Trump's Key Iran Decision, Kamala's Strange New Accent, and the Vance Factor, with Lowry and Cooke

[0:00] Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. So much news to get to today. [0:04] The Democrats' frontrunner for the presidential nomination in 2028, Kamala Harris, [0:08] fingers crossed, is speaking out again and revealing yet another accent. [0:15] She's so great. May she never leave us. Plus, all eyes on Pakistan at this hour [0:20] on the question of whether Iran is even going to show up to the latest round of negotiations [0:26] before the ceasefire with the U.S. ends tonight at 7.50 p.m. Eastern time. The AP reporting this [0:33] morning that the Iranians are expected to travel to Islamabad for the talks with the American [0:39] delegation led by Vice President J.D. Vance. But the latest official word from Pakistan's [0:44] information minister is far less optimistic. He's saying that the Iranians have not confirmed that [0:51] they will attend the summit. And CNN, just as we came to air, reported that J.D. Vance is still in [0:58] D.C., has not left, that the status of talks is unclear, reporting that a few hours ago everyone [1:05] felt the Iranians were coming, even though they were suggesting maybe, maybe not. And then there [1:11] was an incident with the U.S. Marines boarding a tanker truck in the Indian Ocean. And now it seems [1:17] less likely than it did this morning. So we don't we don't know. We have no idea. We will [1:23] wait and find out. And as soon as we find out, we will let you find out, too. This morning [1:27] on CNBC, President Trump at first sounding optimistic that there will be a deal. Watch. [1:34] Well, as I said two days ago when they said they won't send them, I said they'll be sending [1:38] them. They have no choice but to send them. What I think is that we're going to end up with [1:43] a great deal. I think it's got I think they have no choice. We've taken out their Navy. [1:47] We've taken out their Air Force. We've taken out their leaders, frankly, which does complicate [1:52] things in one way. But these leaders are much more rational. It's a it is regime change, [1:57] no matter what you want to call it, which is not something I said I was going to do. But [2:02] I've done it indirectly, maybe. But I've done it. And I think we're in a very strong negotiating [2:07] position to do what other presidents should have done during a 47 year period. We have 47 [2:13] years with these bloodthirsty people have been killing a lot of soldiers, a lot of our soldiers [2:19] and a lot of other people. But the president also saying he does not [2:25] want to extend the ceasefire even if progress is being made in the negotiations and he fully [2:31] expects to begin bombing Iran again. Watch. You're saying that you need a at least the prospects [2:39] for a signed deal today and tomorrow or else you would resume bombing Iran. [2:47] Well, I expect to be bombing because I think that's a better attitude to go in with. But [2:53] we're ready to go. I mean, the military is raring to go. They are absolutely incredible. [2:59] I mean, he keeps doing this. He keeps he ratchets up the rhetoric every time we're at the end of a [3:07] ceasefire or demanding, you know, that they respond to us in some way. And Trump escalates the rhetoric. [3:14] And that Wall Street Journal article the other day made really clear why he was doing that and [3:18] really kind of exposed how it's a tactic. And he admitted that it was a tactic [3:23] to AIDS, who then spoke to the Wall Street Journal. And this also talked about this article [3:30] about how he is trying to seem unstable and wanted to be as unstable and insulting as possible, [3:39] believing it could bring the Iranians to the table. That post about a whole civilization will die. [3:46] He saw it as a way to spur negotiations in a war. The president was desperately ready to end. [3:52] Axios reporting today that Trump is bored of this war and wants it over. Whatever. [3:59] You know, maybe it wasn't the best thing to start if you didn't have the patience to actually see it [4:06] through. That's what his supporters of the war might say. I mean, those of us who have been against [4:11] it from the beginning would like to see it wrapped up, whether it's out of boredom or not. It's really [4:18] too bad that the cost of American lives isn't the motivator. It's that Trump has moved on to other [4:23] things because he has the attention span of a gnat. We don't know whether they're showing up. We don't [4:30] know whether we should believe our president when he says this is happening and this is happening [4:34] because we know he's manipulating them and us with virtually every statement. Truth does not seem [4:40] to be relevant. It's really all just tactics. And he doesn't really give a damn that the American [4:45] people are being dragged along on these tactical misdirections. So I have no idea what to tell you. [4:52] I don't know what's true. I don't know whether the Iranians will show up. I don't know whether we really [4:56] will start bombing. I don't know whether he's so desperate to get a deal that he will give it all [5:02] away and there will be no more bombing. Really don't know. We'll find out tonight over into [5:06] tomorrow and we'll update you then. There was more he said on CNBC, which we're going to go over [5:12] and hear now to help me break all of it down are our friends, Rich Lowry, editor in chief of [5:17] National Review and Charles CW Cook, senior writer for National Review and host of the Charles CW Cook [5:23] podcast. You can find all of their work by becoming an NR plus subscriber today. [5:28] Don't miss a moment. Subscribe to this show on YouTube and follow me on Insta, Facebook and X. [5:35] Here's a question for you. How many brokers does it take to ensure your business? [5:39] If you're like most business owners, the answer is too many multiple policies, [5:45] multiple applications and no clear view of how it all fits together. And when questions come up, [5:50] it's not easy to get the clarity you need at all. No one's there for you. But Supersure changes that. [5:56] A one stop shop for all of your business insurance backed by a team that works with you year round, [6:03] not just at renewal. You are not a burden to them. They will take care of you. They want you to be [6:09] happy. And if you've ever stared at a policy wondering what it actually covers, Supersure has a [6:15] fine print fax tool that translates the legal jargon into plain English. So you know what's [6:20] covered and what's not. It's not some shell game that they seem to be enjoying playing at your expense. [6:26] Right now, you can go to Supersure.com and get a full report on your current policies [6:31] with no obligation. Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured or somewhere in between. [6:36] Go to Supersure.com. One super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. [6:43] Imagine it. Go to Supersure.com slash Megan today. That's Supersure.com slash Megan. [6:48] Paid for by Supersure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. [6:53] Guys, welcome back. Hi there. So no one knows, Rich. Nobody knows. [6:59] Even Trump doesn't know. We have no idea where the Iranians are showing up, [7:02] whether the ceasefire is going to end and we really will bomb tonight. It does seem that Trump is [7:07] desperate to get a deal now. He definitely does want to bring it to a close. All the reporting supports [7:12] that. No one's reporting anything other than that. And when you see his poll approval numbers [7:17] on the overall job he's doing and then on the Iran war, you have every reason to believe that, [7:22] that he actually does want to bring it to a quick end now, which the Iranians know. [7:28] Correct. Which is a problem for us. [7:30] Mm hmm. Yeah. So we don't know if the if the inside players don't know and if Trump himself doesn't know, [7:35] there's no way for anyone else to know. My guess is that we get an extension of the ceasefire and [7:42] somewhere along the line here, a JCPOA-like deal, I think it'd be JCPOA plus, probably a little bit [7:50] better. But I think that's where things it'll be in the same family as the JCPOA. But look, [7:56] this whole thing, Megan, it's so Trump. It's just characteristically Trump. Now, the stakes are bigger, [8:01] it's more consequential. But you can go back to to to any episode during Trump's rise and his [8:07] ascendancy. You go way back to insulting Rosie O'Donnell. And is he going to show up for the [8:12] Iowa debate or not? You know, he he enjoys it. He did not. He he he doesn't mind them. At least [8:19] he loves being the focus of attention. Everyone guessing, wondering what's going to happen. It's [8:23] just that this is a war rather than the other controversies we've seen over the last 10 years. [8:29] To me, there's something very different about this one. And I take your point because I was [8:36] obviously there for the Rosie O'Donnell moment at the first debate in 15. And then he did threaten [8:40] to skip Iowa if yours truly was a moderator. And we spent the whole day out there. [8:45] I forgot the cause of that one. Yeah. Wondering whether he meant it, you know, whether he would [8:53] or would not show up. He said he was going to be hosting a military fundraiser instead. And we waited [8:57] to the last minute looking at the doors like, will he come? Will he come? He did not come. [9:01] He hosted a military fundraiser. And then there was a question about whether he ever gave the [9:04] military the money. My own feeling, Charlie, is that there is this one's different in that [9:13] there's just I think there's a lot of frustration with President Trump right now. Obviously, the left [9:18] hates him. But you've got 80 percent of independents who are against this war, who I don't think are [9:23] enjoying his little parlor games on like we're going to bomb them to out of civilization. The bombing's [9:29] going to start. We're going to bomb bridges and threatening some civilian infrastructure [9:34] over and over. And I think there's a growing I don't think I know from the polls, there's a growing [9:39] portion of Republicans who are sick of this, too, who are sick of him and who are pissed off about [9:46] the war. I just don't think it's playing the way his normal too cute by half routine plays. [9:51] Well, I agree with both of you in so far as I don't think that this is different for Trump. [9:59] I agree with all the criticisms you laid out, Megan, at the beginning, but I don't think they're [10:04] new. I think you could apply them to anything Trump has done really in 11 years. But I agree with you [10:11] that this is perhaps playing differently and perhaps should play differently because this is a war and not [10:17] something inconsequential, not to downplay the importance of debates. I think they're a key [10:23] part of our system around elections, but it matters a lot less whether you show up to a debate than [10:28] whether a serviceman dies. I mean, I think there are a couple of things going on to substantiate that. [10:35] One is that we are quite late on now in Trump's presidency. If you view it as a two term presidency [10:44] back to back, we would start to be talking about him being a lame duck, people becoming exhausted [10:49] with him. But he didn't serve back to back. He served with a four year gap. So we're now in year 11 [10:56] of Trump and people are just tired of it. And I think with this one, the gap between the stakes and [11:05] his behavior is just difficult to wipe away. And I have always thought it was amazing that he behaves [11:14] the way he does in the White House. This has been a constant refrain of mine. I'll never be [11:18] president because I moved here from another country. I don't want to be for the record, [11:21] but I can't be. But if I was somehow... We should be so lucky. [11:24] But if I was somehow parachuted into the presidency though, I think I would feel the weight of all [11:29] those portraits on the wall looking at me and I'd behave. But Trump doesn't. But people can say, [11:35] and I think this is reasonable, well, okay, but you know, I get what I want out of him. And it's more [11:40] important that I get good policy or that the other person loses. But with this one, yeah, it just seems [11:49] worse somehow. Now, I should say, I actually think that the policy here hasn't all been bad on Iran. [11:55] I'm not intrinsically opposed to it, although I have a lot of criticisms as to how it's been done. [12:00] But yeah, the Real Estate Act probably rubs people the wrong way when it's a war. [12:09] That's right. I think the thing is, Rich, and I'm chief among them, I'm very quick to overlook [12:15] Trump's ethical problems, his loose talk, his weird tweets. I don't really care about any of that, [12:22] as you guys know. How long have we been