Congressional Clown Show (with Scott Jennings)
59:56 Share

Hey, pull up a chair. It's Hacks on Tap with David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and Mike Murphy. Something's going to happen. It'll be positive. It'll end up working well. I'm staying above it. I have to right now. But I've spoken to just about all the candidates. There are quite a few of them. And they're terrific people. You know, that poor threshold is very tough. It's a very tough thing, no matter who it is.

I said, there's only one person that can do it all the way. You know who that is? Jesus Christ. Jesus came down and said, I want to be speaker. He would do it. Other than that, I haven't seen anybody that can guarantee it. But at some point, I think we're going to have somebody pretty soon. So, Robert Gibbs.

I don't see Christ coming down here. Way too smart to come down here and volunteer for that job. Bad news, I've seen the oppo on Christ, and there's a lot of talk about helping the poor. Yeah, he's at 212, Vax. I'm sorry. I don't see a path to 217, and maybe we'll, you know, I may be one of the disciples, but I just don't see that path. Sorry.

Well, here's a man who is both a good Christian and a sharp politician, Scott Jennings, who is sitting there on call waiting for white smoke.

Just to continue the... I like that. Very good. See what you did there. And a new speaker now three weeks in. Jennings, good to have you. Thank you. I was going to say that Christ may have some trouble with the financial services sector downtown, having upended their operations. But we'll see. We'll see if he can pull out. Yes, I'm here in the bullpen today waiting to see if we go to the floor and get called up for duty. Yeah.

It is amazing how many people are actually applying for this job. The eight or nine that went through the talent show last night and talked to the caucus. You know, it reminds me, you guys, of the there was a Monty Python skit where this milkman comes to the door and this seductress opens the door, you know,

dressed in negligee and so on, and motions him in and motions him up the stairs and points to the bedroom. And he walks into the bedroom and she slams the door. And there are all these decayed remains of other milkmen. That's what it's like. I mean, you take the speaker's job, you know, at the end of the day, they're going to boot your ass out of there. It's been the, we've lost three already. I don't know why anybody would want this job, Scott.

I don't know why anybody would want it. I know why they would eventually want to put someone in because, you know, we're going on three weeks now without a whipping boy. I mean, that's ultimately, you know, the hardliners, the conservatives, the people that got rid of McCarthy, they need a villain. And right now they're villainous. And so they may end up relenting on someone that you don't expect.

just so they can have someone to beat the crap out of when the, you know, the government funding deal comes through or whatever else comes down the pike. Yeah, there's so many, so many questions and so many ways to go with this, Axe. I mean, you know, to Axe's point, there's eight that went through the talent show last night. Do you think in that eight,

Is the next Speaker of the House? Well, Emmer, if you talk to enough members, what you realize is that most people think he's the only one that has what you would expect to see in the stature of a Speaker. He has an operation. He has a bit of a political operation. He has relationships in Washington that you would expect someone to have before ascending to this job.

So you also hear people who, you know, from the MAGA, you know, wing of the party who don't like him. You've heard whispers about Trump, you know, not liking him. He did vote to certify the election.

And so, you know, he went on the think about that. He voted to certify the election that disqualifies him from being speaker. What does that say about the Republican Party right now? Well, it says that there are a dedicated group of people. I don't know how big or small it ever is in any individual group, but there are going to be people who will forever die on that hill. Yeah. And and and so.

I mean, you've got Democrats out there now whispering around town saying, well, he's acceptable to us. Maybe we would vote present in order to get this done. I mean, that's not an endorsement for Democrats to say, oh, yeah, we like him or well, that's not going to help him with some Republicans. I don't know who's going to get it. I think he would be fine. Most people think he's a very, very honorable and fair person. But how do you manage the personalities once you get it? And that's

not drive the house off of a cliff. It's troubling. I just saw a tweet where somebody said, oh, this person isn't voting for him because he voted for gay marriage. So there's a few votes that look like might be problematic. And then it goes to, Scott, if that's the case, and we've been through, let's say one of these eight doesn't become a speaker. We've been through McCarthy, Scalise, Jordan,

eight or nine, you know, one is, is there anybody, we joked about Christ, is there anybody who can get to 217? And what happens if they don't, without Democrat? We should talk about that in a second here. Yeah, I was going to say, I got a point on that. Yeah, but one point on Emmer before we get to what Democrats should do. One thing he has is that he ran the Republican campaign committee

And, you know, he's helped a lot of these people get elected. Yeah. That has to be a point in his favor. That's a way to build relationships across factions if you're actively helping people get elected. I mean, I do think Emmer gets there. Gibbs's question is a good one, though. What do Democrats do? Because in some ways, Democrats don't want to be seen as if there is a guy who is

broadly acceptable close to 217. Do Democrats want to be seen as prolonging the agony here?

Well, I think also we're rapidly coming up on the government funding deadline. Right. And at some point, the failure to accept anyone runs. I mean, this happens whether we have a speaker or not. You know, the government shuts down whether we have a speaker or not. And so I would think Democrats would want at some point to to be part, you know, if the Republicans can't pull it together, look like they're part of the.

the group that pulls it out of the ditch in time to save the government from shutting down. But, you know, we may we may be a few days from that yet. And it's not just the government shutting down Gibbs. But now we've got, you know, this hundred billion dollar package that Biden has sent there for Israel, Ukraine. Right. The border, the border, Taiwan. Yeah. Yeah. Look, I mean, a couple of points on Democrats. First of all, I'm old enough to remember

21 days ago when Democrats, the spin at least initially for 12 hours was this was what Democrats wrought because they, they voted, they voted against McCarthy. Again, the reason I point that out is because now you, you both have talked about this. If Democrats come out and say, yeah, that person's acceptable to us, we'll either vote yes or vote present.

