7/21/26 Panel

It's been one week since you looked at me. Cocked your head on the side and said I'm angry. Five days, six, you laugh to me, you're saying, get that together, come back and see me. Three days at the living room. I realized I saw my fault, but couldn't tell you yesterday he'd forgiven me. Get the man hits. You try to match wits. You try to home me by a bus through. Good morning, welcome to the Roundtable, and I'm going to call this installment of the show Joe and the Drown Rats. The panelists were outside. Catherine missed this somehow, but the gentlemen were outside waiting to get in, and the skies opened up, and it was just a downpour, and, well, they're very wet. So we'll get you dry. Come in, relax, and thank you for being here and putting up the elements. You really got it, Peter. Yeah, I know. I can attack myself for my briefcase, but Mr. Jock was kindly took pity on me. It was Mr. Spain, actually. Mr. Spain shared right by him because my umbrella was so small. And he's so tall. I can't possibly sheltered. He took pity on me and gave me a. It was much too late, I have to say. Too little, too late. I managed to will the weather to cooperate for two minutes. Yeah, that's good. Well, good morning, all. Welcome to the roundtable. I just heard from Bear Naked Ladies. They're going to be opening for train tomorrow night at SPAC, and we'll be hearing Bear Naked Ladies songs this morning and good stuff to put you in a good mood. And hopefully put you in a good mood. Maybe you're already in a good mood. Aren't we all? It used to be if you had a million dollars you were rich, but that was a long time ago. That was so 1990s, why? Right, I know. Lots changed. It's wonderful to have you all here. Let me introduce our group and we will get started and we look forward to the time we spend together. Panel at wamc.org if you'd like to get in on the conversation panel at wamc.org.org. All right. Good show today. We've got a lot of cool stuff going on. The Reverend Peter Cook is here, principle of faith in the public square and co-principal of the Religious Nationalism Project. Faith beyond religious nationalism.

It's okay. No, I got it wrong. All right, so there's two organizations. All right, what's the first organization? You're right. Faith in the Public Square, and I'm also co-principal of what used to be the Religious Nationalism Project, but it's now called Faith. Beyond Religious Nationalism. Okay. And you corrected me last week on that. It's okay. You're good. I didn't make the sense. I didn't. Have you changed the sign out in front of the building yet? My house. Oh, okay. All right. Good. All right. As long as I can stay it with the sign maker. Yeah. Semi-retired editor. Welcome, by the way. Reverend Cook, wonderful to have you here. A semi-retired editor at large columnist editorial writer of the Times Union, Jay Jocknewitz. Good morning, sir. Good morning to you. And I, not to talk about the weather. because it's so trivial. Yeah. But I am the coolest I've been in days. Yeah. It does feel a little good, doesn't it? Yeah, I agree. Yeah, it is a good feeling. Wonderful to have you here. Hey, Mike Spain was out. Where in the world is Mike Spain? And now he's back. And former Times Union associate editor and our dear, dear friend. Good morning, Mike. How are you? I'm great. It's good to be here in spite of the rain. And great to see everybody. Where'd you go? Oh, I quick trip. We went to Ireland for about five days and then... went over to Scotland for another four days. Did you drink all their beer? No, there's some left. They do have very good beer over there. I don't know if you know. Yes, I hear or tell. Actually, it was beautiful weather, and they are both beautiful places, and we're very fortunate to have been able to do that. Well, that's wonderful. Welcome back. We missed you horribly, but I'm glad you're here. Thank you. Catherine Tan is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Bassar College, and we welcome you. Good morning, Kathy. Good morning. Things are great. It's my last week of being in my 30s. Oh. Okay, I'm going to say something that I probably shouldn't say, but I'm going to say it anyway. And it's just, I took 40 really hard. Like. wouldn't leave the room sobbing hard. But you don't seem like you're near that. Oh, no, I'm doing great. I think that was my 30s. Entering 30s was hard. Okay. Now I'm kind of over it. Yeah. And then I was like dreading my 50s. And then when I hit 50, I was like, oh, I don't know. Well, but also, you know what? I've been like mentally preparing.

For this, I've been telling people I'm 40 for the last three to five years. Oh. Yeah. So you could get into bars? She could get carded. Well, that's great. Oh, good. Congratulations. And when's your actual birthday? This Sunday. Oh, congratulations. Well, happy birthday. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. But it'll be a surprise to all the people who've. I thought I've been 44. It's now public. In the words of Sophocles, screw him. Okay, let's get started on the news of the day. And the story is that... You know, I think there's some compelling stories that have come out over the last couple of days. And it sort of brings us... I've been trying to figure out a good way to approach this, not only in my mind, but in communicating it on the air, a way to explain it all. But, you know, the war has been going on for five months, and we've had this back and forth of... ceasefire, non-seasfire, we have a ceasefire, we're closing this, we're shooting this, we're doing that. And so it sort of quiets and it goes away. And then we had casualties over the weekend. And then suddenly we become as a people more engaged in the story. And then we learn more. And it sort of seems like we find out, things that we perhaps were concerned about, but now have been verified. And that's that in this particular case, nearly 100 U.S. troops have been injured in the last two weeks of the Iran war. A lot of this has not been reported. The injuries of this war have not been reported. The Pentagon did say Monday that nearly 100 troops have been injured in the war. Over the last two weeks underscoring the significance of Tehran strikes in the U.S. military installations across the region since negotiations to end the conflict collapsed. This from the Washington Post. The disclosure came as the U.S. military identified two U.S. soldiers who were killed in a fatal attack on Friday night and after the Trump administration for days declined to detail how many U.S. service members have been injured recently. And this has been a regular... occurrence of trying to find out that information and being unable to do so. Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman, said on media that nearly 100 service members were deemed to have some degree of injury since January 7th, with 96% of those since returning to duty. They are determined to get back in the fight. Parnell said of the affected service members the vast majority of injuries experienced were minor concussions. Parnell said further updates would be posted online on the Pentagon database that was stagnant for weeks showing 14 troops dead and 427 troops injured since the beginning of the war on February 28th.

