Pete Buttigieg Says Marco Rubio Will Never Recover From This Lie — Bulwark Podcast

[0:00] A lot of what we see happening because of the administration is like right out of the worst [0:04] nightmares of my conservative and libertarian friends. Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. [0:15] I'm your host, Tim Miller, coming at you from my old stomping grounds in Des Moines, Iowa on Sunday [0:20] evening. I was at the Liberty and Justice Dinner put on by the Iowa Democratic Party. It was [0:28] conveniently for me at Prairie Meadows Casino, where I spent a lot of time on the craps table [0:32] back in my heyday. So it's nice to get back into town. And I was here to have a little chat with [0:39] the keynote speaker at that dinner. I'm delighted to be able to sit down with him today. You might [0:44] know him as the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, former secretary of transportation, Navy veteran, [0:51] winner of the 2020 Democratic caucuses right here in Iowa. It's Pete Buttigieg. [0:56] Hey, Pete. How's it going? [0:57] Good. Thanks for having me. [0:58] How was it on Sunday night? [0:59] Great. Really good energy. It felt kind of like a reunion because there are all these [1:03] memories of when I was here in 2020. But also, I just really feel good about our chances in Iowa. [1:10] Yeah. To me, it felt like even in the room, some of the Iowa Democrats have been depleted. [1:16] You know, I try to come back to Iowa every year. I got a lot of old friends here from my campaigns [1:20] past. And I don't know. I went to an event in 24. And, you know, it's just Republicans have [1:25] controlled the state for 10 years. And like after a while, eventually you get beaten down. [1:30] And it does, it did feel like there was a little bit of a jolt of energy among the Iowa Dems. [1:34] Yeah, I think so. And it's, you know, it's not just vibes. I mean, people are seeing it in the [1:38] numbers. You're seeing it in what's possible. And as the Iowa Democrats are quick to point out, [1:43] this is maybe the only place where you have a chance to get that many House seats flipped and a [1:48] Senate seat and the governor's office at the same time. And I also think, I mean, this is a little [1:54] provincial of me maybe, but I think this Midwest region is an especially important place to prove [2:00] that out. Yeah. Because I think we can show how what we believe about policy and what we believe [2:06] about just how people ought to treat each other and how people ought to act all kind of comes into [2:10] alignment in a way that people in this part of the country really care about. And then in turn, [2:15] the other thing that excites me is I think when we have more wins in places like this, [2:20] we have more voices inside the party who are elected, who are from places like this. And it [2:26] really makes a difference to our vocabulary and our body language and our ability to connect versus [2:31] the places that are kind of already the biggest strongholds of the party. I was talking to a state [2:35] senator from Sioux City who was there. And just at the end of the conversation, I looked at her and I was [2:40] like, you just talk like a regular person, which is really nice. You know, I think a lot of times [2:45] the Democrats talk about talking like a regular person and then you end up actually still kind [2:50] of using the types of terms that you'd use at like a Grinnell symposium or in like activist meetings [2:56] or whatever. And it's just different, you know? Yeah. And I think just having that kind of normal [3:01] human style and approach and vocabulary is rewarded in some places maybe more than others. And I think [3:07] it's rewarded here, the politics of a place like Iowa. I want to talk about your speech and the big [3:11] themes of it for a lot of the show. But we do have some news today. We're taping this Monday [3:15] afternoon. So there can be more that comes out by the time this publishes. But there's a man that's [3:20] killed today in another ice shooting in Biddeford, Maine. He's a 26-year-old from Columbia with work [3:26] authorization. We don't exactly know what that was, likely an asylum applicant. He was shot six times [3:33] while he was driving. After they shot him, they still pulled him out of the car, dropped him to the [3:37] ground and handcuffed him. It appears there's a three-year-old girl on the scene, maybe his daughter [3:43] in bluey pajamas. Just another one of these things. We have obviously the shooting in Houston [3:50] earlier this week. So I was just wondering your initial reactions. I mean, first of all, it's [3:54] stomach turning and upsetting. We don't know a lot. We don't know everything. But we know that [3:59] this keeps happening or some version of this keeps happening. And we know that this kind of thing [4:05] doesn't have to keep happening. And another thing that's on my mind, again, you know, we've just [4:13] learned about this. More information is probably coming in the next hours and the next day. But [4:17] you know, this administration's Homeland Security Department has already been caught in another [4:24] case saying that somebody was trying to ram federal agents and that turning out not to be [4:30] true, right? So I think we have more questions at a moment like this than we would if we could [4:36] trust our federal government. And then you think about people who are caught up in this. I mean, [4:42] if these reports turn out to be true about a three-year-old child on the scene, it's like, [4:49] what could possibly? And you know, whatever else anybody winds up learning or saying or claiming, [4:54] like, for God's sake, like, obviously she does not deserve to be mixed up in any of this. And I don't [5:02] know, we'll learn more, but it's so upsetting. And again, it's happening in this context where [5:07] we keep hearing word of this kind of violence that is not making anybody safer or better off. It's not [5:14] making America a better place. And it doesn't have to be like this. [5:17] You're talking about the response from the Midwest and from this part of the country. And, [5:22] you know, I thought the Minneapolis response to the violence by ICE there was just maybe the most [5:29] inspiring thing to me that's happened in Trump 2.0. And just seeing all these people in the streets, [5:35] you know, you'd kind of J.D. Vance's whole shtick is about how, you know, a diverse America, [5:41] you know, makes it harder for our cohesion. And it's like, you have this diverse community in [5:46] Minnesota, like, it's so cohesive, everybody, different race, religion, everything coming out [5:50] saying, no, this is not us. And really, the people of Minneapolis pushed back the ICE agents. I mean, [5:56] not physically, but like with their voices, with their putting their bodies in the streets. [6:01] And I guess as a result of that, this stuff died down for a while. And it kind of feels like with [6:07] the story in Houston and with this in Maine, that like the administration sort of regrouped, [6:11] they have a new secretary now, and they're kind of back to the same old thing. [6:15] Yeah. Part of what Minnesota showed was that you can, in fact, get this administration to back down. [6:22] Yeah. It's not easy, but it can be done. [6:24] And the other thing I took away from what happened in Minnesota wasn't just how they [6:28] were pushing back against the abuses, against what ICE was doing, against the administration, [6:32] but the way they were very much kind of showing that they were for each other, right? There are [6:36] all these stories of neighbors helping neighbors, people taking shifts to take care of kids or get [6:41] groceries to people's houses who couldn't go out. And yeah, just the sheer determination going out [6:48] in like sub-zero cold by the thousands, by the thousands, right? [6:51] Did you go there? I can't remember. I wasn't involved in any of that, but talked to a lot of [6:58] people who were on the ground at that time. And I did visit St. Paul while some of that was brewing. [7:04] I just felt like we also visited there when it was all brewing. It was so fucking cold. [7:08] Yeah. And, you know, we went out there outside of the detention center and it's like you had seniors and, [7:16] you know, people at the end of their work shift, like going out there doing these shifts. And I, [7:20] you know, my feet were freezing. I was out there for 30 minutes. [7:22] Yeah, but these folks are propelled. It's not just that they're, you know, [7:25] northerners and they're used to it. It's clearly propelled by this sense of right and wrong, [7:30] of fairness. I think for a lot of them, they were propelled by faith. And, and you could tell also [7:35] that cut across a lot of the old lines. I don't think all of the people marching those streets [7:39] were lifelong registered Democrats. It wasn't about that. [7:42] I think that Republican voters would say, you know, the Democrats, whether it was COVID or guns or [7:48] religion, you know, sometimes infringe on our liberty. Like what would you say to them about that? [7:53] I just say at a moment like this, a lot of what we see happening because of the administration [7:58] is like right out of the worst nightmares of my conservative and libertarian friends that I used [8:02] to argue with over beers in college. Like they'd be saying, look, if, if you let the clean water [8:07] act go too far, it's going to be this slippery slope where someday there's going to be mass federal [8:11] agents, you know, grabbing people in the streets. And I would be the one then saying like, that'll [8:16] never happen. And, and now we're in this moment where, uh, you know, because of an op-ed, because of [8:21] your, your, your politics, you know, the, the, the stuff that's going on with a surveillance state [8:26] that in different, but overlapping ways should bother libertarians, liberals, and conservatives. [8:32] Some of Alex Jones's stuff is coming true. They're spying on us. [8:35] I mean, some of that, you know, stuff that sounded paranoid, um, the sorts of things that, that, that [8:41] I, I thought of as, as actually the principled reason to have more conservative positions on what, [8:47] whether it's second amendment stuff or regulation. Now we're in it, but we're not in it because [8:52] liberals, like we're in it because the people who are in charge right now. So I would love nothing [8:55] more than to know that like no media organization is ever going to have its broadcast license [9:00] threatened over politics. Nobody's ever going to get arrested and stuffed into a van. Then we can go [9:03] back to arguing over exactly where to draw the line on second amendment stuff or, or exactly, [9:08] you know, what level of pollution regulation is an impingement on freedom. [9:12] What do you think about the response to this and what it's called now from, you know, [9:15] democratic politicians? Yeah. I think the challenge is particularly acute in the case of, [9:19] of the situation in Houston that we know more about, like the Lorenzo Araujo. And it seems to me [9:26] like Republicans feel like they can act with impunity when it comes to people who came here [9:29] illegally, even if they've been here for 35 years. And that, you know, I think that there was a sense [9:35] that, you know, this is kind of part of the risk of coming to the country illegally, like this thing [9:40] could happen, which is obviously insane. But, um, you know, I think that they felt like they could just