That scuttles the nominees. Wait, wait, wait, wait, we don't want that. This notion of coalition government. Well, that's why this voting present thing may be the elegant answer. I agree with Scott because here's the challenge for the entire House and the entire government is we are three weeks and three days away from the end of the continuing resolution that funds government. And when this whole process started,

You know, we just reset the clock, I think, close to 45 days. And look, all three of us have spent enough time in Washington to understand they don't start the research paper until the night before it's due. So...

I'm not sure that a long runway. So they got three years and they got three weeks and two days is what you're saying. To get their stuff together. But I do think this is going to be a lot more complicated. I think the situation in the Middle East complicates this even more so, not just the funding, but the operation writ large or operations writ large. And I do think you're going to need some time.

look to just to get any, let's say you got a solution tomorrow, you're still going to need 48 or so hours. People get a chance to read the bill, understand what's in it, that kind of stuff. So I do think that time is of the essence. I do think Democrats,

mostly out of shock that this has taken three weeks, will probably come around at some point to voting present. And it may well be in one of these, assuming they can get to the floor. Do you think that Democrats have any regrets about killing McCarthy off here? I mean, I'm not saying... I've never argued that they had the responsibility of saving him, but now after seeing this play out, do you feel like some of them may think, you know...

We don't like this guy, but we didn't realize what we were engaging here. We'll see how it plays out from here. If it's Emmer and Emmer is reasonable, then maybe not. But let me tell you something. They hated Kevin McCarthy. They didn't respect him. There's a lot of lingering anger about what he did around January 6th. They don't think he keeps his word.

And, you know, there is this element of McCarthy that McCarthy is a, you know, he's kind of a concierge. He wants to please whoever's in front of him. And that often leads to telling people one thing and then ending up having to do something else because someone else is in front of him later. And I just think that there was just real enmity and contempt for him. So

I don't know. They may regret it in the full blush of history if the next speaker is not someone who will work with them. But if it is someone who will work with them, or at least someone who will be honest with them, I don't know. I don't think there's going to be any sort of pity parties for Kevin McCarthy over on the Democratic side. I agree. And David, I don't think there's a lot of illusion that somehow the person that they're going to

potentially either vote for or vote present for is going to quote unquote work with them. I think they, I mean, I, like I said, just being honest would be, that'd be a pretty good start. The person, the next milkman, you mean? Yeah. Minus apparently the, the seductress. Cause I don't see that. I don't see anybody greeting anybody at the door in a pleasing way. I mean, it does call into question. I mean,

Can the House operate for really the rest of the term without changing some of the rules? Because I know a lot of these guys are probably going to go in front of the caucus or the conference and say, look, you know, we can't pass the CR. We can't do this. There is an extraordinary amount of work to get past November 17th without a

a continuing resolution. The notion that you're going to somehow get and pass through and then negotiate every individual appropriations bill was fantasy with 45 days. There's no way it happens with 24. So, and again, probably don't need to spend a lot of time on this, but you know, what happens post November 17th? Does this person survive? Is the motion to vacate as easy as it was with McCarthy? And quite frankly,

You know, anybody can put together a coalition with a small amount of gripes and get rid of a speaker. And I just, I think the likelihood of how this place operates going forward for the next year plus is,

is, boy, I don't envy any of the people that would get this job, but I really don't envy anybody in the House because I'm not sure that's going to be a functional part of our government. You know, it was amazing to me that when Jordan was trying to get the votes, he immediately pivoted to, let's do a CR until next spring.

And I won't stand in the way of Ukraine. I mean, this is all the stuff they threw out Kevin McCarthy for. And so even he even he immediately pivoted to trying to give himself some runway. And and so that so, you know, the next person, I don't know. I said the day they got rid of McCarthy, I was concerned about.

what this meant for future priorities, what promises would they have to make in order to get these votes. And nobody's been able to make the correct set of promises yet. So, you know, if you consider what has to get done in the next three weeks and then what has to get done in the next year, you know, if the rules don't change and you get a handful of people who don't like it,

What what's stopping them? I mean, look, they're these people are famous now are infamous, but to them, there's no difference. You know, being famous, it's all it's all the same. And and these people are not here. That's ultimately the lesson I've learned. There is a small group who actually don't want to be in the majority party.

They want to be in the peanut gallery. They are better suited for the peanut gallery than they are for governing responsibility. And they're doing their damnedest to put the Republican Party back in it. This is the microcosm of the problem for your party generally between governing conservatives and anti-government populists and Twitter conservatives. The anti-government populists have no incentive whatsoever.

in situations like this to make peace because they don't really care about whether the government... And you're right. I think it's much easier to be in some ways to be in the minority and throw grenades than to be in the majority and have the responsibility for governing. But my question, Scott, is what do you think this has done? Do you think there will be lingering impacts for the House Republicans, especially among these swing... in these swing districts next year? Or does the presidential race supersede

I generally think the presidential race supersedes this. I think the the impact will be hard to measure because it goes into a bucket of this, which is can we trust the Republican Party as a governing party? That question is going to be asked about Trump. It's going to be asked about the entirety of the party. So it just it goes into that larger question.

