The Young Turks - Losing Strategies

Episode Date: January 13, 2022

As the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Monday that he was ordering a review of a planned 15% hike in the Medicare Part B premium for 2022, healthcare reform advocates stressed the need for Congress to pass a Build Back Better bill with a provision allowing the federal government to negotiate the price of prescription drugs. Corbevax is targeting low-income countries to stop new COVID variants from emerging. Scientists say rich countries are still refusing to fund it. Two absolutely insane op-ed pieces on the same day: Hillary Clinton 2024 Election Comeback and Biden-Cheney 2024. In an interview with OAN, Trump reiterates that he took the booster, and even takes shots on Ron DeSantis. Hosts: Ana Kasparian Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. What's up. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and we've got a fantastic show ahead for you guys today. Later in the first hour, yes, we will be talking about Donald Trump's latest shots at, I think Ron DeSantis. In a recent interview, he called some GOP politicians gutless. Was he talking about Ron DeSantis? Well, we'll give you the details. You can judge for yourselves.

We're also going to bring in John Ida Rola for the second hour where we will give you an update on how the unionization efforts are doing among Starbucks workers in various states. There's a lot of good news on that front. There's also quite a bit of potential union busting, which will give you some details about. But it's also an inspiring story amidst all these pretty devastating stories when it comes to Congress and their inaction when it comes to, you know, legislative policies that would actually benefit the lives of working Americans. I love seeing that workers are kind of skirting that by getting together with their co-workers and finding ways to make their immediate environment much better for themselves and for their colleagues. So we'll talk about all of that in the second hour. And I'm really looking forward

to sharing a story in regard to open source COVID vaccines, which I'm sure you'll be shocked to find are not supported by the United States government. We'll give you all those details as well. But as always, just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream. If you're not a member, I get it, I get it. You know, not everyone has all the resources necessary to have a billion different memberships or subscriptions. But if you can be a member, there's a lot of great stuff that comes along with it,

including our bonus episodes, which have been on fire lately. We've been having a lot of fun with some pretty unique stories in our bonus episodes. It's only available to our members so you can become a member by going to YouTube.com slash join. Or if you're watching on YouTube, just click on that join button and you'll get a few options on which tier of membership you can join. And as always, I just want to thank our members for helping make this show possible and allowing me to do what I love to do most, which has run my mouth with no consequences from corporate sponsors. It's awesome. So with that said, I wanted to actually start off the show today with just looking at the build back better agenda, which has now been completely demolished by corporate Democrats in the Senate, and what this means, what are the consequences of shelving the build back better plan, this massive piece of social spending that is now very unlikely to pass. Let's talk about it. All right, well, now that Congress has essentially abandoned the social spending bill known as Build Back Better, which would have lowered prescription drug prices, what does this mean? What are the consequences?

Well, seniors, meaning retired people on fixed incomes, will now be paying more money for Medicare since pharmaceutical companies have increased the prices. of literally hundreds of drugs. Now, the story about the pharmaceutical companies raising prices for pharmaceutical drugs is something that we've talked about in the past. But there are consequences to that because the increase in drug prices ends up translating to higher premiums, not just for American workers or ordinary Americans who have to pay premiums every month for their private insurance, but also the cost of Medicare goes up. As a result, we're now seeing the highest spike in the cost of Medicare premiums ever, ever.

And I want to reiterate, we're talking about senior citizens, we're talking about individuals who are on a fixed income, and they're going to bear quite a bit of burden as a result of what corporate Democrats in the Senate have done in blocking the social spending bill. And also as a result of President Joe Biden refusing to fight aggressively for his own agenda. So let's get into the details. The centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, known as CMS, stated that monthly Medicare Part B premiums could increase nearly 15% from $148.50 in 2021 to $170.10 for 2022. Now, for some of you, you might think, well, I mean, 15% increases, sure, that's a lot. But once you see the dollar amount, once you see that increase in terms of the actual price, maybe that's not that big of a deal. But again, we're talking about senior citizens on a fixed income. And when you couple this with the fact that we do