push [9:45] this under the rug and move forward because it's like, it was different than the case of pretty [9:50] and good, et cetera. Now we have the situation in Maine, how, like what's the appropriate reaction, [9:55] right? And I do feel like at the beginning of this term, a lot of Democrats felt like [9:59] immigration's a loser for us. Yeah. We shouldn't focus on this. Like what is, [10:04] what's called for from democratic politicians? Well, I think a lot of that has changed. I think [10:09] events have demonstrated that Democrats can and should take a stand and we can bring most Americans [10:15] with us on this. Look, we believe that, that you gotta have borders. Borders have to be enforced. [10:20] We have laws, laws have to be enforced. Um, all of that is something most of us agree on, [10:24] but also most of us agree that you shouldn't be killed over an immigration violation. And most of us [10:32] agree that this is not what we were told we would have going after the worst of the worst and violent [10:38] criminals, uh, first or only. I think it was really telling, uh, that, you know, when Kilmar [10:44] Abrego Garcia, right. Got, uh, unlawfully deported or unlawfully shipped out. Uh, a lot of people in [10:50] the kind of insider political world were saying like, don't talk about that. Don't touch that. Don't go [10:54] there. He seems like a bad guy or whatever. And actually that was one example where the American [10:59] public said, whoa, this is like, this is all wrong. Right. And I think you actually feel that a lot [11:04] here in the Midwest too, where people, uh, know that this stuff is complicated because their, uh, [11:10] their neighborhood or their community or the farms near where they live cannot function without a lot [11:16] of these people who do not have status, but who are also here and are otherwise law abiding, tax paying, [11:22] often very important members of the community. And I, I think, I hope that this also builds more [11:27] pressure to actually do something with the system, right. Cause so many of the Republicans, [11:33] of course, who are capitalizing politically on all the anger and confusion over this are the [11:38] ones who've done everything they can for years, sometimes for decades to stop us from actually [11:44] fixing the system. And, you know, in order for a fence to work, there has to be a gate, [11:49] uh, and our gate is all messed up as a country. This episode is brought to you by the New York [11:56] Times. Uh, there's a bunch of stories that caught my eye this week in New York Times, obviously, [11:59] um, the story that the administration is investigating them for, you know, we discussed [12:05] that last week, um, with you guys, they're reporting on how the hand-me-down cuttery plane [12:11] didn't have the defenses necessary to get our president out of Turkey. Um, as a result of that [12:17] reporting, New York Times is now being investigated by some guy who wants to be Trump's new DNI. It is [12:24] totally shameful and thank goodness for the work they're doing. Um, they had another story that I [12:30] wanted to get to because there's so much going on, but we'll just do it right now. It was by Jane [12:36] Bradley, Michael Schwartz, and Adam Goldman. The piece is titled, How Putin Turned Japan into a Den [12:41] of Spies. It's like one of these stories, you're like, how is this, how is this real? They found that [12:46] the Russian spies were expelled from Western countries after the invasion of Ukraine ended up in Japan, [12:52] where they're part of a secret military intelligence unit called the 20th directorate to help them, [12:59] um, you know, figure out kind of, uh, Western, uh, military technology and strategies, um, so that [13:07] they can improve their capabilities in the war in Ukraine. The spies pose as diplomats or business [13:13] people. It's like the Americans, I guess it'd be, I guess it's the Japanese, um, great TV show. Um, [13:19] and, uh, thanks to this effort and unintentionally, this isn't really Japan's fault. Their technology [13:22] is propping up the Russian military crazy story. You've got to go read it. And this is the thing [13:26] about podcasting. We've got some great reporters here at the bulwark. I appreciate doing on the [13:31] ground work. You know, I'm here kind of half reporting in Iowa. So, you know, I do some, [13:35] I do some baby reporting, but you need people out there in Japan. We're not uncovering shit in Japan. [13:42] Okay. So you need people doing real reporting so that I can chat about it so we can analyze it and, [13:50] and give perspective and contextualize it so that you guys know what's going on in the world. And so [13:57] I appreciate all the reporters out there doing that takes a lot of time and effort to put together [14:01] stories like this. Um, this story about the 20th directorate is just one example. There's so many [14:08] others out there support your local journalists here at the bulwark at the New York times and elsewhere, [14:13] wherever you seek it out, nationally, locally support fact-based reporting. [14:16] The Abreu-Garcia example was such a good one to me because of also an early example of seeing [14:22] that the administration could be stopped. Yes. Even I, again, it was named Chris Van [14:26] Holland. Shout out. Like there were some Democrats who were, who were speaking out of this, but that [14:30] was a time where everybody's still very cautious about this. That's like, this is insane. Like we [14:33] have a, like the Marco Rubio, we learned this from the Haverman and Swan book I had Maggie on last week. [14:38] Marco Rubio, who's supposed to be the normal responsible adult in the administration was like the [14:42] point man for cutting this deal with Bukele, where he's like, we're going to have a, you're going [14:46] to have a gulag essentially in El Salvador where we're going to send these people. We were sending [14:51] innocent people there. And it was absolutely, I think the most outrageous thing the administration [14:58] has done. And right now there's nobody there, you know, it doesn't feel like a huge wind to have [15:02] nobody, nobody in the gulags, but it is. No, but this is important. Like, and it's especially [15:05] important to understand, like, you don't have to wait till the next presidential election. You don't even [15:10] have to wait till the upcoming midterm election to change things that are going on. This [15:15] administration that swears up and down that it will never back down, they actually back down [15:20] quite often when there is enough pressure, whether it is righteous pressure over the mistreatment and [15:25] the abuses going on with immigration enforcement, or whether it's something like the tariffs. I mean, [15:30] it can happen. And that should be a lesson for all of us who were, you know, trying to keep up the [15:35] energy to mobilize against this stuff. How do you think Marco has been doing? [15:40] If he hadn't asked for it, I would feel sorry for him. And, you know, to me, it became hard [15:48] to look at him the same way ever. I know this is not in the top 10 of what most people talk about, [15:53] but when Marco Rubio lied to Congress about whether the aid cuts had killed children, when he stood there [16:00] with a straight face and said, no children died over this, when we already knew the names of some [16:06] of the children who had been killed by this, right then you could just tell that this guy's just morally, [16:13] and I hope politically, never going to recover from selling his soul. [16:17] Your lips to God's ears, Pete. Let's talk about the speech and the themes. I summed it up this way. [16:23] You were basically trying to talk about how to balance the challenges with the broken political [16:32] system against the questions of people's everyday concerns, right? And this is a big challenge. [16:39] You have Democrats, the democratic circles, like, how do we deal with this? [16:42] Wars have been fought for our system, starting with the first one, the one that launched 250 years ago [16:51] with that declaration of independence, the one that gave this nation its being, [16:56] founders risked their lives for a better political system. So don't tell me it can't stir people's [17:01] hearts. Don't tell me that it's not worth fighting for. [17:05] Don't tell me that it can't stir people's hearts was the one, was the line that made me perk up my [17:09] ears saying they're listening, because that did feel like kind of a subtle message to the chattering [17:15] class, right? That like that, that this issue that because Biden Harris lost and because the whatever [17:22] pro-democracy movement was not successful in keeping Trump out, you know, there's some people [17:26] like we, we shouldn't talk about those are esoteric concerns we shouldn't talk about anymore. Make the [17:32] opposite case. Yeah, exactly. What, what I'm trying to make the case for is that the things that are [17:38] happening in our economy, the price of gas and diesel, what's going on with, with mortgages and interest [17:43] rates cannot be separated from what's broken in our political system. The, the problems with our [17:49] economic reality are related to the problems with our political system. And so it is a response to [17:55] this, uh, conventional wisdom that you get from a lot of the political strategists who say, don't go [18:01] there on the need for political reform, uh, because that comes, you don't never talk about that when you [18:08] could be talking about the price of eggs. Nobody cares about democracy when they're worried about putting [18:13] food on the table. Now I get that putting food on the table is the most immediate concern, [18:18] but I, I don't think that means we leave behind the other stuff. I think that from the moment of our [18:24] founding, Americans have understood that so much depends on the system. There was a time, you know, [18:31] we're all so jaded about the system, right? If, if I say the system is broken, that would be the most [18:35] like cliche, unremarkable, forgettable thing I said all day. Yeah, no shit, right? Um, but think about how [18:41] crazy it is that we act like that's not a, a, a terrifying, alarming thing to say the system is [18:47] broken and the politicians have been saying that for years and it's true. That's a really big deal. [18:54] Like the system in many ways is us. The system is, is, is America's greatest contribution. The idea [18:59] of a different political system where the people are in charge, it's what the revolution was fought [19:03] over. It's also a big part of what the cold war was fought over, right? So yeah, I just refuse to- [19:09] Us being able to project out that our system was better than theirs was, was like a key [19:13] part of winning the cold war. And again, importantly, not just that it was better [19:18] because it was like academically more elegant in its representation, but it was better because [19:22] in fact, if you were just trying to get a ham sandwich, you were better off doing that in our [19:25] political and economic system than in theirs. In other words, there, there continued to be a direct [19:31] line. The tankies are going to be mad at you for that. The, the tankies. There's a, there's a little [19:37] Stalinist movement coming up on the online left. Great. Great. I'm just saying you're gonna get [19:41] in trouble on techie Twitter for saying that it was better. They had good ham sandwiches, [19:45] I heard behind the iron. You