transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:12] Hello, and welcome to The Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. A few housekeeping items. We have the live shows coming up in San Diego and Los Angeles, downtown San Diego, downtown LA, May 20th, May 21st. Make a little weekend out of it if you're not from Southern California. If you live on the west side in Venice or Santa Monica, it's gonna be a long drive either way, so you can pick your poison. Tickets are available for both. Go to thebullwark.com/events. I do hope to see you in California. I guess today we'll be in California with us. Also, for the YouTube people, we subscribe, we're getting mauled by some of these terrible conservative influencers. I'm getting to 2 million subscribers, so we need a subscriber boost. So if you're on YouTube, subscribe right now, tell your friends. All right, today's guest. This is unusual for me. I don't usually do this. I don't usually get bullied into having a guest on the show. I usually get to pick. But in this case, our guest today was upset because he had been in pole position. The most downloaded episode ever was right before I went on vacation last summer. Our guest today was the special guest for that episode. I think that the reason that the most downloads is mostly because most of you missed me while I was on vacation. You kept downloading it to see if I was coming back. But it was a point of pride for him. And as of a couple of days ago, that has been passed. And now the episode of Jane Costin when we talked about Melania not being able to speak English and Catholic school has passed it. I don't know why you guys loved that one so much, but there it is. We all love Jane. And so he's back. He wants first. He wants to be first again. He wants pole position. It's the managing editor of The Bulwark, Sam Stein. How are you doing?

Speaker 2:
[01:56] Just to clear things up for to start out here. I did not beg to come on. You asked me to come on.

Speaker 1:
[02:03] You begged. You begged like a dog. Like a dog.

Speaker 2:
[02:08] No, but I mean, I'm deeply offended that I've been passed by Jane. So it would be nice to reclaim my title, but I did not ask to come on at all.

Speaker 1:
[02:19] That's not the reward that I got. We'll have to go to the transcript on that and hash that out another time. We'll start with some Iran news. Much to get to. Our cabinet rankings will be coming at the end. I know you guys are clamoring for that. The current position, as best I can tell from the president of the United States, is that we're going to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and let gas prices continue to rise for Americans until Iran figures its shit out. That's basically how I'd sum it up. His bleat was this, based on the fact that Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so, and upon request of Field Marshal Munir and Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan, why is Pakistan telling us what to do? We have been asked to hold our attack on the country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal, object to our military to continue the blockade and remain ready and able, will therefore extend the ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded one way or the other. So the ceasefire ends, we've unilaterally decided to keep it, the Strait is still closed, oil prices are up again this morning, and our current position is, you know, Iran's going to figure out their shit. We get it, we get it. They got a potential coup happening there. I don't know, the Ayatollah might be in a coma. We don't know. We're going to give them a little extra time, a little bonus time.

Speaker 2:
[03:44] If you read that truth, it did not sound like Donald Trump to me. There wasn't like a lot of all caps or exclamation points.

Speaker 1:
[03:51] You think it was an auto pen? You think it was an auto pen situation?

Speaker 2:
[03:54] Someone authored it. It wasn't Donald Trump. Maybe he put a few flourishes in there.

Speaker 1:
[03:58] Do you think BB?

Speaker 2:
[03:59] BB? I don't think BB. Maybe BB is right in the truth these days. I don't know. But also, I think one thing that's kind of getting lost is we're not actually in a ceasefire. I mean, we're in a ceasefire that Trump claims we're in a ceasefire, but the Iranians aren't saying this is a ceasefire. They think the blockade is an act of provocation or war, and so they're not treating this as a ceasefire, and they apparently have boarded to vessels this morning in the strait. That's the stuff that we're seeing this morning while we're recording. They're not going to the talks in Islamabad so long as there is a blockade, so we're not actually in a ceasefire. We keep calling it a ceasefire. We're in a place where Donald Trump is not pursuing more aggressive military action, but it's still an act of conflict or war, whatever you want to call it, with the Iranians, and that's the problem is that if you can't get to the point where you can actually talk about a diplomatic off-ramp, you obviously don't have a diplomatic off-ramp.

Speaker 1:
[04:57] Yeah. As you mentioned, this is a quote from an advisory Iranian speaker, the extension of the ceasefire by Trump has no meaning.

Speaker 2:
[05:04] I mean, isn't that right? Am I wrong here?

Speaker 1:
[05:06] No, no, that's right. It seems right. There's another statement about how the loser doesn't get to set the terms, just a little bit of a bluster and a provocation, and then they've got another Lego video out in the Lego videos.

Speaker 2:
[05:18] The Iranians got to try a few different means here.

Speaker 1:
[05:20] I don't know. The Pulitzer is going to go to whoever figures out who is doing the Lego videos.

Speaker 2:
[05:24] The Lego videos, yes.

Speaker 1:
[05:25] Is there a 23-year-old intern in Tehran doing it?

Speaker 2:
[05:29] It's some guy in Malaysia probably, do they?

Speaker 1:
[05:31] It's some guy in Malaysia who's DMing them to the foreign minister. I don't know. Clearly, Iran isn't particularly trying to escalate at this point.

Speaker 2:
[05:43] Are you sure? Well, they did board the vessels this morning.

Speaker 1:
[05:47] I just mean like they're not droning natural gas facilities in UAE or Qatar, or the other types of things that they've said they're going to do. They said that they're planning other types of disruptive attacks. The Trump position here, I guess, and it's not I guess, it's what he stated, is that Iran is losing $500 million a day because of the blockade, and so eventually, they're going to cry uncle. There's some conversation about how Karg Island, if you can't get the oil out of there, and there'll be some logistical issues that would really cripple Iran's ability to transport oil outside of the country, but the Daily Mail is reporting this morning that there have been a couple of Iranian ghost ships that have bypassed the blockade. We'll see. These things are all developing as we're talking, but it seems like a bad bet to me that it's going to be the Iranians that are going to be the ones that cry uncle over economic concerns. I don't think the Iranian leadership cares that much about, I mean, they care about their long-term economic interests and getting a good deal in negotiation. But I think that if there are shortages in Iran for a little while and their people were suffering anyway, I think that there's much more room for pain than there is in decadent America.

Speaker 2:
[06:59] Neither, Akram is great, but I tend to agree with you. The regime doesn't particularly have a sterling record of caring for their citizens. I have to imagine they're okay with more economic anxiety in the short term at least. It's unclear to me though also, I'm no expert on this, but to the degree that the Russians and the Chinese are helping them out, I would be curious about that. Weren't we allowing the Russians to help them out at one point in time? Is that still happening? I will say this, we in America have not felt the pinch to the degree that the Europeans have and other countries have because of these fuel prices. I saw a story this morning about some German airliner cancel a bunch of flights because the fuel costs for jet fuel is just out of control. We haven't really had that here and yet at the same time, gas is pretty damn expensive. I had to fill up on the way in today. It was crazy.

Speaker 1:
[07:50] Were you filling up at that one gas station that the morning news always uses because it has the highest gas prices in the country and for some reason.

Speaker 2:
[07:58] There was a famous gas station right outside the Watergate in DC, forever had the highest prices but they changed ownership. Now, there's a famous one near Union Station that always has high prices. I tend to try to avoid those two locations for those reasons. But even this morning, I was just filling up my tank and I was checking my phone. I was committed to keeping it under $50. I don't know why. Then I look over at $70, I hadn't even filled up. I was just like, that's going to add up for a lot of people. Then you have rising food costs, which we were talking about in Slack this morning. It is going to hurt and it's starting to hurt really badly. Trump may be totally a sadist about this stuff, but he's at 33 percent. What was that AP poll? He just lost redistricting in Virginia. We're going to talk about that. The House is looking completely gone. I think he clearly is tired of this shit and wants to figure out a way out of it. Obviously. It's not that he's not feeling the acute political and economic pain here, it's just that he's in a game of chicken. There's a larger thing here, I've seen through all these stories that I'm going to get to later, but it boils down to this. Donald Trump starts shit without ever knowing what the off-ramp is going to be. It's the same with Virginia and redistricting, it's the same with Kevin Warsh and the Fed nomination. He always starts something and he has no idea how to figure it out and finish it off. This is just what's happening in Iran.