have a retirement crisis in this country where many retirees don't even have enough retirement savings to live on, this news is devastating. Now, Health and Human Services Secretary Javier Becerra is now instructing CMS to reassess the price hike. And he has an interesting argument for this. He argues that the dramatic 50% price cut of pharma giant biogen's controversial new Alzheimer's drug is a compelling basis for CMS to reexamine the previous recommendation. But guys, listen, I'm glad that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, someone who has supported Medicare for all, is demanding that they reassess this price hike for Medicare premiums. However, we're only talking about a price cut for one pharmaceutical drug. Just one. Think about the literally

hundreds of other pharmaceutical drugs that saw 5% price increases as soon as we hit the new year. And that is going to translate to higher premiums for all of us, including those who rely on Medicare. Now, as Jake Johnson had written in a piece for Common Dream, something that we reported on earlier, enough is enough outrage as big pharma hikes prices on 442 drugs. Patients are counting on Congress, this is very sad, and the Biden administration to deliver drug pricing reforms immediately in this new year. Now, it doesn't look like that's likely to happen. And according to the health care firm Good RX, the prices of 434 brand name drugs and eight generic medicines were increased by an average of 5.2% and 4.2% respectively,

beginning on January 1st of 2022. Now, there was, of course, a way to mitigate all of this. And the way to mitigate all of it, at least in terms of the Medicare system, was to allow for Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. That was actually a very important provision within the build back better agenda, which now is very unlikely to pass because corporate Democrats are insanely corrupt and they work for pharmaceutical companies as opposed to their own constituents. So big pharma and private health insurers have spent enormously over $170 million in the first nine months of 2021 alone on lobbying against popular provisions in Democrats' flagship Build Back Better Act, including allowing

Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and expanding the program to include dental and vision coverage. In fact, there was a hearing on the Build Back Better agenda on Biden's agenda, allegedly Biden's agenda, where Bernie Sanders, I think, asked the right questions in regard to what was included in the legislation, what was included in the president's budget and how it would actually benefit Americans, especially when it comes to astronomical drug prices. Let's watch. To my minds, in the richest country on earth, it is hard to believe that millions of seniors don't have teeth in their mouths, don't have the hearing aids that they need, don't have the eyeglasses they need. What does the president's budget

propose in terms of expanding Medicare? Not only does the president want and expect to action this year is he called for in the joint address on prescription drugs. He expects those savings and others to be used to strengthen the Medicare Medicaid programs with plans to enhance dental vision and hearing aid through those programs. So it's not just about drug prices. It's also about all the other broken elements of our health care system, particularly Medicare, which is a very popular program, an important program to maintain, obviously. it's not something I want to do away with, but it definitely needs to be improved. And one of the other provisions in that build back better agenda did in fact include coverage

for hearing vision and dental for our elderly citizens. I mean, the fact that we're denying them that coverage just gives you a sense of how insanely cruel this country really is and how we have a system that is not working to the benefit of ordinary Americans. And again, there are really consequences to what Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema have done in the Senate in blocking the passage of this bill, but also let's not place all the blame on them. There are plenty of corporate Democrats in the Senate who would have gladly taken the place of Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema. If you do away with them, there are others who will pop up, whether we're talking about, you know, the warners of the world or, you know, Dick Durbin will come out,

Chris Coons, there's always a corporate Democrat who's willing to raise his or her hand and say, no, no, no, this is actually terrible. We actually should avoid serving the best interests of our constituents. We should probably avoid making our health care system affordable and functioning for our people. They are never going to carry out the best interests of Americans as long as they're receiving unlimited campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies and the private insurers. And secondly, as long as they are personally invested in individual stocks pertaining to the private health care industry. So they can talk all they want about how they really want to change things. But as we've said on this show before, actions speak way louder than words.

And we can't continue buying their campaign rhetoric and then later get completely bamboozled by these lawmakers who don't follow through on what they promise. We don't need to look into what's in their hearts or minds. All we need to do is consider the fact that people are rational actors and they are motivated by incentives and disincentives. For someone like Joe Manchin who has a daughter who created a monopoly for the EpiPen just so she can cash in, it's abundantly clear that the incentives are in the wrong place. Same with Kirsten Cinema, who received an insane amount of money from the the private health insurance industry during the debates over build back better.

That is what motivates them, nothing else. And the fact that Biden thinks that he can just, you know, pass this corporate handout bipartisan infrastructure bill and just rely on that for reelection is laughable. They're in a lot of trouble and to be quite honest with you, they deserve it. All right, well with that said, we've got some more bad news when it comes to health in America. This time, well, health around the world actually, this time it has to do with coronavirus and so called open source vaccines. So in order to really get past the global coronavirus pandemic, we need to ensure that as many people as possible throughout the world are vaccinated.

