Iran deal far from done; GOP midterm worries — On Balance Full Show 4/17

[0:02] Welcome to the program, friends. No matter which side of the political aisle you're on, [0:07] when America is leading, that is a good thing. President Trump took a victory lap today. The [0:14] deal Trump outlined this morning with Iran seems far, far from done. But if it comes together, [0:21] as the president explained, it would be extraordinary. The Iranians, though, [0:26] have something to say about that. In a moment, Red Sadler, Mark Caputo, on the likelihood of [0:30] Iran accepting the deal as stated, and how to verify the major points. Plus, Congressman Adam [0:36] Smith on the Democrats' response, will they give him any credit if he pulls it off? But first, [0:41] our Why It Matters site. The Iranians have their own art of the deal. The Iranians' good words right [0:49] now are worth nothing. Them telling President Trump what they've agreed to is a wonderful starting [0:54] point. But the Iranians have proven untrustworthy time and time and time again. Trump must start [1:02] demanding and receiving good deeds, or it is clear he is getting played. Just consider today. [1:09] Earlier today, Iran announced that the Strait of Hormuz was open for business. Oil prices went [1:14] crashing down. Awesome. The stock market took off. Trump started putting out some of the highlights, [1:20] including Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. The United States will get all [1:25] the, quote, nuclear dust created by our B-2 bombers. No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, [1:30] or form. He told CBS that the Islamic regime agreed to stop funding all proxy forces and then maybe got [1:37] tired of going through item by item and just said bluntly, the Iranians have agreed to everything. [1:45] Again, if true, a great day for America. Well, things, though, don't appear to be as exactly settled, [1:55] perhaps, as President Trump initially said. Just after the markets closed, Trump told us the deal [2:02] with Iran isn't exactly closed. In fact, it's very unclear what the Iranians have actually agreed [2:07] to. And this process, we're getting along well, but who knows? Who knows with anyone, [2:14] but who knows with Iran in particular? This process should go very quickly and that most of the [2:20] points are already negotiated and agreed to. You'll be very happy. Who knows, but you will be happy. [2:30] There are more negotiations starting next week. The Iranian government denied some of the critical [2:35] points of the reported agreement, most notably on the uranium. An Iranian spokesperson saying Iran's [2:41] rich uranium isn't going to be transferred anywhere. Now to the Strait of Hormuz, where Trump today [2:46] celebrated the Iranians backing down. This will be a great and brilliant day for the world [2:55] because Iran has just announced that the Strait of Hormuz is fully open and ready for business [3:03] and full passage. The Iranians might have said it, but there appears to be some confusion. [3:11] Marine tracking websites showed a conga line of ships heading toward the Strait and then turning [3:16] Iran. Now, America leading is a wonderful thing. If signed as tweeted, Trump's Iran deal is one to be [3:25] celebrated, championed, and revered. For 47 years, every president promised to stand up to Iran. [3:32] Trump did and might have won, but the Iranians are the best in the world at telling you what you want [3:39] to hear and playing you. That's just who they are. That's how the Ayatollah came to power, by promising [3:45] a socialist progressive utopia in Iran, and then killing many of those who brought him to power. [3:52] Remember, there was a deal with President Trump to end Midnight Hammer and the 12-day war last year. [3:59] The Iranians allegedly agreed to all sorts of things, including to end their nuclear program, [4:04] and we all know what happened. Trump's Iran's comments this morning were akin to holding a [4:09] news conference outside of a Persian rug store and declaring, they're going to sell me every rug [4:14] in the store for $10, all because the rug store owner invited you to take a look at the rugs. [4:21] This weekend, Trump walks into the store to actually see what the rugs will cost. We hope, [4:28] and it would be a great thing for America, if they were indeed $10. Let's bring in retired Navy [4:34] Captain Brent Sadler, Axios White House correspondent Mark Caputo. Mark, good to see you. I want to start [4:39] with you. Have we figured out yet what the progression or the disconnect is from the [4:48] president's tweets this morning that seemed so Sherman-esque that sent the market soaring [4:52] and then him qualifying things at the turning point speech less than 10 hours later? [4:58] No, we have no idea. What we're pretty certain of is that both sides, when they're talking about [5:04] what's been agreed to and what hasn't been agreed to, don't seem to be telling the truth. Now, [5:08] I can't tell who's not telling the truth and when, but overall, the picture doesn't add up. [5:13] What's important, though, is to look at where we are. There's a ceasefire. When you have the United [5:19] States and Iran not shooting at each other, and when you have Israel and Lebanon not shooting at [5:24] each other, then it's a good sign that both sides want peace. But the question is, is what's