¶ Introduction
Happy Monday. Welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast. Thank you for watching, for those of you on YouTube or watching as a video podcast on Spotify. Those of you listening, also, thank you for tuning in. Always appreciate that. So I had to check my watch for the year again over the weekend make sure we were still in twenty twenty five, because we kind of had one of these news Joe Biden news cycles over the last seventy two hours that was quite rare, meaning it was a
Joe Biden. You might be forgiven if you thought Biden was still president versus Trump, because it's rare for Donald Trump to ever get overshadowed, particularly when he's actually president. But for the last seventy two hours, all things Joe Biden has very much overshadowed Donald Trump. Now some of
¶ Joe Biden diagnosed with aggressive form of cancer
it is intentional by Trump, and I'm going to get into that, but let's unpack this Biden news cycle. Obviously, the most recent news being his office announcing that he is an aggressive form of prostate cancer. So obviously it goes without saying that that is not good news to hear, and he is there is nobody that knows how to fight and rebound from health challenges more than Joe Biden. I feel like he's been doing it off and on
his whole life. The guy is tough, he's resilient, and I have no doubt he's going to make it through this and likely thrive after they make their decision on where to go with treatment. Obviously, that news came in the middle of what's been a pretty negative set of headlines for Joe Biden and for the Democratic Party as a whole. As you've had the book Jake Tapper Alex Thompson's book about what happened inside the West Wing, what happened inside the Democratic Party that that led to what
¶ Was Biden's decline covered up, or just willful ignorance?
was a disastrous summer, if you will, the disastrous last eighteen months of the Biden presidency. Was it a cover up? Was it not? You don't think there's any proof that it was a cover up of anything other than it was either a lot of wilful blindness by the staff perhaps making themselves feel better because it was Donald Trump that was on the other side, and had it been anybody else, maybe they would have had clear set of
eyes and thinking. But that book got supercharged over the weekend with the Trump administration's decision and the timing of that, and again I'm going to get into that in a minute. To release the full audio recording, and this was a Justice department decision. They did it, So it's Trump's Justice
department that did this. Just keep this in mind, and we're going to ask some questions in a few minutes about why did they choose this moment, why are they choosing to do this, But we'll get into that in a minute, But let's not beat around the bush. The release of the Robert herbick has certainly I think put
¶ Robert Hur recording has supercharged the Biden story
that entire episode in a different light. What Robert Hurr wrote about his interview when he said that no jury would convict him, is that he was going to be that his memory of an was a bit forgetful, but it would be something that a jury would forgive considering
his age. Well, when that report came out, there was immediate denunciations because remember when when it came out, he was still running for reelection at the time when this report came out, so it was obviously something that they feared would only sort of bring back the news cycle, bring back the chatter that he shouldn't run for reelection,
that the party should go in a different direction. So there was a very forceful pushback attacks on her personally, accusations that he was somehow doing the bidding of the Trump campaign when he was doing it, just personal and vicious attacks by some people who are not journalists but are considered members of the media. And I do make this distinction because I do think reporters and journalists were trying to do a story and we're trying to be honest about what the heck was going on with Biden
in the White House. But there were certainly pundits and analysts and hosts of cable TV shows that we're trying to protect their access to the president and use talking points that were hand delivered to them by Biden supporters and Biden defenders to attack Robert Hurr. We'll see if those folks decide to apologize, decide to do a mega Kalpa on that, because clearly, now when you listen to
the recording, her was not an antagonist here. Her was not trying doesn't seem like he was at all trying to lead the witness and some sort of negative territory that he was willfully misinterpreting the conversation that he had
and how the interview went. I think it was pretty clear that her was a professional in the during the whole time, behaved very professionally and certainly was even empathetic at times when the president, who of course, it turned out it was the President that brought up his son's death,
not Robert Herr. So that recording has only I think taken and certainly, let's remember the Trump Justice Department released the recording to one of the two authors of the book, to the news organization Axios, which of course employs one of the two authors of the book. So the Trump
White House knew exactly what it was doing here. They saw an opportunity to take a news cycle that was growing and developing and really was more of a Washington news cycle about the Democratic Party, and essentially ad an accelerant it. Right the release of this recording, which is
not in the book. Okay, this was not something that they were able to get for the book, but they sort of giving it to the author only seemed to supercharge the attention and it certainly now created a much bigger news cycle and has forced a lot of Democrats to have to answer for this because at the end of the day, the Democratic Party did turn a blind eye, not just to Joe Biden, but they turned the blind
eye to the voters. Ultimately, what they did is they we the voters were the ones that were telling Paul after poll that they had more concerns about Joe Biden's age than they did Donald Trump's character. And it was
¶ Joe Biden couldn't assure voters he was up to the job
Paul after Paul after poll that would show that. And it was amazing to me how often Democrats would dismiss those numbers and say, oh no, you know, once, once the public sees Joe Biden in action, that will go away. But Donald Trump's character is built in, and the issues and the fear of his presidency will kick in and people will focus on that. Well, that didn't happen because Joe Biden wasn't able to reassure folks that he was
able to do the job. The debate, obviously, the infamous debate, ended up being the moment that only reinforced what the voters were already telling us. And that's what I think is the biggest problem the Democratic Party has right now in this moment in dealing with this Biden situation. Look, it does appear that Joe Biden is about to experience what Jimmy Carter experienced starting in nineteen eighty one, which is the Democratic Party is going to do everything it can.
Anybody that's currently active in the party is going to do everything they can to find a way to distance themselves from him in some form. Maybe they will say, well, I thought, you know, you'll hear. Richie Torres, who I'm interviewing today, is one of the rising stars in the Democratic Party. He may be a candidate for New York governor, a primary challenger to the New York governor there, Kathy Hochel. He will admit that, hey, it turns out we were wrong.
We should have had a deeper conversation about this is essentially his message. But I want to read something Chris Murphy said on Meet the Press to my friend Kristen Welker, and he said this, because I think this gets it to the heart of the challenge for the Democratic Party going forward, if they're going to ever convince voters to
¶ Chris Murphy says it's the Democrats fault that Trump was re-elected
trust them. In retrospect, Chris Murphy says, you can't defend what the Democratic Party did because we are stuck with a madman, a corrupt president in the Oval office, and we should have given ourselves a better chance to win. So what is he saying there. What he's saying is to voters, it's okay to blame the Democratic Party for
Trump's election. That if the Democratic Party had behaved more responsibly, had the Democratic Party put the wishes of the voters ahead of the wishes of the establishment, they may have gone somewhere. They may be in a different place. Donald Trump may not be president, you know, the Republican Party.