Speaker 1:
[09:24] He lives day by day, he's a survivor. Here's the thing, Edgar wrote a Good Morning Shots about this a couple days ago or weeks ago, and who knows, time is flat circle, about the end of madman theory. And I'm mocked madman theory because we can see the limits of it and we can see how stupid it is here, but you have to acknowledge that there were times where it was effective, where it was like, Trump was so crazy that other country leaders just gave him shit that they wouldn't have given to Joe Biden just because it was like, who knows? This dude is too big of a pain in the ass and it's like, whatever, we'll cut some deal with him that we wouldn't have cut otherwise if we just had two bureaucrats negotiating. It did work a couple of times. But one of the limits of madman theory is that you always have to be the craziest man. And right now, he's in a game of chicken with, we don't even know who sometimes. They have an internal negotiation happening. And among the people on the other side of the game of chicken are the craziest sons of bitches in the world. And so it's like, okay, now what? And you can see what happens, which is now what? Which is like, he says, oh, I'm going to end their civilization, or, oh, I'm not going to extend the ceasefire. Oh, we're going to go back to their power plants. And then when push comes to shove, it's like he doesn't want to do it. This doesn't mean that he might not ever do it because he got himself into this fucking game of chicken with the craziest sons of bitches in the world. But you can tell he's trying to veer off. He's the one with the itchy turn hand.

Speaker 2:
[10:47] Yeah. It is a weird situation where it's like, who is the biggest nihilist and we have to live with that. I was talking with Sarah about this over the weekend too, because I grapple and struggle with how to handle these threats that he makes about ending civilization and bombing power plants and bridges and stuff like that. Because obviously, he ducks out of them time and time again, and now I think this is like the fifth time he's done it or something like that. And yet I don't want to not take that seriously, if that makes sense to you.

Speaker 1:
[11:18] You have to take it seriously, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[11:20] Yeah, but like.

Speaker 1:
[11:21] And he gets backed into a corner. The other thing about Trump is that he is susceptible to whatever the last person told him. I don't know who around him wants to end running civilization besides Hegseth.

Speaker 2:
[11:31] Lindsay.

Speaker 1:
[11:32] Yeah, sure. But yeah, no, I think it's worth taking it seriously for that reason.

Speaker 2:
[11:36] I mean, you have to take it seriously. And then I guess the real nightmare scenario is where he's just like, okay, I've tried everything else and I'm looking like a big old pussy and I have to do this and boom.

Speaker 1:
[11:46] And that's a real risk because he is looking like a big old pussy.

Speaker 2:
[11:49] We can say that now.

Speaker 1:
[11:50] We can. And honestly, congrats to the hedge fund guy who after the election in 2024 said to the FT or whatever, that he's excited about being able to say pussy again. Because, you know, it's been a great run for him.

Speaker 2:
[12:02] I mean, it was worth it. It was worth it.

Speaker 1:
[12:04] Hopefully, he was long loyal. Hopefully, he was long loyal and wanted to say the P word.

Speaker 2:
[12:10] Look, gas is 430, but at least we can say pussy.

Speaker 1:
[12:14] There's a couple other things in our own real quick. There's a Puck had a poll out last night, which I think speaks to his political problems that you're getting to, which is they just asked open-ended, like, why are we doing this? What exactly is it that we're doing here in Iran? I don't know. The top answer was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but that was only 22 percent. Twenty percent said it was for taking their oil. Thirteen percent said it was a show of power, nine percent said regime change, six percent said distraction from FC., and six percent terrorism prevention, five percent helping Israel. Nobody knows what we're doing. It does compound the political problem where it's like, hey, I'm paying more at the gas tank and I truly don't know why.

Speaker 2:
[12:58] Does Trump even know why at this point? Trump's been all over the map.

Speaker 1:
[13:02] No. What is the objective? If you went to Islamabad right now, let's say they were going to Islamabad. They're not. We don't have ongoing negotiations. What would be the objective? It seems like the objective right now is just reopening the straight, which it was already open before this all started.

Speaker 2:
[13:15] Right. Well, then here is the real conundrum. It's like any off-ramp, any resolution to this is itself going to end with embarrassment for Trump. What's the best realistic deal he could cut right now in your estimation?

Speaker 1:
[13:32] I think that they help him save face by saying that they can take some of the enriched uranium out of the country.

Speaker 2:
[13:38] Not all of it.

Speaker 1:
[13:39] They open the straight, but then they get sanctions relief.

Speaker 2:
[13:42] Some cap on their nuclear ambitions, some IEHX, things like that.

Speaker 1:
[13:45] Commit to not funding proxies that they lie about. Yeah, that seems like the best deal, right?

Speaker 2:
[13:51] Great. Cool. First of all, Iran won't agree to taking all of the nuclear material out of the country. They will never do. That's the red line. But even in that scenario, the rosiest scenarios, they reopened the strait. It was already opened prior to the war. So congrats. And everything else you described is the JCPOA.

Speaker 1:
[14:07] Right.

Speaker 2:
[14:08] And it's like Trump blew it up. And we spent years trying to figure out what the hell to do. And then we ended up back in the place where Trump started. It's a humiliation.

Speaker 1:
[14:17] Maybe he gets a cut off the strait. US gets a cut off the strait. That's the difference between the JCPOA. We get a 10% VIG on the oil now.

Speaker 2:
[14:26] Right. And it will be in some sort of Trump family crypto. And it's all going to be great. And he'll fund the ballroom. And what a deal. And fine. I'm at the place now. Let him crow about some stupid deal. It's just the JCPOA. And he can pocket a few mil here and there. But it is objectively going to be some version of that deal that he killed. And it's a humiliation. And I think he sort of knows a little bit that it's going to be difficult to sell any of this stuff. Because if you... Now, we're like three or four deals ago. But the first deal was that 10-point principle plan that they apparently had struck. And if you looked at the sort of specifics of it, it was actually quite worse than the JCPOA. It was much more sanctions relief. It was basically the type of allowing Iran to essentially control the straight and charge. And they backtracked instantaneously when the commentary turned negative on that. And so they're not ready. They're not ready to swallow their pride.

Speaker 1:
[15:21] So what we said from the start, I said, I don't know, I hate to give the guy advice, don't want to give him advice. But after the first weekend, Monday after the first weekend, he should have said, that's a huge victory. We have obliterated them. That's not recoverable. Good luck to you and all your endeavors, people of Iran. Like that was his way out of this. And he didn't do it this time.

Speaker 2:
[15:39] I totally agree with that. And they would have fit the pattern of what he had done before with Midnight Hammer and Venezuela and all that stuff. I think the issue was the Iranians responded by basically bombing the entire region. And at that point, you're at that point, you're sort of stuck because you've basically drawn in your regional allies and the gas prices are skyrocketing and you got to figure out what the hell to do with the Strait, which gets me back to my original conceit. He starts things and has no idea what to do after the first day. And it happens time and again.

Speaker 1:
[16:10] I had one last important Iran thing before we get to Virginia. We like to call it straight here at The Bulwark. Sam, that's why we brought you in. We want to do real journalism. And I do think, to be fair to Trump, he does care about human rights for hot people. He cares about human rights for hot women. I don't know if you saw this bleat. He posted a bleat with a picture of eight women. They're all pretty good looking, I will say. As a gay man, I'm just an objective thing. I'm not objectifying them. I'm just saying, they look pretty. Younger women look pretty. He posted this, to the Iranian leaders who will soon be in negotiations with my representatives, fingers crossed. I would greatly appreciate the release of these women. I'm sure that they will respect the fact that you did so. Please do them no harm. Would be a great start to our negotiations.

Speaker 2:
[16:57] I just pulled up the bleat. I didn't do anything for her.