know, maybe, maybe there were some decent ham sandwiches out there, [19:49] but it was not a place I'd want to go to the grocery. Right. And, um, now I'm having all these [19:55] images of Tucker in the Russian groceries. Um, these things are all connected and we can't pretend [20:01] otherwise. And I think it's also important because the way that the people in charge now are breaking [20:07] our institutions and our norms and our political system, and the way, in my opinion, they're [20:12] screwing up everyday life and the economy and healthcare and, and, and, and prices and tariffs [20:16] and so on, uh, they're, they're breaking everything at the same time. Yeah. So we ought to be ready to [20:21] be fixing a lot of things at the same time. And I think if we're not ready to present that governing [20:24] vision now, then it becomes a lot harder for us to explain what we're about. I think it's actually [20:30] very possible that, that the Democratic Party does well this November and then lapses into thinking that [20:39] its job is just to put everything back the way it was. This is what happened in 2022. [20:44] Yeah. I mean, I, I don't, I think, you know, we, we, we relitigated Biden the last time you're on [20:49] the pods. We don't have to do that. But I do think that a big part of Biden deciding to run again and [20:53] was, was like this idea that in 2022, that the Democrats, you know, there was supposed to be this [20:58] red wave. There wasn't Democrats outperformed and it created, I do think, a complacency. [21:03] Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, again, being here in Iowa is giving me flashbacks to 2019, 2020. [21:10] The whole idea of me running, it wasn't just generational change. It was very much a, [21:14] we can't return to normal kind of message. Yeah. It was the idea that we, there's no going [21:18] back to the old ways. Partly because that was what my whole formative experience in South Bend, [21:23] Indiana was that, that we couldn't, you know, we were the city that, that is best known, of course, [21:28] because Notre Dame is there, but we were the company town for Studebaker, uh, and lost our biggest [21:34] employer, this huge auto company, 20 years before I was even born. My whole youth and upbringing, [21:39] we were still licking our wounds from that. And when I become mayor, basically 50 years after [21:43] Studebaker closes, uh, there's still crumbling factories all over the city and we're still [21:48] figuring out what we're going to be next. And there's still a temptation to say, well, [21:51] we're going to go back and get that somehow. And so, you know, part of the whole reason I got into [21:57] elected office was saying like, we're not gonna make South Bend great again. Like we're doing something [22:03] new and different only to worry that my party has, has taken the same turn of actually in a weird [22:08] way. We would never say it, but in a weird way, sometimes I think Democrats are giving out off [22:15] the impression that what we want to do is just get the world to look the way it looked. If not under [22:20] Biden, then maybe under Obama, then we're going to go back or the Clinton year or something. There's [22:24] some like date that we have. It's not the fifties, like where the Republicans want to take us. [22:28] Yeah. But it's in the past and that just can't be right. [22:30] Or if not that, you talked about this a little bit in the speech too, that you found yourself [22:35] in the position of being the defenders of these institutions that are broken. [22:38] Right. We're going to need to work together and frankly, shed some old habits while we're at work [22:43] fixing some old systems. This is harder than it ought to be for Democrats who have sometimes allowed [22:49] ourselves to get boxed in as defenders of the institutions and systems that we inherited. [22:55] And look, I know how it happened. We were right to be outraged when they came in [23:01] and perverted the system, rigged the system, burned down important parts of the system. [23:06] But the answer cannot be to try to put everything back the way it used to be. [23:18] We're not going to all this trouble just to find the shards of everything they smashed up and try [23:23] to tape it back together to look just like it used to. [23:25] Even, you know, while paying lip service saying they should be changed or whatever, like [23:30] just because Donald Trump is bringing this flamethrower to everything. [23:33] Right. [23:34] Yeah. Democrats find themselves being like, well, you know, um, defending kind of the [23:39] military industrial complex because Trump was saying that it was bad or defending the FBI or, [23:45] you know, like all of these things that, you know, in the past had not been the providence of the left. [23:50] Right. And, and, and how do you even get out of that bind? Like, I think it's like, it's easier to [23:57] identify it than to figure out how to get out of it. Because when you're kind of, you're always going to be the [24:02] institutionalist party kind of, if you're running against, you know, the clowns with flame flowers. [24:06] So a couple of things, uh, I think this is exactly right. We, we hated seeing them burn [24:10] down or break down all these things. So of course we instinctively defended them. And on one level, [24:14] I get that, uh, you know, it's criminally wrong to, to just burn down the USAID or the Department [24:20] of Education or you name it. Right. Um, but that doesn't mean everything was going along just fine. [24:25] So how do we get through this? A couple of things. One, I think we need to be going back to first [24:30] principles and we think we're like the intellectual party, like the thoughtful party. Uh, but I think [24:36] in many ways we've actually lost a step compared to the right. I mean, I imagine you may have come [24:42] up in this world, right? Where if you're, you're, you're like a young, uh, Republican staffer of our [24:47] generation, like you, by the time you show up for your first campaign or Capitol Hill internship, [24:52] like you have like a copy of Hayek or Friedman issued by the heritage foundation under your arm, [24:57] right? Like you're thinking about like the big things and you would think the left would have [25:02] that too, but actually like, because the academic left got less and less connected to kind of politics [25:07] and in some ways, I think to reality, uh, we actually have a bit of a weakness on our side. [25:11] So I think we need to be investing more in the same way that the right did for decades [25:17] in thinking about, okay, what are our basic commitments in liberalism and what do they mean for [25:22] a 2020s answer to what a department of education should look like or what housing policy ought to be [25:28] like or how we do international development? Uh, I think that's a really important piece. [25:32] A project 2029, if you will. [25:33] Well, but more like a project 2050, right? That's, this is what I'm getting at. Like, [25:37] I know there's a lot of kind of, uh, attempts at a project 2029. Some of them are doing really good [25:42] work, but you know, the thing that became project 2025 started in the heritage foundation in, I believe, [25:49] 1980. Like that's when they started this iterative process that, that they updated every few years [25:55] that became project 2025, which means if we wanted to do a project 2050 and we started today, [26:01] we'd already be like 20 years behind compared to that, right? So like, of course we need answers [26:07] for kind of immediate moves. And, and what I admire about the project 29 stuff is it's looking at [26:12] kind of tools and laws and, and, and departments, things that exist right now and how you could run [26:16] with them and make change right away. That's great. But who's thinking about 2050, uh, and, and kind of [26:21] solving back from that to what we ought to be doing in 2026 if we want to get to where we ought to be [26:27] in 2050. I think that's the level of ambition that the last generation or two of right-wing think tank [26:34] leaders and the smarter politicians on the right had. And I think we've been punched in the face so [26:40] much on the, on the left and among Democrats that we have a hard time kind of seeing over the horizon [26:44] into that. The other thing I would say, I mean, some of that sounds like very kind of like big picture [26:49] and cosmic and academic, but it also sounds a little institutional. It's still kind of like [26:53] a institutional answer. It's not that the answer is not like, oh, we're going to come in and say, [27:00] you know, screw, uh, I don't know, let's burn down. Uh, like, look at these mistakes in Iran [27:07] and maybe we should get rid of bases in the region. Maybe we should get out of the region altogether or [27:11] look at how cash has screwed up the FBI. Maybe we need to rip the FBI written branch and started from [27:17] scratch. I, you know, I don't know. I think we should have, we should be ready to do that kind [27:21] of clean sheet thinking, especially because right now we have clean sheets in a lot of places because [27:25] they just burned everything down. I hate how we got the clean sheet, but that's where we're at. So I [27:29] think that is the level of ambition we ought to have. But the other way to think about it is ground up. [27:33] So for example, I've been talking to more and more mayors who are very frustrated with dealing with [27:39] HUD as we know it. And HUD actually has not been destroyed in the same way that like the [27:44] Department of Education or USAID have. Um, but you know, obviously not being led in the best way [27:50] right now. But my point is, I don't think anybody would say the way it looked five years or 10 years [27:55] or 20 years ago was ideal. Certainly from the perspective of the mayor trying to build housing [27:58] or get housing to be more affordable. So I've been talking to mayors saying, okay, what if you really [28:02] got to start over? Like what would be different? What would give you the flexibility you need [28:06] to actually build something? Because I've talked to some mayors who say they're better off [28:10] finding a different source of money altogether than trying to use federal money to solve a [28:16] problem. I actually experienced a version of this in transportation, like the signature [28:20] transportation policy that I had as mayor, the one that got me recognition from the U.S. [28:26] Department of Transportation. I felt so proud. They invited me to get a certificate. [28:30] Yeah, I got a plaque. Yeah, from the Secretary of Transportation. And I was really proud of it. [28:34] Norman Mineta? [28:35] No, no, it was Anthony Fox. And it was a big deal for us. [28:40] But we actually did that project without federal funding, partly because it would have been too [28:45] hard to get and to use the federal funding. That was the kind of thing I tried to [28:48] work on and change when I was in Washington. So what I'm saying is kind of from the top down, [28:53] in terms of like getting back in touch with our first principles and big ideas, [28:57] and from the bottom up in terms of looking at, okay, what actually works? We should be ready to [29:03] have everything look different, including things that are, because the reality is so different. [29:07] Yeah, including on things that we cherish. We care a lot about the U.N. [29:10] And, you know, in many ways, even though it's easy to take a shot at the