peace [5:28] going to look like going forward? And can it be hammered out in this process? I don't know. [5:33] Trump told us this morning that he was very certain a deal would happen very soon, [5:36] but that could just be a rational exuberance. The amount of uncertainty in this is just really [5:43] heavy and thick. And until we see something actually on paper and people shaking hands, [5:47] I just caution against getting folks' hopes up or maybe buying certain stocks in certain ways, [5:52] because it seems like the stock market is just going up and down, depending on what these sides [5:56] say. And in the end, there's a certain number of people who are getting rich from that. But [6:00] otherwise, the rest of us are left in the dark. [6:01] Now, Brent, when you look at what's happening in terms of these negotiations, I covered an awful [6:08] lot of ceasefire negotiations during my time in the Middle East. I've never seen both sides so [6:16] disconnected from what the other side agreed on. Hamas and Israel hated each other. But when they [6:20] agreed to a ceasefire, there was a piece of paper. It was in Arabic. It was in Hebrew. It was often in [6:25] English as well. And everybody agreed to the same piece of paper that these words all mean [6:31] the same thing. Are we under... Why is that not happening in this case? [6:35] Well, even in those agreements that might have been, like, signed and everyone understood 100% [6:40] with the spirit and the intent of those agreements, they still walked or they still kind of diverged [6:44] over time or tried to cheat on it. It's just another reality of human nature and that you have to [6:49] constantly keep the hammer, the military hammer, ready at the bay to ensure that you have adequate [6:55] leverage to it, to make sure your other partners of said deal actually honor it. And this is going to be [7:00] one that's going to have to be sustained for a while. And so in my mind, a lot of what this [7:03] discussion of the president puts out and what the Iranians put out, which I would not trust for [7:08] very much, it's not worth very much, that's coming out of Tehran right now, because what really matters [7:14] is the fact that we still have sizable military forces. We've decimated, destroyed largely their [7:19] navy. The navy is non-existent. Their force and the ballistic missile program is largely destroyed as well. [7:26] They don't have much. As long as the realities don't change in any meaningful way, the strength [7:31] and the leverage is an American side. And we need to stay engaged to ensure that the Iranians [7:36] meet our minimum standards, live peacefully with their neighbors, to include Israel, [7:40] don't threaten American lives, keep the straits open. And of course, that includes don't have a [7:44] nuclear weapons program. Right. And keep the straits open without charging tariffs. And look, [7:52] we say all the time on this program, you can't trust the Iranians. That probably also means you [7:55] can't necessarily trust what they say publicly versus what they say privately. We have to keep [8:00] that in mind. But, Mark, your reporting this morning, I think, was probably linked in to the [8:04] president's statement where he said no money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form in [8:09] exchange for the enriched uranium coming out of Iran. You reported that there was going to be $20 [8:16] billion in unfrozen funds. These are funds that are held by the United States and other banks, [8:23] frozen, that would be released back to Iran, I should say other countries. Could both be true [8:31] that they would get $20 billion in unfrozen funds and no money exchange will exchange hands? [8:37] Yeah. If you use the word exchange, you can't really exchange something with someone else when [8:42] you give them what they already own. Iran owns that money just because of the strength of the U.S. [8:47] dollar underpinning the global financial system. They can't use the money, really. They can use it [8:53] for certain things, but not in an unrestricted fashion the way any other country or any other [8:58] person could use their bank account. And so that's at issue there. What's important to remember is what [9:03] you said, is that you can't really go into a rug store or any store and just basically claim [9:10] everything that's very expensive is $10. The Iranians have a huge problem outside of the utter military [9:17] dominance that has been visited upon them by the United States military is that their economy is [9:22] in terrible condition. It was before the first U.S. bomb started falling. They had double-digit, [9:27] almost 100% food inflation over a year. They have very high unemployment and they've had other [9:32] financial problems since the war began. Israel has a masterful cyber weapons program and helped shut [9:40] down their bank at various times that paid their military, the Iranian military. Israeli missiles also [9:47] struck that bank, SEPA bank. So they have that problem. And then they've had the problem of sanctions [9:53] that keep them from getting real money for their oil. And in addition to that, they now have the [9:59] prospect of a blockade which could take more of their oil from them, which not only will starve them of [10:05] more money, but could shut down their oil wells and damage them in a long-term fashion, which