Trump Extends Iran Ceasefire; California Governor Debate — On Balance Full Show 4/21

[0:00] Chris, good to see you. Friends, welcome to the program. President Trump appears to give Iran [0:06] control of the war. One of two explanations. He's paralyzed or knows something we don't. [0:11] We'll give you both scenarios. In a moment, Vice Admiral John Fozzie Miller, Joel Rubin, [0:16] on how the president's next moves will cement his legacy for better or worse. [0:20] Plus, we are in San Francisco tonight, 24 hours away from the California gubernatorial debate. [0:25] Former Golden State Senator Barbara Boxer tells us whether Democrats can avoid [0:29] what even Democrats are calling California Armageddon. But first, our Why It Matters [0:35] segment, now 8,000 or 9,000 miles away in Iran. Right now, I can tell you what is happening [0:40] with Iran. I can give you a couple of explanations of why, but we do not know how this is going to [0:47] end up. President Trump may be screwing everything up, or he may be an absolute genius. We don't know. [0:55] It's only fair that we tell you we don't know. What we can say for sure is that right now, [1:01] the Iranians appear in control, and the United States does not have the momentum that it had [1:07] two weeks ago from America's military successes. Now, regardless of what happens, we have to figure [1:13] out a way to regain that momentum. Earlier today, Trump extended, unilaterally extended the ceasefire, [1:19] justifying it by saying the government of Iran is seriously fractured. Typically, when your enemy's [1:25] government is seriously fractured, that is the time you double down. And that appears to be what [1:31] President Trump was planning on earlier this morning. The move is perplexing, as this appears [1:37] to put Iran now in control, waiting for them to come with some kind of proposal. Emphasis, [1:43] though, on the word appears. This is the other possibility that we don't know, that the regime [1:48] is falling apart internally. And if the president has intelligence of that, if the Ayatollah and his [1:55] henchmen are going to fight among themselves, let them. For their part, the Islamic regime told [2:02] Reuters, Trump's ceasefire extension means nothing. The losing side cannot dictate terms. [2:09] Now, remember last night, every other news channel was obsessed over Vice President J.D. Vance [2:14] leaving for peace talks in the morning. That would have been this morning. We were the ones who told [2:20] you Trump was at the White House still deciding if Vance would go or not. So we will tell you what [2:26] we know. We will tell you what we don't know. The best case scenario is that the U.S. blockade [2:31] creates infighting with the Iranian regime. It would explain the conflicting messages out of Tehran. [2:37] In that case, we might as well let them fight amongst themselves. And perhaps Israel can help a little [2:43] bit on the ground of taking out the more disagreeable of the Iranian hardliners. U.S. forces [2:51] boarded a sanctioned oil tanker in the Indian Ocean overnight. We saw that video. So the pressure [2:58] campaign is putting real pressure on the Iranians and on their cold, hard cash that they use to keep [3:03] the regime in power. As I said, there's two ways that this can be looked at. The worst case scenario [3:08] is that Trump is paralyzed and stuck between bad options, and he's no longer enforcing his own [3:15] deadline. Instead, he's waiting on Iran to make the next move. This may work out strategically, [3:21] but right now it is a very bad look. Another unknown right now, China's role in all of this. [3:28] President Xi has a say. He's the Iranians' only real friend, and he is now demanding that the [3:34] strait be opened. And remember, we were told that President Xi promised President Trump that he was [3:41] not going to send any weapons from China to Iran to help rearm during this ceasefire. Well, [3:47] that appears to be a promise that President Xi broke. After our program last night, a number of [3:53] you wrote and tweeted that I didn't understand Trump's genius in dealing with Iran. You watch this show [4:00] because we don't pick a side. We have a standard. I used that same standard when I told you the [4:05] attacks on Iran were a good thing, and President Trump was the only president in 47 years to stand [4:11] up to the Iranians. I used that same standard when I told you on day two of the war that everything [4:15] would come down to the strait of Hormuz. I used it last night when I told you we should watch whether [4:20] J.D. Vance goes or not. So I'm using the same standard right now to tell you Trump is stuck politically [4:27] and appears to be looking