The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, November 30

Episode Date: December 1, 2017

The Senate is debating the Republican tax bill, with a vote likely soon. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now says Congressman John Conyers should resign over sexual harassment allegations. The Federal Communications Commission is just two weeks away from voting to end net neutrality, the rules that currently govern the internet. And, can't let it go. This episode, host/White House correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional correspondent Susan Davis, national political correspondent Mara Liasson and editor correspondent Ron Elving. 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, this is Tamara. And before we get to the show, I want to tell you a little story about something that happened last year in the lead up to the election. We heard from a lot of podcast listeners who wanted to know how they could support what we were doing. And some of them sent us candy or popcorn or things like that. And we were like, no, no, no, no, no. What would be even more awesome is if you could give to your local public radio station and tell them that we sent you. And the amazing thing is you did. Lots of NPR politics fans went to your local public radio station, went on their website, called them up, gave them a donation. And we heard from those stations thanking us for sending you to them.

And it led to this whole cool thing. And we heard from those stations thanking us for sending you to them. And it led to this whole cool thing. Hashtag Why Public Radio. It is a campaign that is going on right now. And if you go to donate.npr.org slash politics, you can figure out how to donate to your local station and we will get credit. And there might be maybe a friendly competition going on between all of the different NPR podcasts. And we want to win, right? Because, yeah. So donate.npr.org slash politics.

And thank you. Hi, this is Dave on a layover in Incheon, Korea. I'll be flying some of those online purchases you made back to the U.S., headed for a delivery truck near you. This podcast was recorded at Thursday, November 30th at 2.08 p.m. Things may have changed by the time I land in Anchorage. Keep up with NPR's political coverage at NPR.org, the NPR One app, and your local public radio station.

Okay, here's the show. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast here with our weekly roundup of political news. The Senate is debating the Republican tax bill with a vote likely before the end of the week, maybe even the end of the day. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now says Congressman John Conyers should resign over sexual harassment allegations. The FCC is two weeks away from officially voting to end net neutrality, the rules that currently govern the internet. And finally, can't let it go. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House for NPR. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. And I'm Mara. I cover the White House for NPR. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress.

I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And we start this day, as we've started many days, with taxes. Sue, you're up on the hill. Yeah. Where things are a happening. Things are a happening. And the mood up here is notably different than the last time major things were a happening on a top legislative priority for Republicans being health care. You know, they don't clearly have the votes yet to pass the tax bill because we don't have 50 Republicans on record saying they are yeses. But it seems to be moving in that direction. And the overall view from Republican leaders is that they're going to be able to ultimately pass this tax bill. Yeah, the suspense just doesn't feel the same this time around.

It doesn't. And I think part of what's fueling that is they've had some early initial good signs like previous holdouts on health care. People like Rand Paul of Kentucky is on board for this bill. And just this morning, Arizona Senator John McCain said he's going to vote for it. And he was another one of those senators we were kind of looking to to see where he would land. And all of those are very positive indicators for the fate of this bill. Yes. And I can say the White House, people I've talked to there on background feel very good and even are predicting they'll get 52 Republican votes, no Republican holdouts. And Susan Collins came to a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this morning and talked about how positive the experience had been working with

the leadership in the Senate and the White House. And she has amendments that she's looking forward to producing on the floor, ways she thinks the bill can be fixed. But it was all in a very positive getting to yes kind of way. And she is the senator from Maine who was one of the holdouts on the health care bill and was thought to be one of the holdouts on this tax bill. Especially because they're still including the repeal of the individual mandate. That's right. But she believes even though she doesn't like that the individual mandate repeal is in this bill, she does believe if the Alexander Murray bill, which would continue those subsidies that the president decided to end, if those subsidies could be continued, it would make up for some of the damage done by getting rid of the mandate. And what guarantee does she have that that will happen?

Well, she seems to believe that that would happen in a separate bill. But what's so interesting about this whole debate is and how different it is from health care. Health care was about taking things away from people. This bill, although it has many critics, believes it's tilted heavily to the rich, that the middle class is going to end up paying more over time. It still is about giving tax cuts to people. It's not about taking something away, except for all your deductions, tax dedu people. It's not about taking something away, except for some people's beloved tax deductions. But Republicans seem very, very optimistic that they will finally pass their first big piece of legislation of the Trump administration. Because they have to, because there is absolutely no choice. Yes. So can we just reel back a little bit? Where are we right now as we tape this podcast?