U.N. [29:15] rhetorically, politically, and, you know, there's lots of justification for some of that. But like, [29:19] if you talk about the mission of, you know, preventing another world war, like as of today, [29:25] done pretty well at that, right? But more broadly, like the way that place works, the bureaucracy of it, [29:30] the setup of it, the things that don't have any real effectual impact there, probably reflect [29:40] the fact that that was set up in such a different time. Like the Security Council was set up at a time [29:45] when nine out of 10 people living in China were impoverished rural peasants. And now, I think it's [29:56] probably safe to say that a person who lives in a city, like a middle-class city dweller in China, [30:01] on average, may live a more like technologically advanced life than a middle-class city dweller in [30:07] the U.S. I'd rather be in the U.S. Yeah, sure, sure, sure, sure. But I'm just talking about like [30:11] one example. AI obviously brings a whole other set of examples of all these realities that have [30:15] changed. The institutions haven't. I think rather than just fine tuning and tinkering, it's time to [30:19] start over. And in many cases, we have to. Some of two might, I have like two wolves inside of me on [30:24] this. Like there's the political wolf that is like, I want you to go further. I want to, you know, [30:31] I want the Democrats to, you know, capture the spirit of, you know, being the ones that went [30:38] after the system, that went after the man, right? Like I went to a TPSA conference before Charlie [30:43] died. And one of the things that struck me about it was one of the things I always did is I went up [30:48] to the young guys and I was just always like, why are you here? Like, what is it that animates you about [30:52] this? And how many of them were basically just like, F the man. I'm tired of the man. I don't want to [30:57] go to stupid wars. I'm screwed. And it's like, that's so weird that that's the conservative [31:01] conference that that is the feeling. And so part of me, like once the Democrats to capture that [31:07] sentiment more, then there's like the small C conservative part of me, you know, Oak shot, [31:12] you know, that's like, okay, I read you a notice the other day, you did an interview where you're [31:16] talking about how you were radicalized inside the Biden administration or something, but by the fact [31:21] that, you know, some of these big changes didn't get done. But I don't, I look at the Biden [31:25] administration. I'm like, well, there was one issue in which they all went for like big change [31:31] outside of the norms in the system. That was student loan reform. And that was a disaster. [31:35] It was a political disaster. It was cause, you know, it ends up getting overruled by the [31:41] conservative Supreme court. People that didn't go to college are kind of bitter. And they're like, why? [31:45] I'm just pissed that I, why didn't I get a bailout? People that thought they were going to get a belt [31:50] and didn't get a bailout were mad. And so you guys tried to go outside the system and break the [31:55] system. And it, and you know, you ended up stepping on a rake. And so part of me thinks [31:59] about that. It's like, oh, it sounds nice to say we want bigger form, but the best example of that [32:04] from the Biden administration was a total failure. So there's a reason that that particular policy [32:09] wasn't on my list when I was running for president. Uh, but, uh, look, I'd say I am not here to say that, [32:16] that the administration was wrong to take big swings. Obviously I was in the middle of the big swing [32:20] we took on infrastructure. I'm proud of it. Uh, there's a lot of things also that I learned about [32:24] what makes it harder to do more in the system that we have. Um, but also, you know, good policies that [32:30] were big swings, like the policy around the child tax credit that cut child poverty in half in this [32:36] country. Right. I don't think a problem was that there were too many big swings. We could argue [32:40] that some of them were right, some of them were wrong, but I still think the bigger problem in those [32:44] years was that, uh, our, our party was not ready to really dig in on the bigger, deeper structural [32:52] problems that we have. And I get it. If, if you finally managed to pull off a win in this structure, [32:58] are you really gonna immediately turn around and try to, try to take down the structure that you [33:01] wanted? Well, the people in charge now are. So what are some examples? We weren't. Well, [33:05] I would start, first of all, I think we, we've lost like 10 good years on money in politics. I think [33:12] if we got to work on constitutional change around Citizens United. Yes, public integrity means doing [33:18] something about the role of money in our politics. They say that's impossible because the Citizens [33:29] United, you can't do anything about that short of a constitutional amendment. Well, then let's do [33:36] that. I mean, we did 29 of them. This would make a pretty good 30th amendment, I should think. We went [33:55] so far as to change our constitution so you couldn't get a beer. And then we thought that's a bad idea. [34:02] We changed it back. So don't tell me we can't change the constitution to clear up that money is not [34:07] speech and corporations are not people. Don't tell me we can't take big swings, take real risks, [34:17] do big work. That kind of thing takes 20 or 30 years to do. If we'd done it, if we'd started 10 [34:23] years ago, we'd be halfway there, if you believe it takes 20 years. And we just don't have that much [34:29] work to show for it. I think that the commitments on Supreme Court reform could have been a lot more [34:37] ambitious. Again, I'm having flashbacks to people looking at me really funny here in Iowa in 2019, [34:44] when I'm saying, I don't think we have the right number of justices on the Supreme Court. I don't [34:47] think we have the right way of choosing justices on the Supreme Court. And now that's- [34:51] I'm going to give you credit on this one. I looked at you funny on that one. The very first time [34:54] you would not remember this. The very first time we met, my friend Liz Smith was gathering a little [34:59] round table for you. I was living in Oakland at the time and it was in some conference room in San [35:02] Francisco. You're the mayor of South Bend. And I'm sitting in there with like 20 dudes in lanyards. [35:08] And you were doing this. We need a full Supreme Court reform. We need 13 Supreme Court. We need [35:13] rotating justices. And I'm in the back going, I don't know. What's happening? Who is this mayor [35:19] that wants to be president, thinks we should have 13 Supreme Court justices? But that was OG, [35:23] and you hadn't even announced yet. That was where you were from the start. [35:26] Well, I'm surprised you came to that. [35:27] Oh yeah. Well, Liz, it was a favor. It was a favor. Yeah. [35:31] Yeah. No, that's the thing. And now I think we see why that, you know, most Democrats and [35:36] not yet most Americans are there. I think most Americans do believe we need some kind of reform, [35:41] like at least something like an ethics code or term limits. I think it would go bigger. [35:45] I think there's a whole set of things like that. I think the way that we [35:49] elect members of the House, which by the way, is not dictated in the Constitution. [35:53] Uncap the House? Are you going to go uncap the House? [35:56] Well, definitely the size of the House is a weird thing. [35:58] Yeah. [35:58] Um, and look, having dealt with Congress, I understand that to some extent, [36:03] to some extent share the instinct that says like, would we really ever want like more [36:06] Congressmen than we've already got? 300 more. [36:08] Um, you know, that's a good example of something that we've lived with for 100 years, [36:12] so we just assume it's in the Constitution, just like the number nine Supreme Court justices [36:16] know we're in the Constitution, right? The number 435 House members, if that feels random, [36:21] it's because it is. Like we just updated every few years and then we stopped because nobody could agree on, [36:25] on how to do it the last time we tried, which I think was in like the 20s or something. [36:29] Yeah, something like that. [36:30] And, um, it turns out that that is one thing that has made it easier to gerrymander, [36:36] and that is one thing that has contributed to the, the kind of lock of the two-party system [36:41] that we have right now. Maybe not the only or the most important thing, but, uh, but my point is, [36:46] we need to be asking bigger and deeper questions than some of this, uh, kind of this kind of fine [36:53] tuning thing. So I think it's, it's not just acceptable, but correct if you are, if you think [36:59] of yourself as moderate ideologically, to also be interested in radical change institutionally. [37:06] Yeah. [37:07] Because, you know, radical institutional change is literally the stuff of the founding. It's what [37:12] 250 years ago this month, uh, we did that made America, America. And honestly, the changes I'm [37:18] talking about are not as radical as that. I'm talking about overthrowing, you know, thousands [37:22] of years of, of, of monarchy being the way you do things and replacing it with the untested republic. [37:26] I'm just saying we've got to tune up our republic in ways that feel radical now, but, uh, at other [37:33] moments in our history have been perfectly mainstream. Uh, you know, I also feel this way about the popular [37:38] vote, uh, which I still think has to happen sooner or later. I think if we did, it would be good [37:42] for, um, every, every community, actually. Um, it would be good for Republican. It would be good [37:49] for Brooklyn if Republican candidates had to turn out the 30 or 40 percent of votes that they could [37:54] get out of Brooklyn. It would be good. 18. Sure. [37:56] Okay. You'd still have to turn them out because there's so many of them. Yeah. [37:59] It would be good for, um, Utah if Democrats had to show up in Utah and get the votes that they could [38:05] out of Utah. Like that would make us all better. And of course, I think it should generally be a good [38:09] thing if, uh, we had the, the basic principle that if you get the most votes, you ought to win. [38:15] You haven't been to Greenpoint lately. It's not 30 percent. The, uh, Utah, uh, brings up an [38:20] interesting comment I saw this week from Mitt Romney. I don't know if you saw this. He's being [38:24] interviewed by McKay Coppins and, uh, Mitt, I, I was here. I was actually going against him in the [38:30] primary, I believe. Is that memory correct? I don't know. Time is starting to get long, but I was here in [38:34] Iowa, um, at the state fair where he was on the soapbox when he yelled at the guy, corporations are [38:40] people, my friend. I can remember that vividly. And, um, you know, you made a reference to that [39:05] last night or, uh, and, and the speech, you know, talking about how that's part of the constitutional [39:09] amendment, corporations aren't people. I was interested in this interview that Mick gave. [39:14] He said he was talking about the malign influence of Elon Musk's money on politics. And he's like, [39:20] and he basically was saying, we need to do, you know, we have not been in this situation before. [39:25] Like this is regardless of what your position is in