2:01

particularly since her father was a doctor. And

2:04

she felt that since her father was a

2:06

doctor, she was technically a doctor.

2:08

So she could prescribe

2:10

medications. She knew

2:12

everything. And I just didn't

2:14

carry on the family tradition. In

2:17

any event, you

2:20

know, you and I were talking yesterday

2:22

and a few things crossed my mind

2:24

from our conversation where

2:26

I just sort of like to sort of tease it

2:28

out, share it in front of everybody else. And

2:31

they have to do with, as

2:33

we look forward into 2024, what

2:37

should the Democrats do with

2:39

regard to the House, the Senate, and the

2:41

campaign? I wanna start with the House.

2:44

There's a thin majority in the House, couple

2:47

of votes for the Republicans. But

2:50

we know that people, you know,

2:53

get sick, fall off their bicycles, things

2:55

happen. How should the Democrats

2:57

prepare for that? This

3:01

is, I would say this

3:03

way, David, it's political malpractice if

3:06

the Democrats don't prepare for

3:08

the possibility, which is a

3:10

real one, that for

3:12

a day or a week even,

3:15

the Republicans could drop below the

3:17

magic number needed to have a

3:19

majority. Now that's not 218. Right

3:23

now they've got 220. There are only

3:25

two over the majority status. But

3:27

Democrats have 213. So

3:31

let's say that somehow eight

3:34

Republicans either

3:38

ended up resigning, leaving early, forced

3:41

out the way George Santos was, and there are

3:44

a few who were in the Santos category who

3:46

ought to be expelled, or

3:48

end up with an illness, or

3:51

end up unable to come to Washington. Maybe,

3:54

given that we have COVID

3:57

back again, and given

3:59

that We

4:01

know that substantial numbers of

4:03

Republicans are unvaccinated and will

4:05

not mask under any circumstances.