Are they literally they are literally on the floor of the Senate in 20 hours of debate? Is that right? That's right. They are debating the underlying tax bill. But what the most interesting thing is that's happening is not happening on the floor. It's happening inside Mitch McConnell's office. He's the majority leader. And this is sort of the final wheeling and dealing that he has with various senators to address their final concerns. And what they will probably do is offer some kind of substitute amendment're calling a trigger into the bill so that if it doesn't deliver the kind of economic growth Republicans say it will, there will be tax increases built into the bill, sort of triggers to raise revenues if it's not meeting its goals. Can I just add that that is possibly problematic from a policy perspective? Sure. I

mean, all of the anything is problematic from a policy perspective. I mean, like if you're a business and you think that you're going to have a 20 percent tax rate going forward, but there's this trigger that at any time could mean that your taxes go up, then how do you plan? Which is why there's also a lot of opposition to having a trigger in there. And also, I think there's a little bit of cynicism or skepticism that you put in something like a trigger to get people like Bob Corker to vote for it, but people realize that the Senate's probably never going to let it kick in and waive it the way they do these other budget rules when they become inconvenient. Precisely, which makes this a package, essentially, this substitute that they're putting together is essentially a package

of fig leaves, each one carefully tailored for one exact or two exact senators votes. One other fight that we're seeing playing out, and we don't know where it will ultimately land, is there is an effort among some Republicans like Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah to improve the child refundable tax credit. And they want to do that by right now, the tax bill would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent. They want to bump that up to 22 percent because it would give them more revenue to play with to make that child tax credit refundable for more taxpayers. And this is kind of also hits at the politics of this, where I do think there is some political sensitivity among Republicans that ultimately this bill really is a corporate tax cut, and they want to do as much as they can to be able to campaign next year that they are really delivering for middle-income

families. But what's so interesting is that people like Susan Collins, who want to do something about the state and local tax deduction, are also eyeing the corporate tax rate. She'd like it to come up a few points to cover that. So everybody is looking to that corporate tax rate. Gee, why can't it go up a couple percentage points to cover my issue? to really understand the final details in this legislation. And that obviously has Democrats up in arms. And we don't expect any Democrats to ultimately vote for this bill. But there's a lot of criticism of the process in which they're doing something that could have or will have dramatic impacts on the U.S. economy. This kind of reminds me of that thing that Nancy Pelosi said, or maybe she didn't actually

even say it, but that we have to pass it so that people can find out what's in it? Totally. And I think there's a really good parallel here to what Republicans are doing with tax cuts to what Democrats were doing in the Affordable Care Act politically, obviously not substantively, in that Democrats were pushing major policy on a party line vote in December that they knew was polling unpopular and politically risky, but they believed would ultimately pay off in elections. That once people found out what this bill did for them, they would thank the party, they'd be grateful for it, and they would be rewarded. And that was in December of 2009. And going into a midterm election year. In 2010. Yeah. And right before they lost the Congress. How did that work out for the Democrats?

Exactly. So, you know, the tax cuts, as we see in the polls, although I'm always a little bit skeptical about polling on tax cuts because people aren't as nuanced on policy debates, but it's not polling hugely popular. And the political point that a lot of Republicans have made is that this is just a political necessity. This has been a bit of a bit of a nothing year for Republicans in terms of legislative wins, despite having control of both Congress and the White House. Health care was a failure. It's the 12th month of the year. They need a win. Even if they have moderate concerns about this bill, the overwhelming political pressure to vote for this might overtake any of those concerns. OK, so let's say that sometime in the next 24 hours or so the deal gets worked out in Mitch McConnell's office, the Republican senators go to the floor,

they vote for this thing, it passes. Then what? The next step and one sign of confidence that Republicans have about this, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who sets the floor schedule already this afternoon, told lawmakers to come back on Monday. They were not scheduled to be in session because they now expect to vote on a motion to go to conference. negotiate out the differences between the House and Senate bills, and ultimately report out something that's known as a conference report that will be the final negotiated tax bill that will have to be passed one more time in both the House and the Senate. So will there be another chance for the public to actually know what's in this thing to weigh in on it? Or is this going to move? I can't think of the right analogy, but like a grease pig. You know, it's moving really fast. So it's hard to say. I would think that it would take at least another week after it passes the Senate to get to a conference report, probably longer than that. The Congress is already anticipating staying in session and