On Monday evening, those figures were briefly updated to reflect that 18 service members have died. 447 have been injured since the beginning of the war. The new tally of those killed in action included a Friday night attack that left three U.S. troops dead, one still unidentified and others wounded in Jim Jordan. But with no explanation from the Pentagon, the database later reverted Monday night to the earlier numbers. If the figure Parnell disclosed on Monday is accurate, the number of service members injured in the conflict since February could easily exceed 500. So, as you can tell, this is once again a hard thing to have to... figure out and to know really what is going on. I don't have the words right in front of me, but I know Parnell went off on a screed about the media of not supporting, not being patriotic, not supporting, and that they were on the side of the Iranians. And I don't know exactly how. He called it outright. lies intended to stress the American people, you know, deliberately just fomenting, you know, distrust on the part of the American people of the government. I mean, it's, you know, you, oh, hey. It's almost post time. It is. It's now post time. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Wow. But switching back. You know, they're going to scratch them because of rain. So don't worry about it. Oops, go ahead. But, you know, it underscores how important it is for the media to do reporting and to tell the American people what's happening. It illustrates how the Pentagon is trying to suppress news. They, you know, it's, they've tried to. shut down the press room at the Pentagon. They've lost in court on that one. They've kicked people out, kicked media representatives out right and left. They criticized them constantly. I just read today that they're trying to get an exemption from the freedom of information law so that any non-classified material that they deem important. They won't release publicly, and it will be exempt from the freedom of information law that now makes that public. And it kind of evokes what happened during the Vietnam War, where the Pentagon was hiding the number of casualties. And, you know, Daniel Ellsberg, the hero, got that information out. And people began to see that the government was lying to them or not telling them the full truth. And again, it underscores how important it is to have a free press. So what are they hiding and why? Well, the Y is really apparent. I mean, this is a pattern. The military, as you point out, Mike, has always done this kind of, you know, cat and mouse game with the numbers and the media and the true cost of war and the true casualties of war. But this administration in particular has been notorious. And this president, through both his terms, has been notorious for trying to.

paint an image of his achievements and his record that does not match reality. And he's been rather... blatant about it. You know, when he said that we're going to, we should just stop testing for COVID and then the cases won't look so bad. We won't have as many cases if we don't have as many tests. You know, lately telling the FBI, you know, having the FBI no longer investigate ICE cases, assaults on officers because the case. on ice agents because the FBI was finding too often that the assault was actually the ice agents on the, on the civilian. So let's not investigate these things anymore. You know, and the same thing with climate data. You know, if we just stop collecting climate data and weather data, we won't have, we won't have climate change, we won't have proof of climate change and all that. So now we're here. And the problem with this is that I think it's a disservice on so many levels. It's a disservice to the people who are actually injured. I mean, to brush off, I had a minor concussion once in a martial arts promotional exam. Minor means you stay on your feet. You know, you get back up on your feet and you continue on. But you are not at top form for months. So to put these people back into service, I'm sure they were some of these people were not itching to get back in the fight. They were told to get back in the fight. It's a disservice to the people who are injured. It's a disservice to the people who are not injured and are at risk. We have people, you know, you talk about, you know, the whole controversy of Benghazi. You know, one. incident. You have people all, troops all over the Middle East in peril. They're saying so and they're getting attacked by an army. We vanquished. Just not that long ago, supposedly. They have no Air Force. They have no Navy. They have nothing left. And I'll wrap it up because I have more to say on it. But it's also a disservice, as Mike pointed out, to the public, that you keep us in the dark. You keep our representatives in the dark. And we don't know whether this is a good war or a bad war or at least you can keep trying to convince the people that think this is a good war, that it's a good war. And man, we're just waging it with. No must, no fuss at all. If I may, I think the current coverage needs a little sort of background to understand it in a better context. And I would just...

if I could offer a little bit of that background, and that is that, you know, Warhawks in the administration with very strong encouragement from Israel really persuaded the president that he needed to finish the job of no longer making Iran a nuclear threat. And they convinced the president that this was going to be easy. And he would get in. He could just get in and get out. And some of you probably remember how Trump said that this was going to be easy, right? And that this wasn't even a war. It was more like, what did he call it? An excursion, right. And by the time Congress got around to barely passing a war powers resolution, it angered Trump, but he was going around saying it was sort of silly because the war was over anyway. Then when the president could see, in fact, the war. was not concluding, as he promised. He signed after a few false starts an MOU with Iran, which postponed the negotiation over Iran's nuclear deterrence, but instead offered to release money to help Iran rebuild and also remove the danger in the Gulf of or muse for shipping oil. As Trump said to the shipping community, start your engines, right? Remember that? This had the potential. Many argument experts said to actually realign the power dynamic in the Middle East and had the potential to reduce Israel's hegemony in the region. And Trita Parsi from the Quincy Institute primarily made this argument. And while he said it wasn't good that the United States initiated this war in the first place that Trump... was offering concessions to Iran and service of opening up the Strait of Hormuz and other concessions was actually a positive game changer for the region. Unfortunately, our president kind of... listens to the last person he is talking to and he flips. And the president almost immediately after signing the MOU and Versailles said that if they broke even one element, he would bomb Iran into oblivion.

And he was also dealing with the howls of opposition to the MOU from Israel who wanted to keep the war going and Republicans who thought the president looked too weak. Sadly, before the funeral for, during the funeral for the Ayatollah, some of the hardliners in Iran stepped into a power vacuum and took advantage of the fact that the MOU had not finalized the protocol for ship passage. And Iran hit a couple ships to which the moderates in Iran said that the hardliners had made a terrible mistake. The president, however, instead of working hard to tighten up the MOU and not let the matter escalate, went full out with a retaliatory bombing. And this played into the hardliners who bombed back from Iran, and we now are entering this cycle of violence. And now the Congress is in a place where they are stuck with funding a war. They did not authorize... because they want to finish the job even though public opinion is against them. So what this whole background leads us to understand is that any hopes of a peace deal, which Trump had come up with, has reverted to this tit-for-tat retaliatory

set of events, which it's just like two countries have just kind of lost their mind in this endless war and all of the predictable... misstatements and shading of facts and so on that happen in a war of this type are really now coming to the fore. Catherine. How many different ways can we say this war is stupid over the last five months? Yeah, Americans are dying in vain. We don't really have much transparency, as we learned this week, that the Pentagon has been withholding information from people. Yeah, and what is striking to me is there were people who, you know, behind the scene supporting Trump. enter entry into this war without what it seems now, apparently no real understanding of what we could possibly lose, such as, you know, access to the Strait of Hormuz. And we went in not fully understanding Iran's missile capabilities. And it's incredibly impressive how strong they are coming back after. the ceasefire ended. You know, Trump went into this thinking he could have the gloss of success as he did with Venezuela, which, you know, not much has. what happened to that. And that's not, or, you know, that's not at all what we're seeing here. And they, I don't think he had any idea how consequential and how unending this war would be. You know, we went into it without a clear rationale for entering the war. And now there's no clear way of exiting the war. So. You know, we'll be lucky if we leave this with any bit of what we had before we entered it in the beginning, such as, you know, access back to the straight. And now with the closure of the other, was it, the other straight, the Red Sea, we're about to. see even harder hits to oil supply. And now, you know, you have the administration asking for 87.6 billion in supplemental funding. And that would also include $67.1 billion in extra military spending this year for a war that...