Speaker 1:
[17:00] It's unreal.

Speaker 2:
[17:01] Come on.

Speaker 1:
[17:01] It is literally like this same thing happened to Zoran.

Speaker 2:
[17:05] It was the Colombian student.

Speaker 1:
[17:06] Zoran goes in there, and there's a Colombian student, and she was pretty, and within two seconds, she was out of ICE detention.

Speaker 2:
[17:12] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[17:13] Human rights for baddies, too. We've got an old, we just have a creepy, old fucking guard in the White House, and you can get human rights relief if the victims are hot women.

Speaker 2:
[17:26] Well, this actually brings up a possible end route for this conflict here, which is the Iranians can use AI and start creating things like MAGA women in Iran saying, we love you, Trump. Just open the strait, but also agree to sanctions relief.

Speaker 1:
[17:44] We love you, Trump.

Speaker 2:
[17:45] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[17:46] MAGA women, Iranian MAGA AI women. They should actually be the point people on the negotiation. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[17:52] The Lego shit is enough. Stop doing the Lego stuff. We need to switch it up a little bit.

Speaker 1:
[18:00] Hurry up. I just changed out my razor yesterday. Look at this. Look at how clean I'm looking. I'm still very boyish. I only have to shave once every three days, which is nice. But when you do shave, you want something that's going to make you feel nice afterwards when you throw on the moisturizer and I'm happy to endorse our new friends at Harry's. With Harry's Plus, you get a barber shop quality shave. The blades are designed to cut hair cleanly at the root without tugging, glide smoothly, and avoid clogging. Maybe the best part about Harry's is how affordable it is. If you don't love your shave, Harry's will make it right. No questions asked. Risk-free trial means there's zero downside to giving it a shot. Right now, our listeners can get the Harry's Plus Trial Set for only $10 at harrys.com/thebulwark for a limited time. Our listeners can get the Harry's Plus Trial Set for only $10 at harrys.com/thebulwark. This set includes the all new Harry's Plus razor, one refined five blade cartridge, a two ounce foaming shave gel, and a travel cover to protect your blades on the go. Just head to harrys.com/thebulwark to claim this offer. And after you purchase, they'll ask you or you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Big win in Virginia for the referendum to redistrict the state. There were a lot of concerns about this. And I had a sub-Romanian on the podcast a couple weeks ago. And like they were basically saying, the internal polling was showing it as a coin flip. Virginia is not California. Virginia is a blue state, light blue, but they like to go on Yonkin not too long ago. There's good government types in Virginia, a lot of military types in Virginia. And the gerrymander that they put forth, I just want to steal this from a guy that I found on election Twitter named James. He called it, the 10-1 map looks absolutely insane. And it's wildly unfair. And the public had full knowledge of it. And that's like, right, that map looks ridiculous. It's a ridiculous map. And it's like you're in the same district if you're in the Shenandoah Valley. And if you're like right across the Potomac and Roslyn. I mean, it's an absurd map. And they pushed it through as an FU to Trump for trying to play hardball and trying to jerry-rig, to be honest, the midterm elections. And they get a win on this referendum, the people of Virginia, 51 to 48, three-point victory. I was supportive of this. I think that this is the way you got to do it. You got to punch these guys back in the nose, even if it's a little messy. But I was wondering what your take away was on it.

Speaker 2:
[20:23] Just to underscore the map and how absurd it is, it's like you take the Northern Virginia Arlington District and then you just have like bacon strips all the way across. It is really a ridiculous gerrymander. I mean, in the most comical sense. And in a normal universe, which we are not in, you'd find it a porn.

Speaker 1:
[20:43] There's like in District 11, there's like a tiny little Strait of Hormuz that goes through Alexander Tree. And that goes all the way down to South West Virginia. It's unbelievable.

Speaker 2:
[20:54] It's unreal. I don't feel bad per se about it because I understand why they did it. But like you watch this happen and you're just like, this is just, it cannot be this way. We cannot have a functioning government in which basically the lawmakers are drawing their voters. And yet what is the alternative here? Is it for Democrats to basically be morally righteous about everything and then get their clock clean? I've seen a lot of complaints on the right about this and they're like, well, you know, this is just abhorrent. How could they do this? They started this stuff. And like, no, that is not true. You have to look at what happened in this cycle, mid decade redistricting. It was started by Texas at the behest of Trump. And the only obvious outcome of this again is that Democrats were going to retaliate. And this is what happens. People who are complaining about this on the Republican side are full of it. They're full of shit, honestly. This is what you brought on yourselves.

Speaker 1:
[21:53] The Democrats' retaliation was stronger than I even expected.

Speaker 2:
[21:57] Tim, it was stronger than a lot of Democrats. I talked to a lot of Democrats about this, heading into this. They did not anticipate Virginia was going to do something like this. And if Virginia, I mean, it was a surprise when it first got floated for a lot of Democrats. And then the original idea was they were going to go for a 9-2.

Speaker 1:
[22:14] Yeah, or 8-3 even, or like 8-2 in a swing, you know? And I remember, I was talking to a Virginia Democrat, prominent one, just being like, I'm the podcaster prick, I can do this. I'm going to be like, push it for 10-1. I was like, fuck these people. I was like, I've been on election Twitter. And they're like, yeah, I was talking to them. It's like, I want to do it, but you got to get everybody on board. You got to get the state senate. Abigail just got elected.

Speaker 2:
[22:38] And so my understanding is Kane and Warner were not supportive of this at all. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[22:43] No, there are a couple of House Democrats, Virginia House Democrats, and then Louise Lucas, which Lauren Egan did that great profile in her state senator. This was a revenge thing for her.

Speaker 2:
[22:51] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[22:52] In addition to Trump, they redistricted her out of a out of a congressional seat she wanted to run in like six years ago or something like that. And they're mean to her about it. And she was just basically like, F you guys. All right. It's good for the goose. It's good for the gander. The way which they went for the jugular, I think is important. And like my two big picture takeaways on this is it's number one, good on Spanberger for doing it. And then because she just gets in, she's not Gavin Newsom. She's not running to lead the resistance.

Speaker 2:
[23:18] She spent a lot and she spent a lot of capital on this. I mean, it's gonna hurt her ability to go.

Speaker 1:
[23:25] Yep. But you know, the moment called for it. And that ties to my broader point, which is there's very few people in the ecosystem out there who are incentivized to say, you know what, the establishment Democrats really played hardball and did a great job and won. You know, and the Republicans want to paint Democrats to look like wusses and Democrats help them with that a lot. And I think a lot of the left wing ecosystem wants to paint the establishment Democrats to look like wusses so that they can overthrow them and have more progressive people in charge. And in some cases, they have legitimate critiques on that. You know, and the mainstream media is never going to be out there doing like, woohoo, Abigail Spanberger, for good reason. And so, like, there's not a lot of incentive for anybody to do it. And it's just worth saying that, like, the Democrats, you know, Hakeem Jeffries, whether it was on both shutdowns and on this redistricting battle, like, did what Democratic voters wanted their leadership to do. Like, played hardball against Trump, pushed back at them and won. And I do think that, you know, they should deserve credit for that. They were a little too late, I think, for a lot of our tastes to respond aggressively to Trump. But come, like, towards the end of 2025 and now into 2026. Like, we've seen the Democrats show a lot of spine and succeed in playing political hardball back against Trump. And it should be noted. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[24:45] I mean, there's just not many opportunities to do it. But when they've presented themselves, you're right. Like, the shutdown fights, this, I know Jeffries has been trying to get even more. He went to Maryland, wasn't able to do that. But they've basically been clear-eyed about it. And, you know, it is a little bit easier to operate from the minority position, right? Like, you don't have anything to lose. But, you know, you could have, he could have done exactly what the Warners and the Canes of the world wanted and said, you know what, let's just do a three and we'll be happy.

