Bill Kristol: Keep Up the Pressure, Dems

(upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to the Bullwark Daily. I'm your host Tim Miller. It is Monday, so of course we have editor at large, Bill Crystal. Hey, Bill. - Hey Tim, how are you? - I'm doing well. I've got some announcements for people real quick. Take us to the live shows, ACC Country, or on sale, Bill is going to be with us in Atlanta. You know, we're going to do Atlanta stuff while we're there. So get your tickets now. We have, I think a really exciting guest don't want to jinx it coming in Charlotte. Not the bill's not exciting for Atlanta, he is. - Yeah, I can take it. I can take it. I'm not, you know, offended. It's just, I'm happy to be second banana. Second banana is me, you know. - I think people will be excited about the Charlotte guests. And I'm planning on getting a little loose like one of my buddies coming in Columbia. So would any of the shows be a win? Get your tickets to the bullock.com/events. Last week, Bill and I discussed that the Labor Day pod be a retrospective on 1994, 2006. And then also kind of a look ahead to this midterms, sort of a wave year special episode. We heard a lot of feedback that people want that. So I'm getting my hair. My story's ready. Bill's refreshing his memory about 1994. I got this T-shirt brought to me in my former pod co-host Cameron Kasky brought this to me. This is a Operation Desert Storm T-shirt. So, you know, that was a freedom and justice for all, you know, so we're kind of getting in the 90s spirit for Bill Crystal. - Thank you, Tim. I'm pleased you didn't have a World War II T-shirt for me. World War One, you know, Spanish American War. - Operation Desert Storm, the good old days, anyway. So that's all coming up. Today's show, you know, the world is so strange. I guess we're gonna start with war. We're gonna do some Operation Desert Storm references. We'll start with the war being back on Ish in Iran. There was an exchange of fire in the state of Hormuz yesterday. First, US forces struck Iranian launchers on the Laraq Island. The rockets were allegedly according to Central Command set to disperse sea mines into the strait. Now, that is interesting because the administration was bragging to Axias just like 36 hours prior to that. That the seas were open. Sees were open. And you know the seas are open when you've got a bomb, the launchers that have the sea mines on them. That's a great sign that seas are open. Insurance companies love that. Hours later, Iran retaliated by firing a few missiles towards Jordan, all of which were intercepted. We are kind of running out of interceptors though. So partial good news there. That is the state of play. Meanwhile, there's also a leak with some warnings from top generals, military leaders, advising Hague South that prolonging large scale operations that Iran's unsustainable at risk tweaking their ability to confront threats everywhere. There are too many troops there, 50,000. The warnings came from the head of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and four-star commanders overseeing US operations in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. That was quite the leak to a Washington Post. So that's the state of play. - Honestly, it's good that some of the military or someone in the Defense Department, I suppose, or maybe elsewhere in the government, the National Security Council are revealing certain things to us since the military. The Defense Department has been utterly unrevealing about anything that's happened, very struck by this recent report. People who were in the military are getting more and more alarmed and also outraged about what's happened to our bases there. For example, something we've discussed before and the degree to which the damage that was done to huge US hubs by Iranian drones, disabling them. And we know that that's why the sailors on the USS Lincoln couldn't get the provisions and all that. - Particularly that base in Bahrain, the naval support. - Yes, it's a huge, I think maybe a biggest naval base, anywhere or certainly abroad or anywhere in the region, certainly. And the idea that it just gets put out of commission basically. And then, of course, we're not told about it and they sort of mislead everyone about it. Now, we're dominant. We're winning. It's a slaughter of the Iranians. And anyway, yeah, it's bad. - Just on this, this is Captain John Kotel retired captain who wrote about the military times. But it's basically saying that the more we learn about the attacks on the NSA, the naval support base in Bahrain during the opening days of Operation Epic Fury, the clear becomes why the news of its near destruction was not initially reported or acknowledged, extensive damage, et cetera, et cetera. So the bases, more damage than acknowledged casualties, at least the injuries, the number of injured troops more than they were initially acknowledging. Some of this, any time of the war, there's some element of this where you don't want to signal like, hey, we're really fucked in Bahrain, right? There's some strategic reasons to not do this. But this feels like more than that, especially when you listen to ex-noitary people, as far as the degree to which they've been hiding the ball. - And you put it on top of all the lying about the strage is open and we're winning. And they're decimated. They have no capacity left to use anything to do anything anywhere. And then suddenly they're launching missiles at Jordan, you know, again, yeah. And it is true, like, the blockade of the Iranian ships does seem to be having some impact. If you look at reports on the Iranian economy, so that is not wholly made up. Like there's something to that and who knows what, like pressure that could end up putting on them. And like ships have been being able to get through the straight and four moves recently, but it's just not anywhere near the pre-war rate. And, you know, again, we're not anywhere near any sort of actual sustainable deal, obviously, based on the missile firing over the weekend. - Yeah, and based on just the fact that everyone in the Middle East and around the world as we can see from different reports is adjusting to this new reality where we were unable to impose our well on Iran, unable to keep the straight open, unable to keep it open going forward without some degree of bowing to Iran and demands and pressure. The nuclear program is whatever it was. It hasn't changed, you know. I mean, they hit this not suddenly. The Iran is not hurrying to the table to assure us that they're giving up their nuclear weapons, Trump stopped them and, you know. So it's a failed war and failed