transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] I think we're live. Are we live? As Bill wrote?

Speaker 2:
[00:03] Yeah, we are.

Speaker 1:
[00:04] We're doing it live. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Well, happy hump day. This is one of my favorite things to do because I love to talk to really smart people about what's going on in the world. And today, my two smarty pants friends, Bill Kristol and JVL, are going to talk about so many things that are happening in the news. But the headline, I guess you guys, well, there are many headlines. That's part of the problem. But we're going to be talking about the sentence we never thought we'd hear from Tucker Carlson's mouth, or at least at this point. Trump's poll numbers, the news coming out of the Strait of Hormuz with our Strait of Hormuz expert JVL, and the Virginia redistricting vote that's going to change everything for Democrats, including voters, I'm not going to say you're a Democrat, but voters like Bill Kristol, who lives in the Old Dominion. Anyway, you guys, so I just have to ask you both about Tucker Carlson and this midstream conversion, where he went on a podcast with his brother Buckley, and of course, his brother's name is Buckley, Buckley and Tucker. And I guess Tucker has a son named Buckley as well after his brother. Meanwhile, I think his brother's definitely using RFK Jr's tanning bed, but that's beside the point. Let's listen to what Tucker said, that is really kind of creating huge waves all around the media's ecosystem anyway. So let's listen.

Speaker 2:
[01:32] Thinking back, because you and I and everyone else who supported him, you wrote speeches for him, I campaigned for him, we're implicated in this for sure. It's not enough to say, well, I changed my mind, or like, oh, this is bad, I'm out. It's like in very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now. Yes. So I do think it's like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences. We'll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. I want to say I'm sorry for misleading people and it was not intentional. That's all I'll say.

Speaker 1:
[02:16] All right. Were you guys surprised by this admission? You heard rumblings and it seemed to be headed that way. I just really want to get your reaction. First, you Bill.

Speaker 3:
[02:29] I don't think he's being honest. I don't think he's tormented. I don't think his conscience is bothering him. I think he's happy he supported Trump. He did great in the Trump years and now he's laying the groundwork, I assume to run maybe himself in 2027, 28 or at least to be a key player on the Republican side. He realizes Trump's going to want himself presumably, or maybe Don Jr. as his heir, then there's Vance cluttering up the semi-establish, mega-establishment lane and Tucker could be the outsider, the anti-Israel and anti-everything radical outsider. But he has to separate himself from Trump and the way to do it is with an anguished profession of how bad he feels, which I don't really believe.

Speaker 1:
[03:10] Wow. Wow. You're so cynical. But what do you think, JVL, do you agree?

Speaker 4:
[03:16] I mean, I don't know. I mean, so I've known Tucker for a very, very long time. We used to be very close friends. We are not really anymore. So I got yelled at by Tim and Sarah talking about this yesterday because I said, look, isn't this everything we want? Isn't what we want from the people who supported Trump for them to stop supporting Trump and to say they were wrong to support him and to then say, and I should be accountable for this. That's maybe it's insincere, maybe it's sincere, maybe it's positioning for something else. One of the things I have struggled with though, is that so many of Trump's elite level supporters are totally in bad faith. Let's say one thing in private and another thing in public. It's like, well, I've been desperate to have anybody on that side of the mago world who actually believes the shit they say. This is one of the reasons I have such a soft spot for Marjorie Taylor Greene because Marjorie Taylor Greene, however crazy she is, she does believe it. She's not in on the joke. Tucker is actually believing, I mean, he has the courage of his convictions that wars and especially wars involving American alliances with Israel are really, really bad and he hates them and he's willing to break with Trump over it. And so like, okay, like one and a half cheers. No, I mean, maybe and maybe not. Like, you know, and I don't know.

Speaker 3:
[04:53] I'm not possible.

Speaker 4:
[04:54] He's running. Like I think it's possible he's running too. We could talk about whether or not we think that will work out or not.

Speaker 1:
[05:05] Well, let you you that's that's that's a good question. I mean, how how serious do you think, Bill, this is that he is going to run for president of the United States, Tucker Carlson, and would he have a chance? To get the Republican nomination anyway.

Speaker 3:
[05:24] He certainly thought about it over the years. He spoke at the Republican Convention at Keyspot in 2024. He's been at the White House many times. No one, everyone thinks about it in that way. If you're at that level and that fame and he's made a lot of money, and he has a pretty devoted following. I don't know that he will. He might enjoy more being talked about and then trying to help make sure someone he supports gets in. I don't quarrel with JVL that he sincerely, I guess, is against our involvement in wars in the Middle East, especially if we're on the side of Israel. There's some sincerity there, but I don't think there's a lot of accountability either in the sense that he's not offering to give back anything. JVL wrote a piece a week or two ago about, President Trump is still the most likely, in my view, nominee. Well, I think maybe JVL said he was the second most likely to be the nominee in 2028 and his son will be the most likely, but this is basically the same argument, that Trump is not letting himself or his family lose the presidency with any, or at least doesn't want to. I did an actual conversation, like this Katie with AB. Stoddard, whom you know today, which will be up tomorrow, where she has a real grasp, I've got to say, of Trump's psyche in a way that I certainly don't. I've never been very interested in the psychological side of Trump. I'm just interested in like, is this a horrible threat to our democracy and all that? But she just thinks he could not stand being in the White House in 27, 20, 28, and watching everyone else run for president, and he's the sideshow as people go through Iowa and New Hampshire, and he will not hand over the party to anyone except himself or his son. Plus, he has practical reasons, the massive corruption and so forth, that he can't afford to have somebody he doesn't totally trust in there. Plus, he loves being president and he doesn't want to give it up, but he doesn't think he should give it up, and he's talked to himself, who knows what he really believes about the election, but he doesn't care anyway that the Constitution says you shouldn't have a third term.

Speaker 1:
[07:15] But, whoa, whoa, whoa, time out. He can't run. I mean, I know Steve Bannon has said he could. Really?

Speaker 2:
[07:21] Who's going to stop him?

Speaker 1:
[07:23] What scenario can Donald Trump...

Speaker 3:
[07:25] What scenario is he gets friendly state chairman, I'll let JVL talk, he gets friendly Republican state chairman to put him on the ballot, he gets drafted. So, you know, this is democracy, the 22nd Amendment. It's a little ambiguous anyway, because it wasn't a consecutive term, and anyway, that was a long time ago. There's a lot of other stuff in the Constitution that's been overtaken by events. I'm not going to stop people from drafting me. And I don't know, maybe they'll get a case to the Supreme Court. Maybe the Supreme Court will kick him off the ballot. Maybe not. Certainly not if they can delay the case of he's gotten some votes already from Republican voters in some key states. So, I don't know. I worry that he could pull it off, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[07:58] What do you think, JVL?