If Donald Trump ends up a failed president and sets the democracy back decades and sets American exceptionalism back decades, not only will you have the Republican Party to blame, because they've willfully gone down this road and they've looked the other way on character, and they've looked the other way on sort of the historical nature of what he's trying to do here. But the Democratic Party did the
same thing. They didn't put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of the party or the interests of themselves. And what really makes it, I think even more damning for the Democrats and why this recovery is going to be so much harder no matter how unpopular Donald Trump and the Republicans are in this moment, because it's a trust issue, right, there was this this lack of being able to of being able to see, and
the rhetoric was Donald Trump's an existential threat to the democracy. Well, if you believe that, then you had to make sure you were doing everything you can as a party to put that front and center, that that issue would be front and center. So if you had a sitting president that wasn't up to the challenge, then that he needed to be he needed to be primary or he needed to be convinced not to run again. And it should
have happened a heck of a lot sooner. The party never seemed to take the Trump threat as seriously as the rhetoric. They would utter because their actions didn't back up the rhetoric. How do we know that, Just look at how they handled the Biden situation in the last two years of the Biden presidency. So the question is how many people in the Democratic Party are going to be tainted with this? So let me go back. I want to go back to the experience of the last
time that the Democrats had sort of this. They had sort of an era of defeat that called into question whether the Democratic Party was strong enough to lead in this country. The Democratic Party had got blown out in seventy two by George McGovern. They narrowly win the White House, even though they should have won it by a lot. But they narrowly win the White House in seventy six post Watergate, essentially because Ford pardons Nixon and that was
an unforgivable sin. Carter gets blown out in eighty Walter Mondale gets blown out in eighty four, and Michael Ducaccus gets blown out in eighty eight. So four landslides in
¶ Democrats need to do soul searching like they did with Bill Clinton
five elections. And after that eighty eight election, there were serious there were serious debates about what was the Democratic Party going to do with itself. There was books that were put out that's a permanent minority party. The Democratic parties headed for permanent minority party status. And what happened. Somebody decided to pick a fight and take the Democratic Party in a whole new direction. And that's somebody was
Bill Clinton. And I've gone through this a few times before, so I'm not going to re talk about this moment, but that was a cathartic moment for a party. And Bill Clinton confronted the establishment. Bill Clinton confronted the very basic issues that swing voters were saying they didn't trust whether it was law and order issues, national security, or the economy. Right, he came out and was centered the
party as being more pro business, more pro free trade, tough. Essentially, when he got elected president, he basically adopted half of the national defense policy that George H. W. Bush had kept.
Colin Powell kept a bunch of holdovers at the time and essentially preserved much of this of the status quo in the national security, and of course he projected himself as much tougher on law orders, even famously leaving the campaign trail to oversee the use of the death penalty when he was governor of Arkansas late in the campaign, just to reinforce the message that he was a different
type of Democrat. It was all about him making contrast that he wasn't Jimmy Carter, that he wasn't Michael Ducacas, and that he wasn't Walter Mondale. And the one thing, and he actually had to push back that he wasn't George McGovern. That was a little harder for him, why
¶ Clinton had to run against the party and its prior leadership
because Bill and Hillary Clinton ran Texas for McGovern back in seventy two. But still, you see my larger point, he had to not just run against the party, but contrast himself and put those previous Democratic leaders in a negative light. That's likely the situation the Democrats are in now. Right if you put the grouping of candidates together of
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. We've had three elections and two of them lost, and the Joe Biden victory turned out to be probably more of an accident in hindsight than we all realize. I think that one of the fundamental problems Democrats I think have made and why they may have chosen not to confront the Biden age issue when they should have, is I think they misinterpreted both what happened in twenty twenty and twenty twenty two.
I think the Democrats mostly believe that their success in twenty and they're doing and they're better than expected showing in twenty two was due to a rejection of Donald Trump and trump Ism, when it looks like if you actually dig in and now sort of see how voters behaved in twenty four, now we can look back and realize, oh, in twenty this was simply about COVID, and that Donald Trump managed COVID better heat of one reelection, and oh, by the way, he almost won reelection anyway. And in
¶ Democrats misread the 2020 election result
twenty two it was simply superior Democratic candidates running against terrible Republican nominees. And if there weren't those terrible Republican nominees, the twenty twenty two midterms go differently. And perhaps it actually motivates the Democratic Party to say, hey, they've got a pivot from Joe Biden. Something is wrong here, this
isn't working. But they believe the voters that the message the voters were sending was a full on rejection of Trump, when really it was just a rejection of the specific policy of the moment, and of that moment in twenty twenty was covid. And I also think what happened on January sixth really clouded the judgment of a lot of Democrats.
I think a lot of Democrats believe the country would never forgive Republicans for what happened on January sixth, not realizing that what the conservative media machine had done a great job building an alternative ecosystem, and Donald Trump supercharged that alternative ecosystem. When Facebook and Twitter decided to deplatform him, he was forced to have to go find a new
way to communicate. And all that did was, I think less in whatever impact democrats thought January was going to sick, January six was going to have on the electorate as a whole. So look, I think you're going to continue to see more Democrats try to distance themselves. I think it's going to be really tough for some of them.
I saw James Carvill just attack Pete Bootajige the other day saying, oh, now you're saying because Botajige went in Iowa, essentially said yeah, maybe we should have gone in a different direction rather than Biden seeking reelection. And of course Carvel's first answer was because Carvel was out there early on saying Biden shouldn't seek reelection. He was saying it in twenty twenty three when many Democrats were not saying it then, or certainly weren't saying it publicly. And he
basically said, where were you, Pete Bootagige. Why didn't you say anything then? And so I think that that's going to be It's going to be an albatross that every single Democrat that runs for office. The closer you are to Biden, the more questions you're going to have to answer about what you saw and what you didn't see, and if you didn't see it, the question is going
to be why didn't you see it? Why didn't you ask questions about why you weren't allowed to meet more often with the president if you were a cabinet secretary for instance, or why did you say what you said? Some of these defenses, Oh, you know when people it was it was always you know, all these quotes are coming back to haunt so many Democrats because they'd be out there saying I was with Biden and he was amazing,
and he was this. It was almost like over the top rhetoric and trying to defend Biden, which after the release of the her tapes and after the release of this Tapper book is only makes those quotes age really really poorly. So, look, I suspect you're going to have to that the Democrats are not anywhere near answering the
¶ Democrats will take some blame for problems Trump causes
question that voters are going to end up asking them at some point, because I go back to what I to what Chris Murphy said on Sunday. The more unpopular Trump gets, the more unpopular the decisions he makes, the worse our economy is. Some of that blame isn't all going to go to the Republicans. There are going to be some voters who do blame the Democratic Party for not focusing on the task in hand back in twenty twenty four, for looking the other way on Biden. And
so what does that mean? Right? I've posited here that if we didn't if they're if the duopoly of ballid access didn't exist, I do think the Democratic Party's major party status would be in real jeopardy. But because of how embedded, and because there's only one vehicle to guarantee ballid access without having to go around gathering partition signatures
¶ Democrats need to reinvent themselves
and things like that in many states, it gives them essentially a chance to try to reinvent themselves. But they have to reinvent themselves. Make no mistake, if you're thinking about leading this party in twenty six or twenty eight, go spend some time watching what Bill Clinton did in nineteen eighty nine, in nineteen ninety, Go take a look at the DLC. It doesn't mean you have to move ideologically.