for an easy way out. Taking the easy way out here is bad for America. [4:32] So yes, Trump must continue to strangle the Iranian regime's flow of money if he wants this war to be [4:39] a legacy-defining event for him. Unless the Iranian regime truly believes Trump will restart this war [4:46] and then finish it, nothing good can come from Donald Trump. And that belief, teaching the Iranians [4:54] that lesson cannot come through angry tweets. We bring in Vice Admiral John Fozzie Miller, former Deputy [4:59] Assistant Secretary of State Joel Rubin. Admiral, I want to start with you. That change from this [5:06] morning saying the military is ready to go, we should start bombing, to we haven't heard anything [5:11] from the Iranians. We're going to give them a couple of days. What would explain that change in [5:18] posture by the president? Well, good evening, Leland. Thanks for having me. One thing that hasn't [5:25] changed is the fact that the military is, in fact, ready to go. And so if the president decides the [5:31] ceasefire is over and it's time to start bombing again, I think what you'll see right away is that [5:36] shift in momentum you were talking about earlier. It's possible the president knows something that we [5:41] don't know here. It's possible he is optimistic that the pressure that gets put on the regime, not [5:48] only by the fact that they're losing their source, they've lost their source of money, but maybe [5:53] pressure coming from places like China to get the straight open, might allow us to get the kind of [5:59] negotiated settlement we want without having to have further conflict. So we'll have to see what [6:05] really transpires here in the next 24 hours. I think it'll be very interesting. [6:08] It will be. President Trump is arguing, and I think he has a legitimate gripe, [6:15] that he is trying to do this with at least one arm tied behind his back, metaphorically, [6:21] and that is that Democrats and the media continue to be very critical of him. Some of them sound like [6:27] they're rooting for Iran. Joel, you can agree or disagree with starting the war. We can think [6:32] about whether or not it worked out so far on and on. But now that America is in this, [6:37] wouldn't it be, frankly, better for the Iranians to be seeing a united front from the United States [6:46] and not the president undercut at home by the Democratic leadership? [6:54] Yeah, Leland, look, right now, we're clearly in the test of wills. The president doesn't [7:00] advance a very clear view or tell us clearly about what he wants to do next. And so, yeah, to your point, [7:07] he does need to have a little more political space to get this policy moving in the next phase, [7:14] which is going to require patience. So I think this means that he has to get Congress a little [7:19] more engaged. I know early on, you and I were talking about this, and I always felt that he [7:24] needed to go proactively to Congress to try to chip away at the politics of this, because if you lose [7:30] the politics, you lose the policy. And so the politics are very hard. And he has to maybe go [7:35] back to Congress while he's in this midst and say, look, we did this early phase of military action. [7:41] We now have a new maximum pressure campaign on against Iran. We are blockading them. We are [7:47] raising the sanctions stakes. We have not moved out any military assets. And we're going to take our [7:52] time to figure out if they know how to actually talk to each other and have a negotiating team we can [7:57] actually believe is empowered. But he does need to really straighten out the politics here. And I [8:02] think that means going to Congress and getting some more space and more time. And they should be [8:07] understanding this is the same Democratic Congress that was more than happy to give Barack Obama seven [8:11] months in Libya. Admiral, in terms of what's going on on the ground in Iran, I feel, and I don't have [8:21] independent reporting on this, but after enough time in the Middle East, you get these feelings [8:25] that there is more happening inside of Iran and that we don't know who's in charge or perhaps [8:33] there is shifting leadership or alliances in Tehran. What would show us that this pause has been worth [8:44] it? Well, I think what we really ought to be on the lookout for is what the Iranians show up with [8:52] when we do sit down and negotiate in terms of what they're willing to accept. So it's clear that the [8:58] IRGC has been the dominant force in the government since the war began. It's entirely possible that [9:05] they're not able to hold on to that position and that there are other forces that are beginning to [9:11] come