the past on politics, we've not been in a [39:29] situation where you have a trillionaire spending, you know, half a billion on a single race and then [39:37] being able to get influence in the white house and then being able to oversee how their company is [39:42] regulated. Like that is not something that we've dealt with. Maybe we have back in gilded age times, [39:47] right? Was the last time, maybe even, maybe not. Um, and so I thought that was intriguing that like [39:54] the same week that I saw Mitt making that criticism, you were referencing his remarks. And to me, [39:59] I think that says a lot about how, like that is potentially an issue that there could be broad-based [40:05] support for. Yeah. And I think among the American people, there is, I mean, the American people [40:09] don't need to be sold on reforms like, uh, overthrowing Citizens United and doing it with [40:15] a constitutional amendment if that's what it takes. I was just in Montana and, uh, you know, [40:20] there's an initiative there. It's a ballot initiative to, uh, basically redefine corporations to make [40:26] clear that they don't get to spend on campaigns. So it's different than trying to regulate campaigns. [40:31] It regulates corporations, which only exist, uh, in terms of the powers that a state law gives them. [40:37] I'm not a legal scholar, but it's, as I understand it, a really, uh, smart way to try to do a bank [40:42] shot around Citizens United. So it's called the Montana Plan. And what I noticed when I was there [40:48] was that it's a very bipartisan effort. Uh, people, and, and Montana's actually a great example, [40:54] uh, talking about the, the, the, um, extreme power you just mentioned, where it really was like that [40:59] a hundred years ago in the days of the Copper Kings. You had, I think at one point, the richest [41:03] man in the country, the Elon of his day, if you will, there was this guy, Bill Clark. He's a Montana [41:07] copper magnate, almost literally bought and sold the legislature of Montana, uh, controlled the [41:16] newspapers too, uh, him and the other Copper Kings. And it reached a point where the corruption [41:20] was so extreme. So it just stank so much that Montana kind of overthrew it. They passed this law, [41:27] the corrupt practices act. I think of 1912, it stood as kind of a model of campaign finance [41:33] legislation passed in 1912 and it lasted until it met the John Roberts Supreme Court and Citizens [41:40] United. But anyway, I mentioned all this to say, like, that's obviously not like democratic territory [41:46] in Montana, but, uh, I think there's a good chance that this thing will pass. And there certainly was [41:51] a lot of support for it on the ground. So I think this can be a unifying issue. There shouldn't be [41:55] anything partisan about, uh, about political reform, at least some of these basic reforms. [42:00] I think most of us think we ought to do. Practical concerns. You kind of alluded to [42:04] this was just the current Supreme Court. What other stuff can get past it? It seems like you're [42:11] obviously already thinking about that. I mean, you know, by mentioning that congressional, you know, [42:15] house reform, you know, number of house members, number of Supreme Court members, DC is a state that [42:20] wouldn't have to get through the Supreme Court. Would you be for that? Yeah, of course. Like, [42:23] what, what sense does it make that if you, you could have two people who are both bartenders or [42:31] soldiers or whatever, um, who live a hundred yards apart from each other, but one of them's on the, [42:40] the DC side of that neighborhood and the other one's on the Maryland or Virginia side. [42:44] And one of them gets to have, uh, a senator, two senators and a member of Congress and the other [42:48] one doesn't. It makes no sense. Yeah. It's just, at a very fundamental level, unfair. So again, [42:54] we've got, it's not just the wrong number of justices on the Supreme Court. We probably got [42:57] the wrong number of house members in the house and we've got the wrong number of states in the union. [43:01] And some of the, some of this other stuff though, is going to be tough to get to the Supreme Court. [43:06] All of this stuff is going to be tough. That's why we need to work really hard on it, right? [43:09] I mean, I'm sure 50 years ago when the right was initiating the project to undo Roe v. Wade, [43:15] let alone some of the other stuff around the unitary executive or whenever that came up. Sure. [43:18] Like that stuff wasn't just on the back foot. Some of that stuff would have been considered laughable [43:23] where they started that, right? And they were willing to take the law. [43:27] Having the doctrine that we can start a war without the Senate, but that the Senate does [43:31] need to approve a treaty to end the war. That's the current R.I.P. Lindsey Graham. That was a [43:36] Lindsey Graham doctrine. You know? Stuff that would have got you laughed out of the room then [43:39] is reality now. And we should have that same, if we're confident that we're right, we should have [43:46] that same confidence. Okay. So here's the political pushback you get. Let's just say this. Let's say we live [43:50] in the good place. You know? It's 2029 and there's a regular Democrat that's president, [43:56] whatever that means to you. And the Democrats have 50 House or Senate members so you can [44:02] squeak stuff through if you want to, and they control the House. There's still going to be a lot [44:06] of pressure to have the priority be Medicare for all that want it, not reforming the number of House [44:13] members. Do both. If they can break everything at once, we can build a lot of things at once. [44:22] This idea, especially after what we just witnessed, this just like onslaught, this shock and awe of [44:28] every part, not just within government and policy, but of society, of everything from universities to [44:34] law firms to late night comedians having to deal with the kind of unrelenting force of the White [44:40] House. If they can do that, then surely we can handle healthcare and House reform in the same session. [44:49] Maybe. I don't know. Last time you guys tried to put up H.R. 1 and that's languished for the whole [44:54] four years. [44:54] Which is terrible because we'd be a lot better off of the past, right? So yeah, I mean, again, [44:58] this is the hard things are hard, right? I'm not saying any of this stuff is easy. I'm not even [45:06] saying that the next Congress or the next president can get half this stuff done. I'm saying that we've [45:10] got to get it done in our time and it only gets done if we get to work on it sooner, like yesterday. [45:16] Okay. There's another thing that you might have to do in that situation, which is the accountability [45:20] side of things. [45:21] Last time you were on, you gave us a surprisingly interesting answer from a politician. I have [45:30] like politicians on the podcast less because, you know, you guys are a little less interesting [45:34] oftentimes, you know, for just bullshitting. But I gave you the time machine question. So if you go [45:40] back, you know, what would you have done differently, you know, five years ago? And the easy, like the [45:45] obvious answer that a lot of people give is Merrick Garland. You know, maybe the Biden administration [45:50] should have put in somebody else at DOJ who is more aggressive at investigating Trump. [45:55] You talked about COVID mistakes. People can go listen to that if they want. I agree with that. [46:00] But let's do the project forward now, like within the context of the Garland, right? Is that, [46:08] how do you think about that in 2029? It seems like there's some crimes happening. I mean, [46:13] president's family's getting unbelievably rich. Corey Lewandowski, there's some reports, [46:19] said some insider deals at DHS. We're murdering people in the streets. We don't even know who [46:24] the shooter was in one of these killings. I mean, it seems like there's a lot of potential [46:28] accountability. How do you think about that? I think there has to be accountability. And I [46:33] don't buy into this idea that we have to just kind of paper over and pretend that that didn't happen, [46:39] especially because this is not about going after fellow Americans who disagreed with us politically. [46:47] This is about making sure that corruption doesn't go unchecked and it should be done in a way that [46:53] is raising the bar, whether we're talking about Republicans or Democrats or anybody else in power, [46:58] abusing their power. I believe much more of that's happening among Republicans right now than not, [47:03] but that's, it's not about Republicans and Democrats, right? And I actually think we only get to [47:09] a place where things get better in this country when we've established that the kind of self-dealing, [47:13] the kind of corruption, uh, the kind of, I'm pretty confident illegal behavior, but that has to be [47:18] shown right in court, um, uh, that there's some, some accountability for that. And if we get it right, [47:26] kind of a permission structure for people who were part of it to renounce it as well. I actually think [47:32] that's really important. Um, uh, nobody can make somebody do that, but I, I know you and I both know [47:39] there are a lot of people who are part of this, who know in their hearts that they're part of something [47:44] that is wrong. And if any one of us is wrong about something politically or ideologically, [47:51] whatever, I mean, we're right, we're wrong. That is what it is. But if people are part of something [47:54] that is legally wrong or wrong by the lights of just basic morality in this whole country, never mind [47:59] the politics of it, there has to be a way to talk about that. And over time, there has to be a way to [48:03] talk about that openly so that we get to a place, when I'm thinking about 2050, where, you know, [48:09] there are certain just basic boundaries and, and, and, and principles that people who voted either [48:18] way last time around agree on by then. The people who are against each other on all kinds of things [48:23] still agree on this as the foundation. What about the ballroom? Do we take out a sledgehammer to that? [48:28] Do you take out, do you start tearing that back down? I definitely think there's some like weird [48:33] gold filigree that's got to come off a lot of federal buildings and some pictures of the dear [48:37] leader that have to go. Um, but I don't know. I mean, I, I, to me, the, the thing about the ballroom [48:42] war is just what it symbolizes, right? This idea that you, you, you tore some, that tore something [48:46] down and are raising all this money and spending all this time and energy is that the big problem [48:51] that Americans have right now is, you know, we lack a nicer ballroom for fancy parties at the White [48:59] House. As if like any of the people who voted for this guy, uh, we're, we're going to the polls saying [49:05] like the reason I want this guy is I know he builds a damn good ballroom. Yeah. And, uh, and I [49:09] want to send that to Washington. One other quote in your speech last night, um, seemed to be a [49:15] reference to what happened recently. And it means state and federal government capable of standing [49:20] up for people's rights, the right to live your life as you see fit. So long as you're not hurting [49:25] anyone else, the right to carry a sign or write an op-ed or criticize