I do think that sometimes strength can be projected without shifting your ideology left to center or center to left. What you've got to do is project strength whatever it is, either if it's strength on an issue, strength on character. But these mealy mouthed answers, and this sort of attempt to try to try to sort of vaguely blame others or blame the establishment is is, I think a fool's Errand I do want to remind folks why is the her tape public? The her tape is only public because
the Trump White House chose to make it public. Now you ask yourself, why do they choose? Why Why is Donald Trump so so enamored with constantly bringing up Joe Biden? Because in many ways, you know, if you think about it, like how a poker player might analyze somebody at a table, why is he doing this? Well, to me, it's a tell. What's the tell? He knows he's not popular. He knows many of the things he's doing are not popular. That Middle East trip, there were he did a few things
that that may pay dividends long term. I think Syria and Iran could pay some long term dividends and some stability in the Middle East. But the stinkiness of the business transactions and the clear sort of intent of his personal businesses and his sons profiting off of the government's
¶ Trump released the Hur tapes as a distraction
businesses with those three golf countries UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Katar, plus the whole plane business. Right, there's some stinkiness to it, So what was the best way to get people to ignore that stinkiness for about twenty four to forty eight hours release the Biden her tapes. Anyway, it's obvious that Donald Trump is pursuing a strategy that Joe Biden might actually might admire, which is Donald Trump doesn't want you
to judge him by the Almighty. He wants you to judge him by the alternative that he chooses to compare himself to, and constantly bringing up Biden he thinks is a net positive for him. But it does lead to a curious question that I have in watching the full response, if you will, over the weekend, and where the anger was coming up when the first clips of the her
it came out. It was interesting to me that it fears as if the right conservative media Republican elected officials, all of them seemed to be angrier about this, about Biden's about the attacks on her, about Biden's appearance on there, and how it was clear that he was certainly, if anything, had a bad day when he did that first interview, But there was more anger from Republicans than there was from Democrats, and that's been a head scratcher to me.
I think the release of the her tapes should be making Democrats a heck of a lot angrier than Republicans. You would think Trump allies are ecstatic that Democrats did nothing about Joe Biden for as long as they did. You would think Republicans should be celebrating that Democrats essentially didn't put their best foot forward in twenty twenty four.
¶ Democrats should be angrier about Biden than Republicans
But if anything, they're attacking. They seem to be angrier about the development and angrier that Aha, see, they were right in their minds, they were right Biden wasn't up to the job. Now. I know that some on the right they think this is going to be some sort of vindication for them, that this will reinforce that you
can't trust the left on anything. I think there are some on the right that believe this Biden cover up, if you want to call it that, as akin to the no weapons of mass destruction that sort of saddled Republicans for over a decade, if you will, And so I think that's what the right things but I will
say this, I don't understand why Democrats aren't angrier. It was a lot of hiding a little bit in response to the hur tapes when it and while the Republicans seemed to be venting and frustrated, it was almost as if, why couldn't the Democrats have put up a better candidate so that Donald Trump didn't become president. Now they didn't say the second part, but that the anger is so palpable on the right that it's like, wow, why did
you make us nominate Donald Trump? As almost what they're saying without saying it anyway, just something to think about into the motivation into why Trump's doing this. And I'll say this, it says a lot to me that the Trump White House feels the need that they have to do this because guess what, they've had a bad ninety six hours Russia is clearly Trump has no influence over Putin. He continues to snub Ukraine, snub an he ceasefire and oh, they just bombarded him with one of the larger drum
strikes that Ukraine has experienced in a while. All in the run up to where Donald Trump says He's going to engage talk to putin and see if he can talk him into this. You also have House Republicans shooting at each other, unable to get this one big, beautiful
¶ Mike Johnson needs Trump to pressure members of congress
bill onto the floor for a vote. Donald Trump's probably going to have to play Speaker of the House again. I mean, as we've learned, Mike Johnson is not his speaker and title only whenever he actually has to get a vote across the finish line. He desperately needs Donald Trump to make individual phone calls, individual threats. And let's just say, Donald Trump has a lot of work to
do this week playing House speaker. And that again, when you have all that on your plate, it's no wonder They said, Hey, let's throw up the distraction shiny metal object, and let's release the her Biden tape. All right, let me sneak in a break here, and for those of you that are listening on audio when we come back, you're going to hear from one of the fascinating rising stars of the New York City Congressional delegation. And he could be a future candidate for governor of New York One,
Richie toires New York City Democratic Congressman Richie Torres. Richie,
¶ Ritchie Torres joins the Chuck ToddCast
it's good to see you. You're in some ways, I think a lot of the folks that listen to me and are watching me do know who you are. You're a progressive Democrat who's really pro Israel. Been one of the been one of the more important voices for those that support Israel in the New York City area. But I miss the old Stephen Colbert days of get to know your district. So I've made I made Goldman do this.
¶ Tour of the NY-15 district
So I'm gonna make you do this because this you know, tell me about your district, like I've never been to New York City. Describe this district to somebody that lives in Rolla, Missouri.
So I represent one of the few congressional districts that's wholly contained within one county. I represent about half the Bronx. So my district is home to the New York Yankees, and it's it's really known for its int intitutions. We have the New York Botanical Garden, we have the Bronx SIOU at Fordham University. The largest employer in the Bronx
is the monsterra House System. And it's just an ethnically and racially very district, Dominican and Latino and Puerto Rican and Mexican population in the South Bronx, an African, American and Caribbean population in the Northeast Bronx, a Jewish population at Riverdale, Irish population, and Woodlaw. And so I have Little Italy, little Ireland, Little Yemen. It is remarkable for
its diversity, and I have a special reverence for Arthur Abu. Literally, there may be no community in New York City that has a greater concentration of businesses that have been owned by the same family for more than one hundred years. So it's one of the most I would argue it's the best congressional district in America, But of course I have a bias.
You better, you better say that. So you bought up against AOC in her district? Yes, yes, And what's the difference between hers and yours? Is it beyond geography? Beyond just butting up against I mean what her district is. It's not all contained in the Bronx, right.
Yeah, So I'm exclusively in the Bronx, whereas AOC represents both the Bronx and Queens. I split the South Bronx with AOC, I split the West Bronx with Adriano s Bayot and I split the Northeast Bronx with George Latimer, and AOC primarily represents the East Bronx, which happens my
¶ The enormity of the New York city council
mother happens to live in her districts.
Oh, well, there you go. It's just she can't vote for you. Mom can't vote for you.
She cannot vote right now. She votes for me in spirit, but not in practice.
You served on the New York City Council, and I don't think people are fully appreciate how enormous the New York City Council is. I mean every time I hear like, wait, one hundred and how many members?
Yes, so I might have had more staff as a New York City Council member than I did as a member of Congress. Unlike most local legislators who operate with volunteer staff with part time staffers, New York City has a full time, professional legislature. It's about fifty one members, one of whom is the speaker, and each member of the City Council represents about one hundred and sixty to one hundred and seventy thousand people and have enormous power
over land use development within their districts. I was in charge of investigations. I had not only my own personal staff, but the investigations and oversight division of the City Council
reported to my committee. So it was great preparation for my role in Congress because I feel like, as a former city council member, I have an on the ground knowledge of how federal policies and programs operate at the local level because so much of what we did locally was essentially the administration of federal programs and for our
¶ Would he support expanding the size of the house?
So look.