doing this show together? Five years now? I don't get, [12:28] I don't obsess over that stuff. It's just for me personally, and I know for a lot of people who I [12:32] listen to on the right, that's almost exclusively where my news comes from, it's just hitting [12:38] differently. They're over it. It's like, you know what, like you were, Epstein, who cares about [12:45] Epstein? And people were very angry with that. It was, well, you did. You hired all these people for [12:51] your administration who said it was going to be a huge deal, and they were going to get to the bottom [12:54] of it over the FBI. You had Pam Bondi over Fox News saying, oh, I've got the file on my desk. [12:59] Wait until you see what I've seen. Then you thought you were going to get rid of that story [13:03] with a two-page memo from DOJ, FBI, and then mock anybody who thought it was still a story [13:08] because of you and your lieutenants. Like, not cute, and started to lose some goodwill. [13:14] Now it's last July, and now here we are with him breaking, I mean, one of the top three promises [13:20] he made that got him elected by a large segment of the populace, right? I mean, there were obviously [13:26] more hawkish Republicans who wanted him to be more aggressive on Iran, but there was a huge number [13:33] of supporters who definitely believed him that there wouldn't be another new war, and certainly not one [13:38] in the Middle East, and feel deeply betrayed by this. And I don't think his little flippant [13:44] act is hitting them the right way, and I think it's in part that feels disrespectful, and the [13:52] refusal to have sold the war to us at the beginning. And then when he came out and gave that one speech [13:58] from the White House, it was so meandering. It added no new information. It didn't move the needle at [14:03] all. Another thing they talked about in the Wall Street Journal piece about how Susie Wiles thought [14:07] that might help him. It didn't. There was nothing to say, and he didn't say anything. And people are [14:13] left feeling like, what is this? Like, we're we're starting a Middle East war here. We don't [14:18] know where it's going to land. We could go nuclear, could go away tonight, which we don't know, you [14:22] know, six, one way half a dozen. And he doesn't show us the respect of having a sober conversation [14:29] about it. Yeah, well, we talked about that at the outset. This is one of my points of skepticism about [14:34] the war was that there was no effort to sell the American people on it to make a case for it. And if you [14:39] did make a case for it, then you get an iterative argument where people poke holes in your assumptions [14:45] and ask questions. What's going to happen to the straight? Right. And then you can say, well, [14:49] don't worry about the straight. We're going to take care of it. And then people say, well, how are you [14:51] going to take care of it? We'll get minesweepers. We'll get the Europeans involved, you know, whatever [14:55] the plan is, but would have forced more planning. So I think the problem is that the case wasn't made to [15:00] the public. There wasn't adequate planning and there wasn't enough thought around what might happen to [15:05] the straight, in part because Trump was overly optimistic about it. And that just brings me [15:09] back to the point I made at the outset. This thing is characteristically Trump from beginning to end, [15:16] whether you favor it or you're against it. It's been audacious. He's been erratic in the course of it. [15:22] It's been overly optimistic. All that's just Trump. And he promised not to launch forever wars, [15:30] but he's been very consistent over decades. He hates the Iranian regime. He's talked about [15:36] bombing it, talked about taking Karg Island, what, like 30 years ago. So, and I think there's a [15:42] chance that this- How are we supposed to glean from that soundbite 30 years ago, Rich, that he was [15:47] going to bomb Iran? Well, he said he was so clear, Megan, forever that Iran couldn't get a nuclear [15:54] weapon. So personally, I wasn't shocked that he did this. And I think it could still land in a good [16:00] place. If we get a JCPOA-like deal, that's better than the JCPOA. And on top of that, [16:09] you have the economic devastation that's been wreaked on this regime and some potential, [16:14] you know, skeptical regime change from the air, from the outside, as we talked about [16:18] at the beginning of the war. But there's some chance this regime could fall six, 12 months [16:22] from now. But anyway, I think it would be a net plus for American national security. [16:27] If the straits open, if they stop enriching for some period of time, which is more than [16:32] we got from the JCPOA, and they're going to have to spend years rebuilding their military [16:37] apparatus. Wait, what's more than we got from the JCPOA on enrichment? What's that? [16:41] What did you say is more than we got from the JCPOA? Oh, if they actually [16:45] cease for some period of time, that would be better than the JCPOA. But then also, [16:50] layer on top of that, is the devastation that's been wreaked on their missile program, [16:54] on their military apparatus, on their petrochemical industry, on their economy generally. So that's [17:00] why I think it'd be a net plus to American national security if that's where we end up. [17:05] And I kind of think it is. This is a dangerous regime. It's founded on anti-Americanism, [17:11] has American blood on its hands. And if you've bought five years, whatever it is, I think that's [17:17] that's a net plus. Obviously, we disagree. We lost 16 soldiers. We've had hundreds more wounded. [17:26] We've alienated our allies in the region who are now talking about not letting us have a base [17:31] in places like the UAE. The military bases don't look good to them anymore because it just makes [17:35] them a target. Iran can't hit us, so they're hitting all of our friends. There's been devastation there. [17:40] They're not going to make the investments that they said they're going to make in the United States. [17:43] They're going to rebuild their own countries that just got bombed as a result of our war that we didn't [17:47] consult with anybody about. And Iran now realizes it has this huge tool that it can use against us [17:54] and the world, which is control of the Strait of Hormuz. And they can get it, even Trump marveled, [17:59] just by dropping a drone. It's so easy for them, which they've never done before. This was not a [18:04] problem. This seems to be our number one goal now in bringing this thing to an end, to regain control [18:08] of the Strait, the Western world, which is something we had before we launched the war. So it's just, [18:14] I totally disagree with you. I just think the costs have been enormous and they're not worth the gains. [18:20] And now the irony that we're talking about, oh, maybe we'll wind up with a deal that's like [18:25] kind of as good as or maybe slightly better than the Obama JCPOA, which Trump eviscerated on his first [18:34] term saying it was the worst deal ever. And now let's face it, he's begging to have that deal back so he can [18:40] save face and make it look like this is a win. The very deal he said was horrible and that evaporated [18:49] because of him. Yeah. But the key difference though, like Obama didn't bomb Iran and devastate [18:54] his economy, then cut a deal, right? After that deal, Iranian power around the region was waxing [19:01] rather than waning. And we're going to be in a situation where I think its power will not be the [19:05] same for a very long time. And that's an upside. Okay. The problem we have though, is if it goes [19:12] the other way and we don't get a good deal. And now what you have is Iran is more empowered than ever. [19:19] Now it's emerging as, as one of the four global powers because it can exercise control over the [19:26] Strait of Hormuz and hijack the world economy and effectively bring a president to his knees [19:32] because Trump is in the one is the one in there begging right now for a deal, not Iran. They're [19:36] like, we don't care. Go ahead and hit yet another one of our ships, which you already sunk to the [19:41] bottom of the ocean. That's never been our source of power. Go ahead and hit another one of our [19:45] airplanes. Go ahead and drop bombs on another military target, all of which you've eviscerated [19:50] already. We don't care. We see you are suffering you, President Trump. And that's a win for us. The [19:58] longer we can make this economic pain go on and we can take way more than you can. We're basically [20:03] suicide bombers over here. We will 100% throw our offspring and ourselves on the grenade as long [20:09] as we can take some of you down. That's how they are. And the one they're looking at is President [20:14] Trump and his political fortunes. That's what they're trying to ramp up the pressure on. And [20:19] that piece of their strategy is working because they are, whatever you want to say about them, [20:24] tough M efforts. Yeah, they're religious fanatics, right? So it's a little bit trying to make this [20:30] exaggeration a little bit trying like to negotiate with Khmer Rouge or the shiny path. So there is a [20:36] game of chicken. They're de facto control the straight in our blockade, which if the blockade [20:40] just held for seven months or something, you would have a good chance of just the Iranian state totally [20:46] running out of cash. But we can't do that so long as they control the straight, right? Because they [20:51] they exact pain on us. So my guess, again, is that ultimately we'll get get a deal. This [20:58] would be a big setback for Iran. If you're starting from blank slate, a piece of paper and doing this [21:03] over again, you wouldn't do it exactly this way. You would do more planning in advance. But again, [21:08] I think it'll end up being a net plus. I hope you're right. I hope you're right. I'm not one of [21:14] those crazies who's rooting against us as a result of my opposition. I still want us to win. [21:19] I want Iran to fail. I want only good things for the United States and certainly for our troops. [21:25] It's just a question of how and whether the likelihood, what the likelihood is. This just [21:31] in Vice President Vance is headed to the White House right now, which last I checked is not in [21:36] Islamabad. We don't we don't know whether he's going, you guys. U.S. media accompanying J.D. Vance [21:46] were earlier instructed to be ready for departure at 9 a.m. Washington time. But there's been no [21:52] update since. And then there was an update from Lucas Tomlinson of Fox News that the Vice President [21:59] is now headed to the White House. That's not great. Again, we don't know whether he'll wind up going [22:06] or not. And if he doesn't go, it's not happening. He's you know, he's the linchpin. Charles, did you see [22:13] the Wall Street Journal piece over the weekend on, you know, President Trump and the alleged fears [22:20] that have been gripping him as this thing spins it closer and closer to quagmire? It was titled [22:26] Behind Trump's Public Bravado on the War. He grapples with his own fears. I haven't read it, [22:32] but it's been relayed to me by so many people that I feel as if I have. Okay. All right. Because in this [22:39] piece, it basically it reveals a lot, including that Trump was so erratic around the capture of [22:47] that second pilot that they had to keep him out of the room as they got the minute by minute updates. [22:53] They believed his impatience would not be helpful. They talk about how he's been losing his focus over [23:00] and over, that he does not want a ground invasion. He has fears over that. He has fears of becoming [23:06] Jimmy Carter that he does want to seem unstable, which I actually believe. I don't believe the [23:13] people who are like, it's time that he'd be 25th Amendment did. I don't agree with that. I think [23:16] Trump is, he's, he's not being responsible in his rhetoric. You don't threaten to wipe out a [23:21] civilization of, you know, civilian population. But I never thought he did it because he really [23:26] wanted to do that and that he was truly crazy. I did think it was a negotiation tactic. [23:31] Um, and it does talk about how he remarked to his advisors, how impressive the military was seeming [23:38] in awe of the scale of the bombs. He had done little to sell the American public on the war. [23:44] He knew that, and he's been frustrated that he's not getting the same kind of praise as the military [23:50] is. Um, none of this reflects well. And the journal, as we know, Charles is owned by Rupert Murdoch, [23:58] who we learned from other reporting is one of the main people who talked Trump into this war. [24:03] He was very, very pro, not just Rupert personally, but Rupert