I mean, this will probably be largely forgotten by most people if it ends and the world keeps spinning, you know, this time next year. But, you know, every time you add another data point to the concept of, well, I mean, we really don't like Biden, economy's bad, inflation's bad, blah, blah, blah. But these Republicans keep telling us that they don't have, they're just not competent enough or we can't trust them to

run the government. So it's another data point. But I would have to believe that the real issue on that next year is not going to be this dust up, but it will be

you know, can we trust Donald Trump? That's what killed them in 2022. I mean, there were these doubts in 2022 because of the election deniers and the issue of abortion in the sense of extremism. And this certainly, as Gibbs, this has accentuated that. Well, and I think that at least in the very short term, and I don't, I don't, I'm not suggesting this is going to change views in politics much to, I agree with where Scott is on this, but

Republican strategists have to cringe in the last three weeks and particularly watching an Oval Office speech, a trip to Tel Aviv by the president, the activity and the cadence of diplomacy versus figuring out who can get to 217 votes. And, you know, it is astonishing to me. We all sort of spent a little time watching the 1994 Gingrich revolution.

And, you know, at the very least, there was a theory of what they wanted to do and what case they wanted to present and how they wanted to drive the direction of government. I am sort of shocked that that's not what is happening here. To your point, it's literally like I just would rather get on Twitter or Instagram or whatnot and make a point or do my Fox News hit and

And raise money. And raise money. But there's no forward push around, hey, this is what the writ large Republican Party should stand for. It is remarkable to me that you don't have a group that either can coalesce around that or don't have a person that can coalesce that group around it. I mean, it is that to me is remarkable because you don't have to believe that Hastert,

or Gingrich, or some of these folks were sort of pantheons of speaker leadership, but at least they marched people forward. And I know lots of, lots changed since then, but, and it has to be astonishing to, to kind of step two steps back and watch and figure out how do we put this, how do we put this forward? How do we, you know, in the midst of a huge foreign policy crisis. McCarthy marched them forward and he took one step too far and fell off a cliff.

uh because of the nature of where the party is astonishing scott i i heard um you know a bunch of our colleagues were in bewilderment that jordan was put forward in the last week and there was a lot of talk about how could they put a guy who was an election denier a guy who had you know conspired in january 6th and so on and i'm thinking yeah that's really something and then it's like

Wait a second. Donald Trump is ahead by 50 points or something in the Republican primary for president. I mean, that's what the Republican market, at least the Republican primary market, is buying right now. Yeah, a lot of pundits have engaged in conversation about this. But the party, most Republicans have already put that in the past. And it's not even a question for them. And so whether they're choosing a presidential nominee or a speaker of the House or anything else, it's not a...

you know, it's not a threshold question for them. Incredibly. I mean, you heard at the beginning, you know, the problem for Emmer is that he had the temerity to certify the election. That is the big hurdle for him with Trump and a bunch of Republicans that he said, yes, this was a legitimate election. That's enough to kill you. Well, we'll see if it is. And, you

Whether it's him or one of these other people, I would think he's got the best chance. But if he were to get it and somehow surprise us all and successfully navigate the next three weeks, that would be perhaps a small step in the right direction that are relatively...

uh, you know, institutionally minded Republican, uh, could get a leadership position and, and succeed at least in the short term. What does your guy say about this? You're, you're a, you're an advisor to Mitch McConnell. That's where I was going next. So you're speaking of institutional Republicans. Yeah. He's interesting. You know, he, obviously if you're in the Senate, you're, you, you take a dim view of the house on their best day. Yeah. And vice versa, by the way.

Yeah, that's like a ritual. You can imagine what the senators think of the House on their worst day, which is right now. You know, he'll make it work no matter. I don't think he has deep relationships with any of these people. I do find it noteworthy that the Senate is taking the opportunity in this vacuum to do some work. And they obviously are communicating with the White House. And when you're starting to get some alignment around spending priorities and the national security spending and even the border,

which McConnell said on the Sunday shows that he was interested in getting taken care of as well. So without anybody communicating from the House, you've got the Senate reasserting itself in terms of policy construction, and we'll try to bully that through. I think they're going to have a lot of success with that, truthfully. If the House can get its leadership worked out, the Senate may present something that might offer something for everybody. If you care about national security, if you care about border security, they may be able to

come up with a good idea here. And Scott, Axe usually admonishes me when I go all League of Women Voters and ask policy questions. Oh, gosh. I'm going to take a leak. I'll be right back. See you in a second. But to that point, because I do think McConnell has come out largely for the supplemental spending bill. He had sort of taken a step back in the CR fight

But does this, I mean, and this is not just a McConnell thing, it's a Schumer thing too, but does this, do you think there's a pathway that those two push forward with the White House? The challenge, I guess, is can you even, whoever they elect speaker, can whatever comes out of the Senate to solve that even make it to a vote on the floor of the House?

Yeah, great question. And I think it's too early to know. I would hope so, particularly if they get something robust for the border. I mean, that's what – apart from the political dynamics in the country, on issue dynamics, it's inflation and to some degree immigration and border security that are really motivating Republican voters right now. And the idea that you would reject a border security package, particularly if it's something that –

is erecting barriers and hiring agents to me is kind of crazy. So I think pairing these things may be enough of a sweetener to get votes for all of it. All right, hold that thought. We're going to take a short break and now a word from our sponsors. ♪

This could end up, if it works out that way, being really important for Biden because this border thing is a real, real festering political sore. I mean, you know, when I...

I can just tell you in the city of Chicago, it's an issue that's boiling over and in many of the other cities. New York, others, yeah, Boston. By the way, convention city Chicago, so the notion of tent cities of immigrants next summer is not a pleasing image. He may have to accept more than he would have proposed himself in order to get this package through. So, you know, in a sense, you know, you're putting...