to light that might have a different view of things and, you know, are looking for a different [9:18] outcome. But we won't see that till we have a chance to sit down and talk to them. So I don't think [9:24] a short delay really will make much of a difference. As long as we're prepared, if the Iranians clearly [9:32] aren't ready to negotiate in good faith and do the things that we need them to do in terms of opening [9:37] the strait, turning over the nuclear material, then unfortunately I think we're going to have to go back [9:41] at it. Yeah, well, so far, not only have Iranians not said much that is good, they certainly haven't [9:49] done anything that leads us to believe that they have a different view of the world. Admiral Joel, [9:54] thank you both very much. Back here in San Francisco tonight, ahead of the California governor's debate, [10:00] why even Democrats are warning right now their own party of, in their words, Armageddon. [10:16] Incredibly uninformed. I think I'm just going to go with Katie Porter. [10:19] Katie Porter? Yeah. Why? I don't remember, but I remember reading something about her [10:25] and she sounds like a badass. Okay. And I'm super disappointed by Eric Swalwell [10:30] because he used to be my representative and I was all like, yes. But now it's like, [10:36] I don't know what I expected. Well, there's a lot of people who expected that from Eric Swalwell, [10:44] but I digress. Some of our conversations here with voters in the golden state, a very windy golden [10:49] state, I might add. We're just one day out from the California gubernatorial debate here on News [10:54] Nation. And the only thing the candidates want to talk about mostly is Donald Trump. Democrats, [10:59] understandably, have been making everything about Trump. The reflexive nature of the party [11:03] is to be against everything the president is for. If Trump is for deporting people, [11:08] then Democrats are for ending ICE. And that's not just reflexive or rhetorical. Here is California [11:14] gubernatorial candidate, Tom Steiner. And a couple of days ago, he went even farther to say [11:22] that people, members of ICE, ICE officers should be locked up. Barbara Boxer is with us now, [11:26] former Democratic U.S. Senator representing the state of California. It's good to have you. [11:32] Current polling for those at home keeping score, two Republicans on top, Steve Hilton, Chad Bianco, [11:38] Javier Becerra, Tom Steiner, and Katie Porter round out the top five. Jungle primary, the top [11:45] two, regardless of party, go to the general election. Senator, the top two right now are [11:50] Republicans. Does that have anything to do with, you think, that so many of the Democrats, [11:55] all the Democrats are making this race or trying to make it a referendum on Donald Trump? [12:00] No, it has nothing to do with that. It's the jungle primary and how many people we have in the race [12:05] who have followings. And it's very hard when you have so many Democrats and just two [12:11] Republicans. And if you look at that number, there's a tie for a second. So I could, you can't [12:16] say it's too, okay. But here's the deal. You show Tom Steiner, he is on the most progressive wing of the [12:23] party. Not all the Democrats agree with him on every issue because we are a very big tent. We don't follow, [12:32] you know, the leader like the Republicans do. And I think your point is well taken. We can't just be [12:38] against everything Trump does. We should be against the worst things that he does, such as this war, [12:45] which he doesn't seem to know how to get out of, and a secret police that kills our people. And the price [12:50] is going up, up, up. Yeah. But we also need a vision. And I do believe that with this latest [12:57] situation of Swalwell leaving the race and for a good reason and hooray for the women who had the [13:05] bravery to come forward, I'm not as worried as I was two weeks ago about the Republicans ending up [13:12] one and two. I just don't think that will happen. But you still think it's a, you still think it's [13:17] a possibility though? I think if you look at the people who make bets on this, it's probably about [13:25] 15%. That's, yeah, I don't like that at all. I mean, I'm- So let me ask you, help me, help me [13:30] understand this though. How is the Democratic Party in California even in this position that there's not [13:38] one clear candidate who has been able to break out of the pack? You had Katie Porter, who has [13:44] understandably sort of blown herself up because of what's come out about her. Eric Swalwell, who was [13:50] the Democratic darling, who, as you point out rightly, has had to withdraw and