will make [10:11] things even worse. In addition to that, their industries are being shut down. For instance, [10:15] their metalworks, two steel plants, are essentially not functioning anymore. And their petrochemical [10:20] industry is at a standstill. Internet is down and they can't make money off of that by way of taxes [10:25] or economic activity. It's really a bleak situation. This is a very long explanation to tell you this. [10:31] The Iranians are not giving up their uranium for free. They're going to want something out of it. [10:35] They're going to want at least their money back. At least that's all of the indications that we've got. [10:39] Maybe that'll change. Maybe Trump can persuade them otherwise. But that's what we're looking at. [10:46] And that is something that they have that is valuable. That's been their ultimate insurance [10:51] policy. Brent, take us through what we should be watching for from the Iranians for good deeds. [11:00] How do we know, aside from the fact that they are allegedly telling President Trump that they're [11:05] going to agree to all these things, that they are actually serious about this? [11:10] Well, there's a couple of cautions, as well as to answer your question, what to watch for. [11:15] The first caution is, it's not clear that the government is completely unified. [11:20] You may have elements of the IRGC that are profiteers or they don't like the direction. [11:25] So we have to be ready for that. But if there is a group that's starting to become the center of [11:30] gravity, if this is a new form, a reformulated regime, then we need to ensure that we continue [11:36] to support what is in our own U.S. interest. But it's not going to be clean. It's going to be messy. [11:41] So that's the one caution. The things to look for, you know, the easiest, do the IRGC come out and [11:47] challenge the shipping or do they try to launch drones? That hasn't happened in at least four or [11:52] five days of anything meaningful. And actually, really, if you really want to look at a serious [11:57] hit, it's even longer than that. That's number one. Number two, do they launch any more drone or [12:02] missile attacks to any of their neighbors? These might be the violations of a ceasefire. So we have [12:07] until next week for it to really kind of materialize. But there's two reasons that could also be driving [12:12] this. One, the regime doesn't have any more gas for the fight, which I think is a pretty high [12:17] probability. The other is they actually do want to call for UNCLE and end this because they're more [12:23] fearful of their own people. And that's the game. Yep. [12:27] Yeah. Well, in that sense, if they feel like they're threatened by their own people, that [12:32] that is the ultimate uncle. Mark Caputo, Brent Sadler, gents, thank you both very much. [12:37] Before the next round of critical talks with Iran, there's one group united in their efforts to [12:42] undermine the president, the Democrats. Live pictures of the White House. President Trump [12:54] arrives there later tonight. He'll spend the weekend strategizing for the next round of Iranian [12:59] negotiations. Democrats will spend the weekend undermining Trump, ranking member of the House [13:06] Armed Services Committee. Congressman Adam Smith is with us now. Congressman, always good [13:10] to see you. I think you're a little more sanguine about this. I think you'd agree that if the deal [13:16] comes together as President Trump laid it out this morning, that would be an exceptionally good [13:22] thing for America, correct? Yeah, no, it would. I mean, the problem is all available evidence seems [13:27] to suggest that the president is making that up, that the Iranians are telling him no such thing. I mean, [13:33] he's been saying this for weeks now, that they've completely agreed to a whole bunch of different [13:37] things. And the evidence suggests that no one's talking directly to the president. I mean, there's [13:42] been not a direct line. We talked to the Pakistanis. We talked to the Iranians. So when the president [13:47] says that they've agreed to give up all of their nuclear material, and then the evening, the Iranian [13:53] government says, we've agreed to no such thing, when they say the straits open, a whole bunch of ships [13:57] go towards the strait, and then the Iranians go, well, it's open, but you have to clear it with us [14:03] first. I mean, the most troubling spot that we're in, and listen, I want to get to an outcome. Gosh, [14:07] if we got to the outcome that the president described, that would be miraculous. But the [14:12] problem is, it becomes an impediment when the president isn't operating in reality, when he comes [14:17] out and says they've agreed to give up all of their weapons. They've agreed to not support terrorist [14:20] groups. And they haven't. I mean, that's not, that's just, we're not trying to criticize. To be fair [14:26] about this, though, to be fair, though, we don't really know what is happening, right? In the same [14:34] way you're basically saying President Trump is posturing, which, fair enough, people in negotiations [14:40] posture, the Iranians can be posturing too, right? You're taking the Iranians at face value to prove [14:47] President Trump is lying. Well, no, no, no. Actually, I am looking at what is happening. [14:52] And the