working until at least December 22nd. Okay, so from taxes to that thing that we also keep talking about every podcast these days, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today said for the first time that she believes Congressman John Conyers from Michigan should resign over sexual harassment allegations against him. Well, the allegations against Congressman Conyers, as we have learned more since Sunday, are serious, disappointing, and very credible. It's very sad. The brave women who came forward are owed justice. I pray for Congressman Conyers and his family and wish them well. However, Congressman Conyers should resign. Sunday being a relevant marker because she was on Meet the Press on Sunday and was basically sort of like,

well, shruggy. I don't know what those are and I don't know the details of those allegations. We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused, and was it one accusation? Is it two? I think there has to be. John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women, Violence Against Women Act, which the left wing, right wing is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that. And he did great work on that. But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don't, I believe he will do. I believe that he will. Excuse me, may I finish my sentence?

That he will do the right thing. Right. So Pelosi on Sunday was given this platform to kind of come out and make a statement. And she whiffed a little bit. She was inarticulate. It wasn't clear exactly what she was calling for. And she spent the next couple of days trying to kind of clean up the mess of that interview. And today she crystallized that by very explicitly calling for Conyers to resign. I would note that when she was on Meet the Press, she was unscripted and seemed not exactly knowing what she was going to say. When she made those comments today, she was very clearly reading off a piece of paper, I think was one sign that she didn't want to mess up the message on this one this time. And the fact that after she made this call, James Clyburn,

who is a Democrat from South Carolina and a member of leadership and a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus, echoed Nancy Pelosi saying he also believed John Conyers should resign, which in some ways might have even more impact on Conyers' thinking. Yeah, that was significant. And I think that it is not a coincidence that this morning a woman named Marion Brown went on the Today Show. She is the woman who, when last week we were talking about a report of someone who had settled a harassment complaint against him, she's the one who had settled that complaint and had a non-disclosure agreement, but she decided it was worth it to tell her story this morning on the Today Show. And here's part of it.

It was sexual harassment, violating, violating my body, propositioning me, inviting me to hotels with the guise of discussing business and then proposition me to, you know, for sex. And he's just violated my body. He has touched me in different ways, and it was very uncomfortable and very unprofessional. She's, of course, also not the only accuser against Conyers. This is the woman that was involved in a previously undisclosed 2015 settlement in which she was paid $27,000 as part of an agreement in which Conyers also, as part of that agreement, did not admit any wrongdoing.

But since then, there has been at least two other allegations against Conyers along similar lines of both sexual harassment and abusive behavior. He left Washington on Tuesday night. He has not returned. And his office confirmed this morning that he is was hospitalized today due to stress related reasons. And his attorney back in Detroit told reporters that Nancy Pelosi's opinion wasn't going to affect the congressman's thinking that it was his decision to make. And I would also add that the Congressional Black Caucus has been asked whether they would take a position on this. And the chairman, Cedric Richmond, said that this is a decision purely for John Conyers to make. Which might be trying to give him a soft landing. Now, let's talk about another Democrat who is in more trouble today than he was yesterday, and that is Senator Al Franken from Minnesota. Two more women have come forward in the last 24 hours

to say that he did something inappropriate. One woman said that he groped her while they were shooting a photo in 2003 during a USO tour. And another woman said that he tried to give her a big wet kiss on stage at an event in 2006 and that she turned her head but was still quite alarmed by the situation. I have certainly talked to members of the House and people who work for the CBC and members of the CBC who have made the point that if the level that party leaders are setting for these issues is zero tolerance, then the same pressure that's being applied to John Conyers should be being applied to Al Franken. Now, of course, every allegations against every member that have come to light are different.