resign from [13:55] Congress. And Tom Steyner, who's a billionaire, spent $130 million and still only has 13 or 14%. [14:01] That doesn't speak to a Democratic Party that is in the largest state in America turning out really [14:09] exceptional folks, does it? Well, I just don't see it this way. We always have these contentious [14:15] primaries. My God, I look back at myself. I ran against the lieutenant governor who was favored and a [14:21] really nice guy who was a congressman. We fought it out. That's the Democratic Party. So it doesn't [14:27] upset me that we don't have a, you know, a given person to inherit, you know, the governorship. And I do [14:35] think Katie Porter heard herself big time, big time because she needs anger management and she doesn't [14:41] have the temperament. Yeah. So I see that what we're going for now. That's a very, that's a very gentle way, [14:48] diplomatic way of putting it. I think Kate, I think it'd be fair to say that the voters saw the real [14:52] Katie Porter. Maybe, maybe the woman that I interviewed had not yet, but there's a point [14:57] here about how Democrats are treating Trump voters and fair to say that this is a D plus 20 state. So [15:03] it's a little bit different, but nationally, this is something that is, is sort of omnipresent in the [15:09] Democratic Party, which is the scorn Democrats show for Trump voters. Here, for example, is Cory Booker, [15:15] another senator who I know, you know, speaking in Michigan, I guess, trying to test the waters for [15:21] his own presidential campaign. It's awfully a lot of energy. I don't know what time of day it was, [15:25] but I think there's a different question here. If Democrats want to be the big tent that you say [15:30] they are, don't you need to spend time acknowledging the Trump voters who went from Barack Obama to [15:36] Donald Trump and talk about how to win them back rather than talking about how awful the person they [15:42] voted for is? Yeah. And I don't think in that clip, Corey, maybe I missed it. Cory Booker wasn't angry [15:48] at the people who voted for Trump. He was angry at the policies of Trump. When you're talking about [15:53] the storm of our nation, it's pretty dark. Well, you know what? For some people, it's pretty damn [15:59] dark. And I'll tell you why. They can't afford to fill up their car. They're losing their health [16:04] insurance, millions of them. There's a lot of them are scared. They can't get work. So yeah, [16:09] it's pretty dark. But I want to get to your very important point. I don't think it's smart to turn [16:16] away from any voter. I couldn't have won if I didn't win at least 15% of the Republican vote and [16:23] a majority of the independent voters. And if you look at all of these elections that we have seen in [16:29] the last several months, Democrats are winning over independent voters. Democratic voters are being [16:35] very loyal. And even some Republicans are coming home to us. So I mean, I, you know, Cory Booker has [16:42] his style. I have my style. And here in California, what's going to happen is I think people are going [16:49] to look for a steady hand. I really do. Okay. Well, Senator Boxer, appreciate you being here. [16:57] Sanguine and thoughtful analysis. We'll have you back, ma'am. It's good to see you. [17:01] Thank you, sir. Yeah. Tucker Carlson, fair to say, no profile in courage. So when he comes out [17:09] against President Trump, it may show us something that we need to pay attention to what that is when [17:14] we return. Live look at the White House, where President Trump is now juggling two crises at the [17:40] bare minimum, one overseas in Iran and one erupting right here at home. And that's because some of the [17:46] loudest of the allies that he's ever had are now bailing on him. On Monday, Tucker Carlson, [17:52] former Fox News host, Trump loyalist and outright opportunist admitted in his words that he got it [17:58] wrong on Trump and apologized to his audience. First time Tucker Carlson has ever wrestled with [18:05] his conscience. But let's start with the indisputable fact that Tucker Carlson has the moral courage of [18:11] a banana. Carlson is not leading a movement. He's chasing it, saying out loud what his audience is [18:18] already starting to feel, reinforcing a distilled version of their disillusionment. And while feeding [18:24] his giant ego, that's part of it, but also a lot of this has to do with just cashing in. And he's [18:30] not alone. With us in a moment, former Trump campaign White House Deputy Communications Director [18:36] Caroline Sunshine, NewsNation contributor Chris Saliza. We begin, though, with NewsNation's Kelly [18:42] Meyer live at the