Speaker 4:
[08:00] So this, I've been ringing this bell now for years. People said I was an insane person, and maybe I am. I'm open to the possibility. But it would go like this. Trump would say the 22nd Amendment is really about consecutive terms. I didn't have consecutive terms. Also, I was cheated, therefore, I'm entitled to this. The key is that he gets party chairman to get him on the ballot, and he gets to a vote before the case gets to the Supreme Court. Because once people have voted in Iowa or in New Hampshire, I think there will be two votes on the court no matter what, to say yes, he should be allowed to run. I think it becomes easier to find those other three votes, if votes have already been cast. I would say this just based on what we saw with the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment is as clear as day. And the Supreme Court was absolutely unwilling to enforce it because they thought that that would be getting in the way of democratic legitimacy. They were like, well, there's a remedy, if voters don't want an insurrectionist, they can just not vote for insurrectionists. And so we're going to invent a test here for how this is supposed to work because we don't want to touch it. I think it's a long shot for Trump. Like if you were betting money, would the court invalidate the 22nd Amendment to allow them to run? I think you probably want odds on it, but it's not like a million to one shot.

Speaker 3:
[09:38] But also if I get, what if the court doesn't validate it? I don't think it's 100% certain that Donald Trump says, oh, the Supreme Court has spoken, I must get off. So this is a total violation of our democracy. My people want me. Who are these people, unelected people, who are betraying me and betraying the voters? I'm running, let them stop me. I mean, we can have a jet, right?

Speaker 4:
[09:58] I don't put that beyond Trump. But I do think that, so Don Jr., this is my other guy, I wrote about this week, Don Jr., whenever he is included on polling, he's been polling in second place. Like, this is a guy, he's basically invisible, he's not out campaigning, he's not talking about it. He is absolutely a viable candidate in a way that like Eric Trump is not. Don Jr., very craftily, starting in 2017, while Ivanka Trump was inside the White House trying to do policy and be a grownup, Don Jr. realized that the path forward within the Trump dynasty was actually just to go out into Fox and become a guy who understands how to play to the President's base. And he's beloved, he's like a mascot for the Trump lifestyle brand. And so I think that, again, if Trump feels like he doesn't want to go through the election or feels, you know, he's talked into believing, well, it's really too much of a long shot. And the way to do it is you use Don. And the upside for that is, if Don wins the nomination but loses the general election, you then preserve four more years of sort of graft and bribery for the Trump family, because for four more years after that, Don is the presumed front runner for 2032. And all of this is about preserving access to-

Speaker 1:
[11:25] You're kidding me.

Speaker 4:
[11:26] I mean, I'm just- Just follow the logic of it. Senator for American Progress, $2 billion.

Speaker 1:
[11:30] I'm going to go get sick. I'll be right back.

Speaker 4:
[11:32] Okay. Senator for American Progress keeps track of the outright gifts, not the increase in paper value of like Trump's fake media company and stuff, but the actual number of dollars that he has gotten. And since, I think it's since December before he was inaugurated, they've pocketed a little more than $2 billion the Trump family has. This is very real money.

Speaker 1:
[12:00] JVL, some people are saying $4 billion.

Speaker 4:
[12:03] Yeah. Well, that's when you do all the other, the paper, right? So this is what I'm saying, it's probably more than that, but the lowest, like the most conservative estimate is $2 billion. And that's so far, we've got another two and a half years. And so if you're them, you look at this and this is all because people, especially foreign governments know that it is valuable to have a line into the White House, especially when the White House is for sale. Why would they give that up? If you're the Trump family, is there anything in our history with these people that suggests that they would voluntarily give up access to vast flows of money?

Speaker 1:
[12:43] I want to, and we'll talk like if this were to come to pass, you know, right now, he is not very popular, right? I mean, it's a long way to 2028. We'll talk about his poll numbers in a moment, but I wanted to ask you guys about the whole Tucker Carlson defection. You know, I'm curious because you all sort of occupied this world at one point. What is happening to sort of the conservatives or, you know, right-wing media, right-wing supporters, whether you're talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones, Candace Owens, you know, all these people who are kind of abandoning Donald Trump. And meanwhile, you have Ben Shapiro right on the other side. And is this bill all about Israel?

Speaker 3:
[13:39] I think a lot of it is about Israel. Some of it's about his poll numbers going down and people thinking, I'm not so sure my future, I need to be quite as yoked to him as I thought. Some of it is about, I guess, actual foreign policy issues or just personal insults and so forth. It's hard to tell. I mean, these movements, these autocratic movements are often unstable. We think of them as being very well organized. And some people like Orbán was pretty well organized for quite a while in Hungary. But a lot of them are just chaotic. There's a whole bunch of people who want to be the big shot, who then get in fights with other people who want to be the heir or the successor or the number one grafter, as opposed to the number three grafter. And so this is what happens in a movement like this, especially when Trump is getting a little old, the succession is uncertain, his numbers are going down, and so people are jockeying for positions. So I think some of it's sincere in terms of issues, and a lot of it is what happens to an autocratic movement, which makes it a little weaker, but also in some ways more dangerous, right? Because parts of it get radicalized, and people start making a bid to, I'm the true Arab, because I really want to just crush the left and send the troops in, and I'm for martial law in mid 2020. One of them is going to stand up in mid 2020 and say, we can't afford to have this election, the Democrats are traitors and they might win, so we need martial law. And then suddenly that person is the heir of some part of the Trump policy. So I've been a little radicalized by JVL and by talking to Amy Stoddard of thinking about, I just, psychologically, Donald Trump, he loves being president. It's the best thing he's ever done. It satisfies to the degree anything can, his incredible deed and narcissism and megalomania and all these things. And I guess the more I've thought about it, I actually, JVL was very early on this. I was close to him, but I wasn't quite there. But the more I've thought about it, the more struck I am that they are not giving this up, not only not easily, but without quite a big struggle, whether it's a struggle for the nomination or a struggle even after the nomination, third party kind of craziness, right? That's not impossible. Or struggle not to have a free and fair election. I just think that's, for me, that's key here.

Speaker 4:
[15:44] Let me ask you both. Yeah, can I ask you guys both this question? Because I am curious about it. There is a sizable elite media defection away from Trump, right? I mean, the people like Tucker, people like Alex Jones, people like, which I'm sorry are now the elite media when it comes to the Republican Party. Megyn Kelly, Candace Carter. Megyn Kelly, yeah, Candace is backing away. But we're not seeing that mirrored in his poll approval numbers with Republican voters. He's had some erosion with Republican voters, and it's real, you can see it. But it's still reasonably small. I think he's low 80s approval with generic public. I forget, there's one filter they use where he's like, I have 100 percent approval from MAGA, which is like a screen of if you have a Donald Trump tattoo on your face, do you approve of the president? With those people, he's 100 percent. But his standing with Republicans is still quite secure. I look at this and I do wonder if you are in MAGA media space and you're Tucker. Candice is a special case, I think, because she is more of a mainstream type person. Her audience seems to be more crankish than purely political. But if you're purely MAGA politics, are their audiences going to stay with these guys? If Tucker and Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones really do go full anti-Trump, true Trumpism has never been tried, even if they do it from the right. Will their audiences stay with them? I don't know that that's a foregone conclusion, and we're going to see. But that's my question for you guys. Where do you think the actual people are going to be on this?