wars have real consequences. - Average gas price is still over four bucks again on two. So negative impacts here. On that Washington Post thing, more threats from the administration to crack down on the leakers, I was a serious leak. Across the board, you just continue to see assaults on, you know, on free speech, on efforts to communicate the truth about the administration. Trump was threatening Kristen Welker ridiculously over the weekend. We'll just continue to see like a lot of examples of this from the administration. - Right, and then also hiring people there at the Defense Department to-- - Oh, we're gonna get to those guys. - Okay, we're saving them. - We'll come back. - I can keep track of all the thugishness at DOD. It is terrible. I just want to come back to maybe hexeth also since we all have such a low opinion of them, but having a thug running the Defense Department, I mean, it is bad, really bad for the country in so many ways in foreign policy and at home. I think it's really come home, hasn't it? I feel like I've always been, of course, critical of hexeth, but as you have, but I feel like it's really come home and the, well, of course, the war does that right. And then the last month or two or three just across the board, how damaging and dangerous it is. - Yeah, and incompetent, I'll get that. You know, not even like really a skilled one. Speaking of thugishness in foreign policy, the Venezuela oil deal over the weekend is total madness. I just want to read some visits from the Wall Street journals report on this. The US government is going to take a direct financial stake in a private company, private-ish that would be granted century-long rights to some of the world's largest proven oil reserves in Venezuela and tie us to the unelected government in Venezuela, the Delci Rodriguez, you know, coup government that we put in. The US would take a 35% passive stake in this company is run by Alejandro Betancourt and we'd secure preferential rights to purchase 20% of its production at cost. Betancourt did face criminal investigations of alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland. So that's the guy that we're all going into business with. That's the US government. And the substance agreement is in direct conflict with Venezuela's constitution. The coup was also in violation of the constitution. And then private like oil companies in America are going, what are we supposed to do now? Like we're going to be competing against the government that is, you know, pillorying the foreign country and taking some of the oil at cost. Why would we do that? Like what is the stability here? What happens when Trump's gone? What happens if Rodriguez is gone? It is really a crazy deal to have the US like be part of a state run, essentially oil company in Venezuela. - I mean, I think the odds of anything real happening there are pretty low. As you say, it's like Trump's negotiating something that the next US government's not going to feel that it should go ahead with. And the interim government to Venezuela is negotiating something that's not democratically legitimate or any, you know, approved by some assembly there, anything real. So, but it's object kind of US companies. Not do you think it's mostly, it's a PR stunt. I mean, I have some effect in I guess reassuring markets that there's plenty of oil. So they shouldn't, none of that oil in sale, they can come to the market for years. I mean, so with what effect current prices, maybe reassures people that we're not drawing down the oil reserves quite as much as we are or that they'll be filled up again in two or three or four years with this oil from Venezuela, but it's a PR stunt. It's to make it look like everything's working out. You remember, I remember that Venezuela one, that one went better than Iran and now look, we've got a good deal on oil, but. - I mean, a socialist PR stunt, I guess. Yeah, I, in part of it is you think this is going to help refill up the reserves that we've been draining. And I think that there is maybe some kind of market bullying like they were doing at the beginning of the Iran War, like a feeling like, oh, you know, there's gonna be increased supply into the market. And you know, that puts downward pressure on the prices. But I mean, like there's so many ways to criticize the insanity. I mean, it's like we're doing imperialism again, you know, like it's the 1800s. And it's also like we're getting in business with a corrupt illegitimate, really Venezuelan socialist government. And like a corrupt favored businessman of the socialist government that did alleged crimes, you know, in Europe. It is just a completely unacceptable like way for us to do business. And I don't know, and I think the Trump, I guess, bets that it's like too complicated for people to get and that the right wing it would be, you know, up in arms if it was Barack Obama getting into business with a socialist government, you know, just betting correctly that they're not gonna push back on it. - I guess, I also don't know how much people believe it. I do feel like, don't you think, I remember curious, but you think the Iran War, I feel like it's gotten, it's been so bad. - Yeah. - So there's so many lies and it's gone so badly and the real world affects it. So obviously bad. Especially from gas prices at home to the geostrategic complications in the Middle East and abroad. I think Trump's effort, desperate efforts to kind of save it or in this case, distract to Venezuela and see that one's working out well. I don't know, I feel like it's not gonna work actually. Do you think politically, I mean, here at home? - I mean, I don't know that it will actually work politically. No, I do think that it is like setting a dangerous precedent for us to be going back to this type of form. - Well, that's true, right? - I am for the future, assuming that there's a, so there's a future Rubio or Vance administration, like this is now an acceptable part of the toolkit. I think that's concerning. And I think that for Trump in kind of more of an amorphous way, if he ever is able to get back on a positive foot politically to be able to position himself as like a deal maker, like look what I did in Venezuela. Like I got us all the oil. I told you these other guys were stupid. They took us to a war in Iraq and they never got the oil. And I did it. I think it probably doesn't work, but I think it's still pretty appalling and ground that's worth fighting over, of course. - Oh, very much so. And I think it's really damaging. I mean, as someone who spent my college in Glasgow years, you know, arguing against all these Marxists or kind of quasi-Marxist