personally, but top people from Fox, [24:10] including General Jack Keane, uh, my old pal, Mark Thiessen and others. So it's interesting that [24:15] such a piece should come from the journal. Your thoughts? Well, this brings me back to one of my [24:19] longstanding theories about Trump, which is that he is and will always be a real estate developer. [24:27] And this is a good thing sometimes, but in the context of the presidency, it can be a real problem [24:34] for a couple of reasons. First, because Trump does seem to believe that he can bend reality to his [24:41] words, which when you're dealing with the sandbox, which contracts often are, can be true in business. [24:49] If you go in and you make your demands, um, even if you're wild, uh, it can work out, but is much less [24:57] likely to work in constitutional politics and in global politics as well. And I do think there is some [25:05] extent here to which Trump has thought that if he just says what he would like to happen, that it would [25:12] happen. And that's not really how reality works. Uh, the second reason is that when you are dealing [25:20] in real estate, especially in a place in New York, especially in the seventies and the eighties, [25:26] then saying anything that comes into your head, uh, or, uh, being wild can help. You go into a [25:33] closed room, you talk to people who are probably a little bit surprised, maybe intimidated by you, [25:38] and you say crazy stuff and you get what you want. And we know that this is one of the reasons that [25:43] Donald Trump is so rich, but when you're the president, your words matter. So even if you say [25:49] something that works, you've still said it. And I thought this back in his first term when he would [25:55] praise Kim Jong-un. Yeah, that seems to have worked, but the president of the United States should not be [26:02] praising a dictator. Uh, likewise here. Sure. Maybe it works to say you will wipe out the civilization. [26:10] I did love that he subsequently wrote, God bless the Iranian people. So they're the same message. [26:14] He was going to wipe out the civilization and bless them, but he shouldn't have said that. That's not [26:20] a thing. Even in the context of a great debate, that is not a thing that an American president can say [26:27] there are rules. And so when I watch him here, I see somebody who is applying a skill set that is [26:35] different to that which is expected of the presidency. Now, sometimes that's actually quite refreshing. [26:42] I'm not somebody who always dislikes this in Trump. I do think sometimes you need a guy who comes to [26:47] Washington and just sort of says, but that's nonsense. The way you're doing it is stupid, [26:52] and shakes everything up. And there have been some advantages to having him in our politics, [26:56] as well as downsides, but it's just not going to work here. You do need to build a coalition. You [27:02] do need to set out your aims. You do need to talk in a way that is appropriate for the presidency. And [27:08] I just haven't seen that from the beginning, which is what I always describe as the original sin [27:13] as this adventure in Iran, which I'm not intrinsically opposed to. [27:17] And another thing that plays a role here, Megan, clearly, is the success of the Venezuelan [27:24] operation, I think, inclined him to think that this could be easy, short and very successful as [27:30] well. I analogize it a little bit to our success in the initial phase of the Afghan war, just taking [27:37] Kabul and toppling the Taliban made us George W. Bush think, well, we can do the same thing in Baghdad, [27:43] which was a more difficult proposition. Now, both Afghanistan and Iraq involved extensive ground [27:47] operations, obviously, in a way. We had guys on the ground in Venezuela briefly, and Iran as well. [27:52] But we're not talking about that here. But I think the same thing was at play. I got this incredibly [27:57] proficient military. We just grabbed this guy dead of night. We can do anything we want. And again, [28:03] this plays into just Trump's inherent optimism. Like his critics very often, they focus on the American [28:09] carnage Trump, you know, that phrase from the first inaugural, he's so apocalyptic and so negative. [28:14] Now, I can obviously, there's an aspect to him. But I think the more pervasive one is just an [28:19] overwhelming optimism. I talked to him about this once during the lawfare campaign, you know, before [28:24] the 2024 primaries, when they're trying to throw him in jail. I was like, do you ever lose sleep at [28:29] night? It's like, no, I just, I just figure, I assume everything's going to work out. If it doesn't [28:34] work out, I'll, I'll change course and found find some other way out of it. And that's worked for him. [28:40] His entire adult life is applying that here as well, for better or worse. [28:45] Yes. I, you know, it's, it's a very interesting point that the skill set that he has rhetorically [28:51] is just, it's mismatched to the moment. And, and it's, it has served him and us well many times. [28:58] And even the, you know, unpredictability of taking out Soleimani, which I thought was great. I mean, [29:02] that guy actually does have American blood on his hands without question. And maybe it even could [29:07] have been used here as well. If we had just taken out the Ayatollah, you know, that, that would have [29:13] been fraught for sure. My taken out the leader runs in the opposite direction. Megan, if I get to have [29:18] a do over again, maybe what you do, you don't take the Ayatollah out, make it clear. You're not going to [29:23] try to, to kill the regime. Instead, you're doing another 12 day war, you know, for two weeks or for [29:28] three weeks that would perhaps keep the Iranians from going up the escalation ladder and closing [29:34] the straight. And then you degrade a lot of stuff and then you can, you know, close the book at your [29:39] discretion and, and go away and focus on other stuff, which I think Trump ultimately would want [29:43] to do. But once you make it clear, this is an existential war for the regime. There's no incentive [29:48] for it not to take the most extreme steps that it can in retaliation. [29:53] Yeah. And they're enjoying playing it out. Like they, they can take a lot of pain. You know, [29:59] it's like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. How many times did they waterboard that guy? Like he didn't care. [30:06] Um, and, and that's, that's the mentality of a lot of these like religious zealots in the Middle East. [30:12] They don't care about themselves, their pain, their loss of life, the loss of life of their children [30:18] in the way we do. I mean, they'll, they'll exact retribution against you for, for, you know, [30:24] taking it or risking it, but they'll expend their child's life in order to advance the regime. [30:30] That's what we're dealing with. You know? So it's like, it's, that's why it's like, you just don't [30:34] start it. Just don't, don't start something like this. Then you don't risk the escalatory ladder where [30:38] the next thing you know, they've discovered this thing with the Strait of Hormuz, which has changed the [30:42] world economy, which is turning our, our, our friends against us already. We're seeing discussions [30:48] in Europe about jet fuel over the summer and flights being canceled, like things like that, [30:53] that will drive those poll numbers down even more Charles. Well, or do it, but build the case. [31:01] We can win this. This is not like a war game scenario where we're looking at a potential conflict [31:09] with China. And there are some outcomes where you say we would lose. We can win this. We are [31:16] infinitely more powerful than them, but, and I'm not criticizing this. We're not prepared to do what [31:24] it would take because the public doesn't want that. We could, we'd lose a lot of people, but we could win [31:31] this. And if, if we had been invaded here and the reaction of the public was different, we would fight [31:41] back and we would win and we would lose people. And then we would move on. So it's not that we're [31:47] in this situation because we're weak. We're in this situation because as you say, we have a [31:56] desire to stay alive and see our fellow citizens stay alive. And the regime does not. Now, I don't [32:05] think he would have been able to build a coalition in the way that George W. Bush did after 9-11. [32:12] I agree. But if Trump had made the case and over a sustained period of time said what he now says, [32:22] look, this has been a thorn in our side for 46 years. They've killed a lot of our servicemen. [32:29] They are built atop an ideology that hates us. His slogan is death to America. They are building [32:38] nuclear weapons. And once they have those nuclear weapons, then they will become like North Korea, [32:44] essentially immune from our influence. We have to do something about this. If he had built that case, [32:52] told people it would cost American lives, told people that it would lead to increased gas prices, [32:58] and told people that there was a risk of trouble in the Strait of Hormuz. And I think we would [33:04] probably have had a better plan for the Strait of Hormuz if he had done this as a result, as Rich [33:09] points out. We might be looking at a different calculation. At that point, the escalation you're [33:15] describing is baked in. Because again, it's not for a lack of technical ability. We could open the [33:22] Strait of Hormuz. We could own the Strait of Hormuz if we wanted. I mean, we could go and invade [33:26] Britain tomorrow when we would win, when we would own that country if we wanted. We just don't want [33:30] to do that. And we don't want to go all out here either. And so I think the big problem for him [33:40] was that he didn't ever make that case. He did it in the middle of the night. And then as we were [33:44] talking about earlier, Rich is absolutely right. Trump actually has been an Iran hawk for a very long [33:48] time. But it is also true that if you ask the average voter who isn't familiar with all of that, [33:54] what they thought he was campaigning on in 2016, 2020, and 2024, it was no new wars in the Middle [34:00] East. That's the vibe. That's the tone that they heard. And the juxtaposition between those two [34:06] things just makes this impossible. So I think he set himself up to be placed into this problem [34:15] where they can escalate in ways that we are not able, but not willing to counter. [34:22] Yep. Totally agree. You're right there. The average person doesn't realize, oh, there was, [34:25] there was an exception to the promise he made. I mean, I could play you a soundbite that would [34:29] keep us here for four minutes of Trump saying no new wars, no new wars, no new wars in the Middle East. [34:34] These wars in the Middle East keep you bogged down. They cost billions of dollars. It's money we could [34:38] be spending on, you know, our, our people here at home, they get distracted. They never end well. [34:43] It's quagmire. I mean, we've, we've got the soundbite. Like there was no like, [34:48] but I might launch one against Iran. And by the way, you know, the intelligence was Tulsi Gabbard [34:54] testified to this a couple of weeks before we started the war that Iran was not close to having [34:59] a nuclear weapon that our strikes against the three sites with a Iranian or with the nuclear [35:05] facilities had been very effective. As Trump said, they'd been basically obliterated and that they [35:10] were not close to getting a nuke. And that was one of the reasons why he knew people weren't going to buy [35:14] it because he'd done those June strikes and we kind of bought what he sold then. And if you bought [35:19] what he sold then, you were not going to buy that they were close to a nuclear weapon six months later. [35:24] Here is something Glenn Greenwald pointed out online. It's a good point. He writes, [35:28] if you ask 15 people who are MAGA followers, what the Iran war aim was, you will hear 15 different [35:34] answers because Trump gave a different goal every day. Here's what he said was his main goal on the day [35:39] the war started. And he's got a Washington Post headline, Trump colon freedom for Iran is goal [35:46] of major military operation. And I remember that too. That was the initial goal with freedom. They [35:52] were going to be free. We were going to do regime change. And now he keeps saying that we've done [35:56] regime change, which we clearly haven't. That's a lie too. And it's so transparent. Honestly, it's one [36:03] thing for Trump to be like, you know, the economy is hot. It's the hottest it's ever been. And you're [36:09] like, okay, that's puffery. He wants people to feel good. And the better they feel, the more they [36:14] spend. But like, this is serious stuff. Don't tell me