Iranians are not giving up their nuclear material. The Strait of Hormuz is not open. [14:58] They have not stopped supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and the other groups. So I take your point. [15:04] Look, I think the Iranians, you know, lie, if you will, about this as much as anybody. No doubt about [15:10] that. But I am looking at what is happening. And the most disturbing thing is on the Strait of [15:14] Hormuz. I mean, frankly, in this case, both President Trump and the Iranians are being [15:17] dishonest. They keep saying it's open and it's not. So I'm looking at the facts, not just what [15:23] are people saying. We can have a debate about President Trump making this stuff up. [15:27] About the Strait, that's a legitimate point. We can all agree, though, as you just did, [15:33] that if this deal comes to fruition, it's a good thing. Therefore, the way to get that is if the [15:40] president of the United States is seen in the most powerful position possible with the American [15:45] people behind him to get to that end with support for military action to continue if the Iranians [15:52] do not agree. How is what Democrats are saying, and frankly, what you're saying, [15:57] not undermining what you've already agreed to would be a very good goal? [16:02] A couple things about that. Look, if the war between Russia and Ukraine had ended on day one [16:06] of Trump's presidency, that would have been beautiful. If the Mexicans had paid for the wall, [16:11] that would have been beautiful. Okay, great. But we're actually living in reality, not in Donald [16:15] Trump's mind. And our approach is- Right. No, I'm- Hold on. Had to get that one little in on the [16:22] previous question. To answer your question directly, we can just say, Trump, do whatever [16:26] you want to do. We support everything you're doing and we hope for the best. We don't trust him [16:31] because we think starting this war, and that's what the comments that were made by previous [16:35] Democrats were getting at, was the war, if the great accomplishment in all of this is we get [16:40] the Strait of Hormuz opened back up, I think you would agree that's not even anything worth talking [16:45] about as an accomplishment because that was there before. The rest of it, there's no evidence that [16:50] it's happening. And I don't think that us continuing the war is going to make it any more likely that [16:57] it is going to happen. And the war has costs, Leland, as I know you know. So you don't think there's a way [17:02] to bring, I do know that, but you don't think, what you're saying essentially is that sinking [17:08] Iranians Navy, severely degrading their military, killing the Ayatollah and much of the top leadership [17:15] of the IRGC, eliminating a lot of their ability to produce revenue and to control their people, [17:21] none of that matters. And you're basically saying that all of this undermining of the president- [17:26] Yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. [17:27] It doesn't get us any close, doesn't, okay, but effectively you're saying- [17:32] No, no, I can tell you what I'm saying. I'm saying that it wasn't worth it. I'm saying that [17:38] that amount of degradation, and that was also not the promise that this war gave us. [17:42] The promise that the war gave us- [17:44] That's a reasonable, that's a reasonable, but now that we're here, now that we're here, [17:48] how is Democrats saying this stuff and undermining the president in trying to divide the American [17:55] people, not helping the Iranians? [17:56] We don't trust him. We don't want him to continue this war, okay? We don't want him to think that [18:02] if he ends, if he tries- [18:03] Doesn't that undermine him getting what he wants in the negotiations? [18:08] I don't believe it does, because he's not getting what he wants in the negotiations, [18:12] doing exactly what he's been doing. He's been doing it for six weeks now. [18:16] He bombed the living hell out of them for an extended period of time. He's now got the blockade [18:20] going. So, look, I think the cost of the war outweighs the benefit. I've said this on the show [18:25] a number of times. I want to take policy positions that say we should end this war. And also, I think [18:30] we're just dancing over the fact that the president is making all of this stuff up. I mean, [18:35] he comes out in the morning and says, the Iranians have agreed to, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, [18:38] blah, blah. And it's completely untrue. I mean, how is that a negotiating strategy? Because it's not, [18:44] the Iranians aren't going to wake up and go, oh, hell, the president said we agreed to that. [18:47] I guess we must have. No, they're going to do what they've done. They're going to wake up and say, [18:51] yeah, no, we didn't agree to that. We did deal with that. How does that advance our interests? [18:57] We also did that in the first segment. We also dealt with it in the first question to you. But I'm [19:03] going to give you the last moment on this. Your party is moving farther and farther to the left [19:08] and further and further away from support of Israel. Do you, does Democrats effectively taking [19:16] the side of Iran in this against Israel not bother you? I would say two quick things about this. [19:21] First of all, I think it is just one of