donald Trump and his policies and a lot of the things that have happened over the last two years just don't represent the United States of America.

And it was almost like, come on, America, we're better than this, was the argument she was making. When we have children in cages crying for their mothers and fathers, don't you dare call that border security. That's a human rights abuse. And that's not our America. So, you know, that went on for a while. The crowd was really into it. And to me, it almost seemed like a more like weathered and slightly cynical flip side of the message that Barack Obama ran on. Not that like America is this great optimistic place, but like America can do better than what we've done the last few years. And our leaders are not representing where most of the people are. You know, it certainly sounds like a presidential

campaign and sounds like one of the first events I've heard anyway, that has the kind of energy behind it that kind of encapsulates what Democrats want to hear. She seems like to me an instant front runner in what could be like a 30 person field for a lot of reasons, right? Like she just has like the narrative. She has the voter base. She already represents like a diverse electorate. And she has a narrative, right? Like she's the law and order Democrat. She's going to stand up to Donald Trump. And she has a demographic appeal that cuts across who the Democratic Party is right now, right? Yeah. And Asma, we've talked so much about when you and I have been talking to voters in early primary states. And this time around, been talking to voters in early primary states.

And this time around, California does count as an early primary state, which is maybe another reason to put her at the top of the tier. It's, you know, when you talk to voters, what's most important to you? It's not like, oh, I want single payer. Oh, I want to make sure we fix X or Y. Like those are all important. But everyone says, I just want a Democrat to win. So I think coming out of the gate and some of the metrics that they put out, and I think it was a very purposeful point to make some big statements, right? To get 20,000 people come to your rally, to say, hey, we raised a million and a half dollars in the first day of our campaign. And to say when she did that CNN town hall Monday night, to say nearly two million people watched it and it was the highest rated CNN town hall for candidates ever.

I think that all makes a statement, even though, again, I think CNN's just kind of been building on its town halls over the last few years. So that might be a mix of like the brand of that event as well. Still a couple million people tuning in for that is pretty interesting. You know, though, I also think this week we saw that Kamala Harris isn't necessarily fully ready for the front runner status. She had this moment where she was doing an interview and she talked about how she supported Medicare for all and essentially getting rid of privatized insurance. And then since her campaign has tried to course correct on what exactly they mean and it wasn't as assertive and clear as she said at the first time. And I think there in some ways is a reflection of the fact that in her time in elective office, she has been a little media verse and a little press shy. And a lot of the things she's done has been in her own comfort zone.

Exactly. And a lot of this campaign is going to be outside of your comfort zone, saying things on the fly and viral moments. And I think that that was also a snapshot into the fact that, like, you really have to own what you say and not be able to, like, equivocate or try and explain later because it almost doesn't matter. I think that's a great point. And I think also the fact that she's so aggressive in staking out her support for Medicare for All really says a lot about the Democratic field and how much the difference this is from 2016. And Asma, you did a whole story on this. Let's just start out by taking a listen to what the candidates and prospective candidates have been saying starting in 2017. We will say that in this country, everyone gets a right to basic health care. That's what Medicare for All is all about.

I believe that we need Medicare for All. I believe the solution, and I actually feel very strongly about this, is that we need to have Medicare for All. So Asma, on one hand, pretty great for Bernie Sanders, right? Like you stake out a claim on a big issue, this and several other ones, and all of a sudden the whole party has come along with you and it's almost a litmus test. On the flip side, then everybody agrees with you

and has you distinguish yourself. You know, we haven't yet seen Bernie Sanders officially say whether he is or isn't going to run for president this cycle. But I would say this is precisely his dilemma, right? Like last cycle, there was a very clear contrast between him and Hillary Clinton when it came to public policy, specifically on some of these big, broad sweeping changes like a Medicare for all. But this cycle, you have nearly every serious presidential contender pretty much saying the same thing. Now, I would make the case that as we sort of go down deeply into what they

all mean, you could make the case that some of them are for a broad sweeping bill, Medicare for all. Maybe some of them are for like more Medicaid for more people, more Medicare for more people, right? Like, but some of that's getting lost, because everyone's using the same slogans that Bernie Sanders uses. Yeah. It is so interesting, though, that essentially, Bernie really did succeed in his presidential campaign in shifting what the center point is, or the the accepted point of healthcare is in the Democratic Party. And I really thought your story was really smart this week, Asma, and I really enjoyed it about the point that like, if you were motivated by Bernie in 2016, by his ideas, you have a lot to work with in 2020. And you might not need Bernie Sanders anymore.