has, you know, nobody wants. It has declining support among American people with each week. But. And so while the Pentagon is saying that we've already spent $29 billion, that is a gross underestimation. Economists have estimated that we've actually spent around $630 billion to $1 trillion so far. That's a ridiculous amount of money for this stupid war, right? Like this is the amounts that the big, beautiful bill cut from Medicaid. was about, and SNAP combined, I believe, was about $1 trillion over 10 years, right? So that money that we quote unquote saved has just been used, literally blown up in the course of five months. And, you know, I say we call it a loss and just end this thing because there's no way of winning. What does that even look like at this point? We're not supposed to get to a morass in, you know, it usually takes longer to get there, but I think we're there. I think this can legitimately be called that. When you start saying, all right, we've got to put. almost $100 billion more in spending, into a war that supposedly was over a few months ago, and we were in the process of negotiating. You know, it reminds me, and I think that's why it's so serious what Congress has to do right now in terms of the War Powers Act. It reminds me of all those movies. I just saw a movie with Quicksand in it. It seemed like there were always movies with Quicksand when I was a kid. Quick Sam was all over Africa. And everybody stepped in it. And Gilligan's Island. And Gilligan's Island. Yeah. And I always thought, as soon as you felt your foot sink at the edge of that quicksand pit, why didn't you step back? And that's what this is. It's like, step back. And yeah, I think you're right. Cut your losses and go. You know, there's nothing. It doesn't seem, with all respect to Trita Parsi, who I met many years ago, and he's a real smart guy. I think he also takes very seriously the feeling that everything he writes is going to be read by Donald Trump, and maybe it'll make a difference or the people that are around Donald Trump. And I think he's just trying to find a way for Trump to get out of this gracefully, as a lot of writers are. I wouldn't. I wouldn't give him the help on this, but. I think people want to find a way to massage it for the president, so he's not embarrassed by having to say, I walk the way. It does not matter at this point. No, it doesn't. People are dying. And, you know, we just, you know, we have only mentioned the Americans have died. Thousands of Iranians, thousands of civilians have died in Iran. This is completely immoral. And Congress has the power to cut off funding. Right. And, well.

So this is the part where I don't fully understand how this works because I know that, I mean, Congress has not authorized the war since World War II. And, you know, but this one is different because it's completely idiotic and nobody supports it. But if we, if Congress does not fund, like what does that look like next? Most people don't support it. Most people do. Okay, sorry. Right, right, right. Most people. Not, I don't know. But then if Congress does not, you know, if Congress actually shows any sort of, you know, bravery and does not, and reason and does not, you know, offer funding, what happens next? Well, so I would like to talk about this. Let's take a break, and when we come back, I want to talk about the legislative side of this and take a look at where we are right now because that's not a great picture either, as you both have alluded to. Let me take a break. We'll come back and we'll get into this. We welcome you. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We'll return right after this message. Our whole universe was in a hot-dense state the nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started waiting. The earth began to cool, the autotroats began to drool me and with all's developed tools. We built a wall. We built a pyramids. Math, science history, unraveling the mystery that all started with a big bang. Did you know Bear Naked Ladies did the theme to Big Bang Theory? And there was a whole long version of that. I thought it was they might be giants or something. No, they did the Daily Show theme. Okay. Good morning. Welcome back. We have a lot to talk about. We welcome you. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. So this article from the New York Times, and this gets into what I was talking about right before we went to break, President Trump has yet again circumvented the legislative branch as he orders American forces back into combat in the Middle East. Weeks after both chambers of Congress rebuked him for waging war with Iran without authorization. The collapse of the ceasefire and resumption of hostilities has inflamed a debate on Capitol Hill over war powers, just as the administration is seeking tens of billions of dollars to pay. for the war. That has presented Republicans with a political worst case scenario months before midterm elections in which their majorities are at stake. They are being asked to vote to fund an unpopular war over which they have had no meaningful oversight and which they have never voted to approve.

What's a congressional body to do? The greatest fighting force on the planet, the last great superpower must be fully equipped, and that's the job of Congress to make sure it's done. That from Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, who said that to Manor Raju at the Capitol last week. The administration last month requested $87.6 billion in supplemental funding that would include $67.1 billion in extra military spending this year. Ask whether it wasn't also the job of Congress to authorize the war. Mr. Johnson replied, we're going to supply the needs for America's national security. I don't know what question that was answering, but not the one that was asked. The position amounts to the latest instance of Republicans seating power to the executive branch as they sidestep a debate over the conduct of the war and try to rally support within their ranks for a filibuster-proof party line bill to pay for it with no strings attached. It is all the more remarkable coming weeks after bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate voted to reassert Congress's constitutional role over matters of war, a slap on Mr. Trump's wrist four months into the conflict that he had said would last. a matter of weeks. And without this sounding like blatant commentary, it just struck me that, okay, but you did that as at that moment, the war seemed to be, at least from the president's words, winding down. We're done. We have the negotiations. We're all done. We're ready. We have the memorandum of understanding. And you say, okay, you can't do that. And they go, well, we're not doing anything anyway, so we're all done. Not thinking that this actually could, for whatever reason. And I'm not sure why, thinking, especially with the track record, of thinking that this could not come back to haunt them, which it certainly has in this case. Mike Spain. Well, it goes down to the War Powers Act passed back in 1973 when Nixon was waging the war in Vietnam. It didn't really stop Nixon from waging the war in Vietnam, but it was a signal that Congress was reasserting its constitutional authority over the purse strings, which basically covers the cost of the Pentagon and the war. And so it really wasn't successful. except that it reflected Congress's disapproval of the war. And Nixon vetoed it, but then they overrode his veto. And, you know, it was a strong assertion. I don't think there's anybody willing to override, you know, to pass a law and override a veto that Trump would do if that was to happen today. I think they're just looking at it.

through the political lens. They're not looking at it through the moral lens. They're not looking at it through the economy that's being devastated by this, as Catherine pointed out. I mean, the trillion dollars just up in smoke. And what you could do with that if you had that kind of money to help the American. citizenry. But the, so they don't want, they're not doing this on moral grounds, they're not doing this on economic grounds, they're doing it, that Republicans are continuing to stitch together support. because they're doing it on political grounds. They don't want to anger Trump and have him campaign against them or do anything that's going to interfere with their return to office, especially members of the House of Representatives, all of whom are up this year. And that's pretty, it's pretty despicable and pretty sad that that's how they are filtering this. The War Powers Resolution said that... A president cannot deploy forces for more than 90 days if there isn't authorization. We're on day 108. So what happened on day 91 there? Well, I mean, the exception, of course, that they claimed was when they signed the memorandum of understanding that restarted the clock. That restarted the clock. Great. So, I mean, they're just using technical baloney, you know, for a better word, to justify, you know, not adhering to the rules of law. I just think that what's going on here is that everybody got sucked into this.