Each side is putting the pill in the applesauce for different reasons to get members to swallow something that they don't want, which is, of course, how legislative deals go through. But Biden may be the beneficiary here of this package, and there may be elements of border security policy that he doesn't particularly like.

or that his base doesn't like, but that may help solve the problem gives, or at least reduce the problem. Absolutely. The question, I think, goes back to sort of where I was, which is, can an old school compromise of you see a problem and have a solution, and I see a problem and have a solution, let's put all those problems and solutions together into one bill, and everyone gets to go home and say they did something. I think it's going to be fascinating.

What Scott just said is let's suppose you have, and I don't know how much, I forget how much money in the supplemental account.

appropriations request for border security, but are you going to walk home? Are you going to go home and walk your district and have somebody say, well, wait a minute, we could have done this, and you said no? I mean, at some point, having the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I do think it can redound. I mean, I think, again, Biden's smart here, and the White House is smart here. A lot of people are going to say, yeah, but you haven't done enough. Well, look, we passed this. We did this together. We did...

You know, I mean, it's not going to satisfy everybody, but I think it's a good—the White House is in a good position if you can get a House that functions enough to get that through. Well, I mean, the real question will be just will the Speaker put the bill on the floor? Right. Exactly. And that's the only question. There's going to be enough votes to pass.

a package. I mean, there'll be some Democrats who will be unhappy on Israel, and there'll be some straying on that. There'll be some Republicans increasingly sadly on Ukraine who will stray on that. There'll be some Democrats unhappy about some elements of the border security. But the White House, you know,

should be able to get the Democratic votes they need. I think this thing passes if it gets on the floor. The question is whether the speaker can get it on the floor. And I mean, I can't imagine these guys want to go back to this clown show again. Wouldn't you put shutdown at way more than 50 percent right now? Oh, sure. I mean, I mean, in the absence of a subtle leadership situation and the clock ticking

Absolutely, because we haven't heard a path forward, particularly when you consider that a bunch of Republicans, some in the Senate, you're seeing like J.D. Vance already making this case that Ukraine is different than Israel and that needs to be split out for a separate vote. I assume there are a great many House Republicans who are making the same argument. So you'll have Republicans who want to vote for the border and who want to vote for Israel separately.

But they're going to want a separate vote on Ukraine. And so I haven't heard anybody say they've got a plan to sort that out yet. But that is going to be a massive push from the conservatives to resist this package because they do not want to vote yes on Ukraine. They might want to vote yes on the other two things, but they will want it separate. What about just keeping the government open? Well, some of these folks, to them, that's not a negative thing, David. That's what I was going to say, you know.

You know, don't threaten me with a good time. Close of the government. I did hear Marjorie Taylor Greene yesterday coming out of the caucus talking about, I want to know when who's going to stand up to a government that inflicts so much misery on its people. So to your point. Yeah. I mean, some of these folks believe that government being closed or the Congress being paralyzed or, you know, sort of non-functionality.

is fine. In fact, some of them think, I think most of their constituents agree with the idea of a paralyzed government. And so they don't, you know, it doesn't really bother them to

to be blamed for it, truthfully. Well, and X, to play out your Monty Python analogy, the challenge is that the top of the stairs isn't just the bodies of the former speakers, but in the corner are all those problems we just talked about, right? Ukraine, the border, how are you going to solve this stuff? Whether you keep the government open. I mean, the government

hasn't functioned. The house hasn't functioned in 21 days and it doesn't seem like people are exactly climbing the walls and it doesn't seem like there's, I mean, I do think a lot of people are talking about it in our circles and in a 202 area code. I just don't know that they're talking about it in a 205 area code. I just don't think that that's, I don't think it's yet top of mind. Until the reality of what that means when you throw the milkman in the room.

with the other dead milkmen. The milk doesn't get delivered and people want their milk. So eventually there's going to be problems. Is this all leading up to like a dead milkman song at the end of the show? Is that where we're, is this where we're sitting? I'm canning the milk for now. On the war, obviously the president made a, I think, powerful speech last week. First of all, what were your impressions? We have a little bit of it. I don't know that I need to play it, but what were your impressions of, uh,

Scott, you as the loyal opposition, what was your impression of the speech and then Gibbs? I thought it read better than it delivered. I thought he felt a little rushed to me just from a technical perspective. I don't agree. First of all, I agree with him and I agree with McConnell and the other people who are saying that there's an alignment between Israel, Russia,

I'm sorry, Iran, Russia, China, Ukraine, all these situations. That's the sort of perfect story with it. Yeah. McConnell, I think, called the axis of evil. I mean, he's gone down that road. So I concur with that. What I didn't like was the pivot to immediately admonishing Americans for Islamophobia and spending so much time on that. I mean, my view is that ain't the problem right now. The problem is rampant.

anti-Semitism in cities, on college campuses, in corners of the media. You saw with the hospital story how quickly the Western mainstream media is ready to come down like a ton of bricks on Israel.