Speaker 1:
[17:37] Well, doesn't it take a while, Bill, to have a trickle down effect? Polls usually lag what's happening in current events. I would be on the lookout, honestly, you know, with the war in Iran, with Tucker Carlson, with some of these people, with the fight with the Pope, with the language that Trump has been using on true social. I wouldn't be surprised. What the hell do I know, you guys? But if they're started to see, if we started to see some erosion among Republicans for Trump, I mean, I just don't think it's, I think it's going to have an impact. I don't think it's going to be a non-starter. I just think it takes a while for this. And Tucker just said this yesterday, right? So, I don't know whether their audiences will stay with them. I'm not sure. I think they are connected. They have this parasocial relationship with them. And I think they feel a sense of loyalty. So I don't know what's going to happen to the audience, but I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't impact Republican voters. What do you think Bill?

Speaker 4:
[18:47] Yeah, Bill, is this like January 6th? Because remember, after January 6th, Fox got a little squirrely and started trying to back away from Trump.

Speaker 1:
[18:56] And their numbers dropped out.

Speaker 4:
[18:59] Right, and their numbers dropped out and they pivoted back hard into, no, no, no, gotta be on Team Trump here.

Speaker 3:
[19:06] I don't know, obviously. And so much depends on what happens in the real world. If we have a real recession because of the terrorists and because of the war, I think that's a very different world than where the economy chugs along adequately and he backs out of the war without too much damage or too much obvious damage and so forth. So I really, I think it's very hard to say. I agree with Katie that there is this kind of trickle down or delayed effect often. But I also just say those 82% of the Republicans or whatever, they're still thinking, they're still with Trump. 48% people here in Virginia were still with, okay with the Republicans. I mean, it's a little complicated with some of the redistricting and stuff like that, but basically they weren't, they didn't feel strongly enough to deserve Trump. The Republicans stuck with them. So the party loyalty remains very strong. Look, these people are influential, but how influential? 77 million people voted for Trump. What does Tucker get to? Three million, four million people? Maybe another one, two or three million for Alex Jones. You could have an authoritarian movement that has 10 million people who were, quote, true believers, who are very upset that Trump is not coming through on key things. But the other 60 or 70 million are still like, you know what? He's fighting the left and the economy. I mean, this is where it does depend on reality. He was helped so much by the economy being pretty good or feeling like it was pretty good, or he was able to convince people was pretty good for most of his first term, and then managed to blame the last year on COVID. That I think is really crucial. Reality will matter for some chunk of those voters out there.

Speaker 4:
[20:33] But Bill, we're so hot right now. America is the hottest country ever. Everybody's talking about how hot we are.

Speaker 1:
[20:41] Very hot. Can we talk about Iran and what is going on there, you guys, whether it's Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan of the New York Times or this article in the Wall Street Journal behind Trump's public bravado on the war, he grapples with his own fears. I'm curious. Just give me your perspective on what is happening with this war. Because honestly, I've been following it-ish, and I'm so confused.

Speaker 4:
[21:16] Bill?

Speaker 3:
[21:18] He got into it because he thought it would be Venezuela again. I think it's pretty clear from evidence. He thought it would be quick and easy, and he was against foreign intervention. Then it turned out it's great to be a big guy on the world stage. You always like being a big guy on the world stage. He was never truly an America first person. It was like he wanted to be a big shot. Then it turned out using that military with Nick Seth there, he could race the military in a way Mattis and Esper really wouldn't let him do in the first term. He gets to be the guy with the military. It goes way back in Trump's personal life. He didn't serve, obviously, but he always had that fetishistic, if we could be honest, love of a cartoon version of the military. So he loved all that, and he thought this would be Venezuela. Then he was shocked that it wasn't. He should have stopped it, obviously, gotten out after three days and declared victory, but he didn't. Then the Strait of Hormuz got closed pretty quickly, and suddenly it's like reality, and the other side gets a vote, and the economy starts to get affected. Then the bombing is supposed to bring them to their knees, but it didn't, and then it turns out they have some more assets, and it's not so easy to even get the ceasefire and wiggle out that way, because Iran now feels its oats a little bit, and they're deciding to make Trump pay a price, and they want to remind everyone that they can control the Strait when they want to. I still think we get, it ends, I still think we get a ceasefire, we get something like what people are now expecting, which is sort of a fake deal, where Trump has some ability to say that he, I don't know, has some guarantee that the nuclear program is set back a bit, and they have destroyed a fair amount of Iranian missiles and killed a lot of Iranian leaders and a lot of Iranian people. But at the end of the day, the Iranian regime is there, and it's a big, huge defeat for us, I believe, in terms of the world as a whole, our alliance structure, the Middle East reliability of the US, not keeping the strait open, abandoning the principle of freedom of the seas and so forth. But Trump maybe can wiggle out of it. I don't know, it's hard for me to, and obviously, but with final point, though, you made the point about the journal, the journal piece in particular is striking, the account of how the senior military officials kept Trump out of key meetings, out of a key operational meeting when they were rescuing the airmen, because they thought he was so erratic, they didn't want him there reacting to every little thing. I mean, that, I don't know, I wonder how much internally they really are worried about him and whether that affects the military's willingness to do things, that they've sort of swallowed hard but gone along with blowing up these boats without any evidence that the people on them are actually enemy combatants. And even if they are spugning drugs, that doesn't mean we can just blow them up. But they went along with that. They went along with this war. General Cain is swallowing hard and going along with standing next to Pete Hicks out there at the Pentagon. I don't know. I wonder what's going on internally after this. But I guess my instinct, I could totally be wrong, is that this war kind of comes to an end, that Trump gets to bloviate about and gets to get out of it, basically. But final point, I believe that his one lesson would be, a normal person's lesson would be, maybe I was right about staying out of these Middle East wars and kind of staying out of wars. I go back to demagoguing immigration and making money. But I don't think so. I think in that respect, he's had a taste of the blood. I think Cuba, Greenland, I think he wants successful foreign adventures, especially if his poll numbers are going down, he thinks that's the way to do it. So I'm very worried that we're going to have more illegal and unconstitutional wars led by a commander in chief who's erratic and totally reckless and irresponsible, and maybe with, unfortunately, senior aides and maybe even the military going along with more stuff than they should.

Speaker 1:
[24:52] Even if it costs him significant support among Republican voters?

Speaker 3:
[24:57] Well, Cuba will be popular. If he can do it like Venezuela, it'll be at least mildly popular. But I think at this point, he's not thinking about voters. I mean, he's beyond that in a way. He's not calculating, am I gaining 2% or losing 2%? He's got an image of himself in his mind. It has to do with the triumphal arch and the ballroom and everything like that. Bagely, he assumes that if he can pull all this off by 2028, he can convince everyone that we're the hottest country in the world and that we're great. If he can't pull it off, who knows? Then he might have to try a coup or he'll just take the money and run and go to Saudi Arabia or something. But he, or I guess stay here, but he, I don't think the normal political kind of constraints are working quite the way they would with every other president we've seen.