And so the War Powers Act just became less and less relevant because the Republicans are going like, okay, well, now, you know, service people are being killed and we need to, you know, finish the job. And so, yeah, why we did want. maybe the War Powers Act and we entered into this ill-advised, we need to get behind the president and, you know, finish this up. And so now they just are really kind of stuck. And this is how we get into so many of these wars that we... escalate enough that people say, well, we can't go back to negotiations. We have to bomb our way out of this. And we'll spend whatever money we need to spend to make it happen. Yeah, he really thought this was going to be as easy and on the surface as triumphant as what he did in Venezuela. But the gross underestimation of... how capable and persistent Iran is, is really unsettling, right, to go and wage this war without fully understanding the, the quote-unquote opponent. Also, of where we are now with the budget, where we are now with the amount of... Of weapons? And in other words, not being, it seems, if we believe published reports, that we're not prepared for a prolonged next step. You know, the military's been debating for several years how many fronts it can fright a war on. And arguably, you know, even though it's in the vicinity, you know, at least in the same hemisphere and... in the same two hemispheres actually, southern and and eastern, western. We're potentially going to fight a war on two fronts now. The Houthis on one side of the Arabian Peninsula and the Iranians on the other side of it. And... You know, we have a lot of ships in the area. We have lots of, you know, we have a dwindling number of missiles that we're pulling around, pulling from all around the world. The Pentagon's running out of cash. I don't think that Trump and Pete Hegseth fully appreciated how quickly the United States could deplete its military might without changing the whole economy into a war economy. You can't just have these little fights and think that they don't cost anything, as we've pointed out repeatedly on this. You know, to go back to what you said, Joe, about what question was Mike Johnson answering? You know, he's trying, and so is Trump, and so is, I'm sure, Pete Hegseth is going to do the same thing today, that they're trying to frame this as a matter of an existential crisis for the United States, that if we walk away from this,

Iran's going to have a bomb in a matter of days. You know, somehow. Even though it's buried and no one can get near it, they're still, you know. this is going to lead to Iran having a bomb. And as long as they can sell that to enough people in Congress or sell it to enough people in the American public that enough people in Congress are comfortable that their voters aren't angry at them about this and still believe it, then this can be framed as a matter of national security. But as that facade starts to crumble. And the American public, I think, realizes the only way really out of this was to negotiate from the beginning. And you never should have cut off the negotiations in the first place. And maybe Iran wasn't trying to get a nuclear bomb after all. And now we've given them a reason. And now we've given them a really good reason. The existential, I think you're right to point out this existential threats that motivated this war to begin with. But that was not. really grounded in real facts. Like Iran was many years behind in achieving a really threatening nuclear capabilities. But that's time when you can negotiate, right, and revisit negotiations. Now with this war, we have given them a reason to bomb the crap out of us if they ever gain that capability. And in the meantime, they are attacking U.S. troops and our host nations in Jim Jordan, in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq. And... Those countries have depended on us to protect them, and they're seeing that it's maybe not in their best interest to have U.S. bases in their countries, and it's making it very uncomfortable there. And Saudi Arabia is going to turn to Washington, as Jay was pointing out, when the Houthis in Yemen start trying to close the Red Sea, you know, they're going to turn to Washington and say, well, you've got to help us because, you know, you started this mess and you're our ally. we've supported you and we gave you a great big welcome when you became president too, you know, and they want payback now. And it's really unsettling the whole U.S. strategy in the mid-east. And Iran, which is a dastardly government. and doesn't seem to mind imposing and inflicting pain on their own citizenry, is ready to just stick it out and watch the American public tire of this the way they do of every conflict because there's really no valid justification for it.

It always... Go ahead, Peter. I think it's important to note that within the MOU, that negotiating around the nuclear capabilities of Iran was postponed. And... I think it was partly postponed because maybe the threat around Iran in terms of their nuclear capability. was starting to be seen as maybe not as great as maybe people thought. And I still think that's true. And we had a whole debate remember about, you know, how this would compare to the deal that Obama cut. And now there's a lot of back and forth. But now here we are back on, ooh, we need to get into this war and... deter Iran's nuclear capability is one of our highest priorities. And I might say that, you know, even Democrats have played into that whole thing that, you know, Trump promised to deter, you know, stop. Iran's nuclear capabilities when they attacked and he failed. But wasn't the original us going to war with Israel and the United States going to war and attacking Iran? Wasn't it then regime change that the Iranian people would rise up if we... took out their leadership. Oh, absolutely. The nuclear threat was sort of like, well, that didn't sell and that didn't work. How about the nuclear? Yeah, that's why we went to war. I mean, it's, it's, it's, you know, whatever fits, you know. I feel like we went to war because this gets a little convoluted, but because Trump canceled the Iran. deal in the first place and had to prove someday at some point and you know this is this is the thing on his list that came up on a particular day in February I need to prove that I can do a better job than Obama and so he couldn't get a deal out of the Iranians which a better deal certainly than Obama did so you know let's use the military might of the United States to cow them into submission it didn't work and um And then the endgame of the war became, well, let's get the straight of her moves that...

We wasn't closed before this. Let's get that open. Exactly. He puts out a tweet, start your engines and all this, look at what I've done, you know. Yeah. And that didn't sell because the American public, the American media, a lot of people in Congress and the public at large saw this as what kind of deal is this? They're keeping their nuclear material. They're going to start charging fees for the straight pretty soon. They got $300 billion in economic. development out of this. And I think Trump is very sensitive on a day-to-day basis of what the public opinion is, what the New York Times is publishing, even though he calls it the failing New York Times. And he saw this collapsing. So, you know, all right, so we got to start, we got to restart the war. So when Congress is talking about we have to know his strategy, we have to know his goals, and we have to know what his end game is. Good luck finding that out. It's trying to get the best headline he possibly can get on any given day. He's shifted all over the place. He's got no plan. No, Jay, you're absolutely right. Like, Trump started this because he ended the agreements that Obama had secured, thinking, oh, that was, you know, that was a weak agreement. I can do something better. Here we are. We don't have an agreement, and we are months deep into an unpopular war. But if... If we are waiting for a pathway towards ending the war so that Trump's ego is appease and he doesn't feel like, you know, he has failed, this is never going to end, right? There is no way of exiting it in a victorious manner at this point, right? And so I... I mean, this is where Congress really has to, you know, step up and show some modicum of bravery and challenge what it is that Trump wants, right? Republicans need to push back because otherwise we're just going to lose, continue losing all this money, all these lives for nothing. And it's so ridiculous that... All of this, you know, all of this upheaval and destruction and deaths are because, you know, one guy is an egomaniac. We have a system with bumpers against this. We're just not using it. We're so hyper obsessed with winning in the optics of winning, and Trump particularly is obsessed with this, that he was willing to abandon a deal. where the optics were that he had not won, but maybe surrendered. Maybe that's too strong a word. And he just couldn't stand the fact that he was getting... criticism that he looked like a loser. And so he just lost his mind and went right back into this old, you know, I got a win, you know, hawkish kind of approach to negotiations. And that's, or to this war. And it's like a whole anxious system on both sides where people just...

are so obsessed with the optics that they're not doing the things necessary to bring peace in the region. We're up against a break. We will pause here. We'll continue. We have letters from listeners and much more to talk about many more topics. We will do all of that after this short news break. If I had a million dollars, if I had a million dollars, well I'd buy you a house, I would buy you a house. And if I had a million dollars, if I had a million dollars, buy you furniture for your house, maybe an Ice Chester field or an ottoman. And if I had a million dollars, if I had a million dollars, buy you furniture for your house, maybe an Icechester field or an ottoman. And if I had a million dollars, if I... Well, I'd buy you a K car, a nice, reliant automobile, and if I had a million dollars, I'd buy it.