4:08

Maybe a bunch of them come down with

4:10

bad cases of COVID. What do

4:12

you do then? My suggestion

4:15

strongly is that Democrats have a

4:17

plan prepared. And what would that

4:19

plan be? One,

4:21

immediately you use the Republican rule

4:23

against them, which is one member

4:25

calls for a motion to vacate

4:27

the speakership. You remove Mike

4:29

Johnson, who ought never to have been there

4:32

in the first place, and replace

4:34

him with Hakeem Jeffries. Then

4:36

you immediately change

4:38

the rules so that Democrats

4:40

have at minimum a majority,

4:43

even if only for a day or

4:45

a week on the rules committee, to

4:47

set the floor procedures, have

4:49

a majority on the budget committee,

4:52

and report out a reconciliation

4:55

bill. Remember, one that

4:57

only requires a majority in the

4:59

Senate. And that in that

5:01

bill, you pass the budget numbers

5:03

that we know have already been agreed to,

5:05

so you don't get a government shutdown. You

5:08

finally, once and for all, take

5:10

the idea of using the debt

5:12

ceiling as a hostage away. And

5:16

my preference, you have a

5:19

tax targeting the rich that

5:21

will pay for making the child

5:23

tax credit permanent. Something

5:25

that, when it was initially put in,

5:28

reduced child poverty by 50%, and

5:31

now it's gone back up again because

5:33

it expired. Then once

5:35

it's done, it's done. And even

5:38

if Republicans recapture the majority, with

5:41

Fox, of course, having gone to DEF

5:43

CON 1 over this outrage, you

5:46

have made enormous progress

5:49

in helping to keep the country

5:51

from going into chaos, and

5:53

helping to provide a

5:55

better safety net for people. So. and

8:00

Mike Flynn making those decisions. You're

8:02

absolutely right, however. We

8:05

have a set of norms,

8:08

rules, and laws in place, all

8:11

of which start with a premise that

8:14

the people in charge actually

8:16

will abide by their oaths and

8:19

will be sensible, grounded,

8:21

reasonable people. And

8:24

we can no longer abide

8:26

by that premise. Yeah, absolutely

8:28

right. And I can think of

8:30

dozens of other examples where

8:33

there are no provisions in the Constitution or

8:35

no provisions in the law to

8:37

constrain people to behave in ways

8:40

that are not gigantically destructive or

8:42

dangerous because nobody ever thought they

8:44

would. But we have now seen that

8:46

they would, and we need

8:49

structures, we need active

8:51

checks in order to

8:54

protect us, and not

8:56

the informal kind. In

8:59

this last example, Trump did say, he

9:01

did call up the Secretary of Defense at

9:04

one point, and

9:06

possibly more than one point, when it was

9:09

Mattis, and said, no, I think

9:11

we should launch an attack on North Korea.

9:14

And it was only because Mattis was a

9:16

fairly calm guy, and managed

9:18

to say to Trump, you know what? This

9:21

is a really interesting idea, Mr. President.

9:24

Let's talk about it tomorrow morning. And

9:27

he sort of diffused

9:29

the situation. But

9:33

Trump wants his next administration to be full

9:35

of a bunch of of

9:37

Todays who say yes, no matter

9:39

what, like Mike Flynn.

9:41

And then you get into a very dangerous

9:44

situation. Well, they would not

9:46

only be Todays doing

9:48

whatever he asked, but they would also

9:50

be filling his head with even more outrageous

9:53

and destructive ideas. So it's the

9:55

worst of both worlds. Yeah,

9:57

absolutely right. Let me ask you one more question.

10:00

that particular issue before I

10:02

turn to the Senate. Um,

10:06

it looks like, I mean, you know, it's just you

10:08

and me talking here. Nobody's listening. It

10:11

well, maybe 10, 20,000

10:13

people are listening, but other than that, um,

10:17

it looks like the Republicans are

10:19

pushing and pushing and pushing to

10:22

get Biden to accept

10:24

a series of immigration reforms, as

10:26

well as border funding in

10:29

order for them to provide, um,

10:32

a forward path by which we can get

10:36

aid for Ukraine, aid for Israel, other

10:38

kinds of national security aid approved.

10:42

Um, and they, you

10:44

know, we'll surely declare this

10:46

a big victory. Um,

10:51

but see, it strikes me that

10:53

if they do that and

10:55

Biden signs it, then

10:58

they're taking away one of their biggest

11:00

issues from the election campaign, because

11:03

Biden is going to be able to say, well,

11:05

yeah, I did what you wanted. Um,

11:08

I, I, we, we did the immigration

11:10

reforms. We did the border reforms. Um,

11:13

you can't, you know, I'm, I'm inoculated against

11:15

your criticism on that. What do you think?