the most dishonest things that perpetuates a war. If you're [19:26] not in favor of a war, you're rooting for us to lose and you're rooting for the opposition. I mean, [19:30] that is just a ridiculous argument. I mean, are you in favor of a full-scale invasion of Iran to make [19:36] the regime crack? I don't think you are. Does that mean you don't want America to win? Okay, [19:41] to say that basically the president can start whatever war he wants to start. And if you don't [19:45] completely agree with it. Yeah. So second point, I do worry about where my party is at in foreign [19:52] policy, that we are moving away fundamental support for the United States. But Donald Trump doesn't help [19:57] when he comes out and says, what is the United States of America about? We want to completely [20:02] erase the Iranian civilization. You know, we don't care how many civilians we kill. We have the [20:06] secretary of defense saying, give them no quarter, which means no survivors. Basically, [20:11] it's making the United States of America into basically a predatory entity. You make a good point. [20:16] I want to balance those two things. I don't want my party to wind up too far over there. So, [20:20] I agree with a portion of what you've said. You make a great, you make such a good point that [20:27] making this about a war with the Iranian people is an enormous mistake. Congressman, [20:31] it's always good to see you, sir. Enjoy the weekend. Thank you. When it comes to the midterms, [20:35] the economy isn't working. Iran isn't working for the president. Can he make the election a [20:41] referendum on Democrats? And Democrats are helping. As part of our tax cuts, [20:52] we delivered. A lot of you benefited by this. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. No tax on social [21:00] security for our great seniors. This week, millions of Americans received the largest tax [21:05] refunds of their lives. The average is more than $4,000 per filer. [21:10] Today in Phoenix, President Trump tried to make the economic case for Republicans. It's [21:16] not quite working, at least yet. Yes, the market's closed at another record high today, [21:22] but the economic message doesn't seem to be working. This is from The Atlantic. Almost every [21:27] new poll is a red flag for Republicans, independents, young voters, and Latinos, [21:31] groups that were crucial to Trump's win in 2024, aren't in the bag anymore. Even non-college [21:36] educated white Americans, once the president's strongest group, have turned on him. You can parse [21:41] the numbers various ways, but that's generally true. NBC News with this headline, [21:45] in group chats and meetings, Republicans are privately petrified the war in Iran could cost [21:49] the midterms. I'm not sure why that is new to NBC News. I've been hearing it for a while, [21:54] but it is out there. You see, normally the midterms are a referendum on the president and [21:59] the party in power. Today, President Trump tried to make it a referendum on Democrats. [22:04] So if you want a poor and weak America, a country that's riddled with crime, death, disease, [22:16] and nothing but problems, you should immediately vote Democrat. If you want a rich and strong and [22:23] a country that you're going to be proud of, America, you must go out in the midterms and [22:30] vote Republican. We need that. Well, there's now News Nation political economic contributor, [22:38] former White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, News Nation political contributor, Lauren Wright, [22:42] Democratic strategist, Julian Epstein. Always good to see all of you. Lauren, ladies first. [22:48] Has there ever been a midterm that was a referendum on the other party? [22:53] Oh, that's interesting. Yes, there have been three times where the president party didn't lose [22:59] seats or actually gain seats. Now you're testing me. 1934, 1998, 2002. So almost always they [23:07] hemorrhage seats and very often party control switches. No, no, no, no, no, no. The history [23:10] is a good point. Yes, yeah. Right, but the history is a good point. The exception may prove the rule, [23:17] but it's more of, has there ever been a midterm where there was, the referendum was about the party [23:24] not in power, which is the dynamic the Republicans are trying to set up? Very rarely, very rarely. I [23:29] mean, they're going to get trounced. I don't know if it's eight seats or 10 seats or 15 seats, but the [23:34] margin is so thin, they have such a thin majority, that they may as well concede to the fact that [23:40] Democrats are going to control the House and go from there. The benefit is they will now be able to [23:46] squarely place blame on Democrats for their obstruction after the midterms, and they might keep [23:52] the Senate. And so, you know, the worst case is absolute gridlock and more dysfunction. [23:58] The best case is the parties can blame the other party and work together behind the scenes. Maybe [24:02] we'll see that. Julian, Democrats seem to be leaning into all of the things that Trump always tells [24:11] America they are. Does that present a risk? And if so, what is it? Well, I think Democrats, as you [24:20] pointed out in your last segment, Leland, are becoming increasingly a radical party. They are, again, [24:25] for getting very close to open borders. You have Senate