historians who were great critics of American imperialism was all based on economic interests. And there were cases obviously in the 20s and 30s where that was very much the case. And some of it's still in the 50s and 60s. United Fruit and all that. We discussed that a few weeks ago. It is all about repatience, you know, corporations and governments and crodic capitalism and crooks basically getting rich off imperialism. Now, whatever one thinks of US foreign policy since then, I think we're pretty innocent of that. I mean, you know, obviously Iraq's a mistake and terrible cost and all that, but it wasn't for the sake of states. As you say, taking their oil at the contrary. We were so proud when they voted, you know, in their first democratic election there with the purple fingers. Remember that and all that in 2004 and 2005. What's happened is that all the democracy was supposed to be bringing to Venezuela. I haven't noticed an election being teed up there. I don't think we are. And Marco, I don't think cares about that. Getting the American public to support doing things abroad, it's obviously costly and not at anyone's immediate interest. You can't really prove that you have to do these things, getting other nations to support us. That does require having some sense that it's a good faith effort to improve the situation there. As well as improve our strategic situation, obviously. And that respect Trump has just given all that moral high ground away and you could say, well, moral high ground, what's that worth? But it is worth something, actually, both at home and abroad. I will say it. You can confirm whether or not this is in your words, but they're making the Marxist professors that were criticizing it right. They're making them correct, like their critique was correct. And again, there are long-term potential unintended consequences to that or something. I was thinking about this morning. The Venezuelan people, for a while, there was this fake nonsense where we were putting people on gulags because we were so concerned that there were Venezuelan gangs, Sven Terragua invading the country. And it's like, OK, but if we're that concerned about that, wouldn't this potentially incite future hard feelings or future desires to get back at the United States if there are these scary gangs in Venezuela? And so now we're going to just basically rape their country of their resources and take it. They're consequences to that. They're sometimes not necessarily direct and predictable. We're just going to stick on the Department of War propaganda as you mentioned. The next thing I had in my notes was Laura Loom, and I'm not ready to talk about her yet. I got to keep getting my dander up a little bit more. I'm going to do more, and then we'll get to Laura. So as you mentioned, the Pentagon is, well, some are actually credit to will. Our colleague basically broke the story because there was like this drama-- if you'll go and listen, if you missed it me and we'll talk to him about this last week, but this is drama burst out into the public between a high mid-level political appointee in the government and this Twitter person named Data Republican. And they started attacking each other on social media. And through that kerfuffle, it became revealed that Data Republican was this sock puppet anonymous online account that was always posting pro Trump stuff was actually on the payroll of the government of the Department of War, Department of Defense, Hegs of the Spaniard. And then we'll-- and others start to pull some strings to realize it's not just Data Republican. There were a bunch of these. And the Washington Post report over the weekend kind of expanded on Will's report against-- and has this-- the Pentagon secretly installed several conservative military veterans with large online followings in government roles, didn't disclose their assignments as they amplified Hegs has viewpoints and attacked those who scrutinized the Trump administration. By the way, among the people that they had the attacking was Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, because of the internal fighting within the administration, a few of these Pentagon employees that were posing as independent whenever journalists, content creators include Rob Bannis, a retired colonel, and Kurt Schlichter, a longtime bullword critic who's also Hugh Huitt's substitute host on Salem Radio. So Bill, and this is pretty crazy. The Department of Defense using our taxpayer dollars to have secret propagandists that are meant to propagandize us, not like the Iranian people. Doesn't this remind us of other places, other nations around the world and other regimes at other times using the civilians, using the military as you propagandize their own people? I mean, it's terrible, really. And that's something we've been pretty good, again, it justifies all the past critics of America, there's been instances of this a little bit, of course, in the past, and this shows how corrupt our whole system is. The achievement of building up a reasonably apolitical and un-propagandistic military, mostly, over the last few decades is really an achievement, right? It's an important part of what it means to live in a free country and a liberal democracy. And again, this is just being tossed away. Also, these guys, I mean, I don't think that the creditors of the world had any integrity before. But like, shouldn't Salem Radio have to say something about this? I mean, Hugh, its guest host was on the payroll of the government and not revealing it, not telling anyone. And it's one thing to just be propagandizing for Trump just because you like it or because you want attention. That's not great. But to be doing it and be financially benefiting from it with our money, my taxpayer dollars is going to pay for collectors erectile this function pills. I don't like that. And I would think that Salem would have to say something about it in town hall. It was kind of a horrifying image. You just put it in my mind. In my mind. In my mind. So I personally prefer people to understand the background. Has been long posted about people at the bulwark. Sorry, Bill Kosier is Dix. He is very big about attacking us as cucks and blah, blah, blah. I'm like, wimpy and like the mega man of the real man. Which to me is means you're overcompensating for something. And like now, he's been taking secret taxpayer money. Now it is terrible. And again, if we had a Congress, it could look into this, I suppose. And maybe they will, if they want to both houses change control in November, they could look into it. You know, there are this continued resolution is coming up when the