Speaker 1:
[25:43] But don't you think that so many people at the Pentagon feel, I mean, I used to cover the Pentagon back in the day and I talked to a lot of Pentagon reporters. But you have to think, well, he fires the secretary of the army and you've got to imagine there's so much of the leadership that is going, holy shit, what is going on with this guy? From the stuff he posts on True Social to his impulsivity when it comes to actually starting this war in the first place without really weighing all the different potential outcomes and not even really considering the economic impact of closing the street of Hormuz. I mean, you've got to imagine most military people who are obviously real patriots, understand military strategy, care deeply about the code of conduct, about the military, they have to be shaking their heads and saying, this is insanity, don't you think? I mean, and they've got Pete Hegseth waging this holy war and quoting pulp fiction and what are they going to do? I mean, I would love to be a fly on the wall. Now, they won't even let journalists be flies on the walls at the Pentagon. But I would love to really get an honest appraisal of him as commander in chief from career military people who've got to be super alarmed about the way he's prosecuting this war and conducting himself.

Speaker 3:
[27:20] I'm going to say one quick thing and then I want to hear from JVL. I mean, I've heard this from people too who are in or near the Pentagon that a lot of these old senior general officers are very unhappy and all. On the other hand, the civilian control of the military is deeply ingrained. They spent 30 years being taught this. It's a good thing for this country, 95 percent of the time that they believe deeply in the civilian control of the military. I think it's really led them, though, not to push back as much as some of them might have. A lot of people have been fired, and a lot of other people have been intimidated. A lot of people, it's not so easy to give up after 28 years, and you're on the cusp of really high position in the military just to walk away. In that respect, Trump and Hegsteth have been smart in all the firings and stuff. They're promoting people who are more susceptible to their view of the world. I think it's a mixed bag. I think there's a lot of unhappiness. I think if he tries to do Cuba or Greenland, we could have a genuine constitutional crisis. We could have the entire Joint Chiefs say, I'm sorry, we're not doing that. We're resigning. And the next tier could then resign. And then Trump promotes, Hegsteth promotes it one star to be a four star. I'm making this up. But you know what I mean? You could have a genuine, I agree with your instinct, Katie, which is it's a very unstable, beneath a sort of surface, it's a very unstable situation. JVL, what do you think?

Speaker 4:
[28:38] We did have the military push back against Trump for the first time last week. So, I mean, Trump announced that, he announced on Truth Social, he said we are closing the Strait of Hormuz or blockading the Strait of Hormuz. That would have been a violation of international law. And so a lot of people were like, we're doing what now? Hold on, how? We're not allowed to do that. And CENTCOM waited, I think it was two days or three days. And then CENTCOM finally clarified, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're blockading Iranian ports. We are not blockading the Strait. You can blockade ports of a belligerent country as an act of war. It's not a special military operation though. It is an act of actual, the legal definition of war. And that's what we're doing. And Trump has continued to say publicly that we're blockading the Strait, but we're not. Like this, it's this weird and maybe it's like a distinction without a difference to most people, but it does seem to be important to me that the military has said, the president can say that we're blockading whatever he wants to, but that would be illegal and we're not doing that. We're blockading the ports of Iran.

Speaker 3:
[29:47] And I heard second hand that the Jags, whose ranks have been decimated by Trump, and he's getting more, so he's got a few friendly ones, probably. Even so, they took targets off the list that Trump and Hexeth wanted for the bridges and the electric power and so forth, and he's got a lot of stuff that really was civilian or primarily civilian. Now, presumably Trump isn't going over that list. So I think there is a little, I agree, there is more pushback. It's just hard to know if that ever breaks through to someone emerge who's kind of a leader, who's a Mark Milley type. Mark Milley in 2020 was willing to, in December of 2020, when Trump was plotting his coup and getting ready, trying to do what we saw the visible side of in January 6th, Mark Milley was privately talking, and this has been reported, to former Secretary of Defense and to others about what do we do if he really tries to call out the troops here and stay in the White House. And I don't know that, I don't think Cain is probably quite doing that, but you don't know what's happened. But it didn't get much any press at the time, I don't think. So these things, these guys can act discreetly, and I think, but I think they're anguished, a lot of them. They really do believe in civilian control. They really don't. They feel like they can do some good by staying there, which I don't disagree with. They feel that this is their institution. They've devoted their whole life to it from age 21. I mean, it's, you know what the military is like, Katie. It's different from our world. I mean, this is what they've spent their lives doing and the idea of we need to preserve it, we need to defend it, if we can get through these next two and a half years, we'll give it over to the next president in a responsible way. And we have to kind of bite hard and just suck it up here when this jackass Hexeth does his thing for now and we'll call it the Department of War for a while. And I mean, I think there's a lot of anguish over there though.

Speaker 4:
[31:32] Bill, on my theory, and I'm curious what you think about this, is that the unbelievable ineptitude at the strategic level in this war must have hurt Trump's standing among senior officers and even senior officers who might have been inclined to be with you know, they don't like the woke stuff, you know, they, they're not Trumpy, but they don't like the DEI. They must have watched, I mean, they're, they're watching the same things we are, but more of it and closer up. And the erratic prosecution of this war and the unbelievable, just, you know, tackling and blocking stupidity at the strategic level from the president, the commander in chief, that must be making an impression on them. Don't you think?

Speaker 3:
[32:22] Yeah, I think so.

Speaker 4:
[32:23] Yeah, so in a weird way, I think that makes us a little safer. Like I think that the senior ranks of the military, that the experience of this war has probably, anybody who might have been inclined to go along with a strong man, I think probably has second thoughts of it, having watched just again, even the ceasefire, the on again, off again, right? So Trump gets this ceasefire, which is a huge giveaway to Iran. It was always gonna have to be a huge giveaway to Iran. There was no avoiding it. And instead of just taking his medicine and getting the deal done, he went and tried to renegotiate it. And so the ceasefire falls apart. We're gonna have to now renegotiate it. And we will renegotiate it, but it'll be on terms that are worse for us and would have been 10 days ago, 11 days ago. And so I agree with you, Bill. I think the ultimate end of this is not escalation, but we get to some sort of deal and the Iranians wind up just strategically much more secure. They become, they go from being a pariah state to being a middle power. And they have become incredibly useful to China. China through their relationship with Iran will now control the Strait of Hormuz and control the flow of all oil to that hemisphere and that side of the world, which enhances China's power over its neighbors.

Speaker 1:
[33:49] Isn't it going to inspire them to build up their nuclear capability? It might have the opposite effect of what everybody is sort of-

Speaker 4:
[34:01] Yeah, I think it will be hard to stop. I really do think over the long term, it is going to be very, very difficult to stop.

Speaker 3:
[34:08] Yeah, Israel is going to try to stop it, and they're pretty good at it, I'd say, or at least delay it. And secondly, it is an unstable regime. So I think my only caveat to the way you put it, JVL, is that that assumes it's kind of a stable middle power that's growing, you know, kind of India or something becoming stronger as it moves forward. But it's kind of a mess. And so I really, it could blow up in all kinds of different ways. That could be even more dangerous, incidentally. I mean, you could have a lot of chaos in the Middle East. Who knows what the world is going to look like six months from now. I agree. China has been a big winner. Russia is something of a winner. Though again, that country is such a mess that Ukraine is doing so well now. So it seems like that Putin must be both, it's both very strong but also weak underneath. It's a very chaotic and uncertain world out there. The one thing we know is that the 80 years of the US being a fairly reliable anchor of the post-World War II order, both in terms of economics, but also geopolitics and strategy and security. That's over, I think. And I think it's God knows what comes next.