And so I just to me, I wanted to hear more standing up on anti-Semitism and less admonishing America. And then yesterday, Kareem Jean-Pierre made a huge gaffe, I thought, by answering the question about anti-Semitism, by again admonishing Americans on Islamophobia. So I think his core message is correct. I think there's a pull on him from the left.

to try to, you know, tamp down, you know, let's not do too much of the anti-Semitism talk now. You got other problems too. And I just think he needs to escape that and really stand up to his own party on it. But generally, I think he's strategically correct in aligning all these bad actors in the world. First of all, just, I hear what you're saying, Scott, but

I'm from Chicago. We had a six-year-old stabbed to death. You know, I mean, I don't think, I mean, we've got a hate problem that we have to deal with in this country. And yes, I mean, look, I'm a Jew. I'm very sensitive to the issue of anti-Semitism. And I've been very critical of, and Gibbs knows this, of the policy of the Israeli government relative to settlements and

And it's a lack of interest in any kind of negotiated two-state solution. I think that has long-term consequences. But there's no justification for what we saw on October 7th. But, Robert, just on the politics of it, because we are the hacks, right? We're not like Foreign Policy Review. See, I know he's admonishing me, Scott. I'm way too into the solutions of government here.

Yeah, that's for your other podcast. But on this podcast, we're hacks. And by the way, I agree with you, Scott, the stuff on campus is deeply concerning. But I'm looking at this poll that came out the other day, Wall Street Journal poll. Some 40% of respondents under age 30 said that the U.S. had a responsibility to help Israel fight Hamas, far below the 73% of those ages 65 and older.

There is a big generational split on this issue. I think part of it is a consequence of the same concerns about Israeli policy relative to settlements and a negotiated peace. But these kids on campus are very, are deeply concerned about human rights. I don't know how you put what Hamas did through that prism, but it does. Biden already has problems with young people who he needs to come out in huge numbers. Do you think that there is a

a consequence for his very strong positioning on this issue in terms of motivating young voters? In the long term, I don't. I think mostly because I don't know that this issue of the...I don't think of the motivating issues for younger voters, this exceeds other issues that they're more interested in like climate change and whatnot.

So I think this has given an opportunity for the president to look energetic, to look focused, to look in command, to look in control. That's not to say that all this is going to work out neatly and easily. I think we all agree that what happens next is likely to be long and extraordinarily long.

tragic and messy and not at all easy. And the outcome, obviously, a long way from being determined.

I think when you look writ large at using the Oval, David, you'll remember, I don't think this is a venue that's used enough by presidents. I know it's not that comfortable place because you're sitting down. It's hard to deliver a speech from there. Well, we tried one. It wasn't very good. I don't think we ever did it again. I think everything he did was standing up.

Like in the East room or something. If you're used to giving a speech in Congress or whatever, and you're used to having the applause or the jeers or whatever, the back and forth again, the sitting down alone in a room is not easy. I think what it helps do though is,

And I do think we always get hung up on, did how many people, how many million people watched it on ABC and CBS? 22 million overall. Pretty good audience in this day and age. It is. And that doesn't count a lot of people that are watching clips of it on their phone. Right. But I think it helps drive a narrative.

that he was trying to drive about somebody who's taken this situation and really focused it. And by all accounts is, you know, is, is doing parts externally and publicly parts behind the scenes. Uh, and I think to Scott's point, you know, obviously some of what's happened on campuses have been deeply concerning, but the challenge, I think this is reminds me a little of Bush right after nine 11, which is we've got to be very clear with that region of the world that,

who Israel is at war with and who we're helping Israel be at war with and who we're not at war with. We're not at war with a broader group of it. The Palestinians versus terrorists. Okay, then let's take a break right here and we'll be right back. ♪

The problem that Biden has politically is performative. He doesn't read strong to people when he's in front of a camera, but he's been strong on this issue. It was a

a ballsy thing to do to fly to Israel when he did. And, and he's been very, you know, he's very comfortable with these issues. This is his passion, foreign policy issues and so on. Do you think he will gain from his resoluteness on this issue? Or is, is the, does the,

performance barrier, is that just too hard? I think he has got some very, very disparate views in his constituency, the American people, about what to do. I mean, remember, there's a substantial number of Americans who are in an isolationist mood right now who don't want us to do anything to get involved in these situations, whether it's Israel or Ukraine or anything else. And some of them are at his own party, by the way. I do think there's isolationism that runs through

Through both. And I think with the young people, I was looking at a poll that my friend Guy Benson had tweeted about. It's the Harvard-Harris poll. I mean, just think about this for a second. A slim majority of 18 to 24-year-olds said that Hamas slaughtering civilians, quote, can be justified by the grievance of the Palestinians. And then the exact same group, 62 percent, said, quote,

They do agree that the massacre was genocidal. So you have like a group of young people who say, yeah, it was genocidal. But a majority of them said justified. And so I don't know how you I don't know if you're the president. Hey, and they're they're largely part of your political movement. I don't know how you deal with that, honestly. And I don't I and then you and you look on TV and you see people walking around towns ripping down posters of missing Israeli children and other people who've been killed or

Taken hostage. I mean, there is a deep sickness of anti-Semitism that we have got to deal with here, in my opinion, in this country. And to me, that's ultimately where he has the most to gain is to not be distracted by both sides in this thing.

And that means, I think, standing up to the media. And I think it means standing up to his own people. And particularly, it means standing up to these younger voters. So you're saying he hasn't been strong enough and therefore he doesn't look strong on this issue? Well, I don't think we know yet. I think the best thing he did was the immediate response. The initial speech from the White House, not the Oval Office address, but the initial reaction to the attack, I think has been his best statement on it because it was clear and

and even said, you know, they have a duty, Israel has a duty to respond. I think the longer we've gone on, I have sensed a pull to try to pull back a little bit. And I think we don't know yet until we see what the United States is going to do to help Israel. And the American people, I think, don't yet know what our full involvement is going to be in, A, defeating terrorism, and B, bringing home whatever Americans are still left as hostages.