The facts in every single case are different. But if the message is that Congress is a place of zero tolerance, then I think that Franken, if more and more of these women come out, as two more did today, he is an increasingly problematic political problem for Democrats. And I'm not quite sure how that's going to play out. He has also said he will not resign. He held a press conference this week in which he essentially has apologized for making women feel uncomfortable, although he has not exactly admitted any wrongdoing. He has consistently said he just kind of remembers these events differently, but

feels bad if he made any women feel uncomfortable. It's like he's not denying it, but he's not admitting it. And it's an apology, but not an admission of wrongdoing. But there's just a there's a question of like what the greater political stakes are here. And if any one member is worth the party when they're trying to maybe try and send a message that this is not something that the Democratic Party will tolerate. Of course, all of this is happening at the same time as this Alabama special election with all of the controversy surrounding Republican Roy Moore and how that race plays out. Yeah. And if Democrats want to be the party of zero tolerance, the party that believes the women and they want to be able to say that Republicans are the party that calls women liars,

they have to prove it. And that means probably moving pretty swiftly to force the resignations of people like Conyers and Franken. Because on the other side, you have the possibility that Roy Moore, who is now coming up in the polls after being slumped after the initial allegations came out, you have the president now supporting him. And I've talked to many Republicans who assume not only he will be elected, but that he will not be expelled from the Senate once he gets there, even though he will go through an ethics investigation. By the way, it is worth mentioning that no one has ever been expelled from the Senate for anything they did before they were a senator, only for things they did after they were seated. So it would be extraordinary indeed for the Senate to apply a completely different standard

suddenly to Roy Moore. Right, because the difference, of course, between the Franken and Conyers cases is that the voters of Alabama have had a chance to learn about these allegations and make their decision being theoretically fully informed. As they were before they elected Donald Trump president. That's right. And that is pretty much the argument of the White House. Not only do Moore and Trump both call their accusers liars, but they also say this has been litigated or in the case of Roy Moore, it's about to be. All right. I can guarantee this will not be the last time we talk about this very difficult topic, but it is the end of our conversation about it for today. We are going to take a quick break.

And when we come back, President Trump's anti-Muslim tweets pushed British Prime Minister Theresa May and members of Parliament to do something rare, criticize the U.S. president. Support for NPR Politics and the following message come from Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans. Rocket Mortgage gives you confidence when it comes to buying a home or refinancing your existing home loan. With Rocket Mortgage, you can apply simply and understand all the details so you can mortgage confidently. To get started, go to rocketmortgage.com slash NPR politics, equal housing lender licensed in all 50 states, NMLSconsumeraccess.org number 3030. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Google Home. There are things you need to know in the morning, like the weather, your calendar, or the news. A personal assistant can

just tell you those things, like the one built into every Google Home. Just say, your calendar, or the news. A personal assistant can just tell you those things, like the one built into every Google Home. Just say, hey Google, good morning, and the Google Assistant will tell you the latest forecast, traffic on your way to work, and even the headlines. It's a personalized briefing from an assistant that knows you best. It's a little help at home, like only Google can. Five, four, three.

It used to be the playground of governments, but now rockets and satellites are becoming so small, so cheap, that even a podcast can do it. We have ignition. I'm Robert Smith, and starting November 29th, the Planet Money team launches their very own satellite into the cosmos. Listen on NPR One or that app you're using right now. We're back. And first thing yesterday morning, like I rolled out of bed, pulled out the phone and was like, oh, look at that. President Trump did something that he often does. He went on Twitter. This time he retweeted three anti-Muslim videos that had been posted by a leader of a far-right group called Britain First. The first video was captioned, Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches.

It was not a Muslim migrant at all. The second was Muslim destroys a statue of Virgin Mary. And the third said Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death. The videos are inflammatory and it's also unclear where exactly they came from or if they are what they purport to be, which it seems, at least in the first case, it is not. When reporters asked Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders about this yesterday, whether the president should be retweeting fake videos from an extremist group, she said this. Look, again, whether it's a real video, the threat is real. And that is what the president is talking about. That's what the president is focused on, is dealing with those real threats.