Speaker 4:
[35:06] Would you agree that there's no going back to that, Bill?

Speaker 3:
[35:08] Yeah, I mean, there are ways to reconstruct a version of it, I would say, maybe the next president, but very hard to go back.

Speaker 1:
[35:16] Do you think that any of these, I think they can be repaired with different leadership, but I think it all depends on who's in charge and how reliable that partner is.

Speaker 4:
[35:30] Let me try to talk you out of that, Katie.

Speaker 1:
[35:32] Very specific, Trump is NATO alienation.

Speaker 4:
[35:37] I would try to talk you out of it by saying that maybe after Trump won, the rest of the world could have said, yeah, okay, well, everybody can screw up once, the Americans didn't understand what they were doing. But we did it twice now. I feel like if you're doing long-range strategic planning for your country no matter who you are, whether you're Japan or South Korea, or you are an EU country, or hell, if you're the Chinese trying to figure out what you're going to do, you can't make your plans on the hope that America won't do it a third time. What's the line? There's some French minister who's like, our security cannot be hostage to 40,000 people in Wisconsin every four years. That's right. This is a problem of the American people. This is a problem of what America is and who America is. We've proven ourselves unreliable, and the rest of the world can't unsee that.

Speaker 3:
[36:35] Yeah. The only thing we have going is that it's not so easy for them to liberate themselves from us in terms of their security, and so they'll go slow and they are going slow in doing that. They're doing it, we're doing it, but they're doing it carefully and trying to keep NATO going as long as it can. Incidentally, I very much agree with JVL made a point in passing quickly, which I think is important to dwell on. Think if Iran had gone very well for Trump and think if Orban had won. Then you're in a world, I think, where the pro-NATO forces in Europe, it's not like Europe doesn't have Trumpy movements in France, in Germany and so forth. Trumpy is a little, I don't know what, they don't come from Trump, they're analogous to Trump. They would be incredibly strong. I think Orban's defeat plus Trump's in effect defeat in Iran, has been very good actually in the sense of, if you're now a centrist European, pro-democracy European, you think, you know what? Maybe not all the wind is, and also the fact that Ukraine is doing okay. Maybe the wind isn't entirely at their back, and maybe it actually strengthens Katie's point a little bit. Maybe they think, okay, maybe we can make it through these next two and a half years. Zelensky hangs on, places like Hungary, we get momentum in a good way in Central Europe and the Americans come to their senses. But I agree, doing it twice was a very big mistake of the American people.

Speaker 1:
[37:56] Can I ask you guys about just a couple of areas I want to cover before we wrap tonight? You were talking about poll numbers and the Republican Party still staying behind Trump, but I wanted to read some of these Reuters, Ipsos poll numbers. His approval rating remains at 36% with 62% disapproving. Majority of Americans, including some Republicans, questioning his temperament. The poll showed many Americans, including some members of Trump's part, Republican Party have some concerns about the 79-year-old president's temperament and mental sharpness. Following a series of explosive outbursts, I'm assuming they're talking about true social. Some 51% of Americans, including 14% of Republicans, 54% of independents, and 85% of Democrats said Trump's mental sharpness has gotten worse over the past year. You have Jamie Raskin wanting to invoke the 20th Amendment. Talk about the poll numbers and what you're seeing here and the erosion of support and sort of the skepticism and concern about his mental, about his faculties really.

Speaker 3:
[39:10] Oh, they're bad. I mean, they're getting close to Nixon levels now in 74. And it was one poll, amazingly, that showed a majority of Americans want Trump to be impeached and removed from office, including quite a number of Republicans. If those Republicans are thinking that they're kind of semi normie Republicans, or even mega Republicans who aren't personally in the Trump cult, they're just thinking, well, why don't we just get JD Vance in there? And we have a much saner, mega-ish, Republican-ish administration. It's not a crazy view, you know? So I think Trump's personal hold on the party has diminished some. Anyway, no, I think his numbers are bad, and we'll see if they keep going down or not. And I do think it bodes poorly for the Republicans in the midterm election. So yeah, no, it's pretty striking. I mean, in this respect, I think the public erosion, it's been slow and frustratingly slow for some of us, and it's a point a month, or if that even from what is about a point a month now, actually, if you think about it, 15 months, he's been in office, and he's gone from 50 to not really quite to 35, probably in most polls, but certainly 38-ish, I'd say. So if that keeps going, then you really are at Nixon levels, and then you, I think, you could, these things just go slowly until they go quickly. And I don't know what point, it has not broken his hold on the Hill. Mike Johnson and the House Republicans pretty much do what he wants, four of them deserve it, six of them deserve it. It's a headline, they pass something, but it's tiny. Same with in the Senate side. I don't know. This is where I think the combination of the poll numbers going down, and maybe a slowing economy, and maybe a pretty visible defeat in Iran, we could hit something like a tipping point, I suppose.

Speaker 1:
[40:46] What do you think, JVL?

Speaker 4:
[40:48] I don't know. So the most interesting number I saw was yesterday. Bloomberg had the spot inflation on food and it was up. I'm just going to pull it up, make sure I don't get the number. 7.9 percent year over year for the month of March. It's almost 8 percent food prices. That will show up soon in the rest of the numbers. So on the one hand, yes, I could see us maybe hitting a tipping point. On the other hand, I did make this mistake in Trump 1. So I had thought about this time in 2018, he's going to get wiped out in the midterms, and that is going to be the Republican Party's moment to abandon him. They'll say, we tried this experiment, it was a failure. We've got to watch this guy stink off of us, and we've got to get rid of him and move on. And the opposite happened. The 2018 midterms were a tipping point, and they were the tipping point at which the institutional Republican Party went from being conditionally with Trump to being fully on board all in, no matter what, with Trump.

Speaker 1:
[42:01] Why?

Speaker 4:
[42:01] Why wouldn't? I mean, I don't know.

Speaker 3:
[42:05] They held the Senate. That was very important. Remember, they had that rally at the end with the confirmation of Kavanaugh and stuff.

Speaker 4:
[42:11] They may hold the Senate this time, too.

Speaker 3:
[42:12] That's why the Senate is the most important election this fall. I agree. If they hold the Senate.

Speaker 4:
[42:17] Why couldn't that happen?

Speaker 3:
[42:18] If they hold the Senate, it could happen. I think if he loses both houses, it's a side to it. But I think it's still more likely than not. It's more likely than not that whoever, let me put it this way. Do you not agree that whoever Donald Trump endorses for president in 2028, let's just leave aside whether it's himself or Don Jr. or maybe in advance, maybe he goes more in a way JVL and I don't think. Or Rubio. Whoever he endorses is very likely to be the Republican nominee.

Speaker 4:
[42:42] Yes.