there's been regime change because three guys named [36:21] Abdul are gone and three guys named Mohammed are now in. That's basically how it is. The only difference [36:28] as far as I can tell is that the three new guys seem more radical than the three old guys. And there's [36:33] no fatwa against a nuclear weapon. We found one sort of nice guy we can talk to who's the [36:39] Speaker of the parliament, but he's not actually in control. You know, you've got the IRGC calling [36:45] the shots. They seem to be really wanting to queer all deals on ceasefires. And then you've got, [36:51] I don't know, whoever's still in there, the Ayatollah's incapacitated son who may or may not be [36:56] still alive or in a coma. We have no idea, but he and the people around him are definitely more radical [37:00] than the dead Ayatollah, according to all the reports. So it's yet another thing we just don't know [37:06] about. And here's the latest on the numbers. This just came out yesterday via NBC. One third of [37:14] Americans approve of this war. One third. You've got two thirds of the country who are against this. [37:21] And the only people who are in the approved category are Republicans. Seventy four percent of [37:27] Republicans approve. One quarter of the Republican Party disapproves. But the share of Republicans who [37:34] disapprove of the war is higher than the share who disapprove of his job overall. So there's a healthy [37:41] amount of Republicans who can still like me say, I don't disapprove of Trump. I have not abandoned Trump [37:48] like some of my friends have. But I strongly disapprove of this choice. And he's really trying to start a [37:55] fight with me and others. And I just refuse. I'm not going there. He enjoys it too much and it's pointless. [38:01] But I still approve of his general approach to his domestic agenda. I really would love for him to get [38:08] back to it. NBC reports that 13 percent of self-described supporters of the MAGA movement now say they [38:16] disapprove of Trump's handling of the war, which is interesting that he's lost 13 percent of like the core, [38:21] core MAGA. I mean, which I did not think was movable in any way. Anyway, he sees that. And while Trump may tell you [38:28] he feels so great about the MAGA numbers, 80 percent of independents, 82 percent disapprove of this war. [38:35] Eighty two. It's not a fringe like the majority, the two thirds of the country wants this to stop. [38:43] That's why, Rich, Trump wants it to stop. He's listened to Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin and Netanyahu [38:50] and Thiessen and Keane and all of the much more hawkish people who are in his ear. But that NBC [38:57] poll and the Reuters Ipsos poll that came out today and the people and the people and all the polls [39:02] that have come out now that all repeat this number two thirds disapprove. He sees that, too. He's not [39:08] immune to that by any stretch. Yeah. Well, he hadn't again, as we've repeated over and over again, [39:13] he didn't build a case for it publicly prior to the launching of the war and the war wasn't popular [39:18] at the outset. So usual political physics say it goes support goes down for a war over time rather [39:24] than then growing unless they're really unusual circumstances or you're winning a smashing [39:29] victory. And this so far has been fairly inconclusive on the regime change thing. It's absurd. They saying [39:35] that the regime has changed again. Key aspect of Trump's character. He thinks he can bend reality [39:41] to his words, benefits to this, downsides, benefits. It can often get him through obstacles that you [39:47] you'd think are going to stop him. Downsides, it's just it's detached from reality. Right. So that's [39:53] that's what we're seeing here. I think regime change despite that Washington Post headline. [39:57] It was something obviously he mentioned in that white hatted initial statement about the war. You [40:04] know, we hope the Iranian people will rise up after the shooting stops. But there are a lot of other [40:10] objectives that have been consistent from the beginning, whether it's further degrading their [40:16] nuclear program or their their missile program that that have been consistent. And I think we've [40:22] we're succeeding on. But I never thought you could change the regime from the air unless you got [40:28] exceptionally lucky. Then you'd never not have any control over what would come next. And I think there's [40:34] signs the regime is fracturing. This is one reason we don't really know whether we can believe what's [40:38] coming from the Iranian side. And there's a chance that fracture grows or it, you know, [40:44] as I mentioned earlier, that discontent rises six months, 12 months from now. But to to underline a [40:50] point you're making earlier, Megan, this regime that just a couple of months ago slaughtered tens of [40:55] thousands of people in the streets. We don't know what the actual number is. So obviously they do not [40:59] have the best interests of the Iranian people at heart. So if you're going to lose some bridges, [41:03] it's not going to affect them. Right. If you're willing to kill your own people and the cause of [41:06] your regime's own survival, it's not as though infrastructure projects are going to move you [41:12] as well. So this again goes to something we've all been saying here. These guys, the Iranian regime, [41:16] they're not real estate developers. They don't have rational calculus the same way we do. They have [41:22] an entirely different worldview. This just in that Steve Wyckoff and Jared Kushner are also still in [41:34] the U.S. The plane that was supposed to take them this morning from Miami to Europe and to Pakistan [41:42] did not leave until several minutes ago and is now instead making its way to Washington, D.C. [41:48] So they're heading to see Trump as is the vice president. And no one is going to Islamabad right [41:53] now, at least doesn't mean it won't happen later today because the Iranians are still saying we're [41:59] not coming. We're not going to be there. They're mad because we have continued our blockade of the [42:08] Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz and they want us to remove that. And Trump, I understand why. [42:14] He's like, that's my that's my pressure point on you. I'm not removing that boot off of your neck [42:19] until we cut a deal. And they're like, we're not even going to talk about a deal until you move your [42:23] foot. So that's where we are right now waiting for something. Here's one other thing he told [42:29] Joe Kernan of CNBC. Charles, to your to your point about the president's rhetoric and does it does it [42:36] work when we're on the subject of war? Here's stop four. And when it's over and it will end when it's [42:43] over, you know, they want it to be over immediately. And I just looked at a little chart. World War I, [42:48] four years and three months. World War II, six years. Korean War, three years. Vietnam, 19 years. [42:55] Iraq, eight years. I'm five months. OK, five months. I would have won Vietnam very quickly. [43:03] I would have if I were president, I would have won Iraq in the same amount of time [43:08] that we won because essentially we've won here. OK, I mean, people can play games. [43:13] The Democrats can say, well, we should have done better. No matter what, if I did it in one week, [43:19] they should have said that say we should have done better. Look at Venezuela. I took it over [43:23] in 45 minutes. It was basically a 45 minute. And by the way, a very strong military country. [43:29] And we took it over in a day. But let's be nice. But we basically took it over in 45 minutes. We took [43:34] it over during the attack in 45 minutes. So he would have won Vietnam very quickly. [43:42] Had he been president, it would have been won. It would have been quick. Charles, thoughts? [43:46] Yeah, we didn't go to Vietnam today. He is ridiculous when he talks like this. He does [43:53] it on the economy as well. And I think to your earlier question, I think this is the sort of thing [43:59] that is starting to annoy people. The reason that he was reelected was that people believed that the [44:05] economy would be considerably better under him. And it's not. Now, I don't think that that is [44:09] necessarily his fault. I think actually, we look far too much to our presidents and to Washington, [44:14] DC in general, for economic outcomes. Economics doesn't really work like that. But Trump does [44:22] talk like that. Both parties do. But Trump is particularly brigadierous when he does it. [44:26] He says I alone can fix. He says that we're entering a new golden age and so forth. And he's doing the same [44:33] thing here. And I hear under confidence in his words. I hear a certain fear. Perhaps this relates [44:42] to the Wall Street Journal because I didn't read that Trump knows that from the average person's [44:49] point of view, again, and I will distinguish this from my own view, which is not against this action [44:55] per se. And I think the Iranian regime is a real problem. But I think from the average person's point [45:02] of view who rationally does not follow politics in the way that we do, but is by no means ignorant, [45:10] the United States was trundling along. And then all of a sudden, we went into Iran. And now gas prices [45:18] are 25 plus percent higher. That's how they see it. And whether we have won or lost or whatever games [45:26] the Democrats are supposed to play, and they are playing games, of course, it's politics, [45:31] the public is going to need to be persuaded that there is more to it than that. But they're not [45:36] being. It's just not good enough to go in in the middle of the night, give a two-minute speech in the [45:42] middle of the night at Mar-a-Lago in a Trump ad, and then to say, well, we won. When people are looking at gas [45:49] prices, and they're looking at an economy that not because of this, but in general, is not [45:54] particularly different than it was at the end of the Biden administration. I just think people find [45:58] that tiresome because it doesn't pay the bills. And Trump should understand that. And look, if he was [46:04] the sort of person who, like, you know, me, says, well, look, presidents don't run the economy. [46:11] These things are very complicated. Policy changes take years to kick in, and so forth. That would be [46:18] one thing. But he's not, Meghan. We all know he's not. He thinks that things are wonderful and perfect [46:23] when he's president, and they're awful when he's not. And he said it right there. I mean, [46:28] I'm pleased he didn't go back to World War II and say that, unlike that feckless Eisenhower fellow, [46:32] he'd had it done in 1942. But it's just quite boring outside of campaigning. And there's just going [46:40] to come a point 11 years in at which people say, even when he's right, oh, could you give it a rest? [46:46] Yeah. You know, Rich, I've been wondering whether Trump thinks his Trump card is this new guy who is [46:56] in confirmation hearings today to become the new chairman of the Fed, right? That he calls Jerome [47:01] Powell too late, too late because he won't lower interest rates. And Trump really thinks that's [47:07] the key to unleashing the economy, that it worked to his advantage in his first term. And he's been [47:13] begging Powell to do it. And Powell won't do it because we still have inflation from Joe Biden. [47:17] And if you lower interest rates, it tends to drive up inflation. But Trump really believes [47:22] that it will unleash his economy if he can get interest rates lower a bit on borrowing homes and [47:28] so on. And this guy's going to get confirmed. He seemed pretty milquetoast today at his confirmation [47:34] hearings. There's I haven't heard any rumblings of he's not going to get confirmed. And Powell's term [47:38] ends in May, I think. Right. It's like next month. It's very soon. And so I've been wondering whether [47:45] Trump thinks that's, again, his Trump card on the economy, like I'm taking a beating on these gas [47:50] prices, but I'm going to have a guy who is much more amenable to my opinions in charge of interest [47:58] rates just in time for the months leading up to the midterms. Yeah, he's probably thinking that [48:04] this is another aspect in which he's a real estate developer. Real estate developers always want [48:07] low interest rates. And this is something Trump's been consistent on the last 10 years. He always [48:11] wants interest rates lower no matter what. And I think Warsh may agree with him here in the short [48:17] term, but he is a real pro, Kevin Warsh. He's going to be there for 10 years. He's not a lackey. And it [48:23] wouldn't shock me if by the end of Trump's term here, he hates Kevin Warsh too, because he hasn't [48:29] done his bidding. But