And those are real no matter how you look at it. So it doesn't matter if the video is fake? Look, I'm not talking about the nature of the video. I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. The threat is real. And that's what the president is talking about is the need for national security, the need for military spending. And those are very real things. There's nothing fake about that. Does the president... Tweets have consequences. Tweets have consequences. It sounded like he was not talking about ISIS or extremists. He was talking about how Muslims themselves are dangerous and violent. And what's so interesting is Sarah

Sanders undercut the entire fake news argument of the White House. She's saying it doesn't matter if something is fake or real. It just matters the point you're trying to make. And what was interesting is it's also not just what the president says or tweets. It's what people hear. And that far right anti-immigrant group in Britain, Britain First, and David Duke both applauded him and thanked him for retweeting these. So he gave a big boost to those kind of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim groups. And the other consequences is that Theresa May, the British prime minister, rebuked Trump and it's caused an uproar in Great Britain. Yeah, here's what she said today. The fact that we work together does not mean that we're afraid to say when we think the

United States have got it wrong and to be very clear with them. And I'm very clear that retweeting from Britain first was the wrong thing to do. So the reviews are in from the other side of the pond. But, you know, here again, the president sees a video. The president thinks, wow, that really kind of makes the point of how bad Muslims can be. And I'm pushing for a ban on at least some Muslims. And I want to have a wall to keep out people who are bad. So this video will make

that point. So he sends it out, and he sends out three of them, and apparently with no real caring as to whether or not they depicted what they were purporting to depict, which we now know they were not. And he also seemed to be happy to get into it with Theresa May. He tweeted back to her saying, don't focus on me, focus on the destructive, radical Islamic terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. So this is once again, he uses his Twitter feed to express the cultural grievances of his base, to communicate with them, to maintain himself as kind of the driver of the news narrative. And this was a pretty good example of how the president uses his Twitter feed. And occasionally he sparks a lot of outrage. But this is exactly how he uses it over and over.

And he is hardening the lines of the divisiveness and the partisanship that does actually serve his purposes to a large degree in terms of the internal politics of the U.S. And he doesn't really care what they think of him in Great Britain. So, Mara, this conflagration, how is this one different than any of the others? Is this different or is this just, you know? I don't think it's different. I think he often tweets things that some people feel is outrageous. Some of his tweets have consequences and some of them don't. This one had some consequences, at least in the short term, with the relationship between Washington and London. And we also don't know what the consequences might be in the Muslim world where we have people stationed at State Department outposts. made his relations with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries a really important part of his foreign policy. We haven't heard yet about any pushback he's getting from them, but it can't be making their lives easier. All right. One last thing before we take another

break. And then we talk about net neutrality and can't let it go. OK, so it's not really one last thing, but here we go. Brexit is back. It's making headlines today in The Washington Post and The New York Times, which are both reporting that we have not been able to independently confirm that the White House may be moving to oust Secretary of State Rex Tillerson within weeks or months and replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who would then be replaced by Senator Tom Cotton, who would then lead the CIA possibly, though they are also saying that the president has not yet signed off on this plan. When President Trump was asked about this in the Oval Office earlier today during a meeting with

the crown prince of Bahrain, all he said was this. He's here. Rex is here. They've had a very fraught relationship. Don't forget, Rex Tillerson is here. They've had a very fraught relationship. Don't forget, Rex Tillerson is the Secretary of State who has not denied calling the president a moron. And we should also note that the State Department spokeswoman told reporters this afternoon that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly called Tillerson's chief of staff today to tell her the stories are not true. And that the State Department spokeswoman said Tillerson continues to enjoy the job and has a lot of work to do, which me as a cynical Washington reporter says he'll be gone by New Year's. Like spending more time with my family. Exactly. OK, when we come back, we're going to talk about why the FCC is moving to end net neutrality and what that could mean for you.

And of course, can't let it go. Support for this podcast and the following message come from CLR. And of course, can't let it go. on granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, and ceramic tile. CLR Bath & Kitchen has been given the EPA's Safer Choice Seal. Woman-owned, American-made, and backed by a 100% money-back guarantee. CLR Bath & Kitchen. Support also comes from SimpliSafe. Getting a good night's sleep is easier said than done, especially if you hear a noise downstairs. You could turn on all the lights and keep watch, or you can rest easy,

knowing that your home and family are protected with SimpliSafe. Each SimpliSafe system is a complete security arsenal. There are no contracts and no hidden fees. Get a special 10% discount when you order today at SimpliSafeNPR.com. We're back, and we have a special guest with us here today to help explain this whole net neutrality thing

from our business desk, Alina Selyuk. Okay, so the Federal Communications Commission announced last week that it's planning to end net neutrality, the rules that currently govern the internet. You, our dear podcast listeners, have been writing in with a lot of questions and many demands. Like, please, NPR Politics podcast, talk about this thing, which is why we have Alina here. And I will admit that I don't fully understand what we're talking about. You and a lot of people.