And unfortunately, we are nowhere near that because low income countries have not even seen even seen 50% of their population vaccinated. In fact, they haven't even seen 10% of their population vaccinated. Less than 9% of people in poorer countries have been vaccinated. But the rest, no vaccination in sight because of the fact that we're dealing with Pfizer, we're dealing with Moderna, not Moderna. We're dealing with private insurance companies and more importantly, private pharmaceutical companies that refuse to give up their patents, on these vaccines. Now, there are some heroes in the world and there are two specific researchers who have developed what's referred to as an open source vaccine. It's exciting news because

they found a way to develop a vaccine that relies on more affordable technology and it is incredibly effective and they have no interest in profit. They just want to distribute this vaccine far and wide. They want to ensure that low income countries are able to use it. The only problem is they need resources to distribute this vaccine. And unfortunately, the United States has offered absolutely no help. Now let's talk a little bit about the two scientists who have done this. Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Maria Botazi are professors at the Baylor College of Medicine and co-directors of the Texas Children's Center for vaccine development, where they are renewing their pleas for the U.S. government and other G7 countries to financially support

the mass production of CorbyVax, the world's first open source patent-free COVID-19 vaccine that's being distributed on a mass scale. So again, without vaccine equality, low-income nations are going to continue suffering from this pandemic. But more importantly, if let's say you don't care about poor countries, which is awful, and you only think about your own personal experience with this pandemic, we're not going to get through it. And we're not going to stop seeing variants of the coronavirus unless we get more people vaccinated on a global scale. Now, the doctors helped create what they call the vaccine for all with recombinant protein subunit technology, a type of vaccine that has been used to treat hepatitis B for over four

decades. Lower income countries are able to mass produce these protein vaccines more easily and ones that rely on newer technology like Pfizer or Biointech and Moderna's MRI design. So it's cheaper than what we're getting here in the United States, which does rely on newer technology, right, the mRNA technology. So with that said, I do want to go to this quick video that features one of the researchers who developed this, Dr. Peter Hotez, and he not only explains how this vaccine works, but just how important it is to get the support, to get the resources necessary to distribute it far and wide. Let's watch. Pfizer and Moderna use similar MRNA technology. How does the science behind your vaccine differ? ours is an older technology at least you the same technology used to make the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine or a similar technology it's a it's actually a vegan vaccine it's a recombin protein vaccine made in yeast this is technology has been around for almost 40 years it's been used to make the hepatitis B vaccine which is safe and even used in kids are we are Texas Children's Center for vaccine development we like to say we make the vaccines the pharma companies won't make we make we make vaccines for parasitic infections such as Shagas disease, which is decimating the poor across

Latin America, schistosomiasis, the poor in Africa who acquire female genital, schistosomyasis, a scourge of 40 million girls and women. We used that same approach for making our coronavirus vaccines starting a decade ago and now a COVID-19 vaccines. We've licensed it with no patent, no strings attached now to vaccine producers in India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Botswana. India is the furthest along an extraordinary group of collaborators there known as Biological E. And they've been producing their vaccine called Corby Vax that we transferred the technology to. We help in the co-development. So Corby Vax has already proven to be extremely effective against coronavirus. It's

proven to be effective against Omicron with a booster of this vaccine. And again, it is a cheaper vaccine that has been proven to be effective that does not have a patent and does not have a profit motive behind it. In fact, in an interview, Dr. Hortez also said this. Our goal is to save lives, not make a profit. We knew that the resource, we knew for resource poor settings, there'd be a learning curve before you could make enough mRNA vaccines for the 9 billion doses that would likely be needed for Africa, Asia, Latin America.

So we right off the bat took a different approach to use the technology that we have used before to partner with vaccine developers in low and middle income countries. I mean, think about how incredible these researchers are and how important their work really is.