Yeah, no, thank you. Yeah, I spent some time talking to pretty strong advocates and activists in New Hampshire, who were really early supporters of Bernie Sanders. So these are not sort of, you know, average voter, these are people who were, you know, maybe delegates for him to the DNC or, you know, hosted some of his early house parties. And I was kind of amazed because some of them, and no doubt there are some who are still staunchly loyal to him. But a good number of people also that I talked to are saying, you know, hey, I'm kind of intrigued by Elizabeth Warren or Beto or Sherrod Brown. You know, I talked to this progressive radio talk show host who kind of sees herself as being almost Bernie Sanders' kind of ideological twin.

And she said, you know, she sees eye to eye with Bernie Sanders on so many of the policies, but she's just not sure if it needs to be him this time. And many activists are kind of thinking that doesn't need to be Bernie Sanders this time. He's also older. And a lot of people are thinking, do we want a guy who's going to be nearly 80 years old in the White House? Or is it time for some maybe age diversity

or racial or gender diversity as well this cycle? Also, one and an occasional reminder that Bernie Sanders, not a Democrat. Nope. And very last point on all of this before we take a quick break, when you talk about younger candidates, when you talk about generational changes, we did get one more candidate in the race and that's South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. And he is only 37 years old and he's making a big part of his pitch to the point that millennials all across the country really feel like they've

been painted into a corner by policy choices from older generations. He was also on Morning Edition. Here's what he said. I think the big issue has to do with intergenerational justice. There is a question now of what kind of world this is going to be in 2054, which is when I'll reach the current age of the current president. And we have got to change the trajectory that we're on so that mine is not the first generation to be worse off economically than my parents was. And we're a bunch of old millennials and Gen Xers here. Did he say he's going to be the president's age in 2054? That's right. He's only 37 years old.

I know, but that's amazing to me that even, I mean, you forget that there really is such a wide expanse sometimes between the people who are governing and, you know, some of us who are. A whole chunk of the Senate doesn't use a computer, you know. I mean, I think that's, I mean, that's, I think whether or not Pete Buttigieg is the person who can make that argument the best way, I think that's a powerful argument for a lot of younger voters who don't really even expect Social Security to be around among a whole bunch of other things. I think one of the important things to remember about candidates like Pete Buttigieg is like as we focus on senators and all these other people, that there does seem to still be a real hunger for candidates who don't come from Washington. And it's still at the front end of a very volatile election year. And I think being someone who's seen as an outsider who's not from Washington is still a pretty compelling narrative. And I think the chances that some combination of these outside Washington candidates have like real moments in this election is something that I'm like really looking forward to seeing play out.

Yeah. So a lot more to talk about by the time of our next podcast. There's a better than even chance we'll have another candidate to talk about. You know, they keep popping up every couple of weeks here. We're going to take a quick break, come back and and catch up on negotiations on Capitol Hill about that whole border thing that's still unresolved. We'll be right back. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Hinge. Hinge is the dating app that's designed to be deleted. It's for people who want to get off dating apps. Show off your personality with icebreaker prompts and see who likes you so you can easily start a conversation.

On Hinge, three out of four first dates lead to second dates. And they're the number one dating app mentioned in the New York Times wedding section. Download Hinge in the Apple Store or Google Play. Support also comes from SimpliSafe Home Security. SimpliSafe is complete wireless protection for your home that can be self-installed in under an hour. There are no long-term contracts and no hidden fees. CNET, the Wirecutter, and PCMag have all named SimpliSafe an editor's choice for home security.