Senate gets back. And since we can have two weeks, I guess, they have to resolve the House and Senate version. So someone's going to have to vote for something to continue funding the federal government. Why are we funding this? I mean, shouldn't the Democrats say this is a tiny little thing. It's only a few million dollars. But you know what? No funding for any of this. And also no funding deals to save for all the horrible things. ISIS doing it. No funding for a bunch of other things I would say. But I mean, I feel like people sort of pass the least thing. Well, I Trump won the elections. I guess we have to accept this, really. Thank you, Bill. Let's talk about that. For you to Congress, we'll just one more. To our friend Hugh Hewitt. I'm just waiting to hear about your statement, your position on your guesthouse being a secret propaganda still the government. Because I mean, I guess Hugh Hewitt's been a propagandist for Trump for 10 years now. But I would think that this would cross some journalistic threshold over there at Salem. Though I'm not holding my breath. Your point on the House. Congress has been on vacation for five weeks, the House. Great summer. I mean, you know, everybody needs a vacation. I took a vacation two weeks this year. I thought it was. pretty generous for myself. You took a one-week vacation. But, you know, we're working the private sector, okay? Congress has been off for five weeks. Again, they're taking our money as well, not just Kurt Schlichter. And they're coming back to pass this budget that you mentioned. There's a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. And then their plan is to go back on vacation. I just don't know why the Democrats would not just absolutely do everything possible to, you know, put sticks in the gears of this plan. Like, these guys should not just be allowed to come here, like, basically on the cover of darkness, pass a budget and then go back and hang out at Bedminster and go golfing again for a couple more weeks. And these are public servants. I don't. Maybe if they want to jam it through with all Republican votes and a party line vote, then make them do that, I guess. And maybe that will be what happens. I like, we'll have to see. But in the Democrats, I would be, you know, using every procedure possible on the House floor to raise the issues you just laid up. I mean, right. I mean, the fact that we're secretly funding mega-propagandists with our taxpayer dollars, the ice killings. What about the ballroom? What about the arc? What about the stupid war in Iran? I mean, no funding for any of this. I'm sorry. And using the ability they have in the two days or whatever it is that they're in D.C., you would think that they should be going maximum pressure applied. Totally. They should scream bloody murder and they should oppose their German resolutions and all the different things they can do. There's more that you can do in the Senate in the House. I guess the idea is the House will pass the Senate. C.R. this week and get out of town. That's the greatest way for them to do it. But yes, they should fight bloody. I was on a call just the other day and it was, you know, after November, we really have to stop some of this stuff. You know, you could try to stop some of it now, right? You may not succeed, but make put them on the spot. Let all these Republicans vote for this for propagandizing from the defense department. We've been complaining about this for a couple of weeks now. Have you heard any compelling pushback to this, like to our point of view? I think the only argument, the political argument is they're doing, the Democrats are doing well in the midterm elections, risking a government shutdown, pose a, you know, unpredictable spanner into the works, and let's just let good enough be well enough to be well enough, however you say that. And not mess around too much and let people go home and campaign and we're doing okay in these campaigns. A little bit of prevent defense, I would say, two months. Yeah, I'm not compelled by that. I'm not, I'm not compelled by that. Let's talk about the state of play and assess that. There's a poll that you flagged from a US AM Hearst, just over one fifth, 21% of Trump voters now express second thoughts about their vote one in six, 16%. Now say they would change their 2024 vote if given the opportunity. I'm always kind of a little bit skeptical of these kinds of polls and like they're a little bit self-selecting, but even if it's half that, right, that's still a pretty meaningful number. And it's meaningful in particular. And this is why I'm not keen on prevent defense because the places that they need to win are places Trump won by 11, 12, 13%. Like that's the difference between having a good year and having a 1994 year, which we get to next week, right? As I can you win in these places that are that Trump won by 12, 13% both in the house and most importantly in the Senate, Iowa, Ohio, Alaska, Texas, Kansas, whatever, Florida, Mississippi, whatever. Can you win in enough of those places to make it a real wave? And you know that humorous Amher's poll basically says that like that's in play, but it's not there. Yeah, totally. I had the exact same reaction to it when I saw last night, you know, I guess embargoed for this morning when I went out. So yeah, I'm 60% maybe high, but let's just do a little very elementary math. I mean, the state you were talking about is the Trump plus 11 plus 12 states that the Democrats need to win to win the Senate. Iowa, Alaska, Ohio, Texas, and then Kansas, which actually Trump's margin of Kansas was a little was the same as the Iowa. I don't know why people don't put Kansas more in the first year, but anyway, and Florida for that matter of point worse, those are states with Trump got I'm thinking almost every case right around 55% 55 or 56 right in those states. So let's do the math. Let's not say 16% of the Trump voters are wouldn't vote from this time. Let's say it's 10% as you were saying 10% of 55 is 5.5. So that takes you down to 49 50% for Trump now. Now it's a little complicated. Not all of them will then vote for the Democrats, some of them would just stay home. So the Democrat doesn't go up to 50 quite even if Trump comes down, but, but it's in play for any state. If Trump is approval or Trump, let's call it the Trump vote today, if there were a vote today, which is what they're trying to capture that you miss. Well, if the Trump vote today is at 48 49, the Republican senators or Senate candidates in those states, whether it's Texas or Kansas or Iowa, et cetera, are risk. And that's why that poll is, and look, and instead of this poll