You know, for those who have experienced some vaccine hesitancy as a result, of the profit motive behind it, you know, it's an understandable suspicion. I understand that reasoning behind it. I don't agree with it in this context because there's endless data showing that the mRNA vaccines are safe and have saved lives. But in this case, this vaccine relies on older technology and is still proven to be incredibly effective. And more importantly, it doesn't have a profit motive. So this is something that could even be an option in the United States if the United States was receptive to it. But unfortunately, their reaction to this has not

been a good one. So as Vice reports, to date, the United States and European countries have hoarded vaccines and pharmaceutical companies and the United States government have refused to share the manufacturing know-how and recipes. The philanthropic arm of the Texas-based Tito's vodka, which donated $1 million to this effort, has actually contributed more funds than the U.S. government. So just let that sink in for a second. Okay, I am not in favor of like, oh, wow, look at this corporation. They're doing charity work. Let's give them a pat on the back. I'm not, I'm not one of those people, okay? I don't want to rely on private companies to take care of us. However, the fact that a tequila company has provided more resources for this effort

than the United States government should enrage every single one of you. And to be sure, it enrages me, especially when you think about the fact that Joe Biden paid lip service to lifting the patents on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but then put absolutely no action behind it, None, zero. I mean, this is who Biden is. Biden is Mr. Talk a Big Game and then do absolutely nothing because he likes the positive PR. He wants people to get off his back. He doesn't want to do the work, the very simple work necessary to save lives, whether it be with his own build back better agenda or in this case with making vaccines accessible to as many people across the globe as possible. And why is that?

You guys know that this country is ruled by corporate interests. Pharmaceutical companies hate the idea that there's an open source vaccine, a patentless vaccine available. It also costs a lot less. So what if the United States may be considered paying for a cheaper vaccine? And I want to give you those numbers as well in just a moment, but few more details for you. More than two thirds of Congress cashed a check from the pharmaceutical industry ahead of the the 2020 election, according to stat news. So the issue of money in politics is real. When I talk about

why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca.ca. corporate rule. I'm not just making it up. I'm not using hyperbole. It's right there, plain as day. It's in the numbers. Let me give you more. Tax filings from 2020 show that biotechnology innovation organization, bio, a group that lobbies on behalf of Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and other biotech companies gave half a million dollars to majority

forward, a democratic fact checking and research website. Oh, I wonder if that money has any impact on their fact checking. I mean, what a joke, but it continues. One nation, a GOP aligned dark money group also received a quarter million dollars from bio in 2020. So look, money in politics is something that infects both parties. There's no question about it. And when I say that this open source vaccine is great because of the fact that there's no profit motive and it's patentless and it's cheaper, this is what I mean. In July of 2021, the United States government and Pfizer, okay, they signed a $3.5 billion contract for the purchase of 500 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine for international

donation to low and middle income countries. Oh, wow, that seems really nice. Each Pfizer dose costs $7, whereas Biological E, an Indian company that has licensed Corby Vax is selling each of its shots for about a dollar. $1 versus $7. So we are spending seven times the amount necessary to purchase doses of the Pfizer vaccine for low income countries around the world. And clearly we haven't purchased enough, especially when you consider that only less than

9% of the population in these low income countries are fully vaxed. It's just so incredibly shameful. And when you see the greed and the damage that we do, that the US government does around the world, you can understand hostility toward the country. You can understand the criticism toward our country. We always put profits over people. And even in a global pandemic, it doesn't change. The corporate rule still plays a dominant role in the decision making among our lawmakers.

And that includes Democrats and Republicans. We gotta take a break. When we come back though, we will switch gears just a little bit and talk about how MSNBC, they've got a new hire. And of course, they wouldn't hire journalists or anything. They decided to hire an operative within the Biden administration. We'll tell you who it is and the positive PR spin she did for Biden recently. Don't miss it, it's a great story, we'll be right back.

What's up, everyone, welcome back to TYT, Anna Kasparian with you, like and share the stream, get the message out, get the word out. And if you can, either subscribe to our YouTube channel or become a YouTube member. YouTube members and our members from our website, YouTube.com slash, I'm sorry, t-y-t.com slash join, help to make the show happen, keep us sustainable, and keep us free from any type of corporate advertising or influence, which in my opinion is the most important part. All right, well, let's get to some media bashing because MSNBC certainly deserves it, especially when they're hiring folks like the person we're about to talk about. So let's get right to it.