your government, the right to make [49:37] your own healthcare decisions, the right to be who you are and love who you love and raise your family [49:44] in peace. It seems like that was a reference to the fact that CPS came to your house and prevented [49:49] you from raising your family in peace. I mean, it wasn't only about that, but that's obviously something [49:53] that's been on my mind. Um, what happened to our family, uh, a few weeks ago was the most fucked up thing [50:00] that's ever happened to us since I got into public life. Um, and it should never happen. So, uh, I don't [50:13] know how much more I can say about it than I've said, other than that, um, I will say this, you know, [50:18] we, we made this decision to speak out almost, uh, right away. And, uh, I'm glad that we did. And when we [50:27] did, we heard so much more than I expected from so many people, not just like people who are aligned with [50:33] me politically or my friends, but like, you know, some people who spoke out who were not our friends [50:38] politically, people I've campaigned against. So to me, that reinforces the idea that even in this [50:44] moment, we do in fact share some boundaries, some, most of us, almost all of us at least. [50:49] It's only basic, uh, sense of what is and is not okay and what should be and should not be part of [51:01] the cost of being in public life. Yeah. And, uh, and I was encouraged by that. [51:05] That's nice that you were encouraged by something. Cause that whole thing was pretty distressing [51:09] to me. Obviously I didn't experience it, but I just like the, what actually happened that night [51:15] or the day where they came to your house, like, like, what do you think about that process? [51:20] Like the idea that they could say to you, like, you have to be separate from your kids for a night. [51:26] I, I, I don't have that much familiarity with the system. I assume you have more familiarity now [51:31] than you did a couple of weeks ago. What did you, what do you think about that? [51:34] Yeah. We got a lot of questions about how it got to that point and, um, how a system [51:41] whose entire purpose is to protect children and to protect the innocent could be abused that easily. [51:51] Um, and have learned a lot about that system and these systems since. One thing I've learned is that [51:57] many places have, uh, a way to have confidential reporting that is still not anonymous as far as the [52:04] state is concerned, which can be important because making a false report is a crime. [52:09] Yeah. Do we know who made the report? [52:14] So we've been in contact with authorities, uh, because we're interested in the person who did [52:21] this being prosecuted. Um, because we're in contact with authorities, that's all I'm going to say about [52:25] it right now. There's just so much [52:27] bullshit victim culture sometimes. Um, you know, you see this on the right, you see it, [52:31] you see it across the board, right? Um, in our society right now, it's like, [52:35] you can get attention from being a victim and attention matters, um, more than it used to. [52:40] And so I, I, there's part of me that like instinctually does not want to go to the gay place [52:48] here. And yet, like, it's kind of hard for me to separate this. And it's kind of hard for me to [52:55] imagine that if you were a straight politician, that this would have been the criminal prank that [53:02] was played on you. Uh, what do you think about that? [53:04] This is the first time I've heard of this being done to anybody in politics. Um, you know, [53:11] when you go into politics, you know that a lot of crazy and awful things can happen. [53:16] I did not have the imagination to guess that something like this could happen. And, uh, [53:26] I hope that it never happens again to anybody. Um, but yeah, we're, we're the ones that happened to, [53:32] right? And, uh, I don't know. I mean, but first of all, obviously I believe that anybody getting into [53:44] politics or public life ought to be treated like anybody else. And it shouldn't matter if you're gay or [53:50] whatever. And also this is true for people who have nothing to do with politics, who just should, [53:56] as they go about their lives, have the integrity of their families respected and protected by [54:04] everybody from their neighbors to the federal government, just the same. And it's, it's clear [54:08] that we're a lot closer to that than we were when I was growing up. And we're also a lot further from [54:15] that than where we need to get. Yeah. To me, it's, it's so hard. And I think that I can't separate it [54:22] out from the part about you guys being gay dads, because this is like kind of the ultimate fear [54:29] of gay dads, I think, honestly. And it's the fear of any parent to lose a kid. But like, [54:34] there's, I do think a distinct thing about feeling like as a gay dad, that, um, like you can be [54:41] separated from your kid, you know, and that the kid can be taken from you. And I don't know, like, [54:46] I don't, I mentioned this after it happened on a different show, but like, I don't know if this [54:50] happens to you, but I go through, uh, TSA pre or clear. The thing happens now where the person [54:57] asks the kid, like, who is this that you're with? Does this happen to you? Do four-year-olds, [55:01] can they talk you? Uh, I don't remember. There was not like that. Yeah. So I, I don't, um, [55:10] and I, you know, we travel all the time. I travel with my daughter all the time. So this has happened [55:15] a hundred times. And so, and it's just like, every time it's just, there's something that hits you in [55:18] your stomach. That's like, I don't like that question because like that question has a subtext [55:25] to it. That's like, maybe that isn't your kid. And maybe the state can take that kid from you. [55:30] Or maybe this person, the airport can take that kid from you. That happened to you. Like the state [55:35] came to your house and said, you have to be separate from your kid for a night. I mean, like [55:41] that hits at a very, I think, particular place. Yeah. And again, I keep coming back to the purpose [55:48] of these systems, whether we're talking about Homeland Security or they're talking about, uh, [55:51] CPS, the purpose of these systems is to protect families and children. Yeah. And here's a case [55:59] where this system was abused in a way that hurt a family, our family. And, and then the bigger context [56:10] is, is, is what you're describing. And that's, that's real, that's there. That's there. [56:13] Part of you just want to be like, fuck you. I'm staying with my kids and send the cops. [56:16] I mean, of course, like, these are my kids, you know, like, uh, but then, you know, you're also, [56:26] especially because for 24 hours, we didn't know what this even was. Right. Uh, and you just, I don't [56:34] know, you don't even know what you're up against. I mean, you mentioned check. I remember in a much [56:39] more trivial example, but maybe a month or two ago, I was going through, um, because I was going to [56:47] Canada. I was going to this big dinner and conference and Mark Carney was there and Obama was [56:51] there. And, um, and I was, I was going there and I'm going through, uh, the custom, you know, [56:58] the Canadian immigration stamp in my passport and he asked what I'm doing there. And I'm like, well, [57:02] I'm going to this conference. He's like, what's the conference called? I was like, but I actually [57:06] don't know. Like, you know, I had a staff member traveling with me, but she'd already gone through. [57:11] And then he starts looking kind of skeptical. And, um, and I start feeling like, [57:16] I start feeling like I must be doing something wrong, like an imposter. I, I, I'm, I know exactly [57:20] why I'm there. I'm, I'm planning to engage with the, you know, the highest levels of the Canadian [57:24] government among others in Canada. I have a very legitimate reason to be there. And I feel like [57:28] immediately just kind of like, uh, like, like I'm, uh, I don't know, like, like I'm doing something [57:33] wrong. And I was reflecting on it that the, the next day, uh, not knowing that a few weeks later, [57:39] something like this would happen, but like any encounter with authority can, can create that effect. [57:45] Right. And so, it's one of the reasons why it's so incredibly important that you have trust [57:56] in the authorities, that they will treat you fairly, that they will not treat you differently [57:59] because you're gay or because you were opposed to the government or whatever. [58:03] Sure. And so, Columbia and Asylee, they got shot in Maine. [58:06] Right. Because in that context, like, even if I feel weird for a second, like, I know [58:10] that like, this will all like very easily, um, be kind of clear to this Canadian immigration [58:16] official within a couple of minutes that, that, that, that I'm there on legitimate business. [58:20] And even though my head was saying that in this scenario too, right, my head is like, [58:24] okay, this is obviously either a setup or, or a mix up or something because, um, there's no reason [58:32] why there's no other reason why this would be happening. You're still saying that [58:36] while there's a guy in a uniform and a lady in a clip with a clipboard in your hand in your home, [58:42] in your driveway. And you just have to, everything, everything depends on us knowing. [58:54] This kind of, maybe in a way this gets back to what I'm saying about the system too. [58:57] If you're not so sure about the system, as is happening in so many ways right now, [59:03] because of who's running the federal government, right? If, as you and I sit here, we hear about [59:09] somebody, it sounds like a father shot possibly in the presence of his toddler. And we have no [59:15] confidence right now that we can even believe authorities when they give their initial account of what [59:20] happened because the last time they did, they were lying. Yeah. Everything starts to fall apart, [59:25] including your ability to feel safe in your own home. And it's legitimately scary. I, you know, [59:32] I mean, it was terrible. Like, I would not wish it on anybody. And it's like, it can happen to you. [59:38] You're the secretary of transportation. It's fucking insane. You know, so I can't, [59:43] the phone call can't be made. I mean, just like, I don't know. I'm getting fucking pissed just thinking [59:48] about it. Justin, you seem a little bit more even keeled than your husband on this. I'm just, [59:54] uh, I'm just making sure he didn't think about January 6th in the CPS building or something that [1:00:00] night. How's he doing? Look, I mean, again, we understand that there are people who have a job [1:00:04] to do. We do not understand how that system got abused this way. Um, and you know, it's this little, [1:00:10] kind of a long road back to normal. Yeah. But, uh, and he's a really strong person and, um, you know, [1:00:16] we're, we're getting through it. Uh, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that this, you know, really affected us. [1:00:22] Um, does it change your opinion at all about doing shit like this? I mean, you know, does it change [1:00:28] your opinion at all? Is it, is it informing your thinking about whether you run for something again? [1:00:32] Yeah. Yeah. Cause it's like, if you're a human being, like you, it actually does two, two kind [1:00:39] of opposite things at the same time. Like