And SimpliSafe protects over 2 million people every day. Learn more about SimpliSafe and how to protect your home and family with their home security systems at simplisaafe.com slash NPR politics. When do we feel pretty? Why do we feel pretty? And who gets to decide what pretty is? We'll answer our listeners questions all about beauty this week on the Code Switch podcast. OK, we are back and the government is running again, but there is still no agreement on border security. President Trump still wants a wall. Democrats say no. Sue, they have about three weeks to figure this out.

You were there at the start of the formal committee negotiations on this. I was. And this is just going to be a, I think, kind of comical two weeks in which we have a constant back and forth over a debate about what is a wall and the definition of can we call it a wall? Don't call it a wall. If you just say wall, can we get a deal? I mean, the level of sort of farcical comedy I think that this debate is coming down to is increasingly on display as we have them try to now actually put a dollar figure to what they're trying to do. Can you just explain who these people are and what the setting is? Because during that whole month-long negotiation,

it was just about what Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had to say. Now suddenly you have all these lawmakers meeting. Right. What they did as part of the deal to reopen government is they've established a conference committee, which is a bipartisan group of House and senators who all sit on the Appropriations Committee, which is the committee that decides all of the funding bills. And what prompted the entire shutdown is they let lapse seven of the 12 annual spending bills. One of those bills, which is what the shutdown focused on, is the

annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. This is just a one-year funding bill. This is not a forever funding. This is just for fiscal year 2019. That is the crux of what the debate is. The other six bills they're essentially House is still holding to is $5.7 billion for new walls or physical barriers or structures. He had backed off of calling it an actual wall, but then has redoubled down again today, saying like, no, we're just going to call it a wall, no more games. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today also said... There's not going to be any wall money in the legislation. At the same time, Pelosi and other Democrats have left themselves some wiggle room to say that there could ultimately be funding

for the types of fencing that have already been approved. They remember there are about 700 miles of fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico existing. It's really clear, and I have said this a million times and I will say it again, we are not having a smart policy debate about border security. We are having a political knife fight over the president being able to claim a victory over his signature campaign promise. And Democrats are going to do everything in their power to make it look like he did not get a victory here. And the president is going to do everything in his power to try and declare victory on the wall. There is any number of things that they're going to be willing to spend money on. Ultimately, the end result of this is the border could get a lot more secure just by default of the things that they're saying. You know, more security at ports of entry, more agents along the border, more customs officials, more tech to screen for drugs.

All of those things add up to actually securing the border. That's not where the argument is. The argument is over. Is the president at the end of this going to be able to say, I won, I've got some money for the wall? Is this negotiation kind of different than your classic, you know, disagreement that the Democrats are having with Donald Trump? Because part of what I've seen the Democrats do is it seems like in the last decade, they have moved quite, I would argue, substantially to the left on issues of immigration. And so it is relatively unpopular as they've been pushed and pushed further by immigration activists to even acknowledge sort of border security the same way that we saw President Obama talk about it in like 2008, 2009. And is that part of what makes this whole talk really difficult than, say,

other public policy issues? It is. And this is so tied up in an incredibly complex debate over broader immigration laws in this country. It's absolutely correct that Democrats have in the past and as recently as the last year's appropriations bills voted to authorize money for more fencing along the border. I think that it's a pretty accepted view that there are places along the U.S.-Mexico border that require fencing for security purposes or for other purposes. And I think it's only in the context that as the president has defined the wall in quotes, you know, he went from being a concrete barrier spanning the length of the border. You know, he has changed the definition of what he wants any number of times, is that it's

not really about that. It's a symbolic argument. It's a political argument. And I think for so many Democrats, this is the physical representation of a president that they view as a racist, that they increasingly use that word, and that they believe that letting him succeed on this is negotiating with someone who has advanced not just this as a racist policy, but his broader immigration view that they see as really damaging to the immigrant community. So where I think Democrats have been able to dig in a little bit more here is they have the backing of a lot of those immigration activists, the dreamers, people who want to see changes to refugee programs. Their voices in the past have been, you know, cut a deal. Let's get a big immigration deal. We want to solve this.