simply confirms, in a sense, other polling too, it's not like it's going to be outlier that, you know, there's plenty of state-level polling that shows these races competitive. There's national polling that shows the generic tempered credit edge around seven, eight, maybe a little more if you get to the really likely voters. So it's consistent with these states being in play. And I agree, that's why you shouldn't play prevent defense, and it's why, and it is encouraging, though. I mean, that's, I don't know, yes. I'm a little dubious with these retrospective, you know, would you vote today for this and that? It's a little too easy to say in the Senate vote isn't quite the same as the Trump vote, but the Trump car, you know, while Brownstein says this over and over, Susan Collins is the only senator in the Trump era. Only Republican was one of Senate race in a state where Trump was below 50% approval. And so if you're knocking down Trump remains the most important thing, which again is a reason why the Democrats in Washington, they tell themselves a stupid story. We've got to get back to our district and campaign and back to our state is we're such persuasive people that we show up an extra three days in that state. It's going to make a difference. The thing is we're going to make the biggest difference is getting Trump's numbers down. And the way one way to do that is to expose what Trump is doing, you know, all of his failed policies. Yeah. You really got my dandruff now, because I also, there is a reversion to the mean sometimes, too, at the end of these rates. I can go either way, right? I guess this is what I'm saying. Like sometimes it's versionally there is there's data out there that says that, you know, Democrats for whatever reason have pulled better in the summer recently. We could give all kinds of theories on why that would be. But like if you're specifically talking about these red states and like these voters, if it's if you're at that number, we're Trump's at 49, right? Like every vote matters. And a lot of those voters, if they're not being pounded with negative Trump information between now and November, the easy thing is to say, well, this stay out. I don't know. The Democrats are pretty crazy. Like I'm just going to, you know, the left is a little too crazy for me. I'm just going to, you know, stick with my guns this one more time or or I'm not going to vote, right? Like that is the easier thing for those people to do. So you really have to keep paddle to the metal on this stuff. And I think particularly around the war, you know, I just kind of not letting it get into the vote, or it's just like atmospheric noise. And nobody's talking about it anymore. It feels like nothing's changed. It's like, no, people's lives are still being negatively impacted. Like the troops are still being, that are stuck there, still being negatively impacted, right? The gas price is a fertilizer price. So I like they got to keep driving this message. I agree. You should go to your district and do stuff, but like they've had plenty of time. Their district fighting it out in the national narrative and continuing to put Trump on his back foot. I'd tear off, throw tariffs on top of that. I totally agree. I think you can obviously, in your paid advertising, I didn't what they say back in their states, the Democratic candidates, tailored to the state. So terrorists is a bigger issue in some of these big western states where the farm economy has been covered by them very much for focusing on that. The deportations, the ice stuff in Ohio, I think is a very good issue to beat up a stat on who's been timid and hasn't really said much more way the other. It's got the good stuff that's happening in Springfield. Florida, the beginning to deport Venezuela, as I talked to a friend from Florida over the weekend, who had been unhappy is where we are on these issues. Unhappy that his fellow Floridians were not very alarmed by the immigration stuff. They didn't feel they was happening. There was that much happening there when all the news a year was in Minneapolis and then before that. In other places, California, elsewhere. But he said it's now hitting home. To get their numbers, to get Stephen Millish 2000 a day, you've got to go after Venezuelans in Florida. That's a big TPS, formerly TPS, formerly protected category who've been now made illegal. People in Florida did not think it's a bad thing to have these Venezuelans working and living there and paying taxes and being law-abiding citizens and starting businesses and stuff. So you can localize the races to the degree that is appropriate in terms of issues. But yeah, you got to get the national pressure on. I really agree with you on that. With some breaking news, since we've been taping, Trump has given them another issue that they can campaign on. If they so choose, this is a bleat from Trump this morning. The only reason the communities throughout the USA should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let the data rain. Wow, okay. I've got some mixed views on the whole data center issue. It's more of a case-by-case issue for me. That said, sometimes there's moments for good demagoguery. This might be one of those with Democrats. I just as a strategic matter, I've seen a lot of kind of wishy-washy kind of comments on this from Democrats. The numbers could not be clear. Trump is giving them a gift. It's just another issue where I think that if you just look at the numbers, there could not be a better opportunity. for the Democrats right now, if they took the mantle. >> Yeah, well, you just read from Trump, of course, gives the Democrats the middle ground. As Trump is just for, you can't oppose any data sent anywhere, apparently, but you're standing in the way. >> Yeah, let the data reign. >> So let the data reign. That should become a famous mission accomplished type phrase the Democrats can say, look, we're for a technological progress and we're for appropriate blah, blah, blah, blah, but we need to be regulated in local communities and they can take it away, a middle grad, which probably is a sensible place to be in terms of policy. >> Sure. I'm doing pitchforks. >> They can also do a little pitchforks. That's a, you know, a third pitchforks, two third middle grad, but Trump's given them a huge opening, right, by this extreme position, which is selling now, like, beyond the position of Governor Abbott and Texas, it's beyond the position of Republicans elsewhere running for office. It's beyond the position at least the professed, the stated position of the AI companies themselves, which are all like, we want to work with people and blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, they know that that's a kind of suicidal, everything we can build, whatever we want in secrecy. At any scale, we want, you know, with no limitations at anything at all. People are not for that and they shouldn't be. >> Sure. I've do all of these guys, like, really should be out front on this though and going after them. And to me, another angle to this that I think is politically useful is this is just another example of Trump selling out to the big tech oligarchs that people don't like. >> Tell them. Like, regardless, if you don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of the details of every data center and which ones are good and which ones are bad and which ones are terrible for the community and what rules we need, like, you can just go straight at it. Like Trump from his first, you know, Trump got elected saying that he was going to care about the forgotten man and he's betrayed you and he got in there and his inauguration, the richest people in the world sat in the first row and he brought the richest man in the world into the White House and now he's doing the bidding of the richest people in the world that want to get even richer by building these data centers, he doesn't care at all about what's happening in your communities and health concerns or environmental concerns or anything. He just wants these, you know, tech billionaires to like him. I think that's a pretty compelling message. >> And he's in there pocket, right? Which makes him weaker, you know, I mean, he's not, you know, he's kind of, he's their tool, you know, they, they, they, Elon Musk says, "Jump and Trump says how high," you know. >> Yeah. Well, Trump is pretty, he can't get that high, but, you know, hypothetically, hypothetically, I like to see Trump try to get off the ground with a little hop. Okay. Back to Laura Lumer, now that, now that my day enters up, I don't want to talk about the Michigan center. Of course, it's going to use Laura Lumer as a, as a foil example for all the conversation about the around that, because Laura Lumer is herself a pretty unsuccessful podcast or really, and she's a very successful influence operator. She does create content, but she's not at the top of the ranking. She's not a Megan Kelly, Ben Shapiro, oh, she's not one of these guys or women, but she uses her social media feeds to pressure the administration and to advise the administration, and she does her very effectively. And she's basically successfully pushed out Mike Waltz, a national security advisor, and a bunch of other people, Julia, really, really out on the show, got fired basically because when Laura Lumer campaign, you know, broken clock white twice a day, she did get my, you know, post-aported. It seems like, but that shows her influence. So this is a very influential person that has the white houses here that is pushing Republicans to hold the Senate. Here's some tweets for her just this weekend. This is about Angie Nixon, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Florida. I called you a ghetto bitch because you are Angie and your record proves it, but you speak ebonyx, though. So maybe I need to bark at you and tug your leash, and then you'll finally understand. She wrote about Randi Fein's speech, Randi Fein is the racist congressman from Florida. She wrote this tonight at the RJC, Randi Fein is calling out mainstream Islam. Lots of cheers, time for the GOP to read the room. Speak up about the Islamic takeover of America or lose the midterms. Islam has no place in America. I would love to have cameras pointed at every mosque and a preferably inside as well. Here's another one. Randi Hassan will be denaturalized, Secretary Rubio. How can this Islamic invader be allowed to stay in our country? He should be deported immediately. This is a very influential person. I don't understand why every Republican running for office doesn't have to answer for this type of racism. And this was in Florida, right? And she ran it. Actually, she used herself in a successful film. That was taken congressional candidate for Florida. Yeah, I shouldn't have at least let's put the Florida incumbent senator who is, you know, Ashley Midi. Yeah, who inherited the seat, right? I mean, it's run for it up on the ballot for the first time. Against Angie Nixon, who I would not vote for in the primary or would have voted for Vindman. But I think she could be a better candidate than people think. I don't know. I do too. I think it's a very tough race, but I think it's actually better for the other Florida Democrats than Vindman would have been just looking at it purely and like she could kind of lift boats, I think, by creating some turnout. I think she's been very skilled in her interviews. Yeah. I agree with you. Anyway, Moody, the senator seems like she's trying to be sort of respectable and kind of low-key, kind of a Katie Brit type, I guess, you know, is from, I'm better than those Trump people. Of course, I'm totally on board. Put her on the spot. Does she agree with this? I mean, does she agree with Laura Lumer and Representative Fine there? And I agree. So this is where, again, going on the offensive and not simply playing prevent defense important. Look, we've talked about this a bunch. I know you care about this. I care about rising anti-Semitism in the country. It's real. It's a problem. It should be called out. As bad as it's gotten, it's like hard to imagine a Congress person calling out mainstream Jews, speak out, speak up about the Jewish takeover of America and lose the midterms. Democratic Congressperson could not survive that. And that's what a Republican Congressperson is saying. And you know, Jews have no place in America. Right. You know, that is not the type of thing that you're hearing from even the concerning discourse on the far left. And like she's saying this, as long as no place in America, Medi should be deported. She's saying this with impunity right now. And it's fucking outrageous not to mention just the disgusting, like, anti-black racism against Angie, telling her to bark. It's really disgusting. And you know, some of my friends, Jewish friends, my fellow Jews, you know, kind of a little tolerant of the Islamist, you know, the hate Islam stuff. But it's ultimately, of course, feeds intent, I said. Once you legitimate it in one place, it's such a cliché to almost say it first they come for, you know, you are. But it really is true. Once you legitimate this kind of racism or attack on people for their religious beliefs or just their religious origins, I guess you don't want to say where they're from, it legitimates it elsewhere. And then you can't say the other side shouldn't do it. Then your own side starts to do it incidentally at the same time and you're in a house in a place. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, maybe people should notice that the rise of anti-Semitism is real. And what is it coincided with? The rise of Donald Trump. Is Trump responsible for all of it? No. Where Trump himself, particularly that way, not so much on the Jews because for various reasons. But, you know, once you have a climate of hatred, it spills over in all kinds of ways. And that's what I do think has happened, you know. Yeah. I'd be interested in microadjustic on all these tweets. I wish somebody would ask him about it. While we're doing kind of the internal, damn primary stuff and do the various factions. I did want to mention the Massachusetts Senate primary. I think are we finally done with these? Do we still have New Hampshire? I had. We still have New Hampshire like Delaware. The New England, New England for some reason is really into September primaries. I think that you have just the only real one left. I think after this is over. It's been a slog this year. I'm not, I'm not really looking forward to the next round. But, okay, we'll see. I just want to mention the seventh molten Ed Markey race. Well, I have some thoughts on it, but why don't I give you the floor first? So I'm biased with some of friend of Seth and of Donald moment long time. First met him in Iraq, where he was as a lieutenant, one of Patreas's kind of special aides. And when I went over, I was seven to, you know, they brought a few of us over there to see what the progress they were making on the surge. That's the dinner we had with Patreas. He was then, he then pinned our son when he went to the Marine Corps in 2009. So anyway, I go way back with Seth. So I'm totally biased, give it a little money to his campaign. He's behind in the polls. Ed Markey's 80 years old. Ed Markey has been in Congress first of the house and then for the bulk of that time in the Senate for 50 years. Ed Markey was elected to Congress before Seth Bolton was born. Now, if you think it's great to have it and he's been undistinguished, I think we can not say we say if we say a member of Congress for 50 years, it's not like there's like Ed Markey, a giant of Capitol Hill. So there we are. And I don't know, did Democrats want to be in the business of re nominating undistinguished 80-year-old members of the senators? Or do they want to have someone in his, what, middle-aged 40s, who's been, he's not a great politician. That's why he may not beat Markey, honestly, because he's actually an honest and thoughtful guy. He's not very good at the soundbite. It's an occasionally says things and doesn't think through the maybe he shouldn't say this on that issue. But he's an impressive person. He'd be very good for the Democratic Party to have in the Senate. I think it'd be good even in the campaign in the sense that Massachusetts is going to be Democratic either way, but it would help with the general sense that the Democrats are the party of the future. And it's Tallerico and it's Molton and it's Turek and Iowa and, you know, and it's Al Saed. Yeah. And fine. Let's have some diversity. One or two I could, I wish maybe hadn't been nominated, but whatever, there they are. And they're, it puts the Biden thing even more behind them, actually, which I think is kind of important. Politically, but mostly I think it would be a very good senator and he's behind in the polls. So, you know, like these primary polls are difficult. Obviously, Steven's behind by whatever 1315 came within one or two. So I don't rule out Molton winning his campaign. as all kinds of reasons you'll be abused by this as a former campaign person. They're friends of mine. So I'm not criticizing them, but they're, you know, our door knocking is going very well. And we're hearing really good. The ground game is really excellent. And I don't know, I've been to many campaigns where the polls were bad. The ground game was good and the polls are right, but it could matter. You know, I've recently low turn out September 1st, primary, if the Bolton voters are more energized. That makes me different. So I don't think it's out of the question that Bolton pulls an upset for our night. And I think it'd be good for the Democratic Party, if you did. And the polls have been back in both directions. Like, for example, that John Larson, who was an older house rep, was running against kind of a mold-nish, Harvard mayor, a younger guy. And then the polls have that as a clean class. And the younger mayor Luke Brownen ended up killing him about like 20 points or something. And then you obviously on the other side, you've seen, you know, differences in the Michigan race. So I will see how the polls turn out. My point about this, I don't, I've been a fan of not knowing either. I mean, I've talked to Seth a couple of times, but I don't really, you know, have a personal bias in this race. I don't have anything particularly against Ed Markey. But like, he's 80 years old. And, and he's going to be 86 at the end of his term. People might go, it's Massachusetts safe, whatever. It's like Scott Brown, one of Massachusetts special election that cost the Democrats like the public option in Obamacare. I mean, literally, I got, if you care about that, like the fact that like they had to have a special election and then Scott Brown, one of that surprising special election. And that meant that Joe Lieberman or, you know, was the, was a swing vote then in the Senate. It took the public option out of Obamacare. That results by itself. In this day and age, it could be something way worse than that, right? Like a Republican could win a Massachusetts government Republican has been Massachusetts governor like two minutes ago, Charlie Baker. And so, you know, you have a 85 year old guy in there in whatever it is, 20, 20, 30, like in that midterm, you know, anything can happen. And it's kind of, and it's also just kind of like, what, who is, is he really the same? You know what I mean? Like, his staff isn't really, is driving this. And I don't want to vote for Ed Markey's staff. I don't know what his, his chief of staff is going to be in five years. So, anyway, I just think it's a practical matter. Like the Democrats turning the page, I'm less reticent than you. And the else, I think, which is fine. Like, I think to your point is like having Tarek and Abdul all and Molten and Papas in New Hampshire and Toulariko and Angie. Like, that is a younger crop that is diverse both demographically, but also ideologically, I think it's better for