I'm obsessed with uncapping the House. I think we need to double the size of Congress. And you have a unique You have a nique window here. You went from a constituency of about one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand. You just said right, to a constituency of approximately eight hundred thousand. Talk to me about those challenges and is eight hundred thousand too much? Should it be four hundred thousand?
I would maintain the status quo. To be honest with you, I can. I mean, the House has trouble functioning with four hundred and thirty five members. Not to mention the representatives of territories, the thought of doubling the size of the House. I mean there is a point at which just operationally becomes overwhelming, So I would maintain the status quo. The greatest concern I have about the House is just running every two years. That the moment you've won your election,
you're beginning a new election cycle. And I feel like they're members of Congress who's just spend too much time fundraising, too much time campaigning. It has a crowding out effect on governing. You know, we have two year terms, the president is four year term, Senators have six year terms. The Supreme Court as a lifetime appointment. So the House got the short end of the stick. Well did it? Or is it supposed to be the most small d democratic right? Like?
You know, this is where I do think it. I think in this case, more is better. If the if the founders were here, they would say that.
It's a good it's a fair point. I would if I have to choose between a world in which both the Senate and the House have four year terms or the status quo, I probably would prefer both to have four year terms.
Interesting, what was the term length on the city council four years? Four years and same four years? Or did they stagger it.
To your your term limited, so you you're confined to two terms. And when I actually, when I entered the
¶ Term limits disadvantage legislators compared to lobbyists
New York City Council, I was in favor of term moments because I felt to create space for a new generational leadership. But since then, I've become a skeptic because the mass exodus of members from the City Council has led to a real brain train and and it, you know, has the effect of shifting power from elected officials to the unelected staff, the permit diet, the so called deep state of the City Council.
I am. I believe this every single state legislative capital, okay that has done this. The lobbyist run the legislature because they have the institutional memory. By the way, some very well meaning lobbyists. Just because your lobbist doesn't mean you're you're only out for the you know, standing up for bad guys. It just doesn't. But they're not termalmenting, right.
And I you know, and it's even more so at the federal level. You know, the the issues that I tack was a member of Congress are so immensely complicating, complicated that you cannot learn them? Will you can only
¶ Can any bipartisan agreement be reached with Trump
learn them over time by osmosis, and so there is something to be said for institutional memory. I feel creates a much more democratic government.
So I went on a bit of a rant the other day about the lack of bipartisanship these days. In this respect, here you had Donald Trump, who was in favor of a couple things that they are a majority of Democrats that are in favor of raising. He wants a tax rate for millionaires as one way. He floated it out there. We know that there's Democratic support for that, yet he didn't go and seek it. He did an executive order on prescription drugs that has no teeth whatsoever.
If he had worked on finding Democrats to help him, you could suddenly probably get some bipartisan legislation. He's not alone. The last Democratic president didn't make much. But I don't feel like Biden made much of an effort to reach out Republicans, and we could say Republicans didn't want to be outreached to. Barack Obama had to do Obamacare. So George W. Bush basically passed his prescription drug benefits solo.
What does it take And if Donald Trump came to the House, Democratic House, Democratic Caucus and said, hey, I want to raise tax I want to create a tax rate, you know, a higher tax rate for those that make two million or more. Are we in a space where there could be a bipartisan agreement on that, or is the toxicity of Trump himself now make it impossible for
¶ Biden had multiple pieces of bipartisan legislation
bipartisanship in this current conference.
I feel the appearance of DC is much more partisan than the reality. Particularly so I want to take issue with something you said with Biden. I actually felt, you know, for all the partisanship, particularly in the wake of January sixth, that he had a bipartisan and productively bipartisan presidency. Veteran healthcare, gun safety, chips ack, infrastructure, all of which were passed on a bipartisan basis. And those are significant pieces of legislation.
Not all of them were. A lot of them were in the party line vote, but some of it was in the body.
The Inflationial Reduction Act was party line, but ships ack was bipartisan. Yeah, kind safety was bipartisan. Veteran healthcare was bipartisan, Infrastructure was bipartisan. And those are four significant pieces of legislation. And I'm and Trump one point, oh was with somewhat bipartisan. Right, you had the trade bill, you had a criminal justice
¶ Trump is poisoning the well in his second term
reform which was actually directly negotiated with Leader Jefferies.
Right.
Trump two point zero is quite different. I mean, he's just much more vindictive and aggressive and emboldened than ever before, and he is poisoning the well and has made it increasingly impossible for Democrats to have anything resembling a working relationship with him. So I felt like there were a prospect for bipartisanship with Trump one point zero. But he's a radically different person.
Look, you have a reputation for being incredibly reasonable. Have you heard from his congressional liaisons.
I've had no communication with Trump. I mean I have relationships with congressional Republicans.
Sure, No, I'm talking about the Trump White House, you know, because I remember stories about the early Reagan days where they specific now granted they had a Democratic House they were dealing with, so there was they certainly they had to have relationships if they were going to pass legislation,
but it was a day one priority. And you're right, Trump one point zero did want to you know, there would be days where it felt like, hey, he brought in Democratic lawmakers to have a conversation about this or that. There seems to be no demand, no interest in that whatsoever. Even as he again, I this prescription drug Executive Order, you get three hundred votes in the House for it.
It just suits me as contempt for Congress. He expects the Republicans to fall in line, and they largely do. And he's in vindictive mode. I mean, he's just intent on dismantling what, you know, the bureaucracy of the government and higher education. Like everyone including Democrats, seemed to be on his Nixsonian enemies list. So I see no appetite for bipartisanship in either direction.
What is that going to I mean, that's a pretty ugly next two and a half years we're going to spend, is it not.
It bolts poorly for the country. And look, I think
¶ America is planting the seed of its own decline
a few weeks ago I wrote something to the effect if a superpower we're planning the seeds of its own decline, right, it would paralyze the global economy with a certainty of uncertainty. It would erode confidence in the reserve status of the dollar. It would discard due process, it would defund scientific and medical research, It would sabotage advanced trip making, and it would grow the deficit until debt service becomes the largest expense in the federal budget, and that is in twenty
¶ Medicaid cuts will be devastating
twenty five under Donald Trump. But I feel like we're in a dangerous place.
So what do you do as a lawmaker? You're a Democrat, You're a lawmaker. You in theory, you you're in the you're in the arena. What do you what role can you play to get us out of this?
Well, well, first we have to I mean I have to resist, you know, so take Medicaid. There's no congressional district in America that has a greater stake in Medicaid than mine. Sixty seven percent of my congressional district is a role to Medicaid. In my district, more than seventy percent of troldren, more than eighty percent of nursing home residence, more than ninety percent of baby deliveries are covered by Medicaid.
And so I have to spend much of my political capital fighting this unprecedented assault on the social safety upon which the BRONX is heavily heavily dependent. The largest employer in the BRONX is the Montafuer Health System, which employs tens of thousands of people and depends heavily on Medicaid. And Medicaid matter not only the districts like mine, but to Blue states and Red states urban communities.
Well, you saw Josh Holly, Republican senator from Missouri. He's well aware of majority of his constituents love Medicaid or reliable.
And it's you know, Medicaid is not only health insurance for the lowest income. It has become long term care for the elderly and the disabled and richie.