Speaker 1:
[25:16] And Jeffries takes a lot of shit for the various times in which he has not gone to the mat and done with a lot of the base wanted. And he had internals, like you said, those the senators from Virginia weren't so excited about it. A lot of the Congressional Black Caucus was excited about it because these sort of things dilute the percentage of black vote in some of these districts. So in theory, that could mean fewer black representatives in the future. I don't really think that's a real risk. I think they were being a little overcautious, but still, he had to navigate all that. So kudos.

Speaker 2:
[25:45] Isn't the more interesting story on the Republican side here? Like Trump opened up this can of worms. Trump's super PAC is sitting on like 300 and some odd million dollars. They spent nothing.

Speaker 1:
[25:58] Unbelievable.

Speaker 2:
[25:59] Zero. On the Virginia redistricting fight. What are they waiting for? What's the money for exactly? That's insane to me.

Speaker 1:
[26:07] I mean, the Trump family, Devin Nunes, the Senate, I guess. I'm not sure. I know that they're going to start spending on Senate as early. They've seen those reporting, but I agree with you. The other thing that's insane is just the way in which they failed to press their advantage, just taking back the clock because you can forget this stuff going news cycle to news cycle. But there was at least one of these podcasts where I sat here, where the Texas thing looked like it was going to happen, Missouri, Indiana, Florida, we're talking about getting on board. There was concern that the Voting Rights Act would drop. I remember I had a conversation with Mark Elias about this, and it was like there was an inflection point before the Gavin thing literally looked for certain, where it was like, actually, they might be able to gerrymander their way into almost a foolproof majority. I had everything gone right for the Republicans and had the Democrats dithered. They could have built themselves up like a 26, 7-seat cushion. Who knows? Maybe in a wave, the Democrats still eke out the House barely, but they could have almost gerrymandered their way to a foolproof majority. There was a week a couple of months ago where it looked like that was maybe the median outcome. To go from that to now, the Democrats probably end up netting one or two seats out of this whole site. Crazy.

Speaker 2:
[27:24] It is crazy. Again, Trump starts something, doesn't figure out how to finish it off. I think the other big inflection point was when Indiana decided they weren't going to do it, and then Trump basically just flailed and said he's going to primary the hell out of these people, and nothing's really happened.

Speaker 1:
[27:41] Speaking of primaries, the other thing I thought was interesting, showing Trump's weakening position in these sorts of things. Massey is the other one, that there is a primary and they are spending some money against his primary opponent in Kentucky, that's coming up. But yesterday, I just saw, remember our old friend Kyle Rittenhouse?

Speaker 2:
[27:55] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[27:55] Old friend Kyle Rittenhouse endorsed Thomas Massey yesterday. This might seem like a silly thing. It's like, okay, who cares? But there's just all these little data points that the conservative grift class is not scared of him anymore. Yeah. Ten months ago, there's just no way that a conservative grifter would have endorsed Thomas Massey. Unless they're personal friends with Thomas Massey or a libertarian or something. Why risk Trump's eye? When Massey is his number one foe right now. We'll see how that primary shakes out. I've talked to folks around that race, and I think there are legitimate concerns that Massey still goes down in a close race. But the fact that Massey is not only surviving, but getting endorsements and not backing down an inch, and not doing the kind of campaign where he's like, I'm the real endorsed Trump candidate. That's what Bill Cassidy is doing here in Louisiana. He voted to impeach Trump, and every time I turn on the NBA playoffs, it's like, Bill Cassidy is the real MAGA Republican, Julia Letlo is a woke Bulwark lib. And it's like, okay, that's not what Massie is doing. And I think that's pretty telling.

Speaker 2:
[29:04] Are we gonna talk NBA playoffs by the way or no?

Speaker 1:
[29:07] Sure, we can say that. I got potpourri at the end.

Speaker 2:
[29:09] I will say, you're right about that, and it's only gonna get worse after the midterms. I mean, he's a lame duck. That's just what happens with these people, and he has a lot of power. Still, I'm not gonna undersell it, and he can get a social media horde sacked on someone, and he's got that money. And yet, after the midterms, he's not up for re-election. No one knows where that money's gonna be placed, and I think you're just gonna see a lot of these people who would have been scared of Trump, just like Kyle Rittenhouse, just be like, you know what, I don't really give a shit anymore. We have a future Republican party we have to debate over.

Speaker 1:
[29:45] All right, why do most of us wanna learn a new language? It's not always the gamification or trying to learn new grammar tables or thinking about our conjunctions. Because we wanna speak it on the real world. We wanna engage with humanity, with someone from a different background. And our friends at Babel helps you get there fast. You can learn a language with Babel. It's all about small steps, big wins and the progress you can actually track and feel. Their bite-sized lessons fit easily into your daily routine and are easy to remember. Just 10 minutes a day is enough to start seeing real results. Babel lets you practice real life conversation step by step without the stress. You'll build the confidence to speak up when it matters, ordering a coffee, to chatting with friends and acquaintances you meet abroad. I've been doing Babel with my daughter while you wait for food at dinner. Go out for a dinner or you're walking into the local burger joint, and waiting for your number to get called. It's better than watching Italian Brain-Rotch. What else the kids are watching these days? We just pull up Babel, do it together, a little five minutes, a little 10 minutes, learning our French. It's nice. It's cute. I recommend it. I'm seeing the progress more on her than me, I'm seeing the progress. You can make fast-lasting progress with Babel, the science-based language learning app that actually works. Here's a special limited time deal for our listeners. Right now, get up to 60 percent off your Babel subscription at babel.com/bulwark. Get 60 percent off at babel.com/bulwark. Spelled babbel.com/bulwark. Rules and restrictions may apply. What will happen for people that are in the administration though? I think it will be the real question of the post midterm. What are the incentives for people who are in the administration and now how loyal will they be and will they go down with the ship with him? To that, I want to start with Kevin Warsh. He had his confirmation hearings yesterday to be the new Fed chair. Kevin Warsh is the Nepo son-in-law of Ron Lauder, of Estee Lauder fame. He is the billionaire who is behind the Seizing Greenland plot. He's also in a lithium deal with the United States government right now. Epstein friend Lauder and Epstein were friends. Warsh was also invited to some Epstein parties. That was the choice for the Fed chair. Somebody was serious on the economic stuff, but also has been a Trump hack and his performance yesterday. I've got one clip I want to play, but what was your big takeaway from Kevin Warsh's confirmation hearing?

Speaker 2:
[32:10] Having read Catherine Rimpel's piece on it, I'm struck by how hackish she is. If you looked at his resume with great detail, but just saw all the stuff on the CW, he does play the part, right? Yet, he's contorted his views of fiscal policy just to get the job. I mean, he's basically been an inflation hawk his entire life, except for when Trump's the president, and then he becomes someone who wants to cut rates. And there was one moment, as I obviously got you from the hearing, and I didn't think the senators did particularly great, but there's this one moment where Elizabeth Warren asks her traditional question, and it's the thing that they do now at all these hearings, where she's like, who won the election in 2020?

Speaker 1:
[32:59] We actually have the audio on that, Sam. Let's take a listen to Elizabeth Warren grilling Kevin Warsh.

Speaker 3:
[33:04] So independence takes courage. Let's check out your independence and your courage. We'll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Speaker 4:
[33:16] We try to keep politics, if I'm confirmed, out of the federal...

Speaker 3:
[33:19] I'm just asking a factual question. I need to know, I need to measure your independence and your courage.

Speaker 4:
[33:25] Senator, I believe that this body certified that election many years ago.

Speaker 3:
[33:29] That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, did Donald Trump lose in 2020?

Speaker 4:
[33:33] And I'm suggesting you in 2020, the Fed made a huge inflation problem.

Speaker 2:
[33:40] And so I watched this and I'm like, at first I was like, well, why is she asking? This is like, you should be focusing on fiscal policy and the independence of the Fed and the investigations into Lisa Cook and Jay Powell, obviously. And then it got, I thought about the reason she said it, which is obviously you have to be able to like stand up to the guy. That's pretty much the biggest part of this job is, can you be independent from the president because they're going to have tons of pressure put on you. And if you can't just basically answer that question, then he failed the test. He did. And so I thought in this case, it was a very useful use of that gimmicky question because it shows that he just is going to do what he can do and say what he has to say to stand the job, which is concerning.