Speaker 3:
[42:42] Yeah. Trump will still them up. In that respect, I don't expect a desertion of Republican office holders from Trump. Whether in the public, there's appreciable erosion. But also, and this is something Katie, you know a ton about the media side of it and also some of the big private sector institutions, businesses. They are not discerning Trump yet. For me, that's really astonishing. The public, whatever you think of the public, they've gone from 50 percent to 38 percent. Elite businesses, elite law firms, elite media, they haven't gone anywhere. There's zero desire. Look, they have practical reasons. You're running a big company, you got to get along with Trump administration.

Speaker 1:
[43:16] Well, they want a merger approved, Bill.

Speaker 3:
[43:18] Right, they want a merger approved. They want this, they want that. Trump is so, the ruthless exercise of the levers of power of the executive branch has done well. Trump has done well by that and he's not relenting on that. Quite the contrary, Justice Department, more aggressive than ever and going after everyone. More shameless than the merger stuff, right? I mean, so I think that gives him an awful lot of power for an awful long time. Could that eventually break? Sure, but I think that makes it stickier than just a pure public opinion referendum.

Speaker 1:
[43:49] Right. What about JD Vance, you guys? I mean, has his standing gone down significantly? People are talking about the campaigning for Orban and taking on the Pope and saying the Pope doesn't understand theology and now Dick Cheney, according to one poll, is more popular than JD Vance, which made me smile when I knew I was talking to you, Bill. So I'm curious if you all feel that JD Vance, his star is falling a little bit and if it's just a temporary thing.

Speaker 3:
[44:27] JVL, what do you think?

Speaker 4:
[44:29] Is there anybody more loathsome in American politics than JD Vance? I don't think there is, honestly. I would take Donald Trump over JD Vance. I'd probably take Nick Fuentes over JD Vance. Because again, these people authentically believe whatever they believe at least. You could say that JD is just, who knows? He's a horrific shape-shifter. I would say this, I think JD Vance's life has become difficult because he saw himself as the bridge who could hold the far-right America firsters together with the more traditional Republican types. With Tucker breaking up with Trump, that puts JD in a very awkward spot. Trump, Tucker's son who was working for JD has left JD's office. That strikes me as probably meaningful. On the other hand, JD was always playing an inside game. JD has never had popular support for anything, right? His entire life has been being a supplicant to people with more power and getting them to give him things. It started with Amy Chua and then it became Peter Thiel and then it became Donald Trump. And in order for him to go to the next rung, which is to become president, he was going to need somebody else to bless him and give him that nomination. He was never going to be able to put together the popular support to go out and like win a primary election on his own. And so for him, it really is about persuading Trump not to run, persuading Tucker not to run, and persuading Don Jr. not to run. And so if those three were out and Trump played hands on him, then he could be the nominee and he would just roll the dice in general election. Maybe you win, maybe you don't. It depends on a lot of external factors. I don't think that has changed. Like his life is more uncomfortable. He is in a more ludicrous position publicly, but he's always been in a ludicrous position. I mean, he is a laughing stock and has been among serious people for many, many years at this point. It's just a little more so. But strategically, it hasn't changed what he needs to happen in order to wind up becoming president someday. Because he was never going to be able to command a popular movement on his own. That's my view. I don't know, Bill.

Speaker 3:
[46:55] Yeah, mostly. I think that's a good analysis. I just wouldn't, it depends. Are we in normal politics or are we in post-normal politics? In normal politics, if you come in as vice presidents, you usually get the nomination if they want it. I mean, George HW. Bush had a rough beginning of the second term with Reagan. The Reaganites didn't like him, but the people who were anti-Reagan didn't quite like him, and he was a wimp because he was going along with Reagan. Then at the end of the day, Reagan sort of blessed him, and anyway, he won a couple of key primaries, defeated Dole and Kemp, and got the nomination, and then he won Reagan's third term as it were. I mean, unlike George HW. Bush, I'm not denigrating him here. I just think that was the practical realities of it. Maybe people I know who were more traditional think this is, at the end of the day, the rules of politics come back. Trump was weird, but Vance probably is the nominee because he bridges the sort of normish establishment such as it is and MAGA. But I don't know, I don't know. The other thing, just on this whole thing, I mean, the degree to which these tech bros, but generally the Republican billionaires are powerful is really something. We haven't really seen this in a long time in American politics, and it's not true in the Democratic Party. They have plenty of billionaires, and I know some of them and some of them have some power, but they're not actually very powerful and they don't think the same way. They think they should support someone they like, and of course, they should nudge them to do certain things. It probably means that the party is more pro-AI than it should be because some of their big donors are pro-AI and so forth, so that it should be politically at least, and I think substantively too. But the Republican billionaires have a totally different attitude, especially the MAGA-ish billionaires and the tech billionaires. I don't know, when we talk about the Republican Party, are we talking about voters? Are we talking about 50 unbelievable heavyweights, and what they decide? It's not quite a normal political party in the way we think of it, I think.

Speaker 1:
[48:50] That's depressing, and you're talking about...

Speaker 3:
[48:54] That's us, man. Get someone cheerful on next week.

Speaker 1:
[49:00] Mark Zuckerbergs, and we're talking about that cohort.

Speaker 4:
[49:04] Yeah, and Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, right? Yeah. Mark Andreessen. I mean, you have a bunch of these very weird guys.

Speaker 3:
[49:13] They've internalized it. They love the power. I think that's another thing. Look, everyone likes to be clattered and courted and stuff, and I did it a little bit when I was in politics and in government, and stuff, you're nice to these people who are powerful. But the Republican stuff, it's sort of out of control. And the MAGA stuff and the chlorine in it, the conspicuous consumption, to say the least. There's a good piece about Bezos, wasn't there? I haven't really read all of it, but what he was like in 2018...

Speaker 4:
[49:39] I saw that in my newsletter.

Speaker 3:
[49:40] Okay. What he was like in 2018 as supposed to now, someone who went to a... And that he was still like a normal...

Speaker 1:
[49:46] Yeah, I heard that.

Speaker 4:
[49:47] It was in The Atlantic. Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[49:49] It was like he was a normal rich person. I mean, he was kind of... But it was a normal... And now it's just a different planet. I really feel that way with some of these guys.

Speaker 1:
[49:57] He went to his weekend or whatever kind of conference he had. Yeah, that was a funny article. And then his wife broke her wrist, right?

Speaker 4:
[50:07] Yeah, and he and his kids got foot, mouth disease.

Speaker 1:
[50:11] Yeah, basically walked away when he told him what had happened to his wife. Like not one scintilla of empathy, just kind of basically like, jeep. Okay, see, it was weird. All right, we got a couple more things just to cover, and then I'm going to let you guys go. But let's talk about my home state of Virginia. Bill, you live in northern Virginia, right? Right. Okay. So this redistricting, just as we're going to go live, a Virginia judge blocked the state from certifying the results of Tuesday's congressional map referendum, deeming the referendum and the bill that triggered it as unconstitutional according to the judge's order issued Wednesday. Virginia's current Attorney General Jay Jones confirmed that his office would appeal the decision. Why don't you just review what happened, Bill, yesterday in Virginia? Obviously, it's all a part of this tit-for-tat redistricting battle that started in Texas and then in California, and then Republicans followed suit in North Carolina and other states. Now, Virginia got a lot more congressional districts that would favor the Democrats.