Both my grandmother and my wife's grandmother the end of life care that they needed we couldn't have afforded without the help of Medicaid both instances.
I feel Medicaid is every bit as vital to senior citizens as medicare. Like in New York State, the elderly and the disabled account for twenty percent of the enrollees but make up sixty percent of the expenses. And so an attack on Medicaid is ultimately an attack on the elderly and the disabled. And that's the case we're making.
Do you take any so the way they're right this bill,
¶ Will the Medicaid cuts be delayed where a future congress could fix it?
and guys like Chip Roy are unhappy with it. It feels as if all of the potential cuts to medicate or reforms, whichever side of the ale you want to be on on this don't kick in for a few years, which means it feels as if they're going to get their hamburger today, they'll pay for it down the road, and by the time down the road comes, there'll probably be a different Congress that make sure those either work requirements don't kick in or those cuts don't kick in.
You do you think that's Do you take any sort of solace in the fact that that's probably what this legislation may end up looking like.
It's not clear and the only issue is not the legislation. So you know, under Donald Trump, you know, thirteen point seven million people are in danger of losing their healthcare. So the Republican Reconciliation Bill could cause eight point six million to lose the healthcare. But then you have the exp of the Affordable Care Acts premium tax credits, which might cause four point too many people to lose their healthcare. And then there's a Trump regulation that could cause one
point eight million. So those numbers are staggering. That's comparable to the number of people would have lost their healthcare during the initial attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Acts. So I do feel the impact will be felt. Republicans are going to message that their targets are not the elderly and the vulnerable, it's undocumented immigrants or its work requirements.
¶ Medicaid work requirements don't work
But you know it's deceptive if you're reducing money for the overall system, which will not only kill people's lives but also livelihoods. And the work requirements are essentially paperwork requirements. There's no evidence the work requirements lead to actual work. It simply causes people to lose their health insurance. So Arkansas was the first state to implement a work requirements program.
It did not boost employment. It simply led eighteen thousand people to lose their health insurance in the first five months of the program, and the majority of those people were eligible for Medicaid.
What is there a Can you split Medicaid eligibility between say, children who are citizens versus maybe one parent who may not be.
I mean, I don't, I don't know how you could.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't know how you I get the thesis, but I don't know how you do it. And that's what I was curious.
Look, if you are well, if you a seven and fifteen billion dollars, defunding a Medicaid is going to reduce funding for every safety net hospital, for every hospital in America,
¶ The consequences of the GOP budget will be barbaric
which means must care for everyone, not simply for the population you're targeting. You're reducing funding for the overall system. And I also feel like we should be a compassionate society. If you're an undocumented immigrant and you have a heart attack, are the Republicans suggesting that you should not get emergency care and that care should not be covered by the
federal government. Is that the kind of society that we want to live in, that we want people to be left to die because of their immigration status or because of their income. Like, the consequences of what they're proposing are barbaric.
So when you is there any so you don't even see a feasible way of even if you were trying to do this and say, well, children who are citizens are eligible for Medicaid but their parents are not.
I do not buy that you can surgically target undocumented immigrants without destabilizing the overall system. I mean, even today we are underinvesting in long term care right there, are eight hundred thousand people on the waiting list for MEDICAI
funded long term care. And we're in aging society, so more and more people are going to be living longer and longer their health can needs will become more complex, The need for long term care will rise over time, and most of the hospitals and places like New York are either teetering on the brain core underwater.
Ritchie, let me tell you on this long term care try. Even if you think you can afford your own long term care policy, you can't get one to sell you. My wife and I got our long term care policies when we were in our early thirties. We're now in our fifties. Do you know how many times this insurance company has tried to buy us out. They're desperately trying us to get us off their books. They don't want it. And we got it because she lost her parents early
in life. And you know, it was more of a hey, this is our and this is something that we were concerned about. But there's not even a marketplace for long term care that's realistic. And I feel like government has
¶ How do we address the long-term care crisis?
been dropping the ball on this one for a long period of time. Now I don't know what long term care, government funded insurance looks like here. Do you have a thought, do you have a blueprint in your head about how you would help to because this is increasingly people are my age. Right, we've got kids in college, and we've got aging parents. Right, We're in this sort of we're caught in this. Is there a realistic policy here that can help out? Is it all just through medicators or something else?
I mean medicaid is what we have. It's inherently expensive. I mean, nursing homes are expensive, the siste living is expensive. You know, I think we should be advocating for home care, allowing people to age at home and agent place. But there's no uskeeping the course. You know, the problem in America is not that we're investing too much in long term care. The problem is that we're investing too little.
Look, I've got a grandmother. She's all there, she's physically just has to be in an assisted living facility. And she tells me all the time, She's like, yeah, they're always understaffed, especially on weekends. They never have enough staff. And this is universal and so we have a healthcare worker shortage in this country as well, you.
Know, innovations like telehealth can make a difference. So you know, I have a constituent who is caring for her father who has Alzheimer's, and she would have to wake up five hours before his appointment in order to pick him up from his bed and bathe him and feed him and close him and then bring him down the stairs. Like the process of bringing him to the hospital was arduous. And then telehealth is a game changer, right. It allowed him to receive medical care from the comfort of his
own home. So there are innovations that can dramatically lower the cost of health care and make it more personalized.
Let me switch to national security. This is also in the Middle East and the president's trip. We're speaking here when a timestamp is Thursday, May fifteenth, presidents just wrapping up his trip to the Middle East. I want to get your reaction to something he said in a speech
¶ Should America's foreign policy be pragmatic or idealistic?
he gave us Saudi Arabian sort of his version of real politique. He said, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it is our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins. It is God's job to sit in judgment, My job to defend America and to promote the fundamental interests of stability, prosperity, and peace. It's sort of a real polity. Hey, you know, we're not going to tell Saudi Arabia how to run
their society. We're not going to tell Qatar, We're not going to tell I assume this also means we're not going to tell Germany how they should manage their politics. But I'll get to that. It is sort of selective here, I think a little bit. But in theory what he's saying, where are you on that issue? You know, what, should America conduct its foreign policy always through this prism of realism? How much aspirational pro democracy morality should we also be preaching.
So I'm not a Jacksonian like Donald Trump, but nor am I Wilsonian. I am skeptical about the use of American power to spread democracy throughout the world. I thought both the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and the decision to invade Rock was a grave miscalculation, was a grave, colossal waste
of American resources and lives. I saw one study indicating that the cost of every post nine to eleven war is eight trillion dollars when you factor in the cost of disability benefits and veteran healthcare, and that's eight trillion dollars not spent on meeting the domestic needs of the American people. So there is a sense in which his critique loss.
Of prestige, lost soft power, things like that that you can't really put it price on.
There is a sense in which his you know, critique of neo conservatism resonates widely, including with me and my My generation, which came of age during the Iraq War and during the Afghanistan War, is suspicious of the establishment, and it is suspicious of the whover zealous use of American power. But I'm more of a Hamiltonian. I do feel like we have to build relationships with countries based
on shared economic interest, but also values do matter. But you know, someone once made an observation, Someone said to me, you know, China goes to the Global South and gives us infrastructure, and America goes to the Global South and gives us a lecture.
And one hundred percent there's.