Speaker 1:
[34:24] He wouldn't condemn the Cook and Powell investigations too. And this is one of those things where, my point of view is just if you ask, you ask who won the 2020 election, you just say Joe Biden and move on. And she's like, I would suggest whatever. Just like shut up. Stop being a douche. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[34:40] Do you think Trump would act? I mean, maybe Trump's so petty that he would be called a nomination.

Speaker 1:
[34:44] But he's already been nominated. He's already been nominated. So what are you worried about? And this is what worries you about him being in there in this role. You'd roll your eyes at it if that was him on CNBC and Andrew Ross Sorkin asked him that two weeks before he was nominated. And it's like, okay, this guy wants to get the job. He shows himself out to be a big wuss. But now it's alarming. It's like, you've already been nominated and you're testifying under oath. And you're supposed to be the independent feds, you're just saying it. And again, it would have maybe been different if he was then, at least in the areas under his remit, he was clear that he'd be independent. And he was just like, no, there's investigations into Cook and Powell are wrong. Or yes, I will abuck the president if he ever tries to pressure me. But he didn't do it. None of the, he weaseled out all of them.

Speaker 2:
[35:33] Weaseled out of all of it. And the most charitable view of this is that he's just saying what he has to say. And once he's in the post, he'll be fine. There's nothing that's given me any indication. And I really trust Catherine on this, but she was watching, she's just like, there's nothing really that comes to the surface to suggest that he will be independent. And Trump's been very explicit that he wants rate cuts no matter what. And Warsh has been pretty explicit that he recognized that the reason he didn't get the job in the first Trump administration was because he wasn't forcefully advocating rate cuts enough. So it's all pointing in the same direction, which he's going to go in there, he's just going to do Trump's bidding.

Speaker 1:
[36:14] Yeah. The other thing he said, I would say that the broad contours of the economy are improving.

Speaker 2:
[36:19] Really?

Speaker 3:
[36:21] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[36:21] I'm like, really?

Speaker 2:
[36:22] Are they? What parts?

Speaker 3:
[36:24] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[36:24] What's the broadest contours? The crypto.

Speaker 2:
[36:26] The crypto market is looking great.

Speaker 1:
[36:27] Actually, crypto is kind of down. Private prisons. Private prisons is improving. If you're a land man character, things are pretty good right now. I don't know. Other than that, question mark. I want to highlight two Bulwark stories, and we'll get to our cabinet rankings. Will Saletan, we'll step in for Joe Perticone. Shout out Joe Perticone, having a baby. A lot of Bulwark babies out there these days.

Speaker 2:
[36:51] Had a baby, not having. Had a baby.

Speaker 1:
[36:53] Didn't I say that?

Speaker 2:
[36:54] I think I said had.

Speaker 1:
[36:55] Had, baby, beautiful, and obviously. Obviously, great genes. Not that we're doing calipers stuff and genes stuff. The new baby, Joe Perticone's new baby really looks the part. Really looks the part of a good-looking baby. Sitting in for him on the Press Pass newsletter, we're looking at the various Mamdani acts going through Congress. Three of them. Republicans really think they're clever with various things that have the Mamdani acronym. The couple of them that really jumped out at me was, one was the Chip Roy Act about measures against Marxism's dangerous adherence and noxious Islamists. It basically was saying, we will deport people who are immigrants to this country, who are socialists or Islamists or believe in Sharia, will not allow immigrants to come in if they believe in Sharia or if they believe in socialism. Chip Roy has a separate act banning Sharia in the country. I got a couple of thoughts on that, but I was wondering what your takeaways were from the story as the editor.

Speaker 2:
[38:01] I feel like we could get to five Mamdani acts. The acronym game could be, yeah, at least.

Speaker 1:
[38:06] Mamdani is just really mauging. I turned on Hannity the other night. Literally, not like a little funny bit like we do a little bit for five seconds. There's a full segment, like commercial, segment, commercial dedicated to the Mamdani curse, which was that the Mets have not won a baseball game since he hugged the mascot. He had a guest on to discuss it and it was like an eight-minute segment. I'm just like the Mamdani derangement sent, no, I'm not dead serious. I sat there. I maybe was four minutes. I don't know. It was a length. It was a full guest. It was a, it felt like eight minutes. It was a lengthy segment on this and it's like these guys are just-

Speaker 2:
[38:46] What were the conclusions they drew that he actually-

Speaker 1:
[38:49] Yeah, Mamdani is a socialist and he's bad for New York and he's cursing the city.

Speaker 2:
[38:53] But she's responsible for their bullpen collages. I don't really understand this.

Speaker 1:
[38:57] The grocery stores. I don't know. But the obsession and there are no chinks in the armor. It is kind of like, it's very Trumpy. There's a little bit of like Mamdani has some like, for a long time there were no chinks in the Trump armor. Those are the kind that can land a punch. Anyway, sorry. Three Mamdani acts.

Speaker 2:
[39:14] One other problem is that Trump seems to be totally obsessed with the guy and in love with him and he just can't get enough of these acts. They're so stupid. This is so dumb. But I will say the Chip Roy one is particularly dumb because if you actually read it as Will did and you take it to its logical conclusion, it's not that you're a self-identified socialist or something like that. It's like you believe in socialism and that would be enough to prevent your entry to America. So if you took it to its basic conclusion, AOC would be thrown out of the country, Bernie Sanders will be thrown out of the country. It's so dark and silly.

Speaker 1:
[39:49] Worse than that. It's not American. It's just fundamentally against the basic tenets of America. We live in a pluralist society. It doesn't actually matter what your political beliefs are. We live side by side as neighbors and work in a democracy and you can vote for your side and we can vote for our side.

Speaker 2:
[40:04] Do you think people really believe that we're about to be run by Sharia law in this country?

Speaker 1:
[40:09] I'm glad you asked that, Sam, because I don't know, but if you were, if you were, if you were genuinely concerned about Sharia coming to the country, I would think that you would also be pretty alarmed that the Sharia law dictators in the Middle East seem to own our government. We're getting a free Air Force One from a Sharia law government in Qatar. Donald Trump's kids are in business with the Sharia government in the UAE. His son-in-law is in business with the Sharia government in Saudi. Apparently, those Sharia governments were pushing for us to get into this war in Iran. We're sending our young men and women over into harm's way because the Sharia governments that Donald Trump has buddied up with are concerned about their safety. It's like, okay, they've fought our sports league, so maybe they're getting out of golf now. They're getting into our movies. They're investing in the movies. I would think that if you were serious about combating the influence of Sharia in the country, rather than talking about deporting a handful of immigrants, you'd be talking also, or maybe not rather, maybe in addition to that, you'd also be talking about limiting the ways in which these Sharia dictators can invest and get their tentacles into our economy and into the president's family.

Speaker 2:
[41:28] Someone needs to put together the Kushner Act. I can't come up with the acronym right now, or the Wittkopf Act. Kingdome. Yeah. Someone in the comments give us a good acronym for that. But like, yeah, why does Jared get to hang out with all the Sharia dictators and take their money, but we can't incorporate some of their great laws? I should say, for full disclosure, you're going to make fun of me for this, but I may go to the Qatar Embassy Party for the White House Correspondents. That's a Sharia party.

Speaker 1:
[41:57] Qatar, I think it's Qatar. I think it's pronounced Qatar.

Speaker 2:
[41:59] Oh, it's to each his own, Tim.

Speaker 1:
[42:03] Don't go to the fucking Qatar Party. I want it. Are you going to throw blood on? Take some red paint and throw blood on the wall.

Speaker 2:
[42:10] Hold on. There's the Grindr Party, and then there's the Qatar Party the same night. I'm trying to go between them and see if there's any difference.