one thing it does to you is it makes you want to just run [1:00:51] away from the bullshit and into the arms of your family as fast and hard as you can. Yeah. And then at the [1:00:58] same time, the other thing it makes you want to do is whatever it is you can do to make this the [1:01:04] kind of place where stuff like that doesn't happen and where just our politics generally is different. [1:01:09] I think that's part of why I mentioned the outreach. It's not just that people were nice. [1:01:12] It's, it's that I could feel a hunger for different kind of public life in this country. [1:01:19] And so I feel like both of those things. Um, and, and I do think there's also something weird and [1:01:24] twisted and maybe this is everywhere, but I only know it in the American, like political culture [1:01:29] where like, if somebody says that they're like not going to run again or they're leaving office [1:01:33] so they can like be with their family more, like in Washington speak, that's immediately taken as [1:01:38] code for like, they've done something wrong. Yeah. Right. It's like this, it's just, it's just like [1:01:42] synonymous with like scandal or, or screw up. Right. Nobody could actually, their family [1:01:47] actually, uh, be what's on your mind is, which is so strange because like, I, I think it's the, [1:01:55] you know, it's definitely like the number one regret or complaint of people I know who are in this life. [1:02:01] Um, and it's the number one thing that makes it hard to do. Um, even just the regular stuff, [1:02:07] like being on the road a lot and being away from your family, let alone the kind of threats or fear [1:02:12] or harm that, that can come to your family or the effect on your family of the things that are, [1:02:17] that happened to you. Um, you know, all of that, how could that not? Yeah. How could that not be [1:02:26] like on your mind when you're thinking about where you fit in and whether your highest and best use [1:02:32] is politics? Which side's winning out? Ask me in a few months. Okay. I wanted to finish with the [1:02:39] politics, but actually, can we just, uh, let's palate cleanse a little bit. That's so fucking awful. [1:02:44] Um, tell me a funny story about the kids. How are the kids? They're four now? They're four. [1:02:50] They're great. What's happening with them? They're hilarious. I mean, it's, it's fun because now [1:02:55] they know how the world, they, they're beginning to get these glimmers of how the world works, [1:03:00] right? Like they have these pieces, these fragments, but they don't have the picture. [1:03:04] So with our son, it's mostly, it was mostly actually about the natural, it was about animals. [1:03:09] Like he is all about animals. He watches this, this show, um, full of animal facts and then like, [1:03:17] like I'll just, and he always, he's our morning person. I don't know how anybody in our household [1:03:21] turned out to be a morning person, but he did. So he'll just like show up, like you'll hear the [1:03:25] footfalls and then I'll, I'll hear him. Like he'll come right up to the side of the bed, [1:03:29] like right up to my face, you know? And I'm not, it's dark. I'm like, not awake. Papa. [1:03:35] I'm like, what? Yes. Is everything okay? What did somebody pee? Like what's going on? Papa, [1:03:41] there are seven species of giraffes on the African savannah and that's it. Like he just needed me to know [1:03:47] that, you know? Um, but I'm like, what does he think the African savannah is? Like he doesn't understand [1:03:52] geography. He doesn't know where Michigan is. He knows we live in a place called Michigan. [1:03:56] He doesn't know what that means. Uh, and same with our daughter. The fun thing with our daughter is [1:04:00] she's starting to form this sense of, of like just the very beginnings of like a sense of like civics. [1:04:05] So one time I, I, I can't remember how we got onto this. I think it was because you're just asking [1:04:09] about like princesses and kings and queens and which ones are real Elsa compared to Taylor Swift, [1:04:14] who she thinks is basically a Disney princess. And, and we got onto like kings and the revolution and all of [1:04:19] that. And another time we were, we were driving by a few days ago, we were driving by this patriotic [1:04:23] display close to where we live in Michigan. And I had the constitution, the, you know, the, we, [1:04:27] the people kind of on the parchment as well as an eagle and a bell and some other very patriotic things. [1:04:32] And she's asking about it. Uh, and I was trying for the first time in my life to explain [1:04:38] to a four-year-old what the constitution is. Right. And, uh, I was like, well, you know, [1:04:43] that where it's those letters there, that's part of the constitution. She's like, what's that? [1:04:47] I'm like, well, it's, it's like the basic law. All the rules kind of come from that set of rules. [1:04:52] She's like, well, what does that mean? I was like, well, it's, it's like the instructions [1:04:56] for the government. They know what Legos are. They know what instructions are for Legos. So I'm like, [1:05:00] it's the instructions for government. And I'm not sure whether she's ever heard the word government [1:05:03] before or not, but her mind immediately went to who makes up the government. Uh, because the next [1:05:11] question she said was like, who is that? Who does that? And I'm trying to think about how I render, [1:05:16] like, I can't do like the three branches. How do I start to explain this? And before I can form [1:05:22] a sentence, she says, is it, is it judge Judy? No. Yeah. Really? Yeah. I think she was standing. [1:05:29] Who's watching judge Judy in here? Her grandma. Sounds like, uh, she, she was staying with my [1:05:33] in-laws and, uh, there's a little bit of judge Judy on. And so what I like is that she's not that far off, [1:05:39] right? I know. It's not quite it, but like, she's got, she's like on the right track. And then there's a [1:05:43] part of me that's thinking like, you know, it might be better off if we all just imagined that [1:05:48] that was just the three branches of government for now, it would probably be better, um, than what [1:05:52] we've got. I don't know anything about judge Judy's politics, but, um, uh, yeah, so we're just in that [1:05:58] phase of life where like, you know, the, we're stepping on Legos a lot, but we're also like getting [1:06:03] to make Legos, which is just one of the great, like making Legos with your kid is like one of the great [1:06:09] joys in life. I think that's cute. I'll tell you where the, uh, the animal facts are going. Uh, [1:06:15] because my daughter's a couple of years ahead. She has already done the animal fact show and now [1:06:18] she's doing a show on, um, like the great mysteries, you know? So it's like a kid's show, [1:06:23] but like the Bermuda triangles, real or not, or the chupacabras that, and then they do some real ones. [1:06:29] And so I feel like that's nice. Actually, you're, it's kind of debunking conspiracy, [1:06:33] conspiratorial thinking early a little bit. And so she's been coming to me with questions about that. [1:06:38] So there, so I've, we were through the African Savannah. I'm sure it'll circle back around, [1:06:42] but I feel like that's the right trajectory for him. I gave her the, uh, what have you introduced? [1:06:48] Well, at four, you're lucky. Uh, it'll be six. Is Trump, does Trump exist in their world? [1:06:54] Not really. I don't think so. Yeah. Um, it was the worst part of that. That's not true. Among the bad [1:07:01] things of him winning again was like, I felt like I could get away with her not really knowing. Yeah. [1:07:06] You know, not one again, but now it was too, it's too late. And so now she understands that he's bad. [1:07:13] And, um, um, she expressed a very bad thoughts about Donald Trump in front of my father [1:07:20] on the, uh, and later then I was like, okay, we gotta, you know, we gotta stand down the edges [1:07:24] a little bit here. Let's see what's going to happen in the house. But, uh, we're doing, [1:07:29] we're doing our best. I love that though. Seven giraffes in the African spin. I didn't know that. [1:07:33] Yeah. I don't know if I got, that might not be true. I verified that, but he's usually on [1:07:37] point. Like he knew something I had wrong about what peregrine falcons eat or I forget, but like, [1:07:42] uh, it's, it's amazing the stuff that they hold onto. And of course, the other thing they hold [1:07:46] onto is like any promise you've ever made. Like if you said they're going to get some candy after [1:07:50] lunch and then like the, their readiness, talk about accountability, like their readiness to hold [1:07:55] you to like that. Like a prosecutor. It is. Yeah. Days later. Yes. You promised me a trip to the candy store. [1:08:02] Yeah. I was like, I did. Yes. Why? Over what? It was like, you said, if I do this, [1:08:05] we'll do that. And I was like, you're right. I did do that. Um, all right. We'll do a little [1:08:08] politics to close. Um, you've been traveling the country a bunch. So you're here, you're going to [1:08:12] Omaha tonight. Um, after this, do you have any, any favorites and he can't, we got listeners [1:08:17] sometimes for like looking for who to support or donate to, or didn't knock on doors for anybody [1:08:22] impressing you out there. Yeah. You know, again, very impressive. What's going on in Iowa. I think when we [1:08:26] talk about kind of squaring, um, you know, immediate economic concerns with like big picture stuff. One thing, [1:08:31] one reason Rob's hand is very effective and I think we'll be the next governor here is that he [1:08:35] is not afraid to talk about these kinds of systemic issues about corruption and also talk about the [1:08:40] everyday. I was really impressed with him last night. Yeah. I thought that his, his presentation [1:08:44] was what he is. We thought it was a second. I saw you after the speech, but he's like in front of a [1:08:48] party event. So it's like a democratic party regulars. And he's in there saying, you know, [1:08:53] here's the thing about if I get in there, the Republicans are still going to control the house. And so [1:08:58] we're going to have to meet over coffee and figure out, you know, how to meet in the middle and how [1:09:03] to compromise just like my grandpa had to at Hardee's when he met his neighbor, who's a Democrat. And [1:09:07] I was like, that's a, that's a pretty savvy thing to do, you know, message to give that seems authentic [1:09:14] to him. Um, that I, you know, I just, sometimes it makes, it's like anything else you want people to [1:09:20] clap for you. And so you're a democratic thing, you know, your instinct might be to give a very [1:09:23] partisan speech. And I, I, I was impressed by what he was doing last night. Yeah. Um, [1:09:29] yeah, I think, I think he could really, again, I think also when he's elected within the democratic [1:09:33] party, he'll be very, uh, I mean, he's already, you know, somebody, I think a lot of people respect [1:09:37] across the party, but I want him at more of those kinds of tables where there's not a lot of people [1:09:41] from, uh, from the middle of the country. I think, um, I'm going to be in, uh, Nebraska next Omaha, [1:09:45] really, uh, uh, really excited to see Denise Powell's campaign from Congress. They're, uh, [1:09:50] going to be in Florida soon. A lot to be excited about there. Uh, I've endorsed a