Something to that. I think, you know, people want to have a relationship with the United States. They want us as a security partner. They want us as a trading partner, and we should have a Hamiltonian focus on winning their
¶ How should we view Qatar's infusion of money into American politics?
goodwill rather than lecturing people about their about their government.
All right, well we established that, So let's talk about Cutter because I've been I've been uh a Cutter skeptic for some time. The amount of money they throw at Washington. I've I'd like to think I've worked really hard to make sure it didn't infuse in anything I was working on. But you know, whether it's purchasing a minority stake, and are some sports franchises in DC too. It's hard to go to an event in Washington that isn't somehow partially
funded by Cutter. And now this airplane business. How do you view them and what they're doing, because they might say, hey, we're doing We're doing what Saudi Arabia did in the seventies and eighties and it worked for them. Why shouldn't we use the same playbook.
I feel like there are two models in the Middle East right there. There's the Ammaradi and now Sauty model of pursuing modernization and moderation. Uh, you know, we want to we want to put it for you mean on prosperity, you want to actually, frankly, be more like the West. And then there's the Iranian and Katari model of sponsoring terrorism and destabilizing the region. But unlike Iran, the United States does not treat Qatar like the pariah. It should.
I feel like Qatar has been a destructive force in the world. It is a state sponsor of Hamas, which committed the deadliest day, you know, October seventh, the deadliest day for juic since the Holocaust. So I feel like
¶ Republicans would impeach Joe Biden if he had accepted a plane
there should be a re examination of our relationship with Qatar and the ties that the Trump administration has to Qatar or Corus Bohlan.
I mean, I look not to be super cynical here, but I'm going to be for a second. So if Joe Biden accepted an airplane from Qatar, what do you think the Republican response would be among your congressional colleagues.
If if Joe Biden were promoting his personal mean coin, or selling access to the White House to the two hundred and twenty eighes bidders, or receiving two billion dollars in foreign deposits in exchange for his personal stable coin, or we're accepting a four hundred million dollar palace in the sky. The Republicans would be pursuing his impeachment.
By the way, would that be outrageous that they were in your mind.
They would be grounds for doing so?
Yeah, it is, you know this is.
Or even if Joe Biden, we're imposing a global tariff regime.
Yes, I mean the out going to Congress without without Congression support powers of Congress.
The organizing principle of our politics is no longer policy, it's personality. Like Donald Trump has completely reversed the diet ideological dynamics of the two parties. He has made Republicans the party of protectionism and price controls. I've heard Democrats quoting Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman while critiquing Donald Trump's tariff policy. It's the world has been inverted.
There's like a there's but now there's small ways that he's taken advantage of this that might be in net positive. He's going to cut a deal with Iron that Joe Biden. He's literally the same deal that Barack Obama cut. It's like us MCA versus NAFTA. Right, He's just going to change the name. I cut the deal. So it's different Syria. I'm not sure a democratic president would have any Republican support for doing what he did with Syria this week, am I am I being overly cynical here.
I think if Biden had done it, there would have been Look, if Biden had given the speech that Trump gave in told Arabia, they would have been the same outreage against Biden that we saw against Obama when he delivered his speech in the Middle East.
Which also was very similar that Cairo, strikingly some ways thematically saying hey, look, this is a different culture, these are different you know, we've got to be careful when we impose. And yeah, it was a it was deemed by some unpatriotic, Unamerican.
Or going on an apology tour, right, the apology tour.
Yes, although it sounds like that this would be that he's basically apologizing to our allies in the MIT least. What should that teach us about where we're headed with
¶ Should Democrats wield power like Trump when they're in charge?
our politics? And because I sit here, look, eighty five percent of what he's doing I think is very damaging. But then there's that fifteen percent, Well, look it is I think this is healthy that we're trying to move to a different place with Iran. It's healthy that we're trying trying to your reward, Seria. Look, we had a policy of getting rid of a sad this guy got
rid of him. Let's give him a chance, right, So what does that tell you about maybe how Democrats ought to use power when they're in charge.
You know, full all, aren't you perfections?
You know?
The Democratic Party, he continues to be a normal political party, like we are a wide we're an ideologically very coalition and ranging the squad to the blue deb dogs. The Republican Party is no longer a normal political party. It's become a cult to personality around Donald Trump. I mean, he is a singular phenomenon in American history. I'm aware of no political figure who has had as much control over political party as Donald Trump has had over the Republican Party. I mean, it's close.
FDR came close, but that was also he at the time that the era on his side, if you will, enough, it was a crisis. But but but then there were certain Democrats he didn't have control over.
It just feels like the Republican politics has become a religion and the devotion to Donald Trump has a religious quality to it.
Yeah, no, it does. So let's talk about the Democrats. What should be the first of all? Do you do
¶ Democrats should have spoken out sooner about Biden's decline
you think Rocanna said that it's time for Democrats to admit we were wrong about Biden. We should have said something sooner. Where are you on the Biden question?
No course, sure. I mean I think there's no point in denying that we made a great mistake in thinking that Biden was remotely capable of running again. So that was a mistake that we made as a party and we should own up to it. I feel like we should level with people, right.
I take your point. There is there someone to blame outside of Joe Biden? Or is this a Joe Biden issue?
I think it's principally Joe Biden and his team. And keep in mind, you know, one thing I noticed about Donald Trump is that he's extremely accessible to even the most rank and file Republicans in the House. Joe Biden was the exact opposite. He rarely met with members of Congress, particularly in the House. Maybe his first year he had meetings, but he was insulated by his staff.
And do you have a meeting with him? Did you how many times did you have pace.
I met with him once or two. I was part of a small group of people who met with him early on in his first year, but then he became less and less accessible over time.
No, it wasn't just members of Congress. Apparently it was the cabinet as well as far as credibility, I mean, do you think do you think your leadership because both Akim Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer have just steered clear of this now. I've been critical. I think they should have sounded the alarm sooner as as leaders of the party at the time, but they've not wanted to confront this question at the moment. And I get it. On one hand, it's like, hey, let's not that's the past. We need
to deal with what we have now. But what posture do you think they should be taken?
I feel like the party collectively shouldmit that we made a mistake and we're paying a price in the form of a second Donald Trump presidency, which is far worse than even his first. And keep in mind, and look, I ultimately felt we lost because of inflation and to a lesser extent, immigration, the migrant crisis. But keep in mind the shift of two hundred and fifty thousand votes in the industrial Midwest could have handed the election to
Kamala Harris. So maybe if we had an open primary, maybe, if we had a stronger candidate, Maybe if Joe Biden has stepped down earlier, the result of the twenty twenty four election could have been different. And for those reasons, we should acknowledge that we made a terrible mistake and not frushing Biden to seek a second term.
When you see these polls where Democrats are sour on the Democratic Party right, where they have an unfavorable view of the party at the moment, and there's this brand issue, do you think the party has an ideological issue? Is this a generational issue? What do you see as the problems that should be addressed right now?