All right, I kicked my camera. Let me, let me stabilize it. All right, there we go. So the DC to corporate media pipeline continues this time with an operative within the Biden administration making her way to MSNBC. And who is this person? Well, Simone Sanders, who honestly, it shocks me that she used to work on Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential. campaign. But she later ended up working on behalf of the Biden campaign and then served as an official for Vice President Kamala Harris. Well, she stepped down from that role and made her way to MSNBC because, you know, MSNBC can't be bothered to hire actual journalists. They're far more interested in hiring people who have had various posts as either politicians or political operatives. And that comes with a bias. So what did Simone Sanders make her debut about?

She decided to specifically talk about how various voting rights activists boycotted President Joe Biden's speech on that very issue. And the reason why they did it is because they're sick of the photo ops. They want to see action behind Biden's words, something that they have not seen. So they decided to boycott the speech. And Simone Sanders, well, she has some thoughts about them. Let's watch. Much has been made about the activists and organizations who are skipping out on the president and vice president's remarks. And I would note that Cheryl and Eiffel president of the NWACP legal defense fund has a really interesting Twitter thread folks should look at. And this speech, as you noted, the, you know, this day isn't really about the activists who have done.

decided not to attend for various reasons. This is more so a culmination, if you will, of the legacy of the president and vice president. You know, as a senator, President Biden presided over the longest extension of the voting rights reauthorization that was again interrupted by Shelby V Holder as an attorney general.

Then Attorney General Harris filed amnicus briefs with Shelby V. Holder. So there's a lot of history here. And I think this moment, history is in broken continuity as a mentor once told me and that is what this moment is. No, no, that's not what this moment is. This moment is about the fact that Democrats under the leadership of the Biden administration have absolutely failed in doing a goddamn thing when it comes to voting rights.

To say that this is about the continuation of the legacy for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is, first of all, laughable, right? I mean, and doesn't really come across well, or at least not as well as she thinks it does. You have various organizers who put in the work in states like Georgia to get Joe Biden elected. Okay, we're not talking about people who simply showed up to vote for them. We're talking about people who got out there, who organized, who put, unlike Biden, words of actions behind their words. And now they find themselves completely abandoned on the issue that matters the most, not just for them, but for our democratic process. We're talking about gerrymandering that is essentially giving the Republican Party the upper hand

in these elections to the point where Democrats don't need to win simple majorities to win various districts, they have to go above and beyond in order to win as a result of gerrymandered districts. We're talking about various voter suppression laws that have passed in states like Florida and Georgia. And for her to say, no, this is actually really about the continuation of the Biden and Harris legacy. Oh, well, their legacy ain't looking so good, to be honest. And I just I just want to remind you all of the various voting rights activists and organizers who Simone Sanders is currently minimizing right now in an effort to do positive PR spin for the Biden administration and its failures. I want to remind you of Cliff Albright,

who gave a fantastic interview on CNN recently. Here's what he had to say about the Biden's speech that he boycotted just yesterday. We don't need another speech from the president. He gave a very passionate speech, not only the one that he gave for the commemoration last week of January 6th, but remember, he gave a very passionate speech back in Philadelphia, back in July. But then literally for seven months, we heard nothing else about voting rights from him. And so now is not the time for another speech. And to be clear, we believe in using the presidency as a bully pulpit.

We would have loved that the president used the presidency as a bully pulpit for the past seven, eight months, While we've been fighting for voting rights, even getting arrested outside of the White House begging him to do so. But at this point, we don't need another speech. We don't need him to come to Georgia and use us as a prop. What we need is work. And we're out working too because there are attacks going on against Georgia voters and Georgia organization happening right now. I love to hear it. We don't need to be used as props.

That was strong language. But I don't think that was an exaggeration. I don't think that was unfair to the Biden administration. That was accurate. And to be quite honest with you all, it's so cathartic to hear individuals who, you know, really demanded that we get Trump out of office and elect, you know, Joe Biden in his place, actually speaking truth because far too long we've dealt with mainstream Democratic voters who will come after you if you're ever critical of the Democratic Party.