Yeah. I mean, I get the impression that this is very important. So what is're talking about. You and a lot of people. Yeah. I mean, I get the impression that this is very important. So what is it? Yeah. What is this about? So net neutrality, there's sort of two parts to it. There's the philosophical part of it, which is this idea that your company that gives you the internet should not be able to determine what websites load faster, what apps load faster, or in any way kind of decide what and how you experience the things that you want to experience on the internet. And then there's the regulatory part, which is like the super exciting party conversation. Your face is very telling. And that's where the FCC comes in. So for the past, honestly, 10 plus years, FCC has been dealing with this question of how they should regulate internet service providers. There are very specific planks to

this idea of net neutrality, which is your internet service provider should not block any access to any website. It should not discriminate against any website or app, and it shouldn't slow down any website or app. Those are sort of the three things that are in the rules as we speak. In the next two weeks, the FCC will vote on the rules that get rid of all of these planks and just say, the internet providers should just tell you, they should be transparent about whether they're slowing down, whether they're blocking, whether they're discriminating. And then if they do something really terrible, some other agency, the Federal Trade Commission, comes in and enforces any kind of violation.

So should we call this a free market versus regulatory government kind of an argument? Is that really what we're dealing with here? Is it really just because Donald Trump became president and not Hillary Clinton that things are changing? There's two answers to that. One is the guy who currently runs the FCC makes that argument that this is about free markets and this should be about limiting the government's reach into your internet. He's been referring to net neutrality rules as government overreach and the government coming in and regulating your Internet experience. That being said, net neutrality debate has been happening for over a decade.

I'm curious if you have any thoughts about the politics of this, because net neutrality isn't, from a policy standpoint, something that I cover a lot or admittedly even hear a lot in Congress. But even being home over Thanksgiving and traveling over Thanksgiving and seeing family and friends and people that don't pay much attention to what happens in Washington and politics. The net neutrality issue was the number one thing that people brought up to me when I saw them over the break. And it seems like an issue that really has regular people, not policy wonks, super animated about it. People feel really strongly about it. And, you know, it's been so weird for me personally. I started covering tech in early 2013. And I remember at the time I would meet folks and I would ask them, I was new to the beat. So I would say, what's like the one thing

that you wish would go away? What is like the one thing that has been going on for so long? You're sick and tired of it. And people would say, oh, net neutrality. And yet over the past five years, it's been this strange groundswell. I'm having net neutrality conversations at like wedding parties. It's completely out of control. Over the past three years, ever since the big rules passed in 2015, there's been a major advocacy effort. If you remember, John Oliver did the whole episode about this. That was sort of the first element that brought it to the masses, quote unquote. And since then, the advocacy efforts have been so massive in support of net neutrality that more and more and more and more people are talking about it. And now we have the political element to

it where Obama era regulations are going away. And this is now being presented as one example of that. All right. I want to go to a couple of quick questions from our audience. So here from Andrew in Massachusetts, he writes, FCC chairman Ajit Pai has solicited public opinion, but now is going against the majority opinion. It could be interesting to compare how the internet works for us today versus how it works in countries without net neutrality, where they purchase internet bundles similar to cable channel bundles. As someone who dreams of starting an online business, I don't know if I'd be able to if I had to pay extra to get my website included in one of the more popular bundles.

So three things to say about that. The fact that Ajit Pai, quote-unquote, solicited majority opinion, he didn't really solicit majority opinion. That being said, the public comments are only one thing that the FCC considers in writing rules. Second thing, the example that this person presents here of internet quote-unquote bundles, it's been a meme, it's been circulating on the internet, and what it actually presents is mobile internet. So it's kind of a nitpicky distinction, but mobile internet and your home internet are kind of two separate things in the EU. All of that, to me, is sort of secondary to the major issue that Andrew brings up, which is, you know, starting an online business. And what does this mean for me? I think this is the biggest issue with net neutrality and

especially net neutrality advocates who are saying, you know, this is going to be disastrous because companies like Netflix, Google, Amazon, they're so established. They could probably adjust to whatever new reality is, even if it involves more money. It will be a question of what happens to the startups. And we don't really know. We don't know. It's kind of up to the Internet providers. Ryan Matthews in North Carolina writes, The way I understand it, it is that there is a five person panel that will make the final decision expected December 14th. Websites such as Reddit have been very vocal about not wanting to revoke net neutrality and have urged its users to call his or her local representative or senator. My question is this.