White House. We started this by saying, Kelly, that there's a couple of crises right [18:47] now that President Trump and the White House are dealing with. Do they have a plan for this, [18:54] shall we say, break from MAGA? Or do they think that once Iran is wrapped up, people will come back [19:00] into the tent? Well, I'll put it this way, Leland. In his only public appearance at the White House [19:06] today, the president didn't mention Iran at all. He wants to move on from Iran as quickly as he can. [19:12] Then we got this from the White House pool note that goes out to reporters, quote, [19:16] POTUS exited at 5.15 p.m. without taking questions. We are the champions playing. So the president [19:22] is continuing to say the U.S. is winning despite critics saying he is folding on his two-week [19:26] ceasefire and now saying there is no deadline for this deal. So President Trump huddling with [19:31] his vice president today, who was all packed for his trip to Pakistan. But as we talked about last [19:36] night, Leland, it wasn't clear who, if anyone, would be on the other side of the negotiating table [19:41] when he got there. And now we're getting Iran's initial reaction tonight. One official saying [19:46] the extension, quote, means nothing. And the advisor to Iran's parliament speaker adding, [19:50] quote, the losing side cannot dictate terms. And now just moments ago, President Trump here at [19:56] the White House put out another true social post saying the Iranians are only blocking the straight [20:01] to, quote, save face, but also saying if the street is opened, there can never be a deal with [20:07] Iran unless he blows up the rest of the country, leaders included. So the situation here is still [20:14] very much up in the air, Leland. Yeah, it's changed a few times since this morning. Kelly [20:20] Meyer, thank you. Chris Saliza, Caroline Sunshine. Now with us, Caroline, I want to start with you [20:25] because I think you represent this part of the MAGA movement that has broken with Donald Trump. [20:32] What can he do to win you all back? He can go back to saying and doing exactly what he campaigned on [20:42] in 2016, 2020, and most recently, 2024. President Trump expanded his coalition in 2024. Politics is [20:52] an additive game. It is all about adding voters to your coalition. And he added a lot. Young men, [20:58] independents, voters under 30, Arab Americans in Michigan, Democrats in Michigan who flipped for [21:04] the first time for a Republican. And it was because Americans made their voices very clear. [21:08] They want less, not more intervention in the Middle East. And President Trump was the first [21:14] Republican in probably two decades to bring that instinct into American politics. And he was [21:20] rewarded politically for it. And what voters are noticing now is he's deviating from it. And so [21:26] they're punishing him for it. He's going down in the polls. So this is very easy. He needs to wrap up [21:30] this war quickly and he can get those voters back into the coalition. Get out of this war, [21:34] refocus domestically. Getting out of this war may be easier said than done. It's a lot easier to [21:41] start a war than to end one. It seems as though the people who may be wishing for the war to continue [21:46] or at least rooting for Iran to be the victors are some Democrats, Chris. Chris Murphy, senator of [21:54] Connecticut, a rumored presidential candidate, tweeted, quote, awesome to a tweet that said at least [22:00] 26 Iranian shadow fleet vessels bypass U.S. blockade. Basically, I guess, saying that it [22:07] was awesome that there were ships running the blockade. He later tried to clean that up by [22:13] saying it was sarcasm. So, Liza, does this present a problem for Democrats who seem at this moment where [22:19] whether you agree or not with the war in Iran, you should want America to come out victorious in [22:24] this. You should want our president to do well. Do they risk seeming unpatriotic? [22:29] Well, I've always argued for a sarcasm font on Twitter and never gotten it. So, you know, but [22:36] I think what you have to do here is, honestly, Donald Trump has created an even bigger political [22:47] problem than his party had six weeks ago, Leland, eight weeks ago. You got to get out of the way. [22:53] I mean, this is the oldest advice in political sort of 101, which is if your opponent is drowning, [22:59] don't jump in, right? Just let it happen. And I think by making the story at all about Democrats, [23:07] what you should say is, look, I want this war to be over as soon as possible and have as few [23:14] American lives risked as possible or lost as possible. I want to support the