the party and I'd be for South tomorrow. So that's my take on that. I want to close with your newsletter this morning. You refereed the cabinet rankings that me and Sam did last week and just kind of remind everybody before we get to Bill's grade where Sam and I landed. I feel pretty strongly about my, about my position, but I'm open to feedback. And here it is. My ranking was Worst Marco, Second Worst Heg Seth, Third Worst Blanche, Fourth Worst Nutlick, Fifth Worst RFK Junior. Sam's list was Heg Seth one, RFK two, Mark Wayne Mullin three, Duffy four, Blanche five. You wrote this morning for the newsletter that we were both wrong. Call us about that. I mean, you were mostly right. Of course, I just slightly adjusted it. You know, they asked me or asked so many people. It was a wonderful show. You and people should go back and look at you and Sam is very amusing, but actually interesting in terms of your analysis for these different cabinet secretaries. And you're both slightly joking around. So I think Sam is just Sean Doffy. It's been such a jackass in the last couple of weeks. I might not look picked with what might have been literally as dangerous as these people running these massive important national security agencies. But as I take that point, so I was being a little a little bit of a cheap shot for me to just kind of waft it and say, you know, let me be serious. But now, so mine was hexeth worst. So I think there were pretty much an agreement right. Sam had hexeth worst and you had hexeth second worst, but you wanted to make the point, which I think is a good point to make about moving. We're going to come back tomorrow. So do the rest. I want to add. I want to add by our young Mullin Mullin second, because of the atrocities of DHS. And I just talked to Jim Swift yesterday about what he'd seen in Springfield. Blanche third, obviously, DOJ. Terrible. What's happening there? RFK Jr again doesn't need much explanation. And who did I have? His movie. I had movie as a fifth as a concession to your point that he's gotten a bit of a free ride. So do you do your Marco thing? I take your point on Mullin. I really should have had him fourth and not let Nick, but you know, sometimes the content requires some some embellishments. The mailbag, if you guys missed the same signup, so Leslie, I know a lot of people are on vacation. You're skipping certain episodes, but like the mailbag at the end is really funny. And it's worth hearing about Sam's morning routine and some of the marital issues I'm out of created for him. But on the matter of Rubio, I received this text this morning from our friend Stan Boiger. Bill, this is we both received this text actually. It's on your career. Bill, Tim is obviously right. Rubio is the worst member of the cabinet. And he didn't even touch on his central role in immigration policy. And thank you Stan. I wanted to have this opportunity to revise and extend my remarks, because I'm ranting about how terrible Rubio has been as a diplomat as the head of Secretary of State. How terrible he's been as national security adviser. I didn't like to mention that he was the one that orchestrated Sakat. It was him and he went down to El Salvador. And obviously this is Trump days are all Trump's policies. But like Marco was the point man with Buckele on that deal. Marco was the point man on these deportations of people for wrong thoughts, whether that be Oz Turk, you know, the op-ed that she had run. Remesa Oz Turk. So he had been the one that was saying that like we should be taking away green cards for people if they express their free speech rights in a way that was not fully supportive of Donald Trump and BB Netanyahu, which is a total affront to the American experiment. It is not a gimmick that I have. Marco is the worst. I genuinely believe that Marco has been the worst. And I do think that like the fact that he gets the presumption of good faith or whatever, unlike some of these other guys does exacerbate my feelings about it a little bit. I will not fair enough. That's a good point. This is why the book is such a wonderful institution. We have a wide diversity of views. So are you going to move them up the list? Are you keeping them in touch? I can move them up a little just I hate to drop into the others down. They're also horrible. Like RFK Jr. I mean stuff I sort of personally followed last but then I read Jonathan Cohen and I think oh my god, he's doing unbelievable damage to actually important things about the health of Americans and Blanche of justice. So it's just hard to mullen DHS. It's tough. It's a real competition. It's hard for me to not include Brooke Rollins, a Secretary of Agriculture. We have another item there. The defunding of the Cyclospora Research Projects is hindering progress right now on the effort to prevent people to country from having explosive diarrhea. It's bad all around. It's a judgment call on how to rank. I want people to understand the Nutlic Pick was a bit. The Marco Rubio is the worst candidate member. I am 100% genuine about 1000% if anything I understand in the case. Some of our ex-friends, not that I'm in touch with that many of them anymore, but your ex-friends, not that you're in touch with that many of them anywhere. They're all there in that will look Rubio. We can be for him in 2028, but he's that's really a scuttle. Everything can move. It's a happy middle ground between accommodating Trump and being sane and he's been, I mean, in that respect, he's more horrifying. His accommodation and hypocrisy and everything is more, as a personal matter, I would say, is in a way more appalling than Hexath, who just is what he is, right? I agree. Hashtag never Rubio. That's where I'm at on this. We'll see how all that shakes out. Bill Crystal. We'll see you next week for a fun retrospective on 1994. I've already, I've started my research a little bit and I found, I found some fun nuggets about Bill Crystal in 1990. Oh my gosh. Tim suckers me in by saying, well, have a good talk. I'll talk about '06. You'll talk about '94. We'll really talk about what wave elections like. Help people understand it. You said this embarrassing thing on September 13th, 1994. I'm looking forward to it. Really looking forward to it. We're going to do all of that and a couple of teasers. Okay. Everybody, thank you so much. We'll be back tomorrow with an old friend of mine. I'm excited to get on the podcast and so we'll see all that. [Music] The Bullwork Daily is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, associate producer Anzaly Skipper, and with video editing by Dante DeCicco and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.