I don't know. The Israelis seem to think that he's pretty strongly supporting them. I mean, he's got two battleships there. He's supplying weaponry there. We're shooting down drones and cruise missiles that are purportedly headed toward Israel from Yemen. So we're sort of, we're in. He's a hell of a lot more popular in Israel than the Israeli leadership is right now.

So, you know, we'll see. I'm not arguing that any of these things are bad. I think the American people largely remain war weary. I think the conflation of Ukraine and Israel, although I tend to agree that these things are related because it's largely an attack on

you know, free people by terrorists and authoritarians. I think the American people are still trying to decide whether they agree with that or not really is going to make the case. I would just one thing I would end on this. I don't I mean, we live in, as we always talk about, a terribly polarized world. So I don't know, even if if if most Republicans are

believe and see that Ukraine-Israel connection and see a strong president. I don't think you're going to, I don't think we're going to wake up and see an approval rating that is massively different, but I don't think that's what Biden needs. I think this election is going to be decided by six or 8% of the voters who are truly independent, who aren't generally independent, but aligned very specifically with a party that float from 2016 to 2020. And they're

Their votes are up for grabs in 2024 and may see a president that they've been told isn't all that energetic and isn't told, been told that he's not all there with it and not in command of things that we'll see somebody who is. And I think just to lay down a marker for the party, I think Democrats are far more united behind Trump.

Joe Biden is doing and how he's both helping the world, helping Israel, making sure Israel doesn't lose the international coalition of what happened by trying to or to not being attuned to what's happening humanitarianly in Gaza. It's like driving a car, right? There's a little bit of gas, a little bit of brake, and you've got to steer. And I think Joe Biden has done a pretty good job through two

two plus weeks without doing that. Independent voters, their orientation is to be opposed to the status quo. And right now, Biden is trailing among independents. He won independents by 13 points last time. That's a concern. They've got to throw this into a comparative real quick, you know, and I think the faster they do that, the better. I mean, Joe Biden,

probably can't defeat Joe Biden. If it's a referendum, I don't know that he can prevail. Few incumbents can, but they've got to throw in comparative. Listen, Friday is a big day. People don't recognize it as such, but here on Haxit, on TAP, we do because it is the filing deadline in the state of New Hampshire. The question is, will anyone file, anybody of note file in a Democratic primary

there, because I think if the answer is no, then the last gasp of maybe it won't be Biden will be extinguished. Very, very rampant rumors that Congressman Phillips from, Dean Phillips from Minnesota is going to file and that there are some other people thinking about filing Gibbs. Does that matter? No.

Not at all. No, I mean, first of all, you've got sort of, I don't even think there's going to be

Well, certainly there's not going to be a delegate selecting contest right now in a place like New Hampshire. But do I think do I think Congressman Dean Phillips is likely to. Man, you spit that out like, wow. Well, I just think that the dude is getting here. I will say this. If in a lineup of two, I'd have a I would have a hard time picking him out.

And I get the sort of message behind what he's trying to say and do. He becomes a receptacle for people who are uncomfortable with Biden. But if you're going to start doing that, if you're going to send that message, I mean, I certainly don't think you're sending that message by looking at him and seeing, oh, this is a guy who I think can do this. And to your point, all the deadlines are passed. We've had this...

So many people have had this fantasy for so long. I keep reading this, like somebody needs to walk into the Oval Office. It didn't happen. He's the candidate. He's the nominee. This whole notion of like, you know. Anybody who files has to ask themselves this question. Do you think you are going to change the outcome of this nominating process in terms of who the candidate is?

Or are you just going to damage the candidate? That's a heavy calculation with Donald Trump on the other side. Jennings, you look like you have something on your mind. You know, you raise a great point because if you're Phillips or anyone else, you know, why would you run? I might win. I don't surely doesn't think that. Or maybe you think you're going to alter the policy trajectory.

of your party by, you know, raising an issue and making that part of the party's consciousness. That doesn't seem to be his issue either. I mean, it seems to be just, as you said, a repository for protest votes, which neither changes the policy. But the thing is, what you're protesting is really awkward because Dean Phillips has been very supportive of the president in Congress. If he runs, he's not going to be running because he thinks that there's something deficient in the president's policies. He's going to be running because he thinks he's too old. And

And that's a really awkward thing, you know, to that's an awkward case to make. So, you know, we'll we'll see what happens. My guess is, David, to your point, the way you set it up, I think.

I don't begrudge him running on the principle of what he's running on. I also just think to the likelihood that this is a projectile that's going to cause the Biden campaign a lot of damage, I would put that extraordinarily low on the potential damage assessment here. Okay, let's take a break right here for a word from our sponsor, and we'll be right back. ♪

Before we go to questions, Scott, I got to ask you, in politics, Mary L. Cuomo once said, you know, only in cowboy movies do people shoot backwards. Usually when people run negative ads against you, it means you're getting somewhere. In Iowa, we now have a skirmish that's broken out between Ron DeSantis through his super PAC and Nikki Haley.

Nikki Haley's record on China as Governor Haley rolled out the red carpet for Chinese companies. They want to do business in South Carolina. Our home, your home. She gave them millions in tax breaks, subsidies, free land. A Communist Party-owned high-tech company got 200 acres, five miles from an army base. I think China is really in good faith doing quite a bit. They are a really great friend of ours. Nikki Haley, questionable judgment, dangerous on China, never back down.