11:19

Um, that could be, uh,

11:22

true if the

11:24

Republicans didn't lie shamelessly because

11:27

they'll continue having had their

11:29

victory. They'll take a quick victory lap,

11:31

talk about how weak Biden is, and

11:34

then go out there and bash him

11:36

on the border again and again, including

11:38

with the sort of farcical claims that

11:40

I see showing up on social media

11:43

all the time, that as we seize

11:45

large amounts of fentanyl at the border,

11:47

which shows that it's not an open border and

11:50

we're actually doing a pretty good job there, they

11:52

treat that as disastrous because it

11:54

shows that we're not. So

11:57

they will turn yes and to

11:59

no. and up into down and it'll

12:01

still be a problem for him. And

12:03

of course it'll hurt him politically, but

12:06

I think it could be worse than that. It

12:08

could be that Biden

12:11

accepts by swallowing

12:13

hard a really awful

12:15

pill with an immigration policy

12:17

that if it were there

12:20

for Trump would

12:23

mean just horrific

12:26

sadistic policies with

12:29

the denial of asylum to those

12:31

who deserve it, with imprisoning people

12:33

at the border and more, but

12:36

then have a house of representatives where

12:38

the feckless speaker, Mike Johnson, refuses

12:41

to bring it up because

12:44

he doesn't want a Ukraine or because

12:46

his colleagues don't. And

12:48

instead tries to put it back into

12:50

just a provision that makes

12:53

these draconian border changes and gives

12:55

aid to Israel and leaves out

12:57

Ukraine. So we're playing a

12:59

very dangerous game here. And,

13:01

you know, I think David, before we leave this, I

13:03

want to take it to another level. I'm

13:06

still, I still have imprinted in my

13:08

memory when during 2016, Lindsey

13:10

Graham, who

13:14

at the time was

13:16

attacking Trump mercilessly

13:19

said about his own party. There

13:22

comes a time when you have to

13:24

put country over party. Now,

13:27

what are we seeing here with this, uh,

13:31

blackmail to try and

13:33

force the president, Joe

13:35

Biden, to accept draconian

13:38

border policies, uh,

13:40

in return for aid to Ukraine

13:42

in effect, holding Ukraine

13:45

and freedom hostage for

13:48

political demands that

13:51

are now being forwarded

13:53

by Mitt Romney,

13:56

Lindsey Graham, Mitch

13:58

McConnell, and other. who

14:00

have professed their strong

14:03

support for Ukraine and

14:05

antipathy towards Putin and

14:07

Russia. This is one

14:09

of the most outrageous, reckless,

14:11

and dangerous cases of putting

14:13

party over country that I have

14:15

seen, and it deserves to

14:17

be condemned widely, and it's barely on

14:19

the radar screen on our national media.

14:23

No question about that. So

14:26

let me turn to the just a slightly

14:28

different subject. Let's turn

14:30

to the Senate. The

14:33

Democrats have a

14:36

razor thin majority in the Senate

14:38

at the moment, but

14:41

it looks like they may lose that. It looks like the

14:43

Republicans may lose the House. Democrats

14:45

may win it back next year, particularly

14:47

with recent findings

14:50

in New York about being

14:52

able to redistrict properly. But

14:58

the Senate could be lost, and so there are two

15:00

questions. What should the current

15:03

Senate, what should Chuck Schumer do with

15:06

the year he's got left, and

15:10

is there anything the Democrats can do

15:13

to hold on to the Senate? So

15:16

on the first front, what

15:19

we've seen this past year especially,

15:22

is Chuck Schumer

15:26

treating the Senate as if this were

15:28

just a normal time, business as usual.

15:31

They take their weekends, their

15:33

long weekends, they take

15:35

their usual recesses, long

15:37

recesses, and even though

15:39

you can give them credit for having

15:42

confirmed a lot of

15:44

judges, there are still substantial

15:47

numbers of vacancies out there.

15:50

And if there's one thing that

15:53

Chuck Schumer and the Democrats

15:55

in the Senate need to do, it is with

15:58

the Senate. the remaining

16:00

judicial confirmations, and

16:03

with now a whole lot

16:05

of executive confirmations still unsettled.

16:10

U.S. attorneys, key

16:12

positions in many departments,

16:14

including Justice, Defense, State,

16:17

still many ambassadors that

16:20

are not yet billed, is

16:22

to keep the Senate in as

16:25

long as it takes, long hours,

16:27

even weekends, and

16:29

make sure that there isn't

16:31

a single vacant judgeship left

16:34

by the end of this term. Because

16:37

if there is a Republican Senate,

16:39

as you say, there will be

16:42

zero judicial confirmations. All

16:44

of those will be kept open for

16:47

yet another four years if we see

16:49

Joe Biden reelected as president to

16:51

keep those slots open for

16:53

a Republican president. And

16:56

we know what kinds of judges they put in

16:58

place. And

17:00

you want to do the same to make

17:02

sure that there is a full administration going

17:05

forward. Now, I

17:08

don't see that happening. And

17:11

while it is theoretically possible

17:13

for Democrats to retain the Senate,

17:17

they would need to keep

17:19

their losses to two, assuming

17:21

that Biden wins reelection. There

17:25

would be a, where you could get to

17:27

a 50-50 Senate. The

17:33

reality is that there are

17:35

twice as many Democrats up as Republicans.