It was important to get back to the show, but we did want to wait for the John Merrick Remain line. It's late in the song. Yes, but it's a good one. Bare Naked Ladies, performing an opening for Train tomorrow night at SPAC, playing their music today. We'll play Trains music tomorrow, and we welcome you to our conversation on this. 21st day of July, it is nine minutes past 10 o'clock, and we welcome you to the program. I want to get to some letters from our listeners, and then we'll move on to other topics. Jackie writes Trump has already succeeded with the war in Iran. You have been distracted along with everyone else into discussing what constitutes success in war instead of discussing how and who can indict, try, convict, and jail Trump for crimes in the U.S. He is successfully avoiding jail. I don't know how that would happen. I don't know either. Impeachment would be fine. And that's really the only solution to this president would be impeachment. And it's not going to happen. It's not happening. Impeachment also doesn't do anything. He's already been impeached twice. Well, impeached me. And trial. And a trial. And conviction. And conviction in the Senate. Yeah. And in. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I don't. I'm not. I'm not. Jackie, I'm not being dismissive. However, it's not going to happen. I just, you know, I do think that we, I do think we look at what is practical. And God knows, I don't know half the time what's practical within this administration, but I'm pretty sure that's, that is not practical. I was thinking about, to her point, what she was saying, I was thinking about Todd Blanche's, Todd Blanche's confirmation hearings. And, you know, Trump was indicted by Jack Smith for the deception against the American public and all the damage it did in the context of the January 6th insurrection. And that is a, you know, there was, it was a criminal thing. And so a lot of what he does, she's right, is, is. out and out criminal. He and Todd Blanche, I would argue, conspired to steal $1.776 billion from the American people. And that is a crime. And it's a provable crime. They did it. And you can, but the problem is the Supreme Court would argue if it, I mean, if this case ever got to the Supreme Court, his defenders there would say, but there's a legitimate. aspect to the presidency somehow attached to that. So, you know, we can't, we can't second guess the president on matters like this. And that is the problem they're going to constantly run into every time I think they should prosecute the guy for this. I remember that. And the only answer is impeachment and conviction. But even if, you know, I mean, why we have a judge that really chastised, you know.

Trump's legal team for pushing this whole settlement and also everything else about it. But it just feels like even when the courts do weigh in and do say it's illegal, he is just remarkable at gaslighting his way out of this and making everybody... see green when it's really red. And he's so gifted as a propagandist of telling lie on top of lie, on top of lie, that you just can't have a rational moral discourse anymore in this country. People who... have done half of what he's done or, you know, would just get run out on a rail. But he defies gravity. Yeah. All right. Let's go to just three letters. And then we'll move on to other topics. Great panel discussion today, writes Barry. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of the panel on the possibility of ground troops being used in Iran, even on a limited basis. Well, it's what we've been trying to avoid, I believe, collectively since the beginning, correct? Well, I mean, there's two questions about it, whether it would be a political suicide for the administration to do that, and I think it would be. But whether there's even a strategic reason to do it, I mean, you would need such a enormous commitment of troops to move the needle at all that would – I mean, I don't know that militarily it's even – I'm no military expert, but it – I mean, it's not – I mean, you need something World War II size, you know, to make a difference. And it's – this is – we're in the new world now. We're drones and bombs and – And even, you know, cyber attacks are the best way to disable your enemy. And if you worry about a casualty count, boy, that will really escalate with ground troops. But I think it's also interesting to note that most of the military personnel are on ships outside the range of Iran's ability to reach them. And really even this bombing of local bases, a lot of those American personnel aren't there anymore. Melissa writes, remember when there were actual responsible, rational adults keeping the guardrails and preventing Trump's worst instincts and tantrums? There seemed to be none of those anywhere near the White House or even Congress now. I can't help but wonder sometimes if we have been better off if he had actually won a consecutive second term. Now that...

Not that I would have wanted that. I didn't want him in at all for any terms. But if he had, would he have still had some or most of those people in place that blocked the worst of it or at least some of it? It's an interesting question. I think that's something that other people have brought up as well. Like if he had one two consecutive... elections would be would we be where we are today because those four years allowed for a lot of mobilization and organization though it looks very disorganized right now but yeah he he is more effective this this time around right like not not doing the things that we would like to see but he is more consequential this time around compared to the it was better planned he didn't expect to win in 2016 and he didn't really have a plan that's right and this time around the you know the 20 25 20 or 2025 document, you know, that was put into effect, you know, basically. That's right. Project 2025. And we're seeing it. They're doing exactly what they have. They're following the playbook, page by page. Yeah. And I remember, you know, the first administration, you know, I, that was a time when it was, you know, I felt like we had a president who was. An idiot and chaotic. And I remember asking myself, I wonder if it's better to have, you know, strategic and like a strategic evil or an idiotic evil. And I got to see both. And, you know, idiotic evil. Idiotic evil was the way to go. Yeah. That's the way. That's the one. When the letter portion here before we move on to another topic with Vern, who says war. is an outdated evil in this century. We are all connected. All people have the same emotions, cares, and need for oil. For all of the other items we buy and trade and tax. Pentagon running out of cash, but Trump family is not. No one speaks about the people we kill with our bombs. People just like us. We are all one. Whatever happened to that concept? We lose a few service people horrid. What about the hundreds that we kill? And that is from Byrne. We'll end that segment with that letter and move on to other topics. Although if we have time, we can revisit many. Let's go to, let's go to Canada. Let's. Yeah. Who's with me? Three hours away. I call shotgun, Jay. Are we moving to Canada? Was that what you were saying? I don't know. Sometimes I feel like, you know, you're getting pung here. But.