Look, I do feel we're well positioned to win in twenty twenty six, but it has more to do with Donald Trump's weakness than it does with our strength. I mean, he's self destructing in real time. But I feel like we should know if there are I do sense to be blind among rank and file Democrats, widespread dissatisfaction, and we should take that to heart and we should do our best to improve and I sense when I'm meeting
with constituents is a real hunger for more information. People want to know, like what is happening, what a we as Democrats doing to resist Donald Trump? And there's a hunger for a qual to action. People want to be part of something. People want to belong to something greater than themselves. And I feel like, as a party, it's not enough for us to stand against Donald Trump. We have to stand for something. We have to put forward a vision that will inspire not only our base but
the country. Nu Gingridge had the contract with America in the nineteen nineties. You know, maybe we should have our own contract with America. Donald Trump has Project twenty twenty five. We ought to have Project twenty twenty nine. So I
¶ How can the Democrats project strength as a party?
think my constructive self criticism of my party is that we should do more to put forward an affirmative vision for moving the country forward.
Bill Clinton likes to say wrong and strong will always defeat weak and right, and the point being that there's a strength. You know, sometimes projecting strength can overcome people not liking some of your ideas, and it does. The thing that struck me about one survey I saw recently to give a word or phrase, and among Democrats they kept saying weak. So what this tells me some people are going to interpret and say, oh, the Democrats need to move left or the Democrats need to move right.
I'm not sure it's a left right issue. I think it is a strength issue. But you know that's sometimes that's eye of the beholder stuff.
Well, I do feel like if you swing the pencil too far to the left, you were all any most Americans as we did on immigration, and so I do feel like ideology does matter, but but it's it's a necessary but insufficient condition. Like we need to have compelling messengers on the party, and we need to offer a compelling visual.
Is it? Are you a thousand flowers bloom? Right? Now,
¶ Democrats need to let the cream rise to the top
get everybody into the arena and let's see. Let let's see who rises or is there? Do you want to see a little more structure to this, fewer people trying to determine the future of the party.
What did Will Rod What did Will Rogers say, I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat. I don't know. Let the let the cream rise, Let there be a free marketplace of debate. And you know that's what we were lacking in twenty twenty four is it was a sense that the political establishment had put its thumb on the scale in favor of one cant.
Don't you feel like it's three nominees in a row. Actually, when you look at the sixteen, twenty and twenty four, do you really think Democrat primary voters feel like they had to say?
You know, in British politics, the race for prime minister plays out in a matter of weeks. Our presidential primary plays out over the course of a year or more. But I feel like it's a character building experience. I mean, if you met think about I remember Barack Obama was the first president I voted for her, and I felt like at the end of the process he was a far better candidate. Oh and he was in the beginning.
True, I'm a big defender of the long campaign. I
¶ Campaigning makes candidates sharper
know I'm a total polar opposite on this. I think the long campaign, by the time you actually become president, it's almost feels easier than the slog I mean, you know, the decisions are weightier, don't get me wrong, right deciding how much TV should we put on in Wisconsin or what trips, But the grueling punishment, the David Aswell calls it an MRI for the soul running for president, which I believe in. So it's you think the lung campaign.
Actually, I see it as a character building experience. And it could have been the case that it would have resulted in Vice President Harris as the nominee, but she would have been a better and stronger nominee because of the process. That the process matters as much as the substance, and in fact, it improves the substance the.
Ten thousand hour effect, right, welcome Gladwell's ten thousand hours. You campaign for two years. You've done your ten thousand hours of stupid interviews with people like me, you know, glad handing whatever it is, the roundtables, and you sort
¶ Why aren't you running for NYC mayor?
of you learn, you just figure it out. No, it's an interesting point. Why aren't you running for New York City mayors? How many members I could tell you this, I will just I'm gonna I'm gonna make you blush here. I got a lot of friends and family in New York City and they're very disappointed you're not running.
Them. How do I answer your question without diminishing the role of mayor? I have a few thoughts. First, it's probably Michael Blomberg has described it as the best job I've heard him described it as the best job you ever had.
But I'd argue it's one of the five most powerful elected positions in the globe.
I feel is second. It is the second most demanding executive position in America, second only to the presidency and the New York City Press Corps is notoriously aggressive and ruthless, but I feel the prestige of the position exceeds the actual power The mayor cannot.
Well, you are on the council, you would know this better than most.
So explain that cannot install speak cameras without the approval of the state legislature. That the most important questions on matters of housing and healthcare and public safety are often decided at the state level by the state legislature and by the governor. And so I just feel the state has a much greater systemic impact in advancing the issues that I care about. And then one more point. You know, historically the mayor's office has been a graveyard where a
political careers go to die. Uh So, if I were looking to retire prematurely, then that would be the right place for me.
To go. I guess the reason why. I think some of my well connected friends they see you as somebody that might be able to bring the city together, and they're just nervous about having a retread politician. You know,
¶ Andrew Cuomo is a great "builder"
they don't love the choice here make them feel better.
Uh, look, I I'm going to vote for Andrew Cravoo and and I'm gonna you know, share, share, share what I respect about the debtor. And I'm sure you've been following there's a new movement on on the left known as the Abundance. Who've been mm hmm and and it's you know, it's based on a recognition that America is no longer a nation of builders. We've become a nation of bureaucrats. And to his credit, Andrew Cromo was one of the few executives in the twenty first century who
was a genuinely great builder. Laguardier Airport, moyni Hen Train Hall, Mario Cuomo Bridge. You know, that's a rarity. You know, it was once common in the early twentieth century. But you know, he's one of the few executives who have proven ability to execute on grand infrastructure projects. And so that to me represents Governor Cloma at his best, and that's why I would vote for him, because I see him as the most experience of everyone in the field.
Does he need to do more on the on sort of acknowledging the character flaws?
I feel I think we all benefit from acknowledging our failings. I think when you level with people and say I made mistakes and I have failings, people appreciate him.
I have resistance to that tone. I've not heard that tone from him.
There is something to be set for humility and acknowledging your own fallibility. That's just human. People want their elected officials to be vulnerable and authentic and humble and acknowledge and like them.
It's a representative democracy.
It will all work in progress, right. You know, I've made decisions that I regret, but you live and you learn.
So it sounds like to me you've made the case that if you want to make life better in New
¶ Will you run for governor in 2026?
York City, the best place for you to do that's an Albany and you've been floated. They've been rumored about that, So let me ask you directly. You know, is that something you've thought about for twenty six or not yet.
I'm exploring a run for governor. I will make a final decision in the summer after the mayor's race. I'll conduct polling. But but if you ask me what would I prefer? Would I prefer to be one of four hundred and thirty five or one of five hundred and thirty five in Congress, or an executive with a uni
¶ How would you address the housing crisis in New York?
lateral domain of action. I would prefer to be an executive because you could have a far greater impact in improving people's lowed.
Let's talk about housing. This is a passion of yours. You grew up in public housing, you see, you know housing is essential. We have a housing crisis in this country. And it's not just in New York, it's everywhere. You know. It's the biggest argument in the county that I live in Arlington County, how are we going to get more housing?
And it's you know, ymbi's versus nimbi's and all of that. Right, what do you think you could do as governor of New York to supercharge the availability and the affordability of housing for everyday New Yorkers?