couple of, [1:09:54] uh, candidates there were veterans, Darren McCauley and, uh, Lila Gray there, who, uh, [1:09:58] she's a general, he's a military doctor, um, house, um, uh, for house. [1:10:02] What about a guy, Bale Dalton? I gotta check him out. He's over on the Daytona beach side. [1:10:06] He's running against, uh, Corey Mills is one of the worst people in Congress. So anyway, [1:10:10] the other one, you know, what I love about a lot of these candidates is obviously I tend to [1:10:14] agree with them on the issues, but a lot of them also just represent like a different [1:10:18] expectation about, well, about character to use this like very quaint term that used to be big [1:10:23] when we were growing up. Right. Um, just this idea that kind of, it matters what you're like, [1:10:27] what you've shown, what you're about, what your sense of services. And so, uh, you know, [1:10:32] I'm going to continue going to these, uh, these places. A lot of them are redder. A lot of them [1:10:35] are uphill and, and, and we know it was in, uh, Northwest Georgia campaigning in Marjorie [1:10:39] Taylor Greene's district for Sean Harris there. Uh, we're campaigning for, uh, um, for our, uh, [1:10:44] candidate for Congress in, uh, um, in Little Rock. Um, there's so many places that there just [1:10:51] haven't been enough Democrats speaking to these communities and these audiences. So it's, it's, [1:10:56] it's kind of like the geographic version of my, my Fox news practice, right? Like you, you can't [1:11:01] blame somebody for not, uh, not, um, embracing your message if, if you haven't been out there [1:11:06] to share it with them. And, uh, I'm going to keep doing that till the bell rings. [1:11:09] What is a good message for Trump voters right now? Do you think like, um, speaking to somebody [1:11:15] that's voted for Trump, but this maybe doesn't like how things are going, like which issues [1:11:20] would come to mind for you? I think the most important thing, [1:11:22] the, the, the core of the whole message is he doesn't deserve you. And I think it's really [1:11:27] important to talk in a way that shows that we have a regard for you as a voter. I don't think any less [1:11:31] of you as a person because you voted a different way than I voted. What I'm saying is that the things [1:11:37] that you may have believed that he would do because he promised you he would, whether it was [1:11:44] cutting prices very quickly, whether it was no new dumb wars and especially not a war with Iran. [1:11:50] Uh, a lot of things where, you know, I could argue till I'm blue in the face about why [1:11:54] he was never believable anyway. But the point is he said he would do these things. A lot of good, [1:12:00] smart people believed that they supported him and now he's screwing them. And I think a message [1:12:07] like that, that, that focuses on how you as a voter deserve better. And also know that when I say he [1:12:14] doesn't deserve you, we still have some work to do to make the next step, which is that we deserve [1:12:20] your vote more than, uh, him or in this case in 2026, his congressional enablers. Right. But that's [1:12:26] where I think we show the things that we have done and will continue to do to make sure you can have [1:12:33] healthcare. Right. I'm especially thinking about like Obama, Trump voters who voted a certain way and that [1:12:40] might be part of why they have healthcare now because the Affordable Care Act. And then, um, [1:12:45] went along with what Trump had to say and how Trump is screwing them. Some of that was cultural [1:12:49] stuff though. The thing I get a little nervous about when I talk to Democrats is it's kind of like [1:12:53] the easy thing to say, the true, it's true and right. And Democrats should say it, which is Trump [1:12:58] has let you down on wars and price thing. That might be good enough in 2026 because he really has let [1:13:04] them down. But still do that other part of it about the Democrats not winning them over. A lot of that isn't [1:13:11] those issues. It's more of, you know, culture issues, whether that be policing or immigration [1:13:18] or LGBT stuff or whatever. What do you think about that? But here's the thing. I mean, [1:13:22] on so many of those issues too, not all of them, but on so many of those issues on something like [1:13:27] marriage, where when I was first, you know, worked on my first campaign out of college, [1:13:35] uh, that was kind of so lethal for Democrats that they were putting it on the ballot to help Bush. [1:13:40] Right. Yeah. And now in a country where that's like a 60 or 70% issue among the American people [1:13:45] or, um, even immigration, if you ask the question, right. If, if you say, look, of course we got to [1:13:50] have borders. Uh, of course we've got to control who can be a citizen and who can come into this [1:13:54] country. And we also need to, uh, be fair and we need to be humane and we need to recognize that [1:14:01] the economy has pulled in more people than the law has allowed. And we need to have a pathway to [1:14:06] citizenship, uh, as, as well as a strong border. Like people are on board with that. Right. So [1:14:11] there are all these things, but to me, a lot of the cultural stuff is actually code for something [1:14:14] that's a level deeper, which is a lot of people who got the impression that Democrats don't like them. [1:14:21] Yeah. And if you think, if, if a voter feels that way, then like, it's not gonna matter that, [1:14:27] like, you think I'm right about taxes or whatever. Right. Um, you can't blame somebody for that. [1:14:32] Yeah. It's why one thing I can't stand is the self-reinforcing version of that, that is, uh, [1:14:38] uh, you know, whenever you hear somebody accusing a voter of voting against their own interests. [1:14:41] Yeah. Right. What's the matter with Kansas? Uh, yeah. And frankly, a lot of those voters could [1:14:45] look at a lot of the people who say that kind of thing and say, so are you. Yeah. We all vote a [1:14:50] complicated mix of our interests and our values. Yeah. And the more we show regard for that, respect for [1:14:58] that, for each other, um, the more I think we're, we're one step closer to finding our way out of this. [1:15:03] And campaigns matter, obviously campaigns matter hugely in terms of who wins. Campaigns matter for [1:15:09] more than who wins, right? The way a campaign is done is a big deal in and of itself. And I think [1:15:15] the, the Democrats I'm supporting across the country are gonna get that. They reflect that the [1:15:20] ones who win will be fantastic. Even the ones who come up short, I think will make our party in our [1:15:24] country better because of the way they run. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for anyway, when I'm [1:15:29] getting involved. Um, you're not a candidate, so you're just a voter in Michigan. There's a big Michigan [1:15:34] Senate primary happening right now. Yep. Um, Gary Peters came out today and endorsed Haley Stevens. [1:15:40] So it was kind of nasty about it. And now we talked about Abdul. I kind of feel like you're, [1:15:44] you're maybe like a swing voter in Michigan. Are you? I mean. In that primary? I'm not a swing [1:15:51] voter. No, not in general. No, in that primary. You, uh, Abdul and, and I kind of, but you look at, [1:15:56] just as a political scientist. Yeah. I look at this as a political observer, not a scientist. I look at [1:16:01] this and I say, well, the Abdul voters were people who were with Bernie and I was with Warren in the [1:16:04] primary and the Haley voters were probably with Joe Biden in the primary. And it's like the Pete [1:16:10] voters might be up for grabs. So how are you looking at it? I mean, I'm mainly focused and I'm, [1:16:18] I'm choosing my words here because I think it's really important in this very intense primary [1:16:24] that we not lose supporters of whoever's going to lose. And, uh, a very effective candidate with [1:16:33] a very strong following is going to lose. And we're gonna have a matter of weeks because the primary is [1:16:38] so strangely late in our state, uh, to get together and to make sure that Mike Rogers is not the next [1:16:44] U.S. Senator to be a rubber stamp for what Trump's doing. Privacy of the ballot box for you then? [1:16:48] After all, Abdul or Haley could still, it's so late. They could still call you. [1:16:52] I'm sure they could call you. Yeah, I have. See what I guess. Um, all right, Pete, anything else? [1:16:58] Any other final, do you want to leave us with an Iowa favorite? You know, do you get to stop by any [1:17:03] of your favorites? I didn't get the fair food this time. So that alone is- Ray Gun, you were at Ray Gun, [1:17:08] did you get any t-shirts? Yeah, I did. I thought you were there. I did. I got, I think I may have made [1:17:12] a mistake. Okay, why? Well, we got twins, so you gotta do, you know, something for both of them. Okay. And they [1:17:18] already have the Ray Gun shirts that they like. Okay, do you do the same thing or different? I do different. [1:17:22] This may have been- It's risky. Yeah, because I got, they're both getting green shirts. [1:17:26] Mm-hmm. Um, but he's getting a squirrel shirt. It says, take me to your feeder. [1:17:31] I love that. Um, right, especially because we've had a lot of rodent, uh, situations. [1:17:35] I thought I got a possum shirt last time I was in town. Right. Same motto or, uh. [1:17:39] No, it was all the different kinds of possums. Oh, yeah, yeah. We have one of those birds that, [1:17:43] uh, that Gus loves. Um, yeah, so we got, take me for your, to your feeder shirt for Gus. I got her, [1:17:49] she's really into unicorns. Okay. So I thought, okay, I'll get her the, um, uh, the unicorn shirt. [1:17:56] Um, but it's, I realized it's a unicorn, uh, with a pirate, a sword wielding pirate on it. Okay. And [1:18:03] so I think it's understood that it's, uh, it's like a her kind of shirt because of the unicorn. But now [1:18:07] I'm thinking about it because at the Cherry Festival the other day, uh, which is a big thing in Traverse [1:18:12] city where we live. Okay. Uh, we of course went to the parade, um, which was fun. You know, I've, [1:18:19] I've been to dozens of parades that I was in them. I, I, I've never had the experience to just like [1:18:24] sit on a blanket with my kids, like watching a parade, watching the marching band go high. [1:18:28] You gotta bring them down to the martycon next year. Uh, I don't know if we're ready for that. [1:18:30] I think you are. Um, but, uh, anyway, so we, we came out of it and, and, and he got to pick his [1:18:35] toy and he got this like light up plastic pirate sword thing. And, and now I'm wondering is there [1:18:39] going to be a contest over the shirt because it's got a pirate on it. And, uh, so I don't know, we'll find out [1:18:44] when I get back. Please report back. Uh, I know the listeners are going to want to know how that [1:18:48] went. Um, that's Pete Buttigieg, man. I appreciate all the time. Good luck in the campaign trail. [1:18:53] The candidates you're endorsing are really, really great. We're super aligned and all that. And so [1:18:57] we'll put a list of where you've been, uh, here in the show notes. So folks can decide if they want [1:19:01] to support them and, uh, we'll see you soon. All right, man. Come on down to New Orleans. [1:19:04] You know, it doesn't have to be Mardi Gras. I might turn up, but, uh, we'll see you soon. All right. [1:19:07] Thank you. Thanks Pete.