Speaker 1:
[42:18] You're going to be a bridge, if you will, an Eiffel Tower between the Grindr Party and the Qatar Party.

Speaker 2:
[42:24] Maybe we can intermingle the two. How would that go over?

Speaker 1:
[42:29] I don't know. Final point, I think that Sharia is much more dangerous that Sharia has integrated itself into Mar-a-Lago than into local governments across the country.

Speaker 2:
[42:41] Which they have not done, just to be clear, they are not in local governance.

Speaker 1:
[42:45] I do hope that the Chip Roys of the world will get on that, if they're concerned about Sharia.

Speaker 2:
[42:49] Fair enough.

Speaker 1:
[42:50] I just want to mention this because I appreciate Jonathan Cohn's article about this, and I felt bad I didn't talk about it yesterday. There's this horrible mass shooting in Shreveport, Arkansas, Louisiana. We kind of, Shreveport is basically Arkansas, I don't like to own it. But Shreveport, Louisiana, just this horrible mass shooting, one guy killed eight kids, aged three to 11 in various houses. It's horrible. And Jonathan Cohn wrote about how it's the worst mass shooting we've had in quite a while, as far as the number of deaths and then for all the deaths to be children. And it's just, it just didn't, like the news coverage of it was basically non-existent. Sad.

Speaker 2:
[43:32] Yeah. No, I'm really grateful that Jonathan wrote this piece. Because it really does get to me. You and I were at the same age and obviously we were around during Sandy Hook. And I remember that day very vividly. Sandy Hook is a town that's about 40 minutes from where I grew up and, and also just the sheer horror of it. And I remember like walking around that day and just kind of like days. It was just awful and you couldn't really comprehend it. Like it didn't compute that something this horrible could happen in our country. And then we had a big gun control debate afterwards and it failed and all that stuff. And it was just demoralizing. And I wrote a lot about this, about how this was the toughest day at the Obama White House and how they had to go about trying to figure it out. And I say that all because that wasn't that long ago. I mean, it was long ago. Obviously it was 2012, I believe, but we cared then. And now you have eight kids who are just slaughtered and it didn't even, and Colin was looking at the major news outlets. It didn't even make like top six stories. And we live in a society where we basically become totally callous to the idea that someone can gun down eight kids in two houses. And that's just the way of life. And we deal with it and we move on because we have become accustomed to it. Now there are circumstantial differences here. Obviously this was two homes, it was a father, he was suffering from clear mental issues versus a school where anyone's kid could be. But at the end of the day, eight kids died, three to 11, and nobody seems to have cared. And this is not a unpreventable situation. There are things you can do to prevent these types of tragedies from taking place. We just choose not to do it. That's the problem.

Speaker 1:
[45:23] Yeah. And the guy had had another gun crime in the past. I continue to just say that I think that there is a sense of political fatalism around this issue, which I understand, I think particularly after Sandy Hook and after Parkland, like this idea that's just, there's nothing that can be done, but like stuff can be done. A Republican governor, Rick Scott, is now a senator, signed the Red Flag Law after Parkland.

Speaker 2:
[45:45] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[45:45] And since then, Florida has gone the other way, like they've loosened gun laws under DeSantis, right? They can be pressured. And I do think, I continue to think that there was a period for good reason. There was a lot of, I'm for criminal justice reform, and there are a lot of reforms that were needed to the criminal justice system and continue to be there. But I think that the focus on that on the left, people are a little bit scared to come out for harsher penalties and restrictions around people that have been violent criminals in the past or done gun crimes in the past. And I do think that pairing something that is a little bit stricter around violent criminals and gun crime, like crimes using guns, not drug crimes or whatever, but crimes or improper use of gun was what the person did. So, pairing that with gun reform, I think is popular. I think most of the people in the country want that. And nobody's really done it or tried really hard on it. I don't know. I think that that's a viable policy platform for a 2028 them if they want to have the courage to do it.

Speaker 2:
[46:49] Well, what you're talking about is a different version, but similar to the 94 crime bill.

Speaker 1:
[46:55] The assault law.

Speaker 2:
[46:55] It is. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[46:57] There were bad stuff in the crime bill. You hate to bring that up because there's some bad stuff in there, like the basic contours of that deal, which is like cracking down on criminals and cracking down on guns.

Speaker 2:
[47:06] It was tons of money for cops, after-school programs, much stricter penalties for those who were convicted, and that was the issue that got a lot of people. But in exchange, real gun control legislative reforms, including the assault weapons ban. Look, it worked, but the assault weapons ban, this is irrelevant to this situation in Louisiana, the assault weapons ban lapsed because it had to be on a 10-year window. But yeah, you're right, this is the combination legislation you're going to have to do, and no one's putting it forward because there is a fatalism about it.

Speaker 1:
[47:46] All right. To the cabinet rankings, everyone's favorite part of the show.

Speaker 2:
[47:49] Hell yeah.

Speaker 1:
[47:50] I just want to go back into history here. Me and Sam have been doing this since the beginning of the administration. We ranked the worst cabinet members, so competitive and I agonize over my choices. It's so challenging. If you go back to the end of the year, for example, our Christmas time rankings, Sam's worst, Christy Noem now gone, our rest in power, Christy and Brian. Boy, the Brian story really got dark.

Speaker 2:
[48:19] Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[48:22] That's tough. I mean, when you literally are Sam Rockwell and White Lotus, things are getting a little rough. Christy Noem with Sam's first, RFK was number two, Hegseth three, Russ vote four. For me, it was Noem Rubio Besant at the end of the year. Then a couple months ago, after Noem was defenestrated, on my list was Rubio Hegseth Bondi was my top three, rest easy, Pam Bondi and Sam's was Hegseth Bondi RFK. So Bondi is now out of the picture. We've put Russ vote out of the picture. We're not counting him in the cabinet. I think just because of all the attention that he has received in the past week, I'm going to throw cash in.

Speaker 2:
[49:06] So he's not in the cabinet.

Speaker 1:
[49:08] I know.

Speaker 2:
[49:08] No, no, no, no, no. He's not in the cabinet.

Speaker 1:
[49:12] No, we can't do that.

Speaker 2:
[49:13] Throw fucking Stephen Miller.

Speaker 1:
[49:14] It's our game. We can make up the rules. No, no, no, no, no.

Speaker 2:
[49:16] There have to be rules. No, absolutely not.

Speaker 1:
[49:20] Market zero. Market zero. Smoker. Smoky. Who was it? stepped over the line.

Speaker 2:
[49:28] Can't do it.

Speaker 1:
[49:29] Market zero. Okay, fine. We won't put cash in. Where would cash be? We'll discuss that in the post script.

Speaker 2:
[49:35] We'll discuss that in the post script. That's why you can't put them in.

Speaker 1:
[49:38] All right. So the worst cabinet officials, as it stands right now, we are going to include, obviously, as an option, the new DHS secretary, Mark Quain Mullen. And then I would like to include acting Attorney General Todd Blanch. Is that okay for you? Yeah, acting Attorney General Todd Blanch. So they're both in there. Sam, are we going to do a power four or a power three?

Speaker 2:
[50:03] Power four.

Speaker 1:
[50:05] Power four. Okay. Fourth place. The fourth place cabinet member for Sam Stein. Fourth worst.

Speaker 2:
[50:12] Okay. Wow. See, my top ones now being gone makes this a little complicated, obviously. I'm going to go with the ones who I think are the worst. I'm not going to rank them yet. Okay?

Speaker 1:
[50:24] You're not ranking yet.

Speaker 2:
[50:26] I'm just going to throw my, because I want to think this through a little bit.

Speaker 1:
[50:28] Okay, we're going to talk it out.

Speaker 2:
[50:29] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[50:30] Like who is even in the, who could even be in the nominating category?

Speaker 2:
[50:34] I mean, it's very clear that Hegseth is obviously in top four.

Speaker 1:
[50:39] Hegseth and Rubio and Blanch and RFK, I think are obviously in the nominating category. Let's think about- You don't have to include them, but they're all in the nominating category.