And now they're saying, don't cut a deal with this man. We don't want to compromise with this president ever. And I think that that has also changed the political calculation where Democrats fundamentally are not feeling pressure from their base to compromise. The pressure from their bases never, ever cut a deal with Donald Trump on the wall. So one other thing, the State of the Union back on again next Tuesday. Domenico, what's your biggest question about what that's going to be like? Well, I mean, I think the big question I had has been answered by a lot of what Sue is talking about, because my big question was whether or not we were going to have some kind of border security deal before the

State of the Union or not, because it really colors the entire thing. Otherwise, if not, right, if we're looking at the likelihood that there isn't going to be a border security deal going into Tuesday, really all of Tuesday and that entire speech and everything surrounding it is going to be essentially litigating what we just went through with the longest shutdown in US history. And Asma, the Democratic response is going to be given by somebody you have covered a lot, both before and after the election, and that's Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, came very close to winning but did not win her race for governor. Asma, you covered her a lot and you interviewed her since the election. What has she been focusing on since November?

So she's talked a lot about the need to just essentially reform voting laws and what she believes is kind of an unfair system in some states, specifically Georgia. And she spent a lot of time on that. In fact, her group has, I believe they're running an ad during the Super Bowl this weekend in Georgia to sort of make this case. But look, she has a long political career ahead of her. And a lot of people have talked about the possibility of her challenging the Republican incumbent senator who's going to be up for reelection in 2020. And and so, you know, look, I think by the party deciding to give her this platform, it's a really profound statement, not just about the possibility of her

capturing a Senate seat, but also what the party wants in terms of who's going to represent them and what they believe the party needs to fight for. And I was texting with one of her former aides, actually, right when this all happened and came out. And she felt like it was a huge statement in terms of what the party realizes it needs to put its priorities on ahead of the 2020 election. She is also someone that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats are working very hard to get to run for the Senate in 2020. They would like her to run against the incumbent Republican David Perdue. And I think tapping her to give the response is one more nudge in that direction to try and get her to run. Though, of course, there is a long history of the Democratic or Republican response going to a rising star and having them, if nothing else, succeed in creating an embarrassing meme about themselves. The best you can do is be forgettable, right? Yeah. All right. One more quick break. We will come back and do Can't Let It Go. I'm Joshua Johnson, the host of 1A. There are lots of places to debate today's issues if you don't mind getting attacked for speaking your mind or asking a simple question.

But 1A is different. You'll find the 1A podcast on the NPR One app or wherever you listen to podcasts. All right. We are back. And it is time to end the show like we do every week with one thing we can't stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. I will go first. Okay. The rare time I will say my can't let it go

involves Ariana Grande. But not the last. Maybe. Go on. Is that because of the coffee puns at the top of the show? Oh. You finally thought of one, Scott?

No, that was Domenico. That was like a coyote roadrunner moment there. Okay, wait, continue. I'm very curious to hear what you have to say about Ariana Grande. So, she has a new song out,

Seven Rings. She celebrated this by getting a tattoo of seven rings in Japanese in her hand, except that those two symbols together do not mean seven rings. They mean something else. What is it? They mean small charcoal grill. What? Which, you know, stuck out to me because— If you're in an apartment, that is very useful.

I do not have a tattoo. There's few things in life that I feel confident that would be as important to me decades from now as it is at the time. But one of those things is that I love grilling. I love my grill. I'm celebrating my 10-year anniversary with my Weber grill this year. You know, I would think about getting a tattoo that says charcoal grill, so I salute this. Do you ever wonder if there is a generation of Japanese women of a certain age who have tramp stamps of random English words? Like it just says, they think it says peace, and it really just says bananas, and they don't know it.