Speaker 3:
[51:17] Right. In Virginia, there was a constitutional amendment, in 2020, that established a nonpartisan commission to do this, and it passed by two to one, and I remember voting for it. They actually did a good job. They set up 11 districts, they split six to five in the most recent election, the Democratic over Republican, which is the split of the state. The districts were contiguous and tried to keep communities together. They had various political science criteria. They tried to follow these. They were actually literally political scientists and those types who arranged these districts under the supervision of the legislature and the court. But, once Texas and other already gerrymandered state legislatures decided we're going to follow Trump's wishes and further gerrymander our congressional delegation, Newsome in California said no, no, no.

Speaker 1:
[52:04] In the middle of a cycle, we should say.

Speaker 3:
[52:06] In the middle of a cycle where it doesn't, that's supposed to happen. California also had to go to the, because these being Democratic states, they actually had movements in the last decade or two to try to go to non-partisan redistricting, which was a good idea, in fact, in principle. So Newsom went to the ballot in November. They won easily and they are redistricting. A similar situation in Virginia, you have to get a popular vote. Here it was closer, considerably closer for a couple of reasons. I mean, it was just that people would prefer not to have these districts gerrymandered the way they're going to be. They are a little weird. They go all the way from Northern Virginia, all the way 75 miles down to Central Virginia, in order to create the most Republican, distribute the voters most efficiently. A lot of voters in Central Virginia actually weren't real happy being shoved into districts where they're going to be a minority of the district. The representatives, most of the districts in Northern Virginia in terms of population, the representatives likely to be from Northern Virginia. I think Democrats, the pro-referendum people lost some votes down there. Charlottesville in that area, which you know well, didn't turn out quite as well for the Democrats for the referendums they might have. But Northern Virginia came out big and it passed by about three and a half points. I think the courts will ultimately uphold it. I think it will move three or four seats. It will help mean the whole redistricting thing that Trump launched almost a year ago will end up being a net wash. For me, the biggest story is the Democrats swallowed hard. They didn't like doing this. They like non-partisan redistricting. I give them credit for liking it, incidentally. I think it's a good sign for the pro-democracy political movement that it was reluctant to do this in a way. But they did it, which is also a good sign. You cannot sit on your hands and wring your hands while the other party just goes about ruthlessly changing the rules in the middle of the cycle, as you said. That's where we are. I think we'll end up with more Democratic representatives from Virginia. Final point, the referendum was temporary. It changes the situation for four years, and then we go back in 2030 to a nonpartisan commission. I think it's a reasonable way to deal with it on the part of Virginia.

Speaker 1:
[54:18] Didn't Eric Holder do a whole thing where they tried to pass legislation but prohibited gerrymandering?

Speaker 3:
[54:26] The House Democrats voted for legislation that would have prohibited the kind of gerrymandering we've seen. There's some issues about whether the federal government can actually do that, but Congress probably could, actually. The president can't do it by himself, just like with mail-in ballots and all that. That passed the House literally in 2021 in the Biden years. It didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, and the Republicans were against it. The Democrats, whatever one thinks of the little bit of, I don't know, changing views here or accommodating to realities, what I would say, which is a reasonable thing to do if you're a political party. But to be fair to them, they passed this legislation when they had the majority in the House in 2021, and they say they will pass it again if they get the White House and the Congress. So I think they've, but I give them credit. Look, I mean, JVL has a good piece today which he used to talk about, urging them to go further as it were, but I give them credit for, people think the Democrats are hapless, they won't fight. What did Robert Frost say? A liberal is someone who won't take his own side in a fight. And I think on this redistricting thing, which was a big card that Trump and the Republicans played, the Democrats stepped up.

Speaker 1:
[55:31] The bottom line, you guys, is after all is said and done, it's a wash, right? But it would have been catastrophic for the Democrats if they hadn't played the game.

Speaker 3:
[55:40] Yeah, it would have been bad for them in terms of numbers. And I think also psychologically, I think it would have been devastating. JVL, talk about the piece you wrote today. That was excellent.

Speaker 4:
[55:47] Look, unilateral disarmament is not a path to peace, right? So when you have an illiberal party trying to displace American democratic liberalism, saying, we in our states, where we believe in liberal democracy, are going to try to do good government, and we will not gerrymander, and if, you know, we're just too wrong, don't make it right, we're not going to do that. That is not helpful for the cause of liberalism long term. You have to have deterrence. And I give Democrats a great deal of credit for, as Bill said, this referendum in Virginia is sunset in four years. This is a proportional response to Republican illiberal aggression. And Democrats, as Bill said, they passed in 2021 at the federal level. If Republicans don't like this, they should join the Democrats to pass a national ban on this practice, which would be good for America.

Speaker 1:
[56:51] I agree. And finally, are you guys going to the White House? Neither of you will be at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Speaker 4:
[56:58] Never again.

Speaker 3:
[57:01] I haven't been in a while. Have you been? Do you go usually, Katie, or no?

Speaker 1:
[57:05] No, I haven't been for a while. I mean, I wouldn't go unless I were with a network. I think the last time I went, I think Yahoo News, woo, bought a table, and I went with them. But after that, no, I haven't been. Because, I mean, I'm an independent journalist now, so who would I go with?

Speaker 2:
[57:26] Well, the Bulwark is probably a table.

Speaker 3:
[57:27] I'm sure someone would take you. Well, we don't buy a table.

Speaker 1:
[57:30] The Bulwark needs to buy a table.

Speaker 3:
[57:31] It's never because shows how different it is than in our day, Katie, and we'll use it. It was interesting to go and fun and all that. But I mean, I don't think it's ever come up in a single discussion at the Bulwark that should we get a table or two? When we started the Weekly Standard in 1995, JVL was there, a very young JVL, and we bought tables the first few years. It was important to establish us as a reputable Washington magazine. Of course, you have to have a couple of tables, maybe even throw your own little reception where you certainly get yourself invited to the different receptions and so forth and parties as you recall. But it is not what it once was, I think. The glory days were when you got all dressed up, Katie, and came to the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Speaker 1:
[58:10] Yeah, well, they have a picture of me in 1979, my first White House Correspondents Dinner when I was a desk assistant at ABC News. I know how embarrassing, I was a little heavy-handed.

Speaker 4:
[58:20] You're adorable.

Speaker 3:
[58:21] Yeah.

Speaker 4:
[58:22] You are adorable.

Speaker 1:
[58:24] I went to Stemms where an educated consumer is your best customer and bought our little dresses. Honestly, it was such a big deal. I was so excited. I actually saw Jane Pauley out in the wild. I was so thrilled. They were fun for a while, but honestly, I can't imagine the freak show it's going to be this year. You've got this president who trashes the press, who insults reporters on a daily basis, especially female reporters, but really all reporters who has no respect for the First Amendment, who started the fake news moniker, which I think has contributed to declining trust in the media. You've got to, I know Ose, the mentalist who's coming. I've got to know him a little bit. He's a great guy, but I guess Trump was terrified of having a comedian make fun of him the way, remember? I mean, I'll never forget. I was at the one, was I? I'm trying to remember if I was at the one.