So yesterday I was reading the story, and it was about the Canadian tariffs. And Trump, to impose 50% tariff on many Canadian goods, including wine, cement, and hockey sticks. And I just thought, well, that seems to be like, you know, I know. I hope this wasn't the case, but it just seems like, what'll really get them? Like, what'll really screw them over? I know. Hockey sticks, wine, and cement. I was trying to remember. Starting with hockey sticks. Yeah, don't mess with the hockey moms here. I was like, when have I ever had Canadian wine? I didn't even know they make wine up there. I would, I mean, I know how hard it is, knowing, and we have wonderful. vineyards around here. Incredible vineyards, but I know how hard it is to grow grapes in the northeast. That is, I mean, there is a whole chart from Cornell about the patterns that had to be taken place to... The microclimates here and there. To have a grape that can withstand a northeast winter. However, President Trump on Monday signed orders to impose a 50% tariff on a wide range of Canadian goods claiming that Canada had discriminated... against the United States in key industries. Now, when we first heard this argument, it was about the smoke and the fires. And that was pretty silly. And, you know, the Canadians pointed out that the Ontario Premier last time had sent firefighters to the U.S. to help fight the fires in the U.S. You know, and this is how they responded when we had fires in our forests. Now, we're going to put tariffs on them? Trump officials have repeatedly complained that some Canadian provinces have halted purchases of U.S. alcohol and that Canada was one of only two nations, along with China, to hit back against Mr. Trump's tariffs with his own levees. U.S. officials also say that Canada imposes certain tariffs and quotas on U.S. cars and restrictions on American cheese. The new tariffs will be imposed under an obscure legal provision, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which Congress wrote as the Great Depression deepen, the law allows the president to put tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce uniquely as compared to other. countries. Catherine. See, this goes back to my point about idiotic evil versus strategic evil. Like, okay, so the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs in February, right? And... Yeah, naively, I thought, okay, maybe this will be the end of it for a while. But there are all these other loopholes and entry points, right? And so here we see this organization. Like this second administration is so much more organized than the first one. He found a way to...

to justify or he found a loophole to set these tariffs in place. And I imagine that at some point the Supreme Court will challenge this one as well because 50% tariffs, that's... Is that the highest we've seen? I think so. Close to it. Close to? So Paul Krugman, the economist and journalist, Pulitzer Prize-Wing journalist, he wrote today. Nobel Prize winner and Pulitzer Prize winner, right. He wrote today that the Trade Act of 1930 that they're using, that's the Smoot-Josh Hawley tariff, which many people say help. plunge us into the Great Depression. And it wasn't until about three or four years later when we started to negotiate our way out that it began to be light at the end of the tunnel. I mean, it really hosed our economy. And it's interesting that they would reach back that far and use that arcane language that Congress passed back then during an extremely protectionist era. And what a big mistake it was then. Doesn't anyone like... see that? And I'm curious, like, arguing that Canada is discriminating against us. Like, where, I mean, it's hard to ask for logic in this administration, but where is, how is that explained or justified? I know he says, well, they are not, you know, purchasing our vehicles, dairy, alcohol, but, like, there's no obligation to. Right? They're our biggest trade partner other than Mexico. And we've depended on a great relationship with them forever. And how are they discriminating against? Well, the argument isn't for the courts. He's not making this argument as a well-grounded legal argument. I think he's making it for the public. If he can constantly, he has always painted himself as the victim, no matter how successful he is at anything, which is not a lot. But he will always paint himself as the victim. So we're the victims collectively. Because Canada is so, he always uses this word, we've been treated so unfairly. So, you know, we've been treated unfairly, apparently with hockey sticks. And Canadian wine, my God. I don't really even have a large trade deficit with them. No. No. No. The whole thing is ridiculous. But what he knows is what he's always known, which is I can do this. I can do it whether it's legal or not. And I can't get in trouble for it. There's no criminal liability for breaking any laws if you're the president. The court will just scold us for it. And then I can just say the courts are biased because look at how nasty this judge is. And this will take a long time. And in the meantime, the money rolls in. And he doesn't have to worry about it. They did make, apparently, a lot of money off the tariffs, not as much as he claimed, but there was plenty of money coming into the Treasury.

Granted, they have to give a lot of it back because of what the Supreme Court said, but I'm sure they're taking their time with it. And now he's got a new source of money coming in. Right. And then when they gave it back, it's not like the American people saw a refund. Right. And that's the argument that he doesn't want people to have. He wants to keep, and that's why he has to keep this argument going all the time. And it's somebody else's fault that he has to put the tariffs in. But the reality is that it's a tax on the American power. That's right. Does this screw up season two of heated rivalry? Peter. Yeah, well, I think that he once again did a... I silence the room. I have to look up Peter now. It's not on my list. I think that... He found a workaround from what the Supreme Court did and tried to reach for another, quote, legal basis to impose this, you know, 50% tariff. And by the time that all gets, you know, sorted out... You know, we're on to other things, and we've exacted a lot more damage on our economy and on the Canadian economy as well. And part of me thinks that this, you know, latest tariff move that he's making is yet another effort on his part to distract the American public. from these more serious failures that the Trump administration is experiencing. One of the alarming things in that, many alarming things in that article, was that apparently the administration is also saying that things that are protected under the U.S.-Mexico-Candidate agreement. are not exempt from these are not going to be exempt from these tariffs, which means the agreement that he signed, his administration signed in the first term is he's just going to violate it at will. And that is, you know, that's the bigger long-term worry of this whole arc of, this whole mess, this whole chaotic mess of what the Trump administration is. represents that America's word doesn't count for anything. We can put it on it. He can put it on his own treaty and break his own treaty if it pleases him on any given day. And the fact that one president has done it, I'm sure the world is looking and saying, you know, maybe this guy's a freak, but. How could we ever trust America again? Right. They can see the weaknesses in our system. Yeah, it's long term. It is very long term because now Europe and the rest of the world knows that even if a Democrat were elected and it was somebody trying to rebuild bridges with our allies, the way that Trump has kind of broken the bridges, it will.

be for four years. And then the crazy American public may elect another Trump, you know, and literally another Trump. It wasn't this sort of Iran's argument as well. We just can't trust the Trump administration that they'll keep their word on anything. Or the legal bumpers that we thought existed. Right. Like the system is so porous, so much more porous than, and so much weaker than what we had anticipated because so many times Americans are like, really, is he getting away with this? We've been saying this for, you know, since 2016. And, you know, Congress is supposed to set bumpers and that's not happening. We can see that people will. Vote in a way that protects them from, you know, retribution that keeps them in power. People aren't voting in the public's interests. And lying and keeping people guessing is the strategy of the Trump administration. It's a tool that, again, propagandists use to just so massively alter reality that, you know, the person in power can get away with anything. Let us take a break. When we come back, we'll continue. We have much more to discuss. And we welcome you, panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org. And we will get back to two or three topics, I hope, when we return after this short break. And we'll hear a break. And then we'll hear news from the BBC. All of that coming up, you're listening to the Roundtable on WAMC.