If the decision is up to the five-person FCC panel, what will calling local representatives and senators actually do? Does Congress actually have any power to change things in this situation? Yes, Congress has all of the power. And in fact, this has been the thing that kind of both sides kind of agree on, which is it should be up to Congress to finally settle this never ending debate. I mean, we've been through, like I said, the FCC publishes something, they get sued. The FCC publishes something, they get sued. I have no reason to expect anything otherwise this go around. Presumably, yes, December 14th,

it's a five member panel. It is run by majority Republicans, it's almost guaranteed that they will pass the rules as Chairman Pai has proposed them. There will be a lawsuit. The only thing that can potentially finally settle the debate is a congressional effort to write some kind of law to guide the FCC through this. They've tried it. They've tried it many times. Who knows? Maybe someday they'll do it and we will stop explaining net neutrality to people. I don't know. Oh, don't hold our breath, I think is the answer. Okay, Alina, you have reporting to do. So we're going to let you be free. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much. And now it is time to end the show as we always do with Can't Let It Go. And we all share one thing we cannot stop thinking about this week, politics or otherwise.

Sue, you go first. So my Can't Let It Go this week might fall more into the can't make it up category. It's a new ad that is out from a Democratic candidate who's running to capitalize on this moment, cultural moment that we're experiencing with all of these sexual harassment allegations and resignations. And I'm just going to let the ad speak for itself. All righty then. So when you're choosing Michigan's next attorney general, ask yourself this. Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting?

Is it the candidate who doesn't have a penis? I'd say so. Hey, now. So that's an eye-catching ad. Sounds like it's a fake ad. Yeah, is this real? It's a real ad. Her name is Dana Nessel.

And one, it's gone moderately viral because, again, it's an attorney general candidates race. But the reason why I think this is so interesting is that we've already seen really high levels of female candidates running for office the ballot who may be able to now use this as a compelling argument. And she just did it in a way that, you know, maybe a little bit more candid, maybe a little. In other times, I don't think you would use those words in a campaign ad. She also has talks a little bit more sort of flicking at things like Harvey Weinstein and other accusations. We have another cut of the ad. Right now, I want to tell you what you can expect me not to do. I will not sexually harass my staff. And I won't tolerate it in your workplace either.

I won't walk around in a half-open bathrobe. And I'll continue to take all sex crimes seriously, just like I did as a prosecutor. It's a little bit silly, but I also think it's a bit serious. And there's already talk about could 2018 be another, quote unquote, year of the woman in which they saw a very high level of women run for office and win. And part of the catalyst for that moment, as Mara and Ron well know, was the controversial confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, where sexual harassment and gender divides were part of sort of the national conversation. And it feels like we're having another one of these national conversations. We don't know how it's going to play out yet, but we are starting to see candidates use it in their campaigns.

And even before this latest crop of sexual harassment accusations, there were a record number of women announcing their candidacies to run because of Donald Trump. I'm wondering if, Sue, is there anything about the Michigan attorney general race? Is there a man running who has a history of sexual harassment? Or is this just apropos of the national moment? It's just apropos of the national moment. She also does say in her ad that she believes more women should be running for office everywhere and that she sees being a woman as an asset and not a liability right now. I mean, she's very clearly playing the vote for women for the sake of being women card,

which may not always work, but in this moment, it might be actually a very compelling message. I do wonder if Congress was not 20% female, but more representative, more closer to 50%, if the dynamics would be different. One has to assume that the dynamics would be different. And of course, the visual element of this, the great symbol of it, was that committee of a score of senators sitting in judgment on Anita Hill's accusations against Clarence Thomas, all of whom were men, all of whom were men. And some of them were uncomfortable and tried to kind of downplay the gender dynamics of it. Others of them were really and tried to kind of downplay the gender dynamics of it.