I think a lot of in terms of the midterms, a lot of the economic factors are kind [48:36] of baked in the cake. The gas prices have not helped, obviously. But it's hard to see huge changes [48:44] before then. They're changing people's attitudes one way or the other about the economy, and they're [48:48] dissatisfied about the economy. And this is the key thing. This is what's hurting Trump most, right, [48:53] is that his strength forever has been successful business guy, knows how to make the economy grow, [48:59] did it in the first term, especially if you put the last COVID year aside, which people weren't [49:05] inclined to do in 2020, but were inclined to do in retrospect. And his numbers on the economy are [49:11] the worst they've ever been. So that that's what's driving the midterms. That's what accounts for his [49:16] approval rating being down. It's been going down for a year now. I think the approval disapproved [49:22] crossed in May of last year. He had about a 47 percent approval has been down steadily since, [49:27] but it's overwhelmingly driven by the economy. Now it's in the thirties. [49:30] Now it's in thirties. Yeah, the RCP average. But yeah, we don't normally see it in the thirties. [49:39] Like that's surprising. A year ago, according to the NBC news poll, he was at 45 percent approved, [49:45] 55 percent disapproved. Now he's at 37 percent approved and 63 percent disapproved. There was [49:53] another poll that just hit today that had similar numbers. They're all starting to come back right [49:58] around there. You know, high thirties, which is that's not great. Not great at all. Okay. We're [50:03] going to come back and turn the page and talk about the latest poll that just dropped on Kamala Harris [50:07] and the other top Democrat contenders and the GOP side and ask you guys what you think. And plus, [50:12] we've got some amazing Kamala sound. Amazing. Standby. Hey, thanks for watching today's full episode. If [50:19] you're new here, throw us a subscribe, see what you think, stay in touch. There's plenty more goodness [50:24] where this one came from. As always, we really do value your feedback. So email me to megan, [50:29] M-E-G-Y-N at megankelly.com or just leave a comment down below. I do read them. I meander over and [50:35] I scroll through and I find them very entertaining and really appreciate the feedback. But in any event, [50:39] join the community by becoming a subscriber. So you miss nothing. We value your support. [50:45] We may not always agree on positions, but as you know, I'm very open-minded to people who disagree [50:49] with me. That's how I learn. So thanks. And thanks for trusting us to always talk about it openly, [50:55] honestly, and with provocative conversations. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition says [51:01] Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and now they're messing with your credit card. [51:08] They say your credit card and the security it offers are under attack and that Senators Dick [51:12] Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate [51:17] megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your [51:23] payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. [51:29] The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durbin-Marshall mandates would let corporate [51:33] megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks [51:39] with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guardyourcard.com and consider telling [51:46] Congress to guard your card. There is a new poll out just now from Echelon, likely voters, [51:54] and it looks at both the Democratic field and the Republican field for 2028. I'm going to start with the [51:59] Republican field even though this is because we're adults so we're good at delayed gratification because [52:05] the Kamala Harris sound that I have queued up for you guys is the greatest thing you will see or hear [52:10] all day. It's a gift from me to you. We have the best sound bites, but delayed gratification. Let's start [52:15] with GOP since we just got off of Trump and Iran. They are showing Vance at 42% and Rubio at 14, [52:22] which is quite a drop down. Rubio had been higher in an earlier poll we had seen. [52:30] Trump Jr., that's Don Trump Jr. at 10% and Ron DeSantis at 8%. Charlie, that's you and your wife [52:39] and your friends. There you go, the 8% there. So Vance obviously the heavy favorite given the name [52:44] recognition and given his current role. But there's been a lot of debate within Republican circles, [52:48] Rich, about whether this whole thing could sink. I don't think it could make JD Vance. I don't know [52:57] if he comes back from the Middle East with some huge win. They capitulated, they folded, they gave [53:01] up everything. Maybe, but that's not realistic. So like this does seem fraught. And we discussed on the [53:08] show last week, I think it feels a little like making Kamala Harris the borders are, you know, like, [53:15] thanks so much for the assignment. Is there anything else I could do instead of this thing? [53:22] So how do you see this playing out for him? And also just zooming out to what's happening in the [53:27] Republican Party right now, you know, with the more hawkish neocon group here and then the more [53:32] isolationist group and the proxy fight over JD versus Marco, etc. So how do you see it all playing [53:38] out there? So I don't think anyone's blaming JD Vance if the negotiations fail in Islamabad, [53:44] assuming there's another round, which I think there will be eventually. I think the main political [53:51] risk to him of the war is somehow getting separated from Donald Trump. And that hasn't happened yet, [53:57] right? Because he's going to Islamabad. And JD has every incentive to keep that from happening. If you [54:02] believe all the reporting in the big New York Times piece on Trump's decision to go to war, [54:06] JD apparently is the only guy actually told Trump his opinion, which I think speaks well of it. He's [54:11] like, I don't support this, sir. But if you decide to do it, I'll be with you. And all indications are [54:17] he has been a loyal soldier and Trump's appreciate, Trump appreciates it. So the big X factor in terms [54:24] of 2028 is just Trump for JD. If Trump decides doesn't like him anymore, if Trump decides just to [54:29] screw him for the sake of it, that would be very bad. But I'm doubtful that Marco Rubio will actually [54:36] run. He's at this incredibly prominent place in American politics and American government. He's [54:43] doing things that he believes in deeply. We knocked off Maduro. Maybe we're coming around to Cuba [54:50] when the Iran thing is over. And we're really going to believe that he's going to give all that up, [54:55] give up the eighth floor of the State Department, which is an awesome space, give up, in effect, [55:00] an Air Force One that has on his own, his own version, knockoff version of Air Force One going, [55:05] being greeted as a head of state in foreign countries to start driving in a rented car from [55:09] Pizza Ranch restaurant to Pizza Ranch restaurant in Iowa. Sounds amazing. [55:14] Probably the upward, you know, underdog campaign against J.D. Vance, maybe, but I'm kind of doubtful. [55:21] Refresh my memory on that, Rich. I guess I haven't really paid any attention in the past [55:25] elections as to who in the administration decides they're going to run for the nomination and whether [55:31] they have to leave their post. So is that I mean, is it typically like if you're in the administration [55:37] and you want to run for the primary nomination, you got to leave what, like a year and a half prior [55:43] to the end of the president's term? Yeah, I don't know what what the general rule of thumb is, [55:48] but I think it's especially fraud if you're the secretary of state and secretary of state is like [55:52] a serious job and supposedly has other jobs, too, like now. And he's got a national security advisor, [55:57] too. So you just have to say I'm giving up the gig of a lifetime for what could be long shots, [56:02] probably exaggerating it, but, you know, not a certain, you know, clear path to the nomination [56:08] and a nomination that any nominations worth having because in the abstracts about a 50 percent chance [56:13] of winning. But, you know, you could have a president of 40 percent, 40 percent approval in [56:18] 2028. It could be very difficult for for Republicans. And he and he's still young. [56:22] So I don't know, maybe maybe he does it. But again, I'm just a little doubtful. [56:28] J.D.'s got another factor to worry about here, Charlie, which is, you know, as the president's [56:33] fortunes go, so go your fortunes if you're the VP. You know, it's not like he's an outsider. [56:39] It's everything Trump has done. He's going to be asked to explain and defend. And he's going to be in [56:45] that Kamala Harris position of like on The View. Is there anything you would have done differently? [56:50] And President Trump is watching. And if you answer that wrong, you lose the most important endorsement [56:57] you need. But if you say there's nothing, you turn off an electorate that may be only approving of him [57:04] by, you know, whatever, some small margin. I think it's a problem on both sides of the coin. [57:10] The reason J.D. Vance is polling at 40 percent or so, I imagine, is because people know who he is. [57:15] And the reason that people know who he is is because he's the vice president to Trump. [57:20] And so if Trump is unpopular, then he will be the vice president to the unpopular Trump. [57:27] And that will be a problem. But as you say, if he tries to separate himself from [57:32] Trump, it will sound silly and unpersuasive. Also, Trump will go after him and then his fortunes will [57:40] fall in that lane as well. The reason that Marco Rubio is lower is fewer people know who he is. [57:48] He's less closely associated with Trump. Now, if you are looking at 2028, that's probably a problem. [57:57] And if Rubio did run, he might have some of the same problems. But that's probably good news for him [58:02] if he thinks he might run later on that he's not so closely associated. Because by that point, [58:08] he would be able to stand up and say, well, I think Trump got some things right. And here are the things [58:12] that I think he got wrong. So I do see this as a big problem for J.D. Vance. This is, of course, [58:19] why it is extremely rare for vice presidents to win subsequent elections. The last one who did it [58:29] was George H.W. Bush. Reagan was very popular. And Michael Dukakis was not. [58:37] And Joe Biden did it, but not immediately on the back end. [58:39] Well, that's true. That's true. Sorry. [58:41] The eight years as vice president. [58:43] Yeah, I meant directly. And, you know, if you go back in American history, [58:47] it sort of mostly happens when the president dies, as happened with Franklin Roosevelt and then [58:52] with Harry Truman. So this is just not a normal path. Even Al Gore could not parlay [58:59] Clinton's relative popularity into a win in 2000. Well, I say that not because of Al Gore, [59:05] but because of Bill Clinton. That political scion, that gifted orator. [59:08] No, I meant because of Bill Clinton. Like even in 2000, I should have said it the other way around. [59:13] Even Bill Clinton could not push Al Gore into the presidency in the year 2000. I think it's quite [59:20] clear that if Bill Clinton had been able to run for a third term in 2000, he'd have had a really good [59:27] shot. But it just doesn't seem to happen. And so you're looking at intrinsic headwinds. And then [59:34] the last thing I'd say is those headwinds are made worse by Trump being such a monumental figure, [59:44] somebody who's dominated the last, at that point, it will have been 13 years of our politics, [59:49] someone who has an almost cult-like following. So J.D. Vance is going to rise and fall on the basis [59:55] of Trump. Well, I mean, to your point, Charlie, and I share this with you, whether it's Trump or not [1:00:01] Trump, I don't think most people want to be thinking about the president this much. [1:00:05] You know, you, you, you want a small executive branch. I agree with you on that. And when Trump [1:00:11] is in there, you just, you devote so much time thinking about him because he needs the press [1:00:18] coverage. It's his oxygen. So he does all this stuff to get covered and the press needs to sell [1:00:24] papers and get clicks. So they run, you know, like dogs after the liver snaps. And it's just, [1:00:30] it's nonstop, which Trump loves, but I don't think is necessarily good for our country and certainly [1:00:36] not good for his would be successor. If, if you have a populace, it's like, I need a break. I need [1:00:42] it back. Like I need somebody super boring. Who's not going to require