musical palette cleanser. I think that's what we like to look at it as. You know, we talk about a lot of depressing stuff. You come in and go a little bolt of energy. Then we're off to the races to talk about more stuff. We'll bring you right back down. That's right. Don't you worry about that, folks. It's the 21st of July 1035 on this Tuesday morning. And it's a real pleasure to have you on the, have you joining us for the program today. Well, I have, I'll, you know, I'll be honest with you. I've been fascinated by the story from the very beginning, and not for any reason other than it just seems so weird and incredible. But, and one that I don't know that we have fully talked about as a society. I don't even know if it's worthy of that discussion. I'm talking about Air Force One. Which one? Yeah, that's right. So we got the new Air Force one, and they used it for the trip going over to the NATO summit. And they got over there, and then they benched it. They said, okay, we're not going to fly back using the new Air Force One. And the press, several reporters said, Why? Why? And the answer from the president of the time was, we want to show it off in Britain. Well, I mean, who doesn't? So besides the fact that it apparently is illegal to show it off at all, but... There you go. So then we learn from, you know, reporting from the New York Times and other sources that the reason was is because the Secret Service was due to an abundance of caution, was concerned that this plane did not have the security. necessities that would that would permit it to go on these global trips. So now the plane needs to be quote unquote enhanced. So the enhancements are taking place this fall and the White House says that the New Air Force One, the Qatari Air Force One, will be out of service for a month or so for upgrades. Trump's about to find out how long a month is in Trump time. Right. I mean, I... There's some justice in that. My three-day air conditioning repair is now in its fourth week. So I think most people know that, but he is the president. And, you know, he can build like a halopad and 12 statues in the time before they get this thing up and run. And we're okay. I mean, part of that, too, of course, the side story is that the New York Times in reporting that.

drew the ire of the administration. And immediately, Kash Patel was brought in, the FBI was brought into the White House and told, go after the sources of this story. They had subpoenas delivered to the homes of reporters for the New York Times. And then now it turns out they've been seeking in another court so no one might notice subpoenas of telephone records of these reporters, their family members, even one of them. their mother's phone records, and they go back to January long before this whole thing was just a couple weeks ago. You know, so they're really like... just trying like crazy to intimidate the news media and which only says something really juicy is going on here that we are not you're right katherine well and that's what i was going to ask you i mean like what it is what could they have done i mean it is it's pretty obvious we heard this is one of those stories that fascinate again the story has fascinated me from the beginning We're going to give you this plane. Oh, well, that doesn't seem. And then the critics came immediately out of the woodwork and said, well, this doesn't seem like a good idea. You take it, you take a gift of a plane and how, and security was the number one thing. Like, oh, we're worried about security. We're worried about security. We're worried about security. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. They take the plane out. They get it ready. They enhance it. quote unquote enhance it they go for a ride the first trip first major trip and then they say yeah this is a good We need to enhance it more. But no one ever, of course, is saying about security. In fact, the press secretary for the president, Karoline Leavitt, said the new Air Force One is perfectly safe for the president's travels. It's fine, but it will receive additional upgrades and enhancements in the fall, which will take approximately one month to complete. During that time, the president will fly on the old Air Force One. So when we are talking about enhancements, we are talking about things far greater than gold spray paint, yes? I don't think anyone tallied the cost. I mean, the cost to get it to where it is even now. 400 million, maybe? No, the estimate is one billion. One billion? And it's going to, the estimate is one billion and they think it's going to take years. So I don't know. You know, Catherine, if I had a billion dollars. For every time. Trump wasted a billion dollars. But this is the, in the article.

The Times reported that the new jet lacks the same defensive countermeasures as the older model, including anti-missile capabilities. I don't know much about planes. I don't know much about Air Force One. I don't know much about security. I would think anti-missile defensive countermeasures on Air Force One would be... important. They are. They are. And, you know, I think what happened here is that Trump got embarrassed. I do think there's a legitimate argument about national security here. Not that I think the reporter should be, have to undergo these legal practology exams. But I do think I can see the standpoint of the viewpoint of the administration here in saying you just told the world the president's plane isn't secure. I think the reporters and their news organizations have a real good argument that you knew that and you took the president off the plane. And you grounded the plane or at least kept him off it. The crisis is over. There's no issue. And whoever leaked it, that's your problem. And they did a public service in telling the public that this billion dollar plane was not up to par. So I think a whole bunch of things. And I do think they're Machiavellian when it comes to this, that I think a whole bunch of things came to bear in terms of embarrassments here. One, the president had come up with a completely different story for why he wasn't flying that plane home. Two, he's been saying the whole thing's a big gift. Three, I think you said before, Peter, that if any president did. half of what he did. I would say if any president did one 365th of what he did, meaning one outrage every day. This guy does enough to tank any other politician every day of the week, sometimes multiple times a day. This from the very beginning was an emoluments clause disaster. And it was a clear violation. The Congress has never even bothered. You know, you talk about the bumpers. At least they could have said, okay, you know, here's the rubber stamp. You know, you can do it. You know, it's fine with us. But they didn't even do that. They just, the president wants to do it. Let's just let them do it. And let's not take responsibility for it like the Constitution requires us to do. I mean, it's just so. Ridiculous. I agree with everything you said. I think the one thing that I would add is the timing of it and the impatience of the White House in the sense of, well, we're going to do this. We're going to make this. We're going to get this ready. And it's going to take this long. No. It's not. It's going to be ready for right now. I'm going to NATO and it's going to be ready for by that time. And that's the stuff that seems that we need to take.

Well, they need to take seriously. And nobody has mentioned yet that where does this plane go, the Qatari gift to the United States? Where does it go at the end of the Trump term? The Trump Library. The Trump Library, which I believe is going to be. At or near Marlago, is it right? So we're going to spend a billion dollars in improving its security and then it's going to be put out of use after he steps down. And we know that he's going to try to not, you know. And the reason is because the Ronald Reagan Library in California, there was an older Air Force one that was. had been retired that is available there for the public to view. Yeah, there are quite a, quite a few vehicles, modes of transportation that have been taken in by presidential libraries and museums. And that seems to make sense. A lot of times the... What now is referred to as the beast, but the vehicle that the president had driven in, which was specific to their needs, will often wind up in a presidential library. I know the famous chopper that took Nixon out of Washington. The chopper. The chopper is at, right, is in California and at his library. You're going to reside in disgrace, but you can keep the plane that's flying you out. Well, you know, it's a parting gift. It's a parting gift. We do have this consolation for us. You know, sometimes rice errone just doesn't do it. You need something else. I mean, this guy is just an emolument. clause disaster yeah from one end to the other and I mean what you know what kind of influence did the donors of this plane expect to have by you know giving him A gift that exceeded the, what is it, the $25 maximum that you can give to a gift. And you have to declare it and then you have to put it someplace else anyway. I mean, 400 million, right, or whatever that donation was. And then, you know, we just go on and on with. you know, the amount of money that the Trump business has seen and where he's just blurred every line that you could imagine. I'm going to tell a very odd story. It's a shaggy story. But I was a kid, and I collected autograph books.