Before you comment, let me play the Haley. He also attacked her on Gaza. So I don't have her response to this one, but here's a Haley response. Poor Ron DeSantis. He's losing. He's lying.

So now he's throwing mud at Nikki Haley. The truth? Nikki Haley has been clear that other Arab countries in the Middle East should be the ones taking in Palestinians. I've always said we shouldn't take any Gazan refugees in the U.S. Nikki Haley warned the United Nations about Hamas's threat to Israel. Hamas did this. You know Iran's behind it. Finish them. They should have hell to pay for what they've just done. SFA Fund Inc. is responsible for the content of this advertising.

So they weren't exactly parallel spots. But the point here, Scott, is that DeSantis is desperate here to win Iowa. He's done if he doesn't. Haley is, you know, is moving up generally. What does that tell you about the race? And shouldn't Trump be enjoying all of this? Oh, he's deeply enjoying it, because if you look at the polling averages in Iowa right now, he's

sitting at 50 or above and Haley and DeSantis are fighting over somewhere around 25 percent of the vote. And so whether, you know, whether some of it flows to Haley or some of it flows to DeSantis, as long as Trump is floating above 50, he thinks this is this is an amazing development. Although I think Haley is having a moment, DeSantis is still ahead of her in the polling nationally and in Iowa. It's just that neither of them has been able to put the other away

To the point where they could make a meaningful challenge to Trump. And DeSantis' guys have argued that if he gets out of the race or if he goes away, his voters are going to Trump anyway. I think that may be true. I totally agree with him. And so some of this is sort of the BT versus AT, you know, before Trump versus after Trump. DeSantis is largely an AT guy.

Haley is largely a BT, and I have not believed that the party is going to nominate or wants to go back to a BT at this moment. And so I think DeSantis' argument is if you don't want Trump, you're going to have to give Republicans somebody that comes from his era. And the only person that's reasonably possible here is me.

And he's probably he's probably right about that. That having been said, I have rather enjoyed watching Nikki Haley not spank the Santas, but spank Vivek Ramaswamy and others for their stupidity. I mean, she took Ramaswamy over her knee in the last debate and absolutely paddle is behind. And I am hoping she does it again at the next. I don't think it makes that much difference, but it's at least. Well, I just want to be amused, brother. I'm happy that you're happy.

Oh, it's great. I just want to mention the one thing that happened while we were recording here is that Jenna Ellis of the Trump legal team, though, I can see the current Trump legal team writing a brief right now to say Jenna Ellis was not part of the legal team, but Jenna Ellis pled guilty in the Georgia case. We've

We now have Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chismer and Jenna Ellis who have who have pled guilty in this case. The likelihood that to your point on shooting backwards and shooting forward, I don't think there's anybody currently running that's nearly as big a danger to Donald Trump being the nominee or president.

than what's happening in Fulton County by a long shot. Because to your point, if you've got Dean Phillips over here trying to create a choice, you've got on the Republican side right now, what looks like, how do you position yourself to be the person that might be the person that inherits some of the vote of the people that eventually drop out if you can make it long enough to get into a one-on-one with Trump and have it impact the race? I still don't, again, short of a courtroom, I still don't see a trajectory in which

He's in danger of not being the nominee. I don't know that this case is going to go. Maybe if all the if everybody pleads guilty but him, it will move. Well, they're squeezing the toothpaste from the bottom. That's for sure.

Yeah. But I mean, whether this this ever comes up. Yeah, I do think if he if he becomes the nominee and then becomes a convicted felon, I still maintain there is a cohort of Republicans who simply won't vote for him. They won't associate their franchise with him. But in the in the context of the primary, it appears to me that what Republicans have concluded is.

that Biden is going to lose to someone. Right, right. And for a long time, the argument was, well, if we don't, if we nominate Trump, we're going to lose for sure. Now that the paradigm has shifted. Now it's, well, Biden's going to lose for sure. So Republicans have set aside the argument of strategic voting in favor of, well, if Biden's going to lose for sure, let's just nominate the person we really want.

which is Trump, because we want vindication on all of Trump. No, I agree. Listen, I think the thing about this race is Democrats. They like Biden. They have affection for Biden. They're worried about Biden, but they're sticking with Biden because they worry that he may, you know, who do we have who would beat Trump? He's beaten Trump.

Trump's supporters are saying, well, anybody can beat Biden, so we might as well get the guy we want. Right. Yeah. They're strangely codependent here. All right. Cue the music. Listener mail.

If you have an email for us, a question, send it to hacksontap at gmail.com and we'll do our best to answer it. If you want to read your question, because we're really getting it. You can tell from the jingle we're getting very 21st century here. Then call 773-389-4471.

That's 773-389-4471. There's a code associated with it that I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. So let's go with number one, Tom. This is Tom from Illinois. How will Biden's reelection strategy change if Trump is suddenly knocked out of the race? At what point in time does a change of opponent make a drastic difference? Thanks for a great podcast. All right, Jennings.

Well, I'll indulge this fantasy that Donald Trump goes away. I mean, look, I think I think a lot of Biden's I think a lot of Biden's reelection strategy is just, hey, I'm not Trump. I mean, that's the entire strategy is, you know, take a look at this guy. You can't possibly reelect him. So you put anybody else in.