Speaker 3:
[59:25] 2012, 2011, is that the famous one where Obama?

Speaker 1:
[59:27] When Obama desecrated him and apparently was one of the motivating factors for him running for president. But I just, it's just so, the incongruity of a room chock-a-block full of journalists, and this guy who hates them and insults them and yet craves their approval, right? It's like, again, that full psychological weirdness. It is going to be so weird, isn't it? I mean, I am interested in hearing what Trump says, aren't you?

Speaker 4:
[60:05] So I, I'm sorry, can I just rant for a moment?

Speaker 1:
[60:08] Yes, please, go for it.

Speaker 4:
[60:10] So I came to Washington desperate to work at the weekly standard to work for Bill Kristol. I had grown up, like I would, you know, I grew, I was a nerd in seventh and eighth grade, reading the New Republic and National Review, reading Chris Buckley novels, the White House mess. And I had this unbelievably romantic vision of Washington. And I remember getting to go to the first White House Correspondents Dinner and it was amazing. It was magical, absolutely magical. You know, I, I snuck into the Vanity Fair after party, pretending to be Fred Barnes. It was, it was amazing. And, and the Washington that existed back then really was the Washington of my dreams. Like everybody basically was on the same side. The conservatives and the liberals were fighting between all the cliches about the 40 yard lines were basically true. That world doesn't exist anymore. And we, we are living through an authoritarian attempt. It is categorically different than it was prior to 2016. And I really judge, I try not to tell, like everybody is, you know, out for living their own lives. I judge any journalist who's going to show up to this thing and pretend that it's just like the old days, that this is all normal and that, you know, oh, we're just joshing around with the president. The president's up there doing his things. You know, at the end of the day, we can all have a, have a bourbon together because we're all on the same side. That's not, that's not the case. And anybody who's going to this thing is, is complicit in normalizing this and downplaying the very real risks that there are for the country and for liberal democracy. And so shame on you. Sorry.

Speaker 1:
[61:52] I'd be embarrassed.

Speaker 4:
[61:53] You're puritanical.

Speaker 1:
[61:54] No, I hear you. I would be embarrassed. It's going to be so uncomfortable and so bizarre, you know? And with that, have a good time at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Speaker 4:
[62:08] Skip the dinner, just go to the parties.

Speaker 1:
[62:10] Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. The whole thing is, yeah, you know, in some ways I feel like reporters deserve the good ones, the good ones to celebrate the work they're doing. But the New York Times doesn't go, right? Because they think it's inappropriate to go. But there are, I imagine the Atlantic didn't buy a table. I can't imagine Jeffrey Goldberg is going to go to that dinner.

Speaker 3:
[62:35] Well, as you know, Katie, there will be people who are there because their bosses told them to be there, right? I mean, if the network's buy a table and you're in Washington, if you're the White House for Pentagon correspondent for NBC, you can't really say, I'm not coming. In fact, you're supposed to show up, you're supposed to get a guest from the administration. I was in the Reagan and Bush administrations and I wasn't the most important person. But even I got invited as a guest by people who was fun, as JVL was saying, as you were saying, and mixed and mingled with people you didn't know very well. And it was a social occasion.

Speaker 1:
[63:03] No, it was fun.

Speaker 3:
[63:05] Babysitter for the kids, get out for an evening with your wife. It was nice.

Speaker 1:
[63:10] It was fun. It was fun. And there were interesting people to talk to. And it was a celebration of the First Amendment, right? They give these awards to journalists and the White House Press Corps. The Correspondents Association actually does some good work, really some journalists. But you're right. It's a very different time. And it's I can't wait to read about it. I don't I don't mind not going, but I can't. It's sort of like the Star Wars bar, I think. I can't wait to see, like, all the bizarre stuff that happens here on Saturday night.

Speaker 4:
[63:44] Do you have a favorite memory from the Correspondents Dinner from your days?

Speaker 2:
[63:48] Either of you, Katie?

Speaker 1:
[63:51] I mean, I just remember, I just remember how fun it was just going to all the parties and seeing all the people and seeing Dan Rather and all these people who I really looked up to. And as I mentioned, Jane Pauling, kind of walking by and touching her dress. I was a freak. But you felt like you were part of something important, honestly, when you went there.

Speaker 4:
[64:19] And something good.

Speaker 1:
[64:20] Yeah. It was fun. It was fun to get dressed up. It was fun to see the ink-stained wretches all dressed up in tuxedos. As Mike Allen, I think coined the phrase, the nerd prom. It was just like a time where we felt like a part of a community that was doing good work and that also wanted to have fun and maybe celebrate itself a little bit. I don't know. And I just remember seeing George W. Bush like at a party and being like, hey, you know, it's just so weird, right?

Speaker 3:
[64:55] Yeah. It's not, it doesn't, it's not, this is not our Washington, it's not Washington anymore. And it's not our politics anymore, honestly. And maybe it'll get back to it, you know, but that five years from now we can all go and enjoy.

Speaker 1:
[65:06] And it was also fun by the way, to see all the celebrities. Cause for a while there, Bill, right?

Speaker 3:
[65:11] There were all sorts of celebrities. Yeah, that began in 87, 88. So then you got to the movie stars and the others. And that was always.

Speaker 4:
[65:18] Oh, I remember the Williams sisters were there one year, you know, and, or like the early in the American Idol craze, they were, you know, a bunch of people had been recently voted off from American Idol. The cast of the West Wing was there one year.

Speaker 1:
[65:31] Yeah, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, I think, one year.

Speaker 4:
[65:34] Heidi Klum, Christie Brinkley. I met Chris, I was with Matt Labash and I met Christie Brinkley one year. And that was a.

Speaker 1:
[65:42] That was everything you dreamed it would be and more.

Speaker 4:
[65:45] You know, it was, and yet my, my, my persistent memory is being unable to believe the size of her head. Christie Brinkley is a large headed person in a way that is, it was like small animals were trapped in orbit around her head. It was just she could blot out the sun.

Speaker 1:
[66:06] Her hair, because she is beautiful. I mean, she's so beautiful. I saw her at a city harvest event last night, so she's very fresh in my mind. She's very tall and very beautiful.

Speaker 4:
[66:18] So tall.

Speaker 2:
[66:19] Oh my God.

Speaker 4:
[66:21] So tall and so beautiful. I don't mean like, she didn't look, I don't mean that she looked like a freak with her head, but the combination of the hair and the head and the smile, because also she had, her mouth is like too big and she has too many teeth, like the piles. Okay, yeah.

Speaker 3:
[66:35] Yeah, it's cut, you know, I think it's weird. I think it's time here, you know.

Speaker 4:
[66:38] It's okay. Well, you know what? You have to picture me with Matt LaBash.

Speaker 1:
[66:41] Thank you for indulging me. Thank you for answering all my questions. This was really fun. I'll see you guys later. I can't wait to dish with you the morning after.

Speaker 3:
[66:51] Okay, good. Thanks, Katie.

Speaker 1:
[66:53] All right. See you guys. Bye. Take care.