No, but they deserve it. You obviously have to provide evidence for your argument. And in this case, the facts speak for themselves. What has the Biden administration done to advance voting rights legislation? What is the Biden administration done to essentially use sticks to use maybe some more hardline tactics against the corporate Democrats in the Senate who refuse to reform or create a carve out in the legislative filibuster? in the Senate to ensure that there is a pathway for the passage of a voting rights bill. I love that interview with Cliff Albright. I thought it was such a fantastic interview. In fact, I'm going to show you one more clip. Yes, we've shown you these clips before, but how could we

not show you again? Let's watch. Let me just read once again what he is going to say today. The next few days when these bills come to a vote will mark a turning point in this nation. Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light overshadowed, justice over injustice? I know where I stand, I will not yield, I will not flinch, I will defend your right to vote inner democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic. So the question is, where will the institution of the United States Senate stand? What more could he do? Well, a couple of things he could do. One is that we need him not only to give that speech and to talk about the filibuster and to give a clear plan, it's one thing for you to say,

I'm open to filibuster changes, right? That's what he's set up until now. He is not given a full throw a call for them to modify the filibuster. He's not yet done what he did for infrastructure. When he went to Congress and met with the members of the House, he didn't go to those members and say, you know what, I'm open to infrastructure. You know, if infrastructure is necessary, I can go along with that. What he said was pass this bill and pass it now. He's not done that in regards to voting rights.

I love it. What is your plan, Joe Biden? And of course, during his speech, he said that he's in favor of reforming the filibuster. So there could be a pathway for the passage of a voting rights bill. I mean, you could you could say whatever you want. Anyone can say whatever they want. What are you going to do about it? I'm going to be a best selling New York Times author. What I could say anything, but where am I putting in the work to make it an actual possibility? And what we're seeing with the Biden administration is virtually no work. We do see some reaction after

After there's backlash to their incompetence, for instance, I mean, they can laugh at the notion of providing free COVID tests, for instance. And then when there's backlash to that, they're like fumbling and stumbling like, oh, I don't know, maybe we're gonna provide half a million free COVID tests at some point. I don't think that's even happened yet. This is not, Is this is, is this the continuation of the Biden Harris legacy? I mean, it would have been nice if Nicole Wallace had Cliff Albright on that panel. In fact, why don't we take a quick look at that panel? Let's look at that panel. We got a little screenshot of that very panel where Simone Sanders spoke.

And I just want to give you guys a brief resume for all the, not all, but most of the people on that screen. Nicole Wallace, the host, it's a former white, House Communications Director under the George Bush administration. Then you have Michael Steele, okay, he was the head of the Republican National Committee during the Obama administration. And then you've got a failed Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. And then of course you know who Simone Sanders is because we've been talking about her. I don't know who the other dude is on the top over there with the guitar behind him. I don't watch MSNBC. I come across these clips and they're infuriating and I share

my perspective on them. But this is not, let's just be clear, that what you saw there is not journalism. A bunch of political hacks, political operatives, former failed political politicians. No, that's not journalism. There isn't even any balance on that panel. If you want to hear or understand the perspective of the various activists who put in work to get this administration elected in the first place, have them on. Not interested in hearing from, you know, the Kamala Harris spin doctor, not interested in that. Definitely interested in hearing from people who are on the ground doing the work who actually want to improve the country. So major props to Cliff Albright and all of the activists out there who are holding the Biden administration's feet to the fire. I love to see

And I will always cover stories like that because they deserve all the credit in the world. With that said, we got to take a brief break when we come back to insane op-ed headlines about what the Democratic Party should do for the presidential ticket in 2024. You do not want to miss that story. We've got that and more when we come back. Welcome back to TYT. Let's get right to our next story. Talk a little bit about what the op-eds in corporate media are suggesting Democrats do in the 2024 election. Well, you might need a brown bag next to you

as I give you the details of this story because it might make you want to puk. There are two op-ed headlines in legacy media outlets that honestly make me dizzy with rage, and discussed. The first one comes from Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, where he suggests this, Biden Cheney, 2024? No, how about no? I mean, think about that. He's suggesting, why don't we couple an ineffective, feckless president who has failed, who has awful approval numbers, awful. Let's, let's combine him with a war criminal and maybe Democrats can win in 2024. Like, this is such a bad suggestion that honestly, I think Thomas Friedman is either trolling us or like despises the Democratic Party and is giving them the kind of advice

that would ensure their failure. I mean, they're doing fine themselves. They don't need this. But this is just incredible. So what's his argument here? Why would he want Cheney involved? And look, I'm assuming that he's referring to Liz Cheney, not her father. And yeah, Liz Cheney, well, you know, some might argue that she maybe doesn't qualify as a war criminal, has been an insane war hawk, insane. I mean, she has dedicated the vast majority of her working days toward pushing the U.S.