any of my attention. And that [1:00:47] leads me to the Democrats rich because J.D. Vance or Marco, whomever it is, maybe it's [1:00:55] DeSantis, Charlie. They are going to have the gift of a terrible Democrat nominee. I mean, [1:01:03] truly like who, who scares us over on team blue? Like the only people who I think the three of us [1:01:09] would like, who would like, you know, that person would be very effective. We'll never get through [1:01:13] the Democrat primary. And so we're kind of in a good position too, because even if our candidate [1:01:20] is weakened, thanks to, you know, Trump being so controversial, there's such a mess over there. [1:01:25] And, and let me tell you something, rich right now, guess who's leading. I'll tell you who's [1:01:32] leading. Kamala Harris is at the top of the field. And the latest poll that I just referenced, [1:01:37] uh, echelon at 22%. Now that's a lot lower than the one we read yesterday where she was at like 42%. [1:01:44] And the next was Gavin Newsom who was in the twenties. So these, these polls are all over the [1:01:48] board, but this one does show her leading at 22. This one shows Newsom right behind her at 21. [1:01:53] Buddha judges third at 12. AOC is fourth at 10. Josh Shapiro fifth at five. Corey Booker, [1:02:01] who definitely is hetero and very happily married. It comes in after Josh Shapiro at four. Mark Kelly [1:02:10] of Arizona Senator is next at three. And, uh, JB Pritzker is last at 3%. Well, I guess tied tied for last [1:02:18] with Mark Kelly. So it's according to this poll right now between Harris and Newsom and Harris, [1:02:24] she's feeling good. You guys, she's starting to feel a little like a little swagger a few months [1:02:27] out. You know, Trump's not doing that great in the polls. She's like, how you like me now? [1:02:32] So she goes to this like woman women of color seminar, uh, yesterday, and she's back to dispensing [1:02:40] all sorts of wisdom. Let me just show you how she kicked it off. Um, she really wanted people to [1:02:45] have a good morning here in Sot7. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. [1:02:54] Oh, God is good. All right. Good morning. Good morning. [1:03:02] Welcome back to power rising. It's so Hillary Clinton, like it's uncanny alienating Charlie. [1:03:16] I just can't believe that I've had to spend so much of my adult life with Donald Trump and Kamala [1:03:22] Harris. You know, I am hoping I'm hoping that the reason that she's leading in the polls is [1:03:29] a combination of name recognition, which obviously she should be. And also I think Democrats who wish [1:03:38] she'd won. And so they feel like they're answering the question, who do you wish had won the 2024 [1:03:44] election? And so they say Kamala Harris, because if they nominate her again, I mean, first off, [1:03:49] she'd actually probably have a chance if the Republicans really do sink to the thirties. [1:03:54] But second, I just can't go through it again, Megan. I've been a bona fide Kamala Harris hater now. [1:04:03] You can. We can do it. We can do it together. [1:04:06] What, 2014? I mean, if you go back and you read my diatribes against her, [1:04:10] they go back 12 years. I'd forgotten that. I'd forgotten that she starts off there sounding as [1:04:19] if she's drunk. She always sounds as if she's drunk. Then she panders. Then she panders with [1:04:25] the preacher stuff. And then the laugh. I mean, there's a little clip and it's everything that is [1:04:31] wrong with her. And she's at 40%. And what have I done to deserve this? [1:04:36] All right. Hold your, hold your fire. Cause we got a lot to get through here. So you can't just [1:04:39] give it all up on the first answer. Rich, don't think I didn't save some glory for you. I've got [1:04:44] multiple sound bites here. Here she is with, I don't know if this is a new accent, but it's kind [1:04:50] of a new accent. And she tries it out a couple of times inside eight. What gives me hope, Leah, [1:04:56] is that we're going to win the midterms. It's going to be difficult. And to say, I'm going to get mine [1:05:05] also. And so don't count on me. She's a, she's a black woman who does a fake black woman accent. [1:05:18] I don't get it. You know, if you do fake accents. And here you thought I gave all the goodness to [1:05:24] Charlie, but no, Rich Lowry, she's going to win. Yeah. So if you do fake accents, almost by definition, [1:05:30] you're a bad politician. And we were talking about, you know, Trump's upsides, downsides [1:05:34] in the first segment. But one upside is that you can never get him to do a fake accent. You know, [1:05:38] he's, he's always himself, even when he's reading a script that he's not particularly into or believes, [1:05:42] you know, it kind of signals that. He wants to have McDonald's in a suit and tie. Trump, [1:05:47] Trump won't change for anyone. He goes to McDonald's, he's wearing a suit and tie, [1:05:51] and that's how he presents himself. Well, and she, the reason she's doing that, [1:05:56] Rich, is because she was at the power rising summit. And this is how they describe it. [1:06:02] A convening of black women harnessing their collective wisdom to create an actionable agenda. [1:06:09] Absolutely nothing, nothingness there. But black women is the piece you need to hear. [1:06:13] Yeah. Yeah. Totally. Yeah. So she's got to go like full black accent, black scent, [1:06:20] and like, we're going to win. And can we hear it one more time? Let's play it one more time, [1:06:23] Sadi. What gives me hope, Leah, is that we're going to win the midterms. [1:06:32] It's going to be difficult. And to say, I'm going to get mine also. And so don't count on me. [1:06:41] Yeah. There's a little more here. Stand by. It's not 11. Watch. [1:06:49] It's been a bit controversial. But one of the things I've been saying is this. [1:06:53] As I have reflected on what has been going on, I've come to the realization that part of the issue is [1:07:02] part of the frailty, I think, of human nature for some, is they are purely transactional people. [1:07:11] They're not pretending to be grounded in morals or values or principles. They're not pretending. [1:07:17] They're literally not pretending. They're in it for what they can get out of it. Their mantra is, [1:07:24] I'm going to get mine. I think it's okay for us to be a bit transactional too. And to say, [1:07:34] I'm going to get mine also. And so don't count on me to be a voter and be the backbone of the [1:07:43] Democratic Party. They should count on the fact we're going to expect and they're going to have [1:07:48] to know when they start counting on the vote. It's because they better produce if they win. [1:07:56] Honestly, I picture somebody like Professor Carol Swain looking at this like, [1:08:04] how dare you imitate me in this way? Right? How dare you pander to me with these fake, [1:08:12] bizarre street accents as though that represents the black experience. But what she was saying there, [1:08:20] Rich, is substantively interesting because she's playing the black woman card to a group of black [1:08:25] women, which telegraphs pretty strongly to me, she is going to run. She's basically saying, [1:08:31] don't let them take your vote for granted. We matter and we should get ours. Yes. So she's [1:08:37] definitely running. And what else is she going to do? It's incredibly condescending. The act there is [1:08:41] kind of notable that she called out other people for for not pretending to have a core where she [1:08:47] does pretend to have a core, but it's just pretending, right? This is a completely hollow [1:08:52] figure. And then also it's a bit rich lambasting the Democratic establishment for not delivering when [1:08:57] she was a senator herself and at the center of Democratic politics for a very, very long time. [1:09:04] So I got to believe they made her the nominee. Yeah. So I got it. Now it was handed to her. She didn't [1:09:08] win it. But I got to believe that this is name idea that has her at the top of the polls. If if not, [1:09:14] it's it's very it's very depressing as an American. But they're in the same position, [1:09:20] Rich, as you and I talked about that night that Joe Biden went down and that debate June of 24 and [1:09:28] you came on. It was late at night. We were all stunned that he had fallen apart and he was not able [1:09:34] to spit out sentences. And we said that night he's he's done. But we talked about it that night, [1:09:40] the very thing that would go on to haunt the Democrats for the entire remainder of the race, [1:09:44] which was how are they going to replace the white guy with anyone other than the black woman who is [1:09:52] next in line? And they couldn't. So they went with her. And now who's the number two on this list? [1:09:57] Another white, straight Christian dude. Is this Democrat Party gonna I know they won't they won't [1:10:05] win, but are they really going to do that? Because who's the most important voting block of Team Blue? [1:10:13] Yeah, I think what's different this time is it's not just a Democratic establishment that is soaked in [1:10:18] identity politics, scared of its base. It's gonna be actual Democratic voters making the decision. [1:10:23] And, you know, we saw in 2020 Biden is not a great statesman. He was a reduced state even then. [1:10:30] But that was a rational choice compared to the other alternatives. And parties tend, [1:10:34] not always, but tend to make rational choices. So she's gonna have to go out and win this this time [1:10:40] on the merits. And that's a much harder proposition, obviously, than just making 100 phone calls or [1:10:45] whatever she did after Biden dropped out. All right. Part of the fun of this woman, [1:10:51] Charles is analyzing the way she speaks, you know, and I've said before about her that in another life, [1:10:58] my my partner was Polish, and he spoke fluent Polish. And the Polish language is very beautiful. [1:11:07] And it it does this thing where they say the thing three times like, oh, you're so brilliant. [1:11:13] You're so smart. You have so much knowledge. It's like that's the custom in speaking Polish is to say [1:11:17] the thing three times, not one time. And I think she's she's got some Polish in it. I like only [1:11:24] she doesn't. And she only speaks English because she's so repetitive and she inserts so many phrases [1:11:31] in her sentences that are unnecessary. And it's, I think, a nervous tick to buy time because she can't [1:11:38] think quickly enough on like how I'm going to land this sentence. But here is a little flavor of that [1:11:44] in Sat 9 recognizing that at some point, this administration will be termed out and there's [1:11:52] going to be a whole lot of debris. And I would I would caution us against talking about rebuilding [1:12:02] with any sense of nostalgia about how things were, because even before they weren't working so well for [1:12:13] a lot of folks. And so we're going to have to be clear. We're not going to go back to just trying to [1:12:19] bring back the status quo, the thing that you worked well in and made you comfortable. We've got [1:12:27] to upend some of this stuff to actually get this work done, including again, health care, child care, [1:12:36] what we need to do around housing. There has to be a vision that is about what we do when we're in [1:12:41] power because it's one thing to know how to fight the power. It's another thing to be in power and own [1:12:48] that power. And I know everybody in this room knows what it means to be in power and empowered. [1:12:55] Anyway, that's how I've been thinking. That's how she's been thinking, Charles. [1:13:00] I think that's a threat, actually. She just talked about housing, you know, typical policy. [1:13:05] But I think when they say we're not if we win, we're not just going back to the status quo. [1:13:09] I think that means they have learned from how Trump's wielded power and they're going to double down on it. [1:13:14] We had this astonishing statement from James Carville the other day. As soon as they get in, [1:13:19] Puerto Rico is a state, D.C. is a state, and the Supreme Court has 15 justices. Now, [1:13:23] I'm not sure they're going to be able to do all that, but I think that's where they're headed. [1:13:28] That's what the tendency is. So on the repetitiveness point, I think she thinks [1:13:36] that what she's doing is eloquence. She reminds me of someone who thinks they can sing but can't, [1:13:43] and they do all the little moves. I think she thinks that she is profound. I find her excruciating [1:13:52] to watch as a result. But I really truly believe that she thinks she's an orator. And so the pauses [1:14:00] and the searching for the words are beneficial to the audience because she is saying something that [1:14:09] is so important. The accent thing annoys me. It's odd. I obviously have an English accent. Americans [1:14:16] often like English accents. So I was in a barbecue place in South Carolina in 2024. And this African-American [1:14:26] lady came out and she just loved my accent. And I said to her, no, I love your accent. I live in the [1:14:33] South. I love Southern African-American accents. I just think they sound fantastic. I love listening [1:14:40] to African-Americans in the South talk. Whatever it is about my accent that Americans like, I like about [1:14:46] their accent. So what annoys me about Kamala Harris is that she's doing an impression and a bad one. [1:14:53] You know, if somebody actually spoke like that, I'd want to listen to them all day. Rich and I half joke [1:15:01] about this. I actually, although she's putting it on two at one level, I actually quite like listening [1:15:05] to Jasper Crockett. I actually quite like listening. She's like your girlfriend. I know. I know she is. [1:15:11] She is. I think she's pretty too. But I really do. When you need people who really truly come from [1:15:19] Southern black areas, I love listening to them talk. Um, but Kamala Harris's impression is bad [1:15:27] and it's condescending that she's trying to do it for, but it's not a problem about, [1:15:32] it's one of the few things that is not a problem about Kamala Harris. She just doesn't have that [1:15:36] accent. That's not where she's from. Like it's not her family background. She, she's from California. [1:15:41] She just picked up a different vocal part. It's not a problem with me. I don't sound like a Southern [1:15:46] person either, but like it would be really condescending if I started doing it badly. [1:15:50] Do you ever try to fake an American accent, Shelley? [1:15:53] No, because I'm, this is exactly my point because I'm not American. [1:15:56] Do it now. Try it. Give it a try. [1:15:59] No, I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it. But I, I, I'm just not of that. Um, so, you know, [1:16:05] it's, it's not, it's, it's not a good or bad thing to have different accents, but she, don't you think [1:16:10] that the point I'm driving at is because it's a bad impression and it's condescending, don't you think [1:16:15] that that just sums up in one clip. The problem with Kamala Harris is that she wants to be someone [1:16:20] she's not. She wants to be an orator and talk like Martin Luther King, but she can't do it. [1:16:26] She wants to talk like the ladies at that event, but she can't do it. She's a person doing an [1:16:33] impression of what she wishes she were. And it's why she lost. And it's why people don't like her. [1:16:39] Whereas Trump, there's so many things wrong with her. We have talked about them all. I've spent 11 years [1:16:45] writing them down every opportunity that I've had. But the thing I love about Trump [1:16:50] is he goes to McDonald's and he wears a suit. He doesn't ever take that off. He just doesn't [1:16:56] ever stop being Trump. And that's such a problem in lots of circumstances, because he really should [1:17:00] rise to the occasion, but it's also why people like him. Starting something new, especially a business [1:17:06] is hard. So much work goes into something that you are not entirely sure will work out. And it can be [1:17:12] hard to make that leap of faith, but it helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to [1:17:16] help you. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of [1:17:23] all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like Mattel and Allbirds to businesses just starting [1:17:30] out. With hundreds of templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your [1:17:36] brand's style. It's packed with great AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, [1:17:42] and even enhance your product images. Plus, Shopify provides world-class expertise in everything from [1:17:48] managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns, all with 24-7 award-winning [1:17:55] support. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com slash Megan. Go to shopify.com [1:18:03] slash m-e-g-y-n. That's shop-i-f-y dot com slash Megan. When it comes to supplements, there are two [1:18:11] things that matter most. It has to work and it has to be something you can trust. Both are absolutely [1:18:16] essential. And this is why I want to tell you about Relief Factor. Relief Factor has been endorsed by [1:18:22] hosts for over a decade. That's more than 10 years of trusted voices helping people get out of pain [1:18:27] naturally. For many people dealing with inflammation and mobility issues, especially after injuries, [1:18:33] it's been life-changing. Better movement, less stiffness, and a noticeable improvement in daily [1:18:38] comfort. Now Relief Factor offers a quick start option and they actually lose money on this first [1:18:43] offer. They do that so that you can try it yourself and see how much it can improve your life. [1:18:47] Relief Factor was created by a Vietnam combat vet who became a doctor to help people heal drug-free. [1:18:54] What began as relief for his own patients became something he wanted to share with everyone. [1:18:59] Try their three-week quick start for just $19.95. Go to relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. [1:19:06] Let's see if you're next in getting out of pain. Guys, something very exciting is happening. We'll turn [1:19:12] the page from common law, sad as that is. This weekend, and that is the White House Correspondents [1:19:19] Dinner. Yes, I know you're sad that you're not going this year like me. Actually, no, I was invited [1:19:25] by a few different people and said no to everybody because I don't have to do that anymore. Thank God [1:19:29] in my new role. But Jake Tapper is going and he's very excited to go and he has a message [1:19:35] for this administration, which he previewed last night on Stephen Colbert. Watch. [1:19:41] I like the pocket square. Thank you. Oh yeah, so this is a special freedom of the press and [1:19:48] freedom of speech pocket square. I'm going to be, you know, Saturday night's the White House [1:20:06] Correspondents Dinner. I did not know. And there are a bunch of us that are going to be wearing these. [1:20:12] These are from the Reporters Committee for the Free Press and because there might be some guests there [1:20:16] that are unfamiliar with. Oh, this is the first time. This is the first time that the president is [1:20:23] going to be attending, right? Now that you say so, yes. By the way, I brought you one. [1:20:28] Oh, that's lovely. So isn't that nice, Rich? They're going to stand up and speak truth to power. [1:20:40] Make sure Trump knows how important freedom of the press and freedom of speech are in America. CNN. [1:20:47] Yeah, I'm not into pin wearing this. This is very reminiscent of what we talked about this [1:20:53] a month or two ago. Was it the Grammys or something? Everyone was wearing pins. They didn't [1:20:56] quite know what the pins were, but the pins stood for some sort of social justice cause. [1:21:01] This is this is pointless and annoying. And that dinner has been pointless and annoying [1:21:06] for a very long time. Back in the day, I don't know, 20, 25 years ago, it was kind of enjoyable, [1:21:10] but then it got celebrified. And journalists shouldn't consider themselves working journalists [1:21:16] as celebrities and have the same mores. But but this is this this is very incestuous [1:21:22] and annoying event. The worst part about it, Charlie, is not even the actual event, [1:21:29] the White House Correspondents Dinner. It's all the events around the dinner where like this magazine [1:21:36] wants you to show up and like be photographed at their party. And that, you know, sort of kingmaker [1:21:42] wants you to show up at his or her party. And, you know, you got to go kiss the ring at all these [1:21:47] parties to try to prove that you're somebody special in Washington. Meanwhile, you're supposed to be [1:21:52] a shoe leather, scrappy, hates everyone reporter. That's why that's what a good DC reporter is like. [1:22:01] They don't want to rub elbows with any of these people. They want to bring all of them down, [1:22:05] no matter which party they're in. They're looking for the latest scandal, not for the latest free [1:22:11] cocktail and red carpet opportunity. And it's yet another reason to avoid this thing. But it goes on. [1:22:18] Yeah, well, I wasn't invited. So I have to slum it here on the beach with my family. [1:22:22] But I do think the most annoying part, as you say, is that this only goes in one direction. [1:22:28] There's nothing particularly offensive about that pocket square. First Amendment is crucially [1:22:33] important. And sometimes Donald Trump isn't good on free speech. It's just that that moment there only [1:22:39] seems to happen when a Republicans president that laughter slash clapping from the audience on Stephen [1:22:48] Colbert show with a journalist who's being smug. They didn't do that when, for example, Twitter and [1:22:58] Facebook shut down the New York Post story into the Hunter Biden laptop. They didn't do that when [1:23:05] abortion covering journalists were being targeted in California. It's just so one sided. So it's not [1:23:14] that, you know, Jake Tapper is completely wrong there. It's great to shout at all administrations [1:23:19] and all government officials about the First Amendment. It just becomes so annoying when it [1:23:24] only happens in limited circumstances. And I think all the people who are clapping in that [1:23:27] probably don't know that they probably think that they're entirely virtuous and that their opponents [1:23:33] are entirely evil. What about under Joe Biden when James O'Keefe, who's he is a journalist, [1:23:38] he's a muckraker. When he got the FBI raiding his home early in the morning because Joe Biden was [1:23:45] upset that he got his hands on Ashley Biden's diary and was considering publishing it. What about [1:23:51] when James Rosen was basically frozen out of asking another question for months in the White [1:23:55] House press briefing room because he had the nerve to ask about Joe Biden's health and its deterioration. [1:24:01] And by the way, it wasn't just him. All the press corps understood they'd be punished by this White [1:24:06] House, the Biden White House, if they inquired about Joe Biden's health. I don't remember his little [1:24:12] pocket square back then. It's only when it's Trump. And Rich, to that point, [1:24:18] the New York Post reports today that a group of over 250 journalists implored members of the Beltway [1:24:23] press corps to, quote, forcefully demonstrate opposition to President Trump at the White House [1:24:27] Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, prominent veteran journalists such as former CBS News anchor Dan [1:24:33] Rather. You knew that was coming. Infamous for erroneous reporting on President George W. Bush's [1:24:38] military service. Correct. And former ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson both signed the missive. So now we're [1:24:45] getting journalism lessons from Dan Rather again, who left this business in shame. The letter aired a litany [1:24:50] of grievances against Trump, such as his defamation suits against various outlets, which he's winning. [1:24:56] ABC settled that case because George Stephanopoulos said 16 times Trump had been found liable for rape [1:25:04] when it wasn't true. That's not some speak truth to power moment. ABC ought to be ashamed of itself [1:25:10] anyway. OK, his defamation suits against various outlets against favoritism toward conservative media. [1:25:16] Oh, like that wasn't a thing toward liberal media when we had Obama or Biden in there. And FCC [1:25:22] communications chair Brendan Carr's offensive tactics. Another complaint was Trump's decision [1:25:27] to pardon the January 6th Capitol rioters, which the letter claims sends a message that attacks on [1:25:32] the press will be forgiven. What? This is so absurd. Your thoughts on the pocket square and the unified [1:25:41] messaging led by Dan Rather. Yeah. So they're supposed to be forcibly demonstrating their opposition to [1:25:47] Donald Trump. They do it every single day. It pervades all their work. They don't need to do [1:25:52] anything at this dinner to reinforce the point. And look, the press, you know, it's oppositional [1:25:59] or should be by nature. But as Charlie points out, it just goes one way, right? Joe Biden would have [1:26:05] been such a wonderful figure of mockery on every late night show, right? Very bad for the country that [1:26:11] he was in his debilitated state. But there was something kind of funny about it. But Stephen [1:26:15] Colbert would never do it. And this is another problem with this dinner, not the most important [1:26:19] thing. It's all people inside the bubble in good graces in the bubble, not even realizing