president when [23:20] I can. But we are going to have policy disagreements. And then you leave this. The administration is in [23:26] charge of the White House, the House and the Senate. And so any time that a Democrat breaks [23:32] through on stuff like this, it's just it's a loser for them, whether Chris Murphy was being [23:37] sarcastic or not. Just don't be dumb. Get out of the way. Don't don't make yourself just don't be the [23:42] topic of conversation. Yeah, no. And some just can't help themselves. Caroline, though, I think [23:47] that also applies to Tucker in this case. He just so badly wants to be part of the story and be [23:52] relevant. He sort of has this need to be naughty at times or all the time. But do you agree with my [23:57] hypothesis that he's not leading a movement? He's seeing where the MAGA movement is going and [24:03] distilling that back? Or is there people who are listening to him as a thought leader to take people [24:10] away from the president? I think Tucker Carlson may be more in touch with where the president's [24:17] base is at on this issue than the president himself. And that's what I worry about. What [24:22] I've seen is Tucker Carlson is part of what people are now defining as this podcast ecosystem. But [24:27] what I want to explain to people is the podcast ecosystem is a huge spectrum. Andrew Schultz and [24:33] Theo Vaughn are very different than Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly. Now, where they have overlap is in [24:40] wanting us to get out of this war and not wanting us to have engaged in it in the first place. And [24:44] what I want to see more of is less about is Tucker Carlson leading or following that audience. I want [24:49] to see more of the White House engaging with that audience. We I worked on the 2024 campaign. We [24:56] engaged with that audience extremely successfully. The president was talking to Theo Vaughn, Andrew [25:00] Schultz, Joe Rogan. You saw him at the White House the other day, but for a very different reason. [25:05] I want to see the White House engage more with that audience and for the White House to be [25:09] leading the communication strategy and the messaging with that audience and really get [25:12] in touch with where they're at, because they're a huge swath of the president's base and the [25:16] coalition that he added. And they matter for the midterms and beyond. [25:19] So is it is we watch this White House deal with this? Is there an explanation for why? [25:31] And I think Caroline makes a good point. They're not engaging with new media in the way they so [25:37] successfully did in 2024. Sure. The the kind of again, Caroline's right that the oversimplification [25:45] of like the podcast, right, or the manosphere or whatever, you know, there's a lot of gradations [25:50] with there. But broadly speaking, that world was open to Trump at a minimum and agreed with him on [25:59] a lot of what he was talking about. They just don't now. And we look whether you love Donald Trump or you [26:03] hate him. What you know about him is he doesn't really like to get involved with people who are [26:10] saying Donald Trump is wrong. I mean, that's just not he's not. No one likes that, to be honest. [26:15] But yeah, there's there's no more access. There's no more accessible president. But yeah, [26:18] I know your points well taken. Nothing succeeds like success. Right. No one likes to hear you're doing [26:25] it wrong. Right. And particularly when you're the president of the United States, I would argue that [26:30] the America first part of the MAGA movement, which I think Caroline represents, certainly Tucker [26:36] represents, I would argue J.D. Vance represents. That was a big part of that coalition. And I think [26:42] Marjorie Taylor Greene, Steve Bannon, I mean, these people really watch what's watch what is happening [26:48] with J.D. Vance. That is that is where the story is going. Chris, we got to run to some breaking news [26:54] here in the United States, at least not so much in California. The Commonwealth of Virginia just voted to [26:59] redraw the lines of its congressional map. California did the same thing earlier. Our partners at [27:03] Decision Desk HQ report the Virginia congressional redistricting referendum will pass. That's a huge [27:09] win for Democrats. Ninety five percent of the results are in. From a larger view, here's how the state's [27:14] congressional map is proposed to change. Up close, the plan cuts the deep blue districts in the suburbs of [27:22] D.C. and around Richmond, adds new districts near the Blue Ridge Mountains, connects liberal cities, [27:27] it creates four new blue congressional districts. To be