Because I can tell you there's a generation of American women with Japanese symbols. I'm not one of them, to be clear. Washing machine. Yes, exactly. Microwave oven apples. Sue, since you just said trap stamp, I think you win the right to go next. Thank you very much. My Can't Let It Go This Week is about the Super Bowl, which is coming up on Super Bowl Sunday.

And I am married to a diehard New England Patriots fan. Apologies in advance. Uh-oh. Less of a problem for you than last year. Uh, yeah. But I would say, so my can't let it go this week is about Tom Brady, in part because he is like something

this nation can't let go, because I love the fighting over Tom Brady as sort of like a bystander fan to football. The quarterback that he will be facing off with in the Super Bowl is Jared Goff, and he is the Rams quarterback. But Tom Brady is so old and Jared Goff is so young that Jared Goff was seven when Tom Brady won his first Super Bowl against the Rams.

That's right, when they were in St. Louis. Tom Brady's so old. Well, he's old for football, right? How old is he? He's 41, I believe. That was like the set- to hear your mama joke. Tom Brady's so old. Domenico?

So My Can't Let It Go has to also do with the Super Bowl. And this has to do with a Chiron operator in Pittsburgh who decided to put on the title of, at the bottom of your screen, of Tom Brady, quote unquote, known cheater. I saw this. Now, the thing is, though, what lit the internet on fire is that the guy wound up being fired. The news director from KDKA, which he may or may not be from Boston, I'm not sure, said that while fans are entitled to have personal opinions, we have a journalistic responsibility to provide unbiased reporting. The graphic that appeared violated

our news standards and that individual no longer works for KDKA. One, it's factually true but beyond that, two, like Pittsburgh is one of the biggest football towns in the city. What Pittsburgh viewer was like? I have a real problem with that graphic.

Three, I take issue with the idea that they have a journalistic responsibility to provide unbiased reporting in local sports reporting. Like you watch any local sports coverage. It's the most homery coverage you've ever seen. The funny part, too, is he gave an interview. The producer gave an interview to Deadspin and he said he only did it as like a wink to local sports fans, Steelers fans who hate the Patriots. And he also said he wants Tom Brady to win the Super Bowl

and that he loves Tom Brady and thinks he's awesome. Wow. And by the way, the second part of this was that there was a kid this week who won a science fair for proving that Tom Brady is, in fact, a cheater. He has a whole trifold thing. They awarded him as a kid from Kentucky. Is Tom Brady a cheater? And they gave him the award. There also is now a GoFundMe account for the producer who got fired. Good, because he just bought a house. Which is also one of those things of why I love the internet sometimes.

And full disclosure, I'm a Jets fan, so of course. Asma, what about Tom Brady can't you let go this week week as the one actually in Boston? I'm not going to talk about Tom Brady. I'm going to talk about Cardi B. Cardi B is headed to Iowa this spring. Ooh, dark horse. She's running. So, yes, I mean, Domenico, that's what everyone would think, right? Like, why else would you go to Iowa unless you are running for president, right? In theory. So Cardi B is going to Iowa. She's, you know, not necessarily going there for ostensibly political reasons.

But the Polk County Democrats actually have tweeted out that they would host a, quote, reception of her choice while she's in town. They're really eager to have her there. They tweeted out saying that they've been honored to host, you know, Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Senator Gillibrand, and all these other people. So it makes sense to invite Cardi B to this reception when she's here. I just think it's like awesome that she's considered to be in the same group of these other political women leaders. But I don't think she'll be running because she is only 26 years old, which means she won't be 35. She won't be old enough to be president until the 2028 election. That's it. So she can run for the House. She could primary Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and just blow up the

internet. All right. Clearly, we have nothing else to talk about at this point. That is a wrap for now. We will be back in your feed as soon as there is political news you need to know about. Until then, you can head to npr.org slash politics survey to take our survey. We would love to get your feedback about the podcast. Again, that is npr.org slash politics survey. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress.

I'm Susan Davis. I also cover Congress. I'm Asma Khalid, political reporter. And I'm Domenico Mazzanaro, political editor. Thank you for listening to the Unparapolitics Podcast.