they're in [1:26:25] the bubble. So there's no conflict. There's never anything interesting. And all the mockery and disdain [1:26:31] just goes in one direction. Can I just add something to that? Well, and Charlie says, I object to the [1:26:36] pocket square because they only do it, you know, to the one side agreed. But the other problem is [1:26:41] it does nothing. It's an empty, meaningless virtue signal, right? It's like it's it's worse than nothing [1:26:47] because it's meant to make them look somehow above board and like they really care about these issues. [1:26:54] Charlie went, you know, Tapper's infamous for completely blowing it on the Biden mental health [1:27:00] story, as did all of CNN. They did not care about freedom of the press to do honest [1:27:06] reporting until they saw that Biden was imploding and then they found, you know, their spine, [1:27:13] shall I say. So their little pocket square isn't going to change anything. They need to look inward [1:27:17] for that. Go ahead. Well, I was going to bolster Rich's point and also that seccos what you just said, [1:27:22] which is that they are aware of it. They just think that there is a greater purpose to serve. [1:27:30] If you go back and you watch Saturday Night Live from 2019, when Joe Biden was running in the Democratic [1:27:37] primary and losing at the beginning, I think he was played by Woody Harrelson. And he's an idiot. [1:27:46] He's a senile idiot who doesn't know where he is. That's the joke. Likewise, Kamala Harris is this sort of [1:27:55] vain, insecure, mumbling fool who's constantly taking pictures of herself and looking at the camera. [1:28:05] Well, once Joe Biden had won the nomination for the Democratic Party, they stopped the sketch. [1:28:12] They didn't keep doing it throughout his presidency, even though it was far more relevant by 2023 than it [1:28:18] had been in 2019. Likewise, you know, obviously I write about politics, so I get all of these unsolicited [1:28:25] and frankly, unwanted emails from people trying to share opposition research on people they dislike. [1:28:29] And in 2019, I got email after email after email from the left about Joe Biden saying Joe Biden was [1:28:36] a racist. Joe Biden defended segregation. Joe Biden opposed busing and so forth. That all disappeared [1:28:41] as well. And that's what makes this particularly annoying. It's not that the criticisms of Trump that [1:28:47] you mentioned from that letter are wrong in every case. And I think some of what Brendan Carr has been [1:28:54] doing is bad. It's that the indignation stops the second it doesn't serve the broader political [1:29:00] purpose. The mockery stops the second it doesn't serve the broader political purpose. But then when [1:29:06] it's somebody on the side they dislike, it instantly goes up to 11 and we're all supposed to clap it [1:29:12] as coming from a good place. But it doesn't come from a good place. It comes from a very cynical place [1:29:17] in almost every case. To me, it's amazing how they're pretending that the press corps, [1:29:25] the White House press corps and beyond is what it was 20 years ago. Like this is all such a farce. [1:29:31] This is a lie. You know, I've mentioned this to the audience before, but when I first got in the news, [1:29:36] it was 2003. And I got a part time job at WJLA in Washington. And I was so excited. It was so thrilling [1:29:45] to me. I was still practicing law. And I got this job one day a week doing, I said I'd work for free, [1:29:52] but he did pay me. And I loved it so much. And then he invited me to the radio and television [1:29:57] correspondence dinner, which is sort of a wider spread like invitation list. And you don't have [1:30:04] to work at the White House in order to get invited to that. And it's the dinner featured in broadcast news, [1:30:09] which is one of my favorite movies. I love that movie. And I love the William Hurt scene as he's the [1:30:14] new anchor in Washington. And he goes up to Holly Hunter and says, it's incredible who's here. [1:30:18] And she says, who? And he says, me. That's how I felt. You know, I went, it was so exciting. [1:30:25] It was my new business news. And I was taking one step out of the law and I was thrilled to be doing [1:30:30] it. And I looked around and Sam Donaldson was one of the people I saw. And he was so respected at the [1:30:35] time at ABC, saw Supreme Court justices there. It was like, oh my gosh, this is amazing. They call it [1:30:40] nerd prom. And the press back in 2003, Rich, still did have some respect. It really did. It wasn't [1:30:48] yet totally fractured. And I remember thinking about my next move after they made me an offer to [1:30:54] that ABC affiliate. And at the time I was like, all right, if I'm good enough to be full time here, [1:30:58] maybe I'm good enough to be full time someplace better than here. And I talked to somebody at MSNBC [1:31:05] and at Fox like I absolutely would have gone to MSNBC. I had absolutely no qualms about that. [1:31:11] It was very different back then. It was like trying to be nonpartisan. I didn't even know [1:31:15] that Fox was partisan. I was so clueless about news, but things were just starting to change. [1:31:21] And now in 23 years time, the news business is a shadow of its former self. Yeah, absolutely. [1:31:29] I had similar experience in print, local newspaper in the Washington DC area. And the guy who's a [1:31:35] proprietor and the editor, former Washington Post reporter, and he was a curmudgeon, right? He didn't [1:31:40] have an ideology. He just wanted to know the facts, wanted you to get them right, and wanted stories. [1:31:46] That was it. And as media has become professionalized and these people imagine themselves as their [1:31:55] great tribunes of justice. It's a totally different attitude than when we started out. And it's [1:32:04] discredited the news, right? Because it's no longer just the facts that we're driving [1:32:09] an agenda. We're driving the agenda because the agenda is deeply just. And we're going to support [1:32:15] narratives that reinforce the agenda. So that's been like a 20 year process. It's a very bad one. [1:32:23] Trump accelerated it because they even thought they were more just and they had to be more open [1:32:27] with their agendas and their narratives. And now we've had this this splintering. So certainly the [1:32:33] broadcast outlets and all that will never, never be the same. I mean, I've talked about this before, [1:32:39] but I and I'm very grateful for my time at Fox News, very grateful. It made my whole career. But I do [1:32:46] think sort of cable news accelerated the deterioration in the following way. It had been not openly partisan [1:32:53] and the whole media leaned left, but not as openly and perhaps not quite as severely as it does now. [1:32:59] And Fox came around as the antidote to that left wing bias and leaned in. And then the others realized [1:33:05] that was a very successful business model. They were cleaning the clocks of CNN and eventually MS. [1:33:11] And then they they leaned into their partisanship openly and more obviously. And things just got [1:33:18] progressively polarized. The broadcast media became more and more irrelevant. And then they started to [1:33:24] lean into their bias more openly. And it's not that it's Fox's fault, but it's like the Fox antidote to [1:33:30] what was indeed left wing bias wound up, I think, making the problem, yes, exposed, but also kind of [1:33:36] worse in some ways. Or maybe it was just a trajectory the news business on either way. But that the fact that [1:33:42] Dan Rather is leading this charge is I mean, because in those early days at Fox where I got hired in [1:33:47] August of 04, one of the very first stories they put me on was that 60 Minutes 2 piece they were doing [1:33:53] on George W. Bush where they had faked papers around his National Guard service. And Dan Rather was leading [1:34:01] the charge and it led to his exit from CBS. And so now he wants to be our our moral better. Here's what [1:34:07] Trump posted in March, Charlie, when he said he was going to attend because he hasn't been attending these [1:34:12] things as president. The White House Correspondents Association has asked me very nicely to be the [1:34:18] honoree at this year's dinner, a long and storied tradition since it began in 1924 under then President [1:34:23] Calvin Coolidge. In honor of our nation's 250th birthday and the fact that these correspondents now admit [1:34:30] that I am truly one of the greatest presidents in the history of our country, the GOAT, according to many, [1:34:37] it will be my honor to accept their invitation and work to make it the greatest, hottest and most [1:34:43] spectacular dinner of any kind ever. I just have a feeling that's not how it's going to go down. [1:34:51] I think he's going to walk into open hostility from the little pocket square people. But your thoughts? [1:34:58] Well, I don't think that they're going to uniformly affirm that he's the greatest of all time [1:35:04] in the White House. I agree. But that is classic Trump. And I actually, in this context, like Trump [1:35:11] when he does that. Because I think it has a tendency to puncture the bubble. And the bubble, [1:35:22] in this instance, is a ridiculous one. So I like Trump when he's like this. The White House dinner that [1:35:31] he's going to is, in my view, pointless. I was, of course, joking. I would much rather stay on the [1:35:38] beach with my family. But he is, he is hostile to them. They're hostile to him. And in that sense, [1:35:48] they both get what they want, right? I mean, this is, it's a pantomime. It's a Punch and Judy show. [1:35:56] They want to play that role. They want to channel Watergate. They think that that's who they are. [1:36:05] And then Trump thinks he's the greatest president who's ever existed. And then the audience sort of [1:36:10] watches it as a drama. And I think this might make this one more interesting than the average. [1:36:16] It's amazing, though, right, that Trump can't resist the pull of these people, right? He should be so [1:36:21] much bigger than this dinner. He doesn't need to go to this dinner. He shouldn't go to this dinner, [1:36:24] in my view. But he can't help calling these people, caring about what they write, what they say, [1:36:29] you know, working behind the scenes. So he's such a media creature through and through. [1:36:34] As always. Now, we've never had a woman as the guest of honor because we've never had a female [1:36:41] president. And that is because we are a nation of sexist pigs. Back to Kamala Harris. Before we go, [1:36:47] I've got to play 13 and listen to the repetition, too. I do believe America is can be and will be [1:36:58] ready for a woman to be pressing United States. And I strongly believe, you know, I mentor, as we all do, [1:37:06] a lot of people. And one of the things I will say to our young people, and I know we have many here, [1:37:13] is don't ever let someone's limited ability to see your capacity to be a limitation on your ambition [1:37:23] for yourself. That's their limitation, not ours. So again, part of it is I just try to not let other [1:37:33] people's problems be my problem, in terms of believing and knowing and acting on who can do what. [1:37:43] And that's where I land on that. Believing and acting and knowing and also is can be and will be. [1:37:56] Basically, everyone's a bunch of sexists. That's really what she wants you to know. Charlie, [1:38:01] how do you plead? And I love the end of it, which was straight from Forrest Gump, where she just [1:38:05] exits by saying, and that's where I land on that. I'm just going to start using that. If I'm not really [1:38:10] sure where I'm going with an answer, I'm just going to say, maybe when we're doing the podcast, [1:38:14] Rich, you know, when you don't know when I'm going to finish or not, when I'm unclear, [1:38:18] I can just say, and that's where I land on that. This is my new favorite Kamala Harrisism I've ever [1:38:24] heard. You are looking for a way of understanding whether Charlie's pausing or done with his points [1:38:31] on the editor. This could be your pro magma. I don't even think you could do it. The certain [1:38:36] the pause from the end. It's funny. I guess the other show, I don't care. I'll just step step on [1:38:43] poor Charlie. But on the editors, it's a gentleman's show. You are much more polite than I am. [1:38:47] Guys, a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much for being here and dealing with our tech issues as well. [1:38:52] Talk soon. Yeah. Okay. All right. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether you think Trump [1:38:58] should go to the white house correspondence dinner. Does he, does he do them this, uh, this honor? [1:39:05] And how do you think it'll go? You can email me, Megan at megankelly.com.