U.S. government to engage in more and more of these endless wars. So she's the kind of person who has absolutely no problem with the war crimes that the United States has engaged in, has carried out, and I have no interest. I don't care if she's part of this select committee investigating January 6th. I don't care what kind of branding exercise she's taking part in. Liz Cheney is Liz Cheney. There ain't any change in who she is and what she really represents. But with that said, let me give you some information. Let me give you what his true argument is, doesn't get any better. He argues that Israel's new coalition government is a great example of what Democrats can do to win.

Because he thinks that the coalition government in Israel has really changed the game in the country. Now, of course, that's not true. it's the most diverse national unity government in Israel's history, one that stretches from Jewish settlers on the right, all the way to an Israeli Arab Islamist party and super liberals on the left. Most important, it's holding together, getting stuff done, and muting the hyper-polarization that was making Israel ungovernable. So exactly where is the leftist in the, Bush, I'm sorry, in the Biden Cheney ticket. Where exactly? Like, where's the leftist in that equation? There is no leftist, of course. And if you take a look at what has transpired in Israel

following the formation of this coalition government, nothing's really changed. And I'm keeping it real. Just to give you a quick example, remember there was another flare-up in war and violence between Israelis and Palestinians as a result of these Sheikh Shara settlements being taken over by Israeli settlers, right? And this is something that Amnesty International, the UN, the international community has condemned. People are being, Palestinians are being evicted from their rightful homes. And so did that change under the coalition government? Of course not. Here's a recent headline from the Times of Israel where they write that fresh Sheikh Shura eviction threatens to royal capital anew, 11 Palestinians set to be removed by new owner,

a Jerusalem city council member, police have asked to delay the eviction until end of the month. And by the way, just let me reiterate, Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is considered a flagrant violation of international law. Amnesty International has called it a human rights violation and Amnesty International also notes this. Israel's policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local Palestinian population continues to contravene fundamental rules of international humanitarian law. Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention states the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own citizen population into the territory it occupies. It also prohibits individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory. Now, all of that was violated under Benjamin Netanyahu,

and guess what? It continues to be violated under this so-called coalition government. And look, I give you that information because it's important to know that context, to really fully understand how insane Friedman's argument is here. But let's go back to Friedman, Because his op-ed just gets crazier. He says, is that what America needs in 2024, a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney? He really likes Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney comes up quite a bit.

Or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney, Liz Cheney. I really like Liz Cheney. Can we get Liz Cheney in the ticket, please, Liz Cheney? No, no one's interested in Liz Cheney, okay? We cannot have it. We cannot have it on a boat, we cannot have it with a goat. Like we're not interested in Liz Cheney. Democrats are not interested in Liz Cheney and even Republicans are not interested in Liz Cheney. Her, you know, anti-Trump rhetoric was a massive miscalculation for herself and her political

career. The fact that she can get sucked into the Democratic Party as someone who could actually help the party is laughable. And look, for Friedman, this is all about Trump, okay? He writes, to put a different This Trump cult version of the GOP is trying to gain power through an election, but is trying to increase its odds of winning by gaming the system in battleground states. America's small D Democrats need to counter those moves and increase their odds of winning. The best way to do that is by creating a broad national unity vehicle that enables more Republicans to leave the Trump cult without having to just become big D Democrats. You know, how about this? How about take a look at the actual legislation, the actual policies that tend to receive bipartisan support. Typically, typically, typically, these are social spending policies that Thomas Freeman, not a big fan of, but he is a big fan of Liz Cheney.

So he is going to, like the New York Times published this. They, there's an editor at the New York Times who read a draft of this and was like, nailed it, nailed it, which shows you just how out of touch they are. It is incredible. Now, we're not done yet. We got to move over to the Wall Street Journal, which on the very same day as the New York Times op-ed that I just described decided to publish this doozy. Let's look at this headline. Hillary Clinton's 2024 election comeback, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have become unpopular. It may be time for a change candidate.