candidates out there in Michigan and Maine [24:32] that are openly cozying up with pro-Iranian, pro-terrorist forces, Plattner in Maine and Saeed [24:39] in Michigan. The mayor of New York is dining with a group that openly declares its desire to destroy the [24:48] West. I think the party is really veering far to the left. So, when you talk about Trump's numbers, [24:52] you know, Trump's numbers have gone down, but the Democrats are still 10, 15 points below that. [24:57] And, you know, voters are always grumpy. It's the thermostatic theory of elections. Voters are [25:02] always grumpy in midterms. They always go against the in-party, the party in the White House, [25:07] except for 1998, as Leland pointed out. I lived through that. I was the counsel on impeachment, [25:11] and we were able to make a referendum on Republicans. So, that's the dynamic now. [25:15] What Trump is trying to do is make this a referendum on Democrats, who have moved far left, [25:21] whereas the Republicans have pretty much stayed in the political center for the last two decades. [25:26] Most of the polarization we see is because Democratic Party has gone far left. [25:31] Now, Tom Steiner, the gubernatorial candidate, Democrat gubernatorial candidate out in [25:35] California, wants to arrest ICE agents. Mick, what do you see from your vantage point, [25:42] both of having been in the House and obviously having been in the White House? [25:44] Is this trying to throw anything at the wall and see what sticks, or is there some kind of strategy [25:51] by the president and his team? Well, no, I think it's the formula that's worked for Trump a couple [25:57] of times. I think the challenge that he faces is, how do you make a referendum about the other party [26:03] when there's not really a face to the other party? In 2016, he could run against Hillary Clinton. [26:08] In 2024, he could run against Kamala Harris. It's sort of hard to do. Now, you can do it, [26:12] I suppose, but it's a lot more difficult because you have to go find those individual Democrats to [26:17] sort of run against. So, look, 1998, you had the, as Julian says, you had the impeachment. That's true. [26:24] 2002, you had 9-11. That's true. I don't see those sort of outlier type of circumstances right now [26:31] that allows Trump to change the narrative. I think unless something dramatic happens, [26:36] this will be a referendum on Donald Trump. Most elections since Donald Trump has been- [26:41] So, to your mind, Mick, it doesn't matter how far to the left Democrats run vis-a-vis a Democratic [26:48] Senate candidate in either Michigan or Maine. It might leave individual races. It might make a difference [26:55] in Michigan. It might make a difference, you know, in an individual race. But if you're looking [26:58] to sort of get a Republican wave against a Democrat wave, it's really, really hard to do. [27:04] Lauren, does that mean that Republicans are missing an opportunity here and, at the same end, [27:12] Democrats are missing an opportunity to moderate and, therefore, set themselves up to 2028 because [27:18] they think, no matter what, we're going to win? [27:20] Yeah, I think where these strategies play out is 2028. I mean, that strategy Jordan just mentioned [27:25] is a great 2028 national political strategy. It is, however, not going to work, like Mick said, [27:31] in these highly individualistic races and these districts where Democrats might hopefully sometimes [27:38] have the wherewithal to choose a moderate in their primary process. [27:44] Julian, do you see any Democrats choosing moderates? [27:47] No, no. I see the Democratic Party going far left, and I was going to- I was thinking exactly [27:51] what Lauren said. She sort of took the words out of my mouth. There are two elections here. [27:54] There's a 2026 election. There's a 2028 election. So, to the extent that Republicans are painting [27:59] Democrats as extremists, and they have a lot of material to work with in terms of how far the [28:03] party's gone left, that inures to their benefit for 2028. Remember, the thing that helped Bill [28:09] Clinton win reelection in 1996 the most was losing the House in 1994, because then he had somebody to [28:15] run against in 1996. So, if the Democrats do take the House, all you're going to hear about is [28:21] impeachment and how bad Trump is and all the negativism. I don't hear the Democrats talking [28:25] about building anything. So, there's that dynamic that's going on. The other dynamic, of course, [28:29] is the war hopefully is coming to an end. And if the economy bounces back and, you know, the stock [28:34] market, inflation comes down and sort of all those indicators, that sets up a much better situation [28:40] for Republicans, because Biden inflation isn't too far in the rearview window. [28:44] Now, Republicans keep telling me that what to wait for is them effectively fighting against a [28:53] coming impeachment over the next few months, that they think that's going to really work [28:57] with swing voters. You brought up 2028. President Trump is turning the White House into a real-life [29:03] version of The Apprentice to decide who runs in 2028, President J.D. Vance, Vice President Vance, [29:08] or Secretary Marco Rubio. CNN reports Trump is weighing his successors and asking aides whether Rubio or [29:15] Vance should be the 2028 pick. Vance