fair, President Trump and Republicans started [27:34] this. They wanted to stack the deck in the midterms with more solidly red seats. So they did it in Texas, [27:39] and that set off this chain reaction. California here followed suit shortly after. We show you the maximum [27:44] number of how this could all work out, and it'll probably even out in terms of the number of red and blue seats [27:50] in the end. When Texas was redistricting, it was called a threat to democracy. You might remember that. [27:57] Right. So if the other side is doing something bad, then we should do it too. And that's the [28:03] justification House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries used for Virginia. We believe that it's the voters of [28:10] Virginia and the people of this country who should decide which party is in the majority in the aftermath of [28:18] the midterm elections. Not Donald Trump and his extreme MAGA sycophants and state legislative bodies [28:27] across the country who were ordered by Donald Trump to gerrymander the national congressional map [28:34] as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections. The hypocrisy is obvious, and to be fair, [28:41] Republicans are guilty of it as well. There's a larger point. What's happened is terrible for the [28:47] country. Last night, we honored Paul Revere, paid homage to the sacrifice of the founders, [28:52] but also to their genius. Nothing scared the founders more than tyranny of the majority. [29:00] Whether it is gerrymandering in Texas, Virginia or California, it hurts democracy because it creates [29:06] more members of Congress beholden to the extremes of their party. What we need is more swing districts [29:12] that require compromise, but there is no way to get that on cable news. You don't get put on cable [29:18] news arguing for compromise. It is why, however, you watch and join us every night, because you [29:23] believe in what is good for America, not as we just heard, what some think is good for their party. [29:29] First, wrote about this in War Notes, your chance for an inside look at the show every day. [29:33] It is free at warnotes.com to subscribe. Also see you on social media at Leland Vittert. Back here [29:40] in San Francisco, the new mayor has gotten praise from an unlikely source. His name is Donald Trump. [29:46] His bridge building could be a new model for Democrats across America, should they listen. [29:51] Did you hear that the San Francisco mayor made a deal with Trump and has been working with him? [30:17] I did not. [30:19] Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing? [30:21] What sort of a deal? [30:22] In terms of what the mayor was going to do about public safety and about [30:26] drugs and immigration, and then in return, Trump said he wouldn't send ICE in. [30:29] You know, there are lots of ways to get Trump to do things. [30:35] So if he did things in a smart way that didn't really do any harm to the city, I'm okay with that. [30:43] Well, and here we are in San Francisco, where California governor's hopefuls from both sides [30:48] of the aisle are, well, probably studying their last lines for tomorrow's debate. [30:52] Just last year, San Francisco's Democratic mayor cut a deal with President Trump. [30:57] He avoided an ICE takeover in his city or an ICE enforcement action. [31:05] This perhaps is the bipartisanship that everybody wants. [31:07] Right now in the California gubernatorial race, Republicans are leading in the polls. [31:12] Remember, it's a jungle primary. [31:13] The top two, regardless of party, go on to the general election. [31:17] Steve Hilton, 17 percent. [31:18] Chad Bianco, a sheriff, tying a few Democrats at 14 percent. [31:22] The real challenge for Republicans will be getting voter turnout, and it will be hard [31:28] when Trump's approval rating in California right now is 29 percent. [31:32] It begs the question, though, if things are as bad as Republicans tell you they are, [31:37] why aren't they farther ahead in the polls, especially as bad as things are in California? [31:41] With us now, Chairman of the California Republican Party, Corinne Rankin, [31:44] Democratic California congressional candidate Marie Harabiel. [31:48] Good to see you both, ladies. [31:49] Thank you. [31:50] And I'm going to start with you, Corinne. [31:52] How do we explain if the California experiment proves how terrible Democrats are, [31:58] Republicans in this poll are not doing any better? [32:01] Well, I think the Republicans in this poll are doing a lot better. [32:05] The fact that we have up until now seen two Republicans at the top two, [32:11] I think it speaks to where Californians are at in general. [32:15] They're