And all of a sudden that goes away and you have to start fighting it out on policy, which if you look at the polling on policy, it's really terrible for Biden. And it gets really, really complicated, particularly if the person that replaced Trump were younger, sort of new generation of leadership. So it would be really problematic for Biden if he wound up running against Trump.

anybody else. Now, the flip side is if the Republicans, if Trump went away for some reason and then he decided to withhold his support from or decided that person was insufficiently loyal to him, would his people not turn out for a different Republican? Maybe. And so maybe Biden then makes a pitch to moderate Republicans or whatever. Hey, come with me. So

I just think a different nominee, I thought this from the beginning, would be really problematic for an older president who's really struggling on policy. But let me just go back to the beginning. Donald Trump is highly, highly, highly, highly likely to be the Republican nominee. There's still some time, but the time grows short. Gibbs, Brett has a question just for you. Hey, this is Brett from New York. Here's an experiment. If you threw out your political hat and put on psychologist hats,

Why is Biden running? You've got to I can't see your hat, what hat it is, Gibbs, but I don't know if it's a psychologist hat, but you drew the short straw here. So go ahead. Well, let me just let me just say, if you could see us here, you'd realize why I'm not going to switch hats, particularly looking at Axe's hair.

Hairs. Hairs of both of them. I think this is really easy. And I think this would be, I think, largely the case, honestly, regardless of who the person is. There have been only a few people that have been the president of the United States. And it is it is hard. It is going to be hard in history. And it has been, I assume, to talk anybody who's in that building out of running for reelection.

Right. The psychology of it is if you're Biden is in this plays a little bit off of Scott's point, which is he thinks he's beaten Trump and he's the only person that can beat Trump and that he's going to offer himself up in order to make sure that the country doesn't have to deal with Donald Trump. And I think the psychology of that, I think I think there's you could make a more complicated argument to him. And I don't think it would be as easy for him.

to thread through of what he's got right now, which is, I've beaten Trump. I can do it again. Nobody else can. Watch me do it. Which relates to the question that Tom asked. You got one for me from Kevin. This is for the people who haven't yet mastered the easy-to-master cell phone number, 773-389-4471. Back to the emailers. Yeah, Kevin mailed this question in with

two extra stamps to Axe's mailbox. So Kevin asks, given Kamala Harris's unpopularity and the Republican talking point of, quote, a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, what would it look like if Biden were to name a different running mate in 2024? It seems like a centrist like Sinema or Manchin could tip the scales of some undecideds. Man, we are like...

Yeah, this is fantasy. All three of these questions are like, I was going to say, this is happy talk. Well, look, but we should say why. I mean, yes, the vice president has her problems. She's less popular than the president. And to some degree, vice president's popularity is tied to the president. She's obviously going to play a more prominent role in this campaign because

of the president's age, and Republicans are going to try and elevate her as a element in this campaign. But she represents constituencies of the Democratic Party that the president is not going to buck. He's made it clear that he's going to, for the cohesiveness of a, this is the challenge of a very broadly diverse party. People want representation. You know, she's the first woman

woman vice president. She's South Asian. She's black. And she represents the emerging party. So there's no way, and he's made it clear that he's going to make a change in the VP. So Kevin, park that fantasy away along with Tom's. If you've been listening, the three mailbag questions are Fantasy Island and the likelihood is Trump's going to be the nominee. The

99.999% that Joe Biden is going to be the nominee. And the likelihood he's going to change his vice president is zero. Before we go, Scott, I know you're an avid reader and you're reading a book that you want to recommend for the Hacks on Tap book club. If you want to take advantage of the Hacks on Tap

Book Club, go to hacksontap.com slash book club to see what our great guests have recommended. Go ahead, Scott. Yep. I'm currently reading a book called Differ We Must by Steve Inskeep. You may know Steve as NPR Morning Edition. It's about Lincoln, right? It's about Lincoln. And it's like 16 chapters and each chapter is a vignette about someone Lincoln met.

that he disagreed with and how Lincoln used those interactions to his own political ends or his own policy ends and how he strategically navigated these relationships. What's particularly enjoyable about the book

is that Steve Inskeep, who actually went to college in Kentucky, Morehead State University, by the way, is that he's a terrific broadcaster. So I'm listening to it on Audible. And if you want to like, this is a perfect person to read a book that he wrote. And that's the right way to consume this. So different. I'm looking forward to that. Yeah, I've been reading to read that. Yeah, really good. Gibbs, you have a book as well. Yeah, I got to say, I haven't read this book yet. It just came out. Axe, I bet you've got it on your nightstand.

But I'm really, really excited to read

McKay Coppin's new book, Romney at Reckoning. It's sitting right over here. See, I knew it. I'm doing a thing at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics with McKay on November 1st, so I'm looking forward to it. That'll be a podcast, Axe Files podcast as well. If you follow McKay at all, he had fabulous dealings with Donald Trump, great writings. I think he got in very much into his head. Boy, this one seems like a doozy axe, handing over your journals and your inner thoughts to

is, uh, I'm, I'm fascinated. I'm, I'm happy to excited to hear what you think of it. And, uh,

Need to go out and buy my own copy of McKay's book. So McKay Coppins, Romney, A Reckoning. Pick that up. All right. You can read Scott. Are you a columnist for the USA Today now? I occasionally write for them, also the LA Times and CNN.com. While we're pondering the great issues of the day on the CNN panels, I watched Scott pecking away at his computer filing

his columns and they're actually amazingly cogent given the distractions there. So you should read those. And it's just a week. Just mention, just cause I've given you grief on this CNN call Scott right now, get him on set. His hair is perfect.

Right. He's ready. He's ready to go. I wake up this way every day. I have permanent pundit hair. He is. He's an anchor. He's got anchorman hair. But what goes on underneath is the important thing, folks. All right. We'll see you guys soon. Thanks.