17:38

And among those seats that are upper Democrats,

17:41

West Virginia is an almost sure defeat. Even

17:46

if Joe Manchin were running, they would

17:48

lose. It's become a completely red state.

17:50

And the governor, Jim Justice, who

17:53

has a lot of money, is as close

17:55

to a sure thing as you get in an open

17:57

seat. We have

17:59

real problems. holding on to

18:01

states like Montana, Ohio,

18:04

Nevada, even though the

18:06

incumbents are extraordinarily good

18:08

and strong, John Tester,

18:10

Sherrod Brown, Jackie Rosen,

18:15

you know, there are no sure things here. And

18:18

if we lose one of those seats, that's

18:20

bad. But

18:23

we're not going to find many opportunities among the

18:25

10 Republican seats that are up. Florida

18:28

and Texas, which have two of

18:30

the biggest losers in the Senate, are

18:35

just not easy to

18:37

win, given that we have a tribal

18:39

environment and there are states that have

18:41

become pretty firmly read. So

18:45

you've got to focus on those states.

18:47

You've got to put the resources in.

18:49

You have to exploit the issues. The

18:52

ones that we know are the big issues. And

18:54

in Texas now, I think more than ever,

18:56

Texas and Florida, that includes abortion.

18:59

And in Florida, if

19:01

there's success, as it looks quite

19:03

possible that there will be,

19:06

and getting a referendum on abortion on

19:08

the ballot there, that may

19:10

bring a different kind of electorate to

19:12

the polls in 2024. And

19:15

maybe you could defeat Rick Scott, who

19:17

should be imminently defeatable. This

19:20

case in Texas

19:24

now, that's going to highlight the

19:27

inhumanity of the way they're

19:30

dealing with abortion, the Texas Supreme Court

19:32

making it even worse. Maybe

19:34

that will provide an opening for a

19:37

very good candidate, Colin Allred, to beat

19:39

the embarrassment

19:41

in the Senate, known as Ted Cruz.

19:45

But we're fighting an uphill battle there. The

19:47

fundamental reality is that more than likely the best

19:49

we can hope for in 2025 is averting

19:54

autocracy and

19:57

worse by having Trump

19:59

lose to... Biden, the

20:02

advantage of having a Democratic majority in

20:04

the House, but a Senate

20:06

that handles all the confirmations for the

20:09

cabinet, sub-cabinet appointees and

20:12

other administration officials and

20:14

all the judgeships, federal judgeships in

20:17

the hands of a group of Republicans who are going to

20:19

be even more radical than the

20:21

ones that are there now. Yeah.

20:26

Would it make sense for the Biden administration

20:29

to replace cabinet secretaries

20:31

now? At

20:35

least in theory, those

20:37

confirmations expire,

20:39

but they don't. And

20:42

in fact, I would

20:44

say Biden needs to go

20:46

to his cabinet secretaries and

20:49

to the under secretaries and

20:51

deputy secretaries and say,

20:53

I need to know

20:55

now whether if we

20:58

win reelection, you are going to pledge

21:00

to stick around for the second term

21:02

or at least the first two years

21:05

of that term. And if you aren't, I'm

21:07

going to have to replace you soon. You're

21:10

absolutely right. Yeah. Now,

21:13

your advice is always as deeply saged,

21:15

but I can see many people listening

21:17

can't, and I can see you're wearing

21:20

a University of Michigan alumni jacket.

21:22

Do you feel that in any way

21:25

your credibility is undermined by the scandal

21:27

that has settled over the

21:29

University of Michigan football team?

21:31

I am deeply saddened by

21:34

what's happened at the University of Michigan,

21:38

and it makes it a little more

21:40

difficult to root for them, although rooting

21:42

for them against Ohio State is never

21:44

a difficult task. And

21:47

rooting for them against Alabama, which is

21:49

going to be the next game, won't

21:51

be that tough either. That's

21:54

not so difficult either. I

21:57

have heard rumors that Jim Harbaugh,

21:59

the