flew off to Pakistan last week, trying to make a deal with [29:19] Iran. Those talks failed. Trump reportedly asked his advisors how they thought Vance performed, [29:24] using Vance's role as a lead negotiator on Iran to play it out, real-life test. Vance also spoke [29:30] at Turning Point, a Turning Point USA event earlier this week at the University of Georgia. [29:35] They couldn't even fill the entire floor, much less the arena. Turning Point USA went all in on Vance, [29:42] even though it certainly seems they perhaps should have hedged their bets. There's some reasons for [29:47] that, whether it matters or not, I don't know. The Financial Times headlines, the ever-shrinking [29:51] J.D. Vance. The Iran talks failed. Orban lost in a landslide. By the end of that tour from hell, [29:57] Vance's approval rating was the lowest ever for a vice president at this point in his term. [30:01] He is thus no longer Trump's obvious successor. So, Lauren, does that mean it's Rubio, the guy, [30:09] the man with it to lose? I don't know. Or simply that it's no longer Vance's? [30:13] I would be very surprised if it was Rubio. You know, 2016 was not that long ago. He was roundly [30:20] rejected by Republicans in the primary. He lost his home state, Florida, to Trump. I mean, it was [30:25] not successful. This is sort of like the Kamala Harris fallacy of, like, what happened in the primary [30:31] with you doesn't matter. Maybe he still has some of those problems. Vance, on the other hand, [30:36] has not been tested in that way. And he has the one-syllable name that Trump likes. He's got the [30:42] six-foot-two going for him that Trump likes. So, I'd be more on the Vance side of things than the [30:48] Rubio side of things. [30:50] Mick, is this just what Trump likes to do? Or is he actually questioning whether Vance is the guy? [30:58] This is exactly what Trump likes to do. It is the apprentice is the right sort of analogy. [31:02] If Vance is popular one week, he'll build up Rubio and then vice versa later on. Look, [31:07] two things real quickly. We're 31 months out, I think, from the election. 31 months out from the [31:13] 2008 election. No one on this panel had ever heard of Barack Obama. And nobody ever expected Donald [31:18] Trump to be president. So, it's likely a name we're not talking about tonight. I'll give you a [31:22] different name, Leland. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, somebody that I think everybody overlooks very [31:26] close to the president. Been doing a decent job in Arkansas. There's a lot of good Republicans out [31:30] there. A lot of good Democrats out there. I don't think it's down to Vance versus Rubio by any stretch [31:35] of the imagination. [31:37] Sarah is a unique talent, that is for sure, as is her father, for that matter. [31:42] Julian, I'll give you the last word in this. Should Democrats stay out of this fight or try to [31:47] position in it? [31:49] Well, Democrats would want J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance is a much better primary candidate than he has [31:52] general election. Rubio is probably the best communicator that the White House has right now. [31:58] If you look at the speech that he made in Munich, he made a brilliant speech about the value, the [32:03] importance of the West, how the West has been such a force for good, perhaps the most important force [32:08] for good in the history of humanity. And he had the European liberal elites eating out of his hand, [32:13] saying, what a wonderful speech. Starmer and all the rest of them were saying, what a wonderful speech. [32:17] He is the one person that the Democrats fear the most because he gets the moderate vote and he gets [32:22] swing Democrats. So, if you're thinking primaries, J.D. Vance. If you're thinking general election, [32:26] Marco Rubio, I think, would win. [32:30] Yeah, well, that always is the push and the pull of elections between the primary, best [32:37] primary candidate, the best general election candidate. Great to see all of you. Thank you. [32:40] First wrote about this in War Notes, your chance for an inside look at the show every day. [32:44] It is free at warnotes.com to subscribe. I'll see you on social media, [32:47] at Leland Vittert. Oil prices crashed today. So, why aren't gas prices going down and who should we [32:56] blame for it? After weeks of doom and gloom on the economy, we experienced an overnight economic [33:07] shock. Oil down double digits, stocks back at record highs, above record highs, new record highs. [33:13] Gas prices, that's another story entirely and there is a reason for that. Dan Greenhouse, [33:18] chief economist and strategist at Solus, is a hedge fund, manages a lot of money. Dan, [33:23] this has been bugging me since this started. Who's getting rich right now on these high oil prices? [33:30] So, with respect to the oil prices themselves, the companies that sell oil obviously benefit from [33:36] the product they sell going up in price. But I think it's also important to remember that gasoline [33:41] stations, which is what people really care about, how much they pay for gasoline, the price of the pump, [33:46] gas stations run on razor thin margins. No one operating a gas station is really getting rich [33:54] off of this, so to speak. It's going to take a little while, as you teased in the intro, [33:57] for