Speaker 2:
[50:49] Yes, they're in the nominating category. Are we just going to take Lutnik out? I guess he's kind of falling off the radar. Chris Wright's had a really bad run. Chris Wright's had a bad run. He's talking about bringing back coal as our main source of energy.

Speaker 1:
[51:07] Yeah. He's just testifying. He's like, yeah, you know, I mean, the gas price was high among Biden.

Speaker 2:
[51:12] It is what it is.

Speaker 1:
[51:14] I keep wanting to get Brooke Rollins in there.

Speaker 2:
[51:16] I knew you were going to say Brooke Rollins.

Speaker 1:
[51:17] I keep wanting to get her into my top four.

Speaker 2:
[51:18] Make the case for why she should be.

Speaker 1:
[51:20] Who has been harmed? I guess immigrants. If you're just trying to categorize groups, we don't like to do identity politics on the board. If we're going to do identity politics, which identities have been most harmed by this administration, materially harmed? Immigrants, recent immigrants, people, asylees, like anybody in that category would be number one. Farmers might be too. I mean, like the farm economy, the Iowa's economy is in shambles. The farm economy is only going to get worse. Fertilizer prices now are skyrocketing. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Brooke Rollins is like, you guys should just have a chicken in your backyard and do your own farms. They're not doing anything to help them. I think that you have to throw it out there.

Speaker 2:
[52:07] Okay. We obviously, Laura Chavez-Dreamer is no longer around, so we can't.

Speaker 1:
[52:12] Did you see the picture of the strip club that she went to?

Speaker 2:
[52:15] No.

Speaker 1:
[52:17] I got to tell you, I haven't been following the Department of Labor drama that closely because there's just a lot happening in the news. But there's a lot of weird stuff happening. I mean, her husband and her dad were sending inappropriate text messages to the staff.

Speaker 2:
[52:32] Her dad, too?

Speaker 1:
[52:34] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[52:34] I did not know that. Wow.

Speaker 1:
[52:35] I'm going to put this, we'll put this on the screen for YouTube people, and I'm going to share this with you right now in Slack. This is a post from the person that you're trying to dethrone right now, Jane Costin. And she visited this strip club.

Speaker 2:
[52:52] That is quite the strip club.

Speaker 1:
[52:55] Angel's Dancers Lottery Food. It is the most depressing building I've ever seen in my life. The Secretary of Labor was in there.

Speaker 2:
[53:04] Well, you haven't tried the food there. You don't know. Could be top cuisine.

Speaker 1:
[53:08] Now open play here.

Speaker 2:
[53:10] That's a rough joint.

Speaker 1:
[53:12] I wish I could describe this. We are in what looks to be a rural to ex-urban strip mall, that where everything else is empty. There's a part store and then there's kind of like a concrete, a small concrete square with some shingles on top of it. It says Angel Strip Club with the outline of a booby lady in the picture.

Speaker 2:
[53:40] Do you see that little sandwich sign? It says, food to go, in case you just want to grab the food. In case you just want the food, but not the strippers.

Speaker 1:
[53:50] The Secretary of Labor was just vibing. Angel Strip Club.

Speaker 2:
[53:55] Imagine you're working that club and the Labor Secretary kind of rolls up. Madam Secretary, normal boost.

Speaker 1:
[54:03] This is in Portland. This is in Portland, Oregon. So we're not going to include her. She's out.

Speaker 2:
[54:10] No, no, but we do have our next assignment for Jared Polin's video series. She's out.

Speaker 1:
[54:19] All right. Here's my accent and the economy is still not going that well. We can't let not look out. So I would say that the nominating category would be Hague, Seth Rubio, Blanche, RFK, Wright, Rollins, Besant and Nutlick. Those are the eight potential nominees for worst.

Speaker 2:
[54:34] I'm going to go my first. The worst. I'm going to work it down. Worse is Hex F. Absolutely. The reason he's bad, even more bad now is that he's taken some of the RFK shit and just adopting it as his own. Getting rid of the measles, sorry, the flu vaccine requirement was a real stroke of fucking genius. Let's just get everyone really sick. That's smart. He's my number one.

Speaker 1:
[54:57] It's not even close. We should just say, I think that at the end of the year, following the murders of Americans that's in the streets, Christie Noem really solidified herself as the worst cabinet member. A lot of competition, a lot of discussion. I think now pretty clearly Pete Hegseth is the worst. It's not really even a close second. It's hard to even prove to provide a secondary nominee.

Speaker 2:
[55:19] I totally agree with that. I continue to put Bobby up there as my number two. I can't just quit him because he sucks.

Speaker 1:
[55:29] Okay. Well, I'm going to make the pitch for Rubio as number two.

Speaker 2:
[55:32] Okay. He was your number two last time too.

Speaker 1:
[55:35] He was. Yeah. I think Rubio stays in my number two slot. He's the reason all this shit's happening.

Speaker 2:
[55:41] Yeah, that's a good point.

Speaker 1:
[55:42] He's the reason it's all happening. The Venezuela keeper was a Rubio deal and it succeeded and he's the neocon in the administration. He's the one that wants to overthrow these regimes. I do think that there's some reports that he was a little bit skeptical, at least with the BB presentation in the situation room. Unfortunately, if we could include BB as the cabinet member, he would be number two for me, but I think that's a little bit of a stretch. Rubio to me is supposed to be the adult in the room, and the thing that is in his portfolio is the policy item that is wrecking the president's standing, wrecking the economy, resulting in the deaths of American service members unnecessarily. I just think he's a clear two for me.

Speaker 2:
[56:31] Okay, fair enough. I'm going to ask to go top five because I have a couple of things here. Top five? Yeah, I'm thinking it too much.

Speaker 1:
[56:38] I was going to make you do only three. I was going to leave this hard choice for you in the third slot.

Speaker 2:
[56:44] There's a lot because you made a compelling case about Rubio. He's going to be my fifth. Rubio is going to be my fifth. My third is going to be Besant. I just think the economy is not great.

Speaker 1:
[56:56] Besant?

Speaker 2:
[56:57] Yeah. Do you like the economy? Are you happy with how things are going?

Speaker 1:
[57:02] No, the economy is a nightmare.

Speaker 2:
[57:03] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[57:04] No, I hate Besant. I just have to look around and I can't let my personal distaste for Scott Besant affect my rankings. The sanctity of the rankings need to be most important.

Speaker 2:
[57:16] You were in Besant at three last time.

Speaker 1:
[57:18] I know. I know. I mean, look, I find him totally repulsive in every way. He's a horrible representative of homosexuals. But it's got to be Todd Blanch. It's got to be Todd Blanch.

Speaker 2:
[57:30] I guess I'm not saying Todd Blanch isn't bad, but he's just started and I need a little bit more material to work with.

Speaker 1:
[57:37] Did you watch Todd Blanch's press conference yesterday? I watched it. He was like, I never press conference about the Atlantic article about how Cash Patel needed the SWAT team to break down the door because he was so drunk. He's just like, I didn't read the articles. He is responsible for the going Maxwell moved to club fled. Trump obviously trusts him more. As insane as it sounds, the reason why Bondi got moved out is that Trump didn't think she was doing a good enough job of going after his political foes. He felt like Blanch could do better. I don't even really think it's close for Blanch in the third slot.

Speaker 2:
[58:14] Look, when we revisit these rankings soon, I will have more material to work with with Blanch. I'm going to give him a little bit of space here. Also, I thought the press conference was awesome, but I thought Cash was the real star. I mean, Cash just absolutely getting killed under questioning and refusing to answer whether he, they're like, were you worried you're going to get fired because you couldn't log into your system? He's like, couldn't answer the question. Refused to answer the question. Shout out to Ryan Reilly at NBC for pushing him on that. All right, four for me, four for me, because five is Rubio, four for me is going to be Chris Wright. For the reasons I explained, this man is in over his head. We are in an oil crisis. He's talking about gas never coming back down for a while, and then he's like, well, we got coal. I just feel like we need someone a little bit more in their depths at this moment, at the Department of Energy and this guy ain't it. He's not ever been in our rankings before.