And I'll give you a little info later on the individuals who wrote this op-ed. There's a huge conflict of interest. But before I get to that, a few excerpts. She, meaning Hillary, already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee. She is an experienced national figure who is younger, than Mr. Biden and can offer a different approach from the disorganized and unpopular one the party is currently taking. Oh, she can offer a different approach. Fascinating, what would her different approach be? Literally in the same op-ed they write. If Democrats lose control of Congress in

2022, Mrs. Clinton can use the party's loss as a basis to run for president again, enabling her to claim the title of change candidate. Based on her latest public statements, it's clear that Mrs. Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential frontrunner, but also is setting up a process to help her decide whether or not to run for president again. She recently warned of the electoral consequences in the 2022 election, if the Democratic Party, this is the important part, continues to align itself with its progressive wing and urged Democrats to reject far left

positions that isolate key segments of the electorate. So where in the equation did the writers see Hillary Clinton as a change candidate? Like how exactly is she a change candidate when she advocates for the same failed strategies for the Democratic Party? Listen, voters are not interested in repost. Republican light. They're not. They're not interested in Republican light, especially when they can just vote for the Republican candidate. They're not interested. Look, if you want to make an argument that some of the rhetoric from the left, whether it be in regard to crime or whatever, is not popular, maybe you can make that argument. But it's interesting because they shy away

from giving any data, any polling in regard to social spending that the vast majority of Americans approve, including Republican voters. To say that this country is super right wing is ridiculous when you have so much data showing you the opposite when it comes to bread and butter issues. But they don't want to talk about that. And just to remind you all of what the authors here are talking about. Here's Hillary Clinton displaying just how much of a change candidate she would be. I think that it is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections and not just in deep blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat or so-called progressive Democrat is going to win. First of all, we don't know what the state of the

map is going to be after all of the redistricting. It appears as though the Republicans in a number of states are doing their best to eliminate as many seats that Democrats can be competitive in. And so we've got to be very clear-eyed about what it's going to take to hold the House and the Senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college because also Republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the electoral college, even narrowly the way Joe Biden did, will be out of reach for a Democrat. So I understand why people want to argue for their priorities. That's what they believe they were elected to do.

But at the end of the day, nothing is going to get done if you don't have a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. And our majority comes from people who win in much more difficult districts. And our majority in the Senate comes from people who can win in not just blue states and hold those wins, as we saw didn't happen in Virginia, but can win in more purplish states. I just want people like Hillary Clinton and the individuals who have written these awful opeds to answer one question, just one. Why is it that all of these democratic politicians lean on messaging in regard to the social safety net, materially improving Americans' lives, fixing our broken health care system? Why do they talk about those bread and butter issues when they're campaigning if those are the progressive issues that are unpopular, if those are the issues that don't tend to win? Why is it that that kind of messaging somehow worked with people like President Donald Trump?

I know that they love to say that no, no, no, you guys, they didn't support Trump because of his, you know, his faux economic populism. They supported Trump because everyone who voted for Trump's racist. They love to just lean on that argument. But remember, the state of Florida voted for Obama, not once. but twice. So to just say, like, they're all racist and that's what explains it, I think is lazy, but it's intentionally meant to hide the fact that the very political issues that don't serve their corporate donors happen to be the very political issues that actually sit very

well with the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike. And finally, as I promised, I wanted to give you some information on the individuals who wrote this one of the individuals in particular. His name is Douglas Schoen. Who is Douglas shown? Low conflict of interest here. He is the founder and partner in Shone Cooperman research, a polling and consulting firm whose past clients include Bill Clinton and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Oh, that's great. Okay, cool. No interest in hearing what he thinks or reading what he thinks. It is a joke that the Wall Street Journal just willy-nilly published this guy's opinion, which is so inaccurate, even considering that

massive conflict of interest. At least they disclosed it at the very bottom of the article. But maybe we should hear from actual, like I would love for them to publish op-eds written by actual voters. No political operatives, no one, you know, running a lobbying firm. I just want to hear from actual voters. I think that would maybe inform the political parties a little better, no. But of course, they know what voters want. They use the right messaging when they're campaigning, but then they abandon those issues the second they're voted into positions of power. That's just the reality. All right, we got to go to break when we come back. I'll share Donald Trump's latest promotions of the coronavirus vaccine, but really that's not the hard of the story. Who is he

throwing shots at. We've got that story and more when we come back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.