But others of them were really quite aggressively dismissive of Anita Hill in ways that I'm sure would sound very familiar to many women who have brought complaints in many industries over many years. All right. I guess I'll go next. So Senator Lindsey Graham was on CNN. I think he was being asked about the president's tweets. And he said this. You know, what concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook, not fit to be president. So there he was. And that seems like a reasonable thing for the Republican senator from South Carolina to say. Though, oddly enough, the Internet discovered that the Republican senator from South Carolina about 18 months ago in around February 2016 had something oddly similar to say.

I'm not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump because I don't think there's a whole lot of space there. I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy. I think he's unfit for office. This is the thing that sometimes drives me crazy when people like lawmakers like Graham criticize the media and say, oh, the media says this about the president. And it's like, yeah, because we're quoting you saying these things. Moral of the story, there is such a thing as going on cable news too often. That was then and this is now. At the time, Lindsey Graham was running against Donald Trump, and now he sees the fate of himself and his party inextricably tied up with the fate of Donald Trump.

So things change. Ron, what can't you let go of? Well, let's lighten it up for just a moment here and go to a positive example, an unusually positive example of judicial activism. Many people have heard, I believe, of a particular justice from the state of Texas. He is on the Texas Supreme Court. Justice Don Willett has become quite famous for his extraordinarily active Twitter account. He keeps us abreast of what he's doing. And the other night he was letting us know that he was over his MacBook at a Chick-fil-A eating chicken strips and talking with his wife on his other device.

And suddenly he sees a man come hurtling across the Chick-fil-A and grab a man in the next booth and begin giving him the Heimlich maneuver. And as he gives him this Heimlich maneuver, it's not working. And after several repetitions, the justice decides it's time for him to step in. So he does, and he replaces the first hero, whom he gives full credit to, and calls it Herson's Heimlich heroism, because the gentleman's name was Herson de la Garza. He's a middle school band director there in Austin, Texas. And he steps in and with a couple of additional applications of the maneuver, the offending piece of chicken is expectorated.

Liberated was the word I was going to use. The offending piece of chicken is liberated and all is well and all is fine. And the suffering patron was restored to his young daughter. The fact that this happened at a Chick-fil-A makes it almost too perfect. And I have to take this opportunity to tell my story about Henry Heimlich. My very first journalism job. Mara, you have a story about Henry Heimlich? My very first journalism job as an intern for the Vineyard Gazette on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, I was assigned to interview

Henry Heimlich, who was spending a week at the Edgartown Inn. And I called him up to say, hello, Dr. Heimlich, I'm Mara Eliason, and I've been assigned to interview you. Where should we meet? He said, well, I'll either be at the pool or I'll be in the dining room choking to death. Ha ha ha ha ha. How often do you think he used that joke? Do you think he used that a lot? I bet he used it every single time he ever set up an interview. But he found that extremely funny.

Did you? Yes. Clearly. I did. Oh, Mara, what can't you let go of? Oh, my goodness. Okay. I cannot let go of the royal nuptials, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the American.

They're getting married, but the thing I can't let go is they are going to live in a 1,300-square-foot, two-bedroom cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace. They're just like us. It's called Nottingham Cottage, or NotCot for the people in the know. And what I also love about the story is not only are they going to live in this cozy cottage, which was Harry's bachelor pad, but Harry proposed to Megan while they were in the cottage roasting a chicken just like us. Just like us. The chicken motif continues.

This Can't Let It Go brought to you by chicken and the Poultry Foundation of America. Has Harry been known as the Sheriff of Nottingham? I don't know. But I love that. That's what I can't let go.

Just Harry and Meghan in their cottage with a chicken. He's a prince. She is a television star. And they're roasting a chicken. their cottage with a chicken. He's a prince. She is a television star. And they're roasting a chicken. They're roasting a chicken, probably because they can't go out anywhere. And we can't let go of the royal nuptials. In the not-cot.

And that's a wrap for us this week. We will be back in your feed soon. Keep up with our coverage on NPR.org, NPR Politics on Facebook, and of course, on your local public radio station. And a reminder, we would love it if you would donate to your local public radio station and tell them we sent you. The way to do that is go to donate.npr.org slash politics. Then tell us about it on Facebook and Twitter with the hashtag why public radio. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House for NPR. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress.

I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. Thank you all for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. © transcript Emily Beynon