frustrated with the Democrat Party. [32:18] They're frustrated with hearing the same old promises over and over again. [32:22] You know, I think it's going to be a clear contrast when you listen to the debate tomorrow. [32:26] The Republicans are going to come with answers, with solutions for a better California. [32:31] And what you're going to hear from the Democrats are divide, attacks and the same old lines. [32:35] Marie, do Democrats need to acknowledge the pain that Californians are feeling? [32:41] I think we do. [32:44] And I think you will hear that there are a couple of candidates in the Democratic candidates in [32:51] this race who are acknowledging that. And I think they're going to be the ones [32:56] who are going to advance. I think Matt Mahan, who is has done a fabulous job as mayor of San Jose, [33:07] is acknowledging and wants to acknowledge and wants to move forward. [33:11] And I think he's going to be the dark horse in this race. [33:13] OK, that that is would be a definite dark horse, given where he's at in the polls right now. [33:20] There you go. Four percent. Long, long way to go. Debates can change everything. That's why we have them. [33:29] Corinne, when we look at this from a Republican point of view here, this this deal between the [33:36] San Francisco mayor and President Trump, President Trump's been complimentary of what's happened here [33:40] in San Francisco. So does that mean things here are fixed and Democrats should have control? [33:45] Absolutely not. But I do think it's a great testament to who President Trump is. I mean, [33:50] he truly does want what's best for California and for Californians. And, you know, the fact that he [33:57] was willing to work with the San Francisco mayor really shows that it's not about partisanship. It's [34:03] about it's people over politics. And I think that, you know, we would have had a lot more success had [34:10] Gavin Newsom been more friendly and more willing to work with the president for the past years. [34:15] So Chad Bianco was on Morning in America, the morning show with Marky Martin this morning. [34:20] This is what he had to say. I think that a lot of people in California are realizing and hoping [34:26] that they see two red candidates at the top just because we've had so many years of one party rule. [34:34] Everything in California is broken because Democrat policy and Democrat agenda has failed [34:38] and people are looking for something different. And I think it's been obvious for a couple of years now. [34:45] He's not wrong in terms of where California is, is he? [34:51] Well, in saying that that things are broken, insane things are broken. Yes, things are broken here. [34:57] But I think we saw with a Democratic mayor in San Francisco working with the president, [35:03] if you have the right attitude and the right person and they're willing to do the work and and really [35:08] come at it with common sense, then we can fix things here. And we are starting to. [35:14] Corinne, is that a problem, though, for Republicans? And I've heard it from Steve Hilton and I've heard [35:19] it from Bianco as well, who are basically saying everything about the state we're trying to win [35:25] votes from sucks. Yes. You know, in fact, when you look at our California legislature, [35:34] right, we are in the super minority. So none of the bills are our bills that we introduce. It's just a [35:40] small fraction. And what we're reduced to is making bills less bad. That's our claim to fame [35:46] in Sacramento. So I always say, imagine what California would look like if we were actually [35:52] able to pass good legislation instead of just making bills less bad. Okay. Making, making bills [35:59] less, less bad. That may, that may be a line we hear tomorrow night. Ladies, thank you very much. We [36:03] appreciate it. A couple of things for tomorrow when we come back from San Francisco. Debate night [36:28] in California tomorrow starts at 9 p.m. Eastern. We'll have the pregame. Then the only place to [36:36] watch the California governor's debate is right here on News Nation here at the local Cron station, [36:41] owned by our parent company, Nexstar. And Katie Pavlich has the post game afterwards. Katie is here now. [36:47] And I think it says so much about whether Democrats will have a vision [36:51] for California in the country or whether they'll make it all about Donald Trump tomorrow night. [36:55] Yeah. And California in the country is key because a lot of the times in California does, [36:59] a lot of states across the country adopt it as well. So we're looking forward to your coverage [37:03] tomorrow. Leland, great show tonight. And I see you after the debate.