I still do. So there was a congressman by the name of Mo Udall. Yeah. I don't remember Mo Udo. Morris Udall. Morris Udall. Morris Udall. And I think was even at one point in a Interior Secretary or something. Yes, but was up for vice president at one point to be in the vice presidential ticket. He wrote a book, a very funny book. And I sent it to his office to be signed. And I received a letter back saying that it was against House rules. to receive a book and it was against house rules to um to because i had sent um postage money for postage and i was not allowed to do that So he sent it all back to me. And what he said is, who's your local congressman? And I told them, this is when I lived in Philadelphia. And he said, well, just drop it off at their office. They'll give me the money. I will put the, I will just as a citizen go and put it into the mail and send it back. I mean, that's the level of what we were talking about. Right. How concerned they were. And that's, it just seems to me we've got a long way from that to. Yeah, what the heck? A Qatari jet, right? Yeah, yeah. You know, I remember one time at the Times Union, we had an elected, a very high-level state. official in and I said, can't get you a cup of coffee? And we walked up to the cafeteria and I went to pay for it. He goes, I'm sorry, I'm not, I'm not allowed to accept that. And he paid for his own coffee. Right. I mean, it just, it's, it's, it's a demonstration of your ethical standards and your, and the importance of honoring a tradition of not. taking and enriching yourself because you're in office. I mean, it's gone. That has left. I think those people still exist. We just don't see it in the presidency. Right. Well, no, but I mean, one of the sad things that has made it different this time around. We've all had corrupt presidents, like every 50 years you get one, I guess. And we've all had it. And but now the American public seems to now accept. this level of corruption and then just grudgingly say everybody's making themselves a rich. And, you know, I just, I got to focus on the issues. That's not an issue for me. I can't control that. I mean, if so if the Trump kids are wealthy, you know, I can't. And they're just discarding it. And that's just what Trump would love. But even the Supreme Court who might actually, you know, maybe weigh in on this themselves, you know, are.

taking gifts that no other federal judge would be allowed to take. So they're just riddled with all kinds of problems of conflict of interest. And, you know, Congress is trying to lean on them to clean up their act. So, you know, it's sort of like the fox watching the chicken coop, right? And you know that if a politician comes along and says, I'm going to start a new, in addition to everything else I'm going to do, I'm going to create a new moral movement in government, an honest government. You know that he's like the first person they're going to find something really corrupt. You know, it's such a cynical thing. You're right. It's, I think we're just our tolerance for it is. has just let me just I have to have to confer with our board up Bailey Jains do I owe you a break okay all right so we're going to take a quick break and we're going to be right back because I don't want to make underwriters upset because they support us and we love them and we don't want to make them mad so we're going to go do that and we'll be right back

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable. Final moments of the program on this Tuesday morning. Very nice to have you with us. And final, final topic for the morning, Darlene Graham said she will be seeking a full-time seat to replace her brother, Lindsey Graham, who passed away earlier this month. She is currently the interim. South Carolina Senator and she will now run and for election to take over the seat of her brother. We have talked about this when she was named to the seat of the commonality of spouses and family members taking over the seats at least in short term of those, but there certainly have been the cases where They have gone in longer and this is one of those cases. Mike? Well, I think you're right. I mean, there's a tradition for this, and some have risen to the occasion and had strong careers themselves stepping in for the deceased relative or parent or spouse, whatever. And that's fine. She doesn't seem to have much background in this area. She's worked a lot with people with disabilities, and she certainly is a public servant. But U.S. senator status and and skills, I don't know how she necessarily would qualify. But that aside, I think this has become, because the President Trump has endorsed this. And her ability to. win this seat and, you know, get the nomination, what is left of that process and run and win that seat is a testament to how much strength Trump still has, how much sway he has in what is. Pretty much a red state, but there's hints of, you know, getting purple in South Carolina. And his ability to control the outcome of elections and whether that even continues past his own presidency, people are watching closely. And it will be interesting to see how much people will listen to him and say that, you know, Darlene Graham is the right person for this seat because I say so and whether people say, okay, that's good enough for me, sir, and an elector. How discouraging it is that we just have a blatant nepotism system. Like, experience is not like an armoire. You can't just inherit it after your family member dies, right? You know, it's, I mean, imagine, okay, so like,

like our current pope like his brother is a right wing nut job who posts stuff incessantly on facebook like you don't just push the brother forward in this case you know i never like Lindsey Graham right but you know having just his sister but Just because she is related to him, how is that a qualification? I mean, her philanthropic work, great, but that's not a qualification. Now, I agree, I understand the point that you're making, but it will ultimately be up to the voters, right? I mean, they will decide whether this person is... qualified or not and has the views that they want represented within the state of California, or South Carolina, excuse me. Yeah, yeah. So could I just ask, what government experience did the president have before he became president of the United States? He had an answer for everything. He was, what, a talk show? You know what? A talk show? Reality. A reality. No, no, no, no. I dare you. A reality show host. Yeah, the apprentice. So, you know, here we are. I mean, we elect people all the time who have, you know, no government experience. And I'm not, if this sounds like a defense for. Darling Graham, it probably isn't, but really, I mean... She, what, has a degree in sociology, which doesn't exactly, you know, fit the typical picture of... I just don't think she's the right one. The typical picture, right, of the Republican hack, and she was head of the Society for the Blind, which is a state appointed. position. So, and I don't know about her opponents who, quote, have more experience, but I doubt they're all that attractive. The, um, You know, I'm sure the first qualification for Trump was loyalty. And if she is anything like Lindsey Graham, you know, the loyalty comes unconditionally from her. The question is, you know, I mean, she, you know, I don't know a lot about her, but you look at her resume. You look at her work. She seems like a rather decent person.

You know, has she undergone any vetting? You know, as Maine found out with Graham Platner, and he was pretty well vetted and they still went ahead with him. You know, a candidate's he can tank pretty fast. And I have a feeling because I guess there is more to be done in the way of actually getting to a nomination. I have a feeling that anything that the Democrats have, they are going to keep their powder dry until after the nomination. So it's locked in and there's nothing to the Republicans. Republicans can do about it. If there is something. If not, you know, it's South Carolina. It's not that purple. We're, right, exactly. We're going to end there for this Tuesday morning. My thanks to Catherine and Peter and Mike and Jay. And to all of you for listening to us this morning, we will continue. The Roundtable program, we have a whole other hour of fun and frivolity, and boy, I hope you enjoy it, as we worked very hard on it. We'll be right back after this.