Speaker 1:
[59:14] Chris Wright.

Speaker 2:
[59:14] So this is new. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[59:15] Chris Wrong, you might want to call him. Okay, Chris Wrong is not going to make my list, but it's a good nomination. For my fourth slot, Tulsi was not in the nominating category because she's against the war and she's going to be fired. I was looking for another foreign policy person because since the foreign policy thing is driving everything. It's hard for me to blame Scott Bessent for the economic situation right now in this moment because it's really driven by the war side of things. For that reason, I think he's going to fall out of my rankings this time. I'm going to put RFK number four and close. I've been dying to get Brooke Rollins into a ranking.

Speaker 2:
[59:58] Here she is.

Speaker 1:
[59:58] I'm going to close her out at number five.

Speaker 2:
[59:59] Here she is.

Speaker 1:
[60:00] I'm Hegseth Rubio Blanch RFK Brooke Rollins.

Speaker 2:
[60:06] Congrats to Brooke. I'm really proud of her. It took a long time.

Speaker 1:
[60:09] Think about how bad you have to be as Secretary of Ag, to even get a sniff as one of the worst cabinet members in this administration. She's done it and she's already done.

Speaker 2:
[60:18] You made a really compelling case for her and I'm really proud of her.

Speaker 1:
[60:22] Final pick for you, you had Rubio. So your final ranking is HagsethRFK, Besant, Wright, Rubio, and HagsethRubio, Blanche, RFK, Brooke. Okay. Well, that's good. We'll check back in a couple of months. We're gonna close in the potpourri section. I'm gonna...

Speaker 2:
[60:37] Sure.

Speaker 1:
[60:38] So two items for you on potpourri. One, you posted this. Why aren't we talking more about Down to Fuck St. Louis?

Speaker 2:
[60:45] Dude, have you not watched it?

Speaker 1:
[60:48] Man, I watched a couple of episodes. It's okay. Jason Bateman, I love... It feels like Ozarks but in St. Louis.

Speaker 2:
[60:54] It's a little Ozarky. The reason I liked it is because it was both funny.

Speaker 1:
[60:59] Because it's making you and the missus talk about maybe whether there's some ways that you could open up the marriage. Because that's the thing about DTF St. Louis. It's like married couples are trying to mess around a little bit. Is that why?

Speaker 2:
[61:09] That's not quite right.

Speaker 1:
[61:10] Titalating the marriage?

Speaker 2:
[61:12] No, that's not it. It's funny but it's also incredibly sad. They managed to do the combination of that and then, I don't know. I thought it was really well done. Bateman is great in it. Obviously, it's probably one of the more interesting shows when it comes to the concept of midlife loneliness, especially male loneliness. I'm not saying I'm suffering from loneliness, but I thought it was really provocative. I'm not. I'm really happy. I don't know. I left every episode thinking about it. Show is really good when you stop the episode and you're like, damn, I want to just stew over what I just watched. I really liked it. Now, when I posted that, the responses, I was curious for the responses. A lot of people did not like it. I was surprised by that.

Speaker 1:
[61:56] Yeah. My husband did like it. We watched one or two episodes and I'm like, wait a minute. I'm deferring to him on shows now because he did not like it. I'm either doing podcast outlines or fighting with someone on Twitter or dozing off during the shows now. It's like we're going to do what he wants. I do have Hacks is back. I haven't checked out yet. No spoilers. Okay. The one exception to that is obviously the NBA playoffs.

Speaker 2:
[62:18] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[62:19] I'm kind of down about it right now. My Nuggets fans, my Nuggets media pals. I did a Nuggets podcast with my boy Jeff Morton. If you want to hear my Nuggets takes, go check that out. But Jeff's more positive than I am. I don't know. I just didn't feel like the Nuggets got that dog in them. Feels like we need Peyton Watson. We've had some great games though. The plan was great. Wimby just got hurt.

Speaker 2:
[62:40] That was what I wanted to talk about. Wimby, you saw the concussion. Brutal.

Speaker 1:
[62:44] When you're that tall, then you fall and hit your head. His shin. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[62:49] Chin. It's a big fall.

Speaker 1:
[62:51] He might be out the whole series.

Speaker 2:
[62:53] Yeah. I still think they pull it out because the Blazers are fine, but they're not that great.

Speaker 1:
[62:59] They're just on the come up.

Speaker 2:
[63:01] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[63:02] The new Blazers owner is funny. Have you followed this story at all? He's like, he didn't let the team have a late check out. He didn't let the team have a late check out. The team had to hang out in the lobby for a couple of hours.

Speaker 2:
[63:12] Apparently super cheap.

Speaker 1:
[63:14] He paid $4 billion for the team. Let everybody get late check out at the Hilton.

Speaker 2:
[63:19] Not great. You guys need to rest. The other series that's really intriguing is Hawks Knicks. I don't know if you've been checking that out.

Speaker 1:
[63:26] I have. I got a lot of Knicks fans in my life.

Speaker 2:
[63:29] Again, this is one of the things where it's like, it's somewhat similar. I feel like the Hawks are plucky and they're good, but they're not going to pull it off. But man, these two can both go seven. I would not be shocked by that.

Speaker 1:
[63:39] Yeah. Well, I think that gets Timberwolves good too. I mean, it's been...

Speaker 2:
[63:43] But that's more realistic. I could have seen that even before the place. Whereas these two series, I was like, okay, yeah. Spurs might sweep.

Speaker 1:
[63:51] Yeah. I'm a little down because it feels inevitable that we're hurtling towards Thunder Celtics. And I just can't. I can't do it. I can't do Thunder Celtics. Celtics lost.

Speaker 2:
[64:02] Celtics just lost.

Speaker 1:
[64:03] I can't do Thunder Celtics. Just the East feels weak anyway. I don't know.

Speaker 4:
[64:06] The East is weak.

Speaker 2:
[64:07] Detroit looks weak. Celtics look weak. Knicks look weak. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. It's the Thunder on another level.

Speaker 1:
[64:15] Who are you rooting for?

Speaker 2:
[64:17] Well, I was rooting for the Spurs because my boy Steph Kassel is on the Spurs. And I love...

Speaker 1:
[64:21] The Klingons are in Portland. It's a Yukon.

Speaker 2:
[64:23] I know. It's a little bit hard. But Steph, I don't want to get too into it, but if you watch Steph just for a little bit, you really start to appreciate just the defense he has. I mean, he does this kind of shadowy defense on these players where it looks like he's just totally beaten, then he can catch up with them and get in front of their shot. I just think he's so gifted. And then obviously, Wembe is generational. And I'm worried that Wembe is not going to come back in a while, and who knows what happens. But yeah, I'm rooting for the Spurs, for sure.

Speaker 1:
[64:51] It was really cool what they did with the uniforms in the stadium. Yeah, I got love for the Spurs. Hate for the Thunder. Sorry. OKC fans. All right. That's Sam Stein. I don't know if it's going to happen for you. I know you really wanted to get back into the first place slot on most downloads, but the Wednesday one is tough. We had a lot of competition out there in the content space. I'm hoping for you though, because you really elevate the show when you come on. You do.

Speaker 2:
[65:14] Well, that's why you invite me and beg me to come on. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[65:17] You beg me. We, on tomorrow's show, we got a double header. We got a double header. We're going to bring a little chrismaka, a little chrismaka in April to tomorrow's show and have a new member of the Bulwark on. It's a fun double header. Come out. Hang with us then. Make sure that podcast has more downloads than Sam, so I can really rub it in his face. We'll see you all tomorrow. Bye, Sam. Bye, everybody.

Speaker 2:
[65:38] Peace. Later.

Speaker 1:
[66:02] The Bulwark Podcast is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, associate producer Ansley Skipper, and with video editing by Katie Lutz, and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.