gasoline prices to come down. But if anyone's getting rich, for lack of a better word, [34:02] it's the people who sell oil. [34:05] Sell oil. Okay. So, don't be mad at Wawa is what I'm taking from this. [34:09] No, if it's Wawa or it's Costco. Admittedly, I've never been to a Wawa, but I have been to Costco. [34:16] And no, I wouldn't blame them, per se. The price is the price. [34:20] I'm not sure I can trust anyone who's not been to a Wawa. [34:24] There just isn't one by me, but I would be happy to go. [34:27] Okay. Well, you know, we can forgive this. There's not really a cooperation part of this, [34:33] though, is it? It's just reality that the price of $4 a gallon gas is also going to get priced in [34:41] to everything we're buying, even once the price of gas goes down. [34:46] Yeah. It's airline fares. It's the cost of the trucking companies that have to ship goods to you. [34:52] I think Larry Kudlow there is probably right. It's very easy to get what we call a three-handle, [34:57] which is below $4, which isn't that far from where it is now, as you're showing on the screen. [35:01] Getting down to $3 might be a little harder without getting the strait open in a much more [35:07] rapid fashion. We keep getting these headlines about deals and the strait is open, but then [35:13] we're getting conflicting comments from the Iranians compared to the Americans. [35:18] So it's a little confusing, and it's hard to math it out right now, to put it bluntly, [35:24] without some indication that the strait actually is open and ships are going through, [35:28] both to get the oil and to leave to bring it. And we don't really just, we don't have that indication [35:33] as of yet. [35:35] Yeah. I thought Mark Caputo made a very good point at the beginning of the show, [35:40] that there appears to be a lot of people who are trading on this news and making an enormous [35:46] amount of money, effectively on the hardship of the American people. [35:51] And we're not really sure why they are so able to time things so well, and remarkably why these [36:01] things are moving so much when underlying demand, and as you point out, the movement of ships actually [36:08] isn't changing. [36:10] So everyone's been quick to blame the White House or someone internally in the White House for trading [36:16] on what we'll call inside information. That very well might be the case. I, of course, [36:20] have no idea. The only thing I would offer is it could very well be the Iranians. [36:24] They know what's going on in the negotiations just as much as the White House does. [36:28] I have no way of knowing. It has certainly gotten the attention of market participants [36:33] on the investing side of things. It's something that everyone talks about, [36:37] that there are these mysterious, if you'll call it that, mysterious trades that are well-timed. [36:42] The government appears to be looking into it. [36:44] Let's find out who that is, though. I mean, if everybody's talking about it, [36:46] shouldn't we figure out who it is? [36:48] Yeah, the SEC has done this before, and I assume they will do it again. So if it is [36:52] not, it's not impossible is the short answer. We have seen people trading on inside information [36:59] where something pops up on the screen that looks suspicious, and the SEC takes its time and gets it [37:03] right, and eventually gets their man or woman. I imagine this time, hopefully, will be the same [37:09] thing. But I can assure you, everyone in the financial markets is really interested in it. [37:15] Yeah, and for good reason, too, because the financial markets are having to respond to it [37:19] as well. All right, Dan, fabulous conversation. Thank you. [37:24] Thank you, sir. [37:24] For our more astute viewers, you might realize that I am not in our studio in D.C. I am in Dallas, [37:30] Texas this evening. After speaking to a group called Educational First Steps, [37:36] it's a charity in Dallas that provides first-class early childhood education to underprivileged kids, [37:45] as they say, regardless of someone's zip code. There is perhaps no greater investment that we can [37:53] make as Americans than in young kids, not giving them a handout, but a hand up, that equality of [37:59] opportunity. Learn this today. 80 percent of a kid's brain growth happens between one and five [38:06] before they go to kindergarten. And it was such a privilege to be here today and to try to help [38:10] so many young kids and invest in so many young kids who are now getting a chance to head to [38:16] kindergarten in a great spot, regardless, as they say, of what zip code they come from. [38:22] One thing for tomorrow when we come back. Back now with Katie, who is up next. [38:31] Trump talking to Turning Point USA. Can't catch lightning in a bottle twice. Do they still have [38:39] the pull and the pulse of American conservatives the way they did in 2024? [38:45] Well, I think they lost their leader, obviously. So they're trying to figure out how to make sure [38:50] that they can move forward in a way that's organized without distractions. So I wouldn't count them out [38:54] yet. They still have a lot of influence and a lot of young people on campus who are excited to get [38:58] involved in elections. Yeah. Good point. Good point. Have a great weekend, Katie. See you soon. [39:04] Leland, too. Bye. See you next week.