And so at the core of the affordability crisis is a gap between supply and demand. Like the demand for affordable housing for exceeds the supply. There's a need for both deeper housing subsidy and greer housing supply. So we have to expand the supply of housing so that we can meet the demand. But we also have to ensure that the housing we do create is affordable to the lowest income families. One of the criticisms of affordable housing in New York is that much of the affordable housing
we create is unaffordable to the poorest New Yorkers. And so I'm in favor of a concept known as housing vultures. Fall like every family either who's homeless or struggling with with housing and security should have access to a voucher which ensures that you pay no more than thirty percent of your income towards your rent. Universalizing access to vultures would radically reduce the amount of homelessness and housing and security in American society. So that's one piece. But second,
we have to expand housing supply. I do feel are in public review process. Our environmental review process is so cumbersome that it stifles affordable housing creation in blue cities and blue states like New York and those processes have to be reformed so that we can build, We can re establish our country as a nation of builders.
So your campaign for governorce, if it happens, housing I know, is going to be in the top of that list. What else is on on the top of your agenda that the voter's going to think? No, if you do run the focus of your campaign.
Lower cost, lower crime rates.
That simple. And you feel, as governor, how do you impact the crime right? As governor?
Well, public safety policy is ultimately set at the state level, and I would submit to you New York has the
¶ Addressing crime in New York
most dysfunctional criminal justice system in the country. We have a practice of releasing repeat violent offenders, which has led to a cycle of recidivism. So since twenty nineteen, there's been a one hundred and fifty percent rise in the number of repeat offenders for felony assaults, more than eighty percent for robberies, more than sixty percent for burglaries and shoplifting, more than one hundred percent for grand larcity auto, more
than seventy percent for grand larsity. And I'll cite one example. There was a gentleman by the name of a man by the name of Jamar Banks who stabbed to people on New Year's Day, and he had fifty four priors, including an attempt shooting, a murder, multiple stabbings, multiple acts of domestic violence. And despite his extensive criminal history, he was released back onto the streets, where he proceeded to commit more violence against more innocent New Yorkers. And here's
the problem. New York is the only state in the country that prohibits judges from considering the public safety risks of repeat violent offenders. You can only consider flight risks and the question of whether judges should have the authority to consider public safety risk. If I were to present that question to the people of New York in the form of referendum, it would be an eighty twenty issue. Eighty percent of New Yorkers would vote for it. Why change?
Is this a legislative legislative It's going to take legislation, yes.
But the trouble with City Hall, the trouble with City Hall, Albany and Washington d C. Is that common sense has become dangerously income. And one of the criticisms that I have of my own party is that there are times when when more responsive to special interest groups than we are to everyday people on the ground, particularly on issues of public safety.
On if Governor Holcal is there anything she could do to convince you not to challenge her?
I mean, if she becomes an effective governor, then certainly that could persuade me to.
Is there an issue you could see if she took up it would be persuasive or unlikely?
At this point, the issue, it's not a failure of conception, it's a failure of execution. Like, there are issues in which I agree with the governor, but I just feel like she's fundamentally and effective at governing the state. And I'll be blunt, I'm not aware of any New Yorker who's like a passionate Kathy hocal supporter, Like when when
¶ New York's budget has increased, the quality of services hasn't
Andrew Coromo was governor, he had a deep reservoir support.
Hundred percent and up to some people.
Yeah, I'm aware of no one who's like a passionate champion of Kathy Hochl. She simply benefits from the power of incumbency. And but look, the broken system is deeper than one governor, and it long predates the incumbent governor. You know, in twenty fifteen, New York had a one hundred and forty two billion dollar budget twenty twenty four
two hundred and fifty four billion dollar budget. I am not aware of a single New York who has seen a one hundred and ten billion dollar improvement in the delivery of state services.
So, you know, your challenge to her. It's not easy to say, are you challenging her from the left or the right? You're not. Really, It's not really an ideological challenge. If you end up doing this, this is really more of a competency.
I feel like transcend those I feel like I transcend those categories.
Well, no, it's why, it's why so many of my friends in New York wish you would be the next mayor because of that, the idea that you're not easily pigeonholed and that you have a broader, a broader perspective.
Some would think of my advocacy for public safety as challenging from the right. I would disagar that characterization because I feel like, yeah.
But you you know that that's how it'll look as far as the polling is concerned.
Right, we're concerned about affordability. I mean, that's argued, you know, that could be argued that that's a challenge from the left. I mean, I'm I'm someone, for example, who believes that our public utilities, particularly our gas and electric utilities, should be owned by the pension files so that people pay
¶ Public ownership of utilities would lower costs for New Yorkers
a far lower rate. I mean, every every year my constituents have seen double digit increases.
The government pension fund should be should own the elect Yeah, that's an interesting.
Because I don't want to get too complicated.
But no, no, no, no, but I find this a fascinating idea.
Go. Yeah, So the Public Service Commission regulates utilities like con Edison, and the trouble with the Public Service Commission, which is ultimately accountable to the governor, is that it authorizes a rate of return that's far above the actual cost of capital, the actual cost that you would need to operate the utility. And I'm convinced if those utilities were owned by pension funds, which would which would demand
lower returns than shareholders because their patient capital. Like if you tell them we guarantee you six percent returns for the next fifty years, they're happy with six percent. They don't need nine percent, they don't need ten percent. So I'm convinced that public ownership of these utilities to the pension funds would actually lower cost utility cost for everyday New Yorker's.
I'll tell you I had not heard an idea like that. That makes it especially when you think about the cost of pensions and all of this. It is, it's a it's an to me, that's a that's an interesting idea to sort of solve two problems, if you will.
But is that left wing or right wing? You could argue that's an attack from the left, but I just think that's common sentence. It's good policy.
No, you could sit here, I could make a right wing argument against it or left wing argument against it right which is the beauty of the idea. Sometimes sometimes
¶ Progressives have overprioritized ideological purity over results
you just have good ideas or bad ideas. You know, it's okay to be a technocrat. And I say that with with I mean Michael Bloomberg problem.
My core criticism of the progressive is that it's become more concerned with ideological purity and with the actual functioning of government. And what I appreciate about the Abundance movement is that it sends the message, no competence matters, the functioning of government matters.
This is what concerned It's funny you say that's about the progressive. But this is what concerns me about the reactionary nature of what we've the so called successful rise of Trump, and that there are folks on the left that look at what MAGA was successful, it was able to do, and they see that as a blueprint.
It's the wrong lesson. Yeah, the I feel the American people have a pattern of punishing incompetence. When George W. Bush catastrophically mismanaged the response to Katrina, he never recovered, Right When when when Joe Biden sloppily with true from Afghanistan, he never recovered, you know when?
I don't know if Trump's going to recover. Yeah, I don't think that's recovering from this.
When he missed, I would argue, but for the mismanagement of COVID, Trump would have been re elected to a second Yeah, butt for the mismanagement of the migrant crisis as well as inflation, a Democrat would be in the White House. So competence matters. And the people ask me, you know, how should we we structure the Democratic Party? And for me, the key to restructuring the Democratic Party is restructuring democratic governance. Good governance is good politics, Delivering is good politics.
I've held you longer than I promised your staff that I would, so uh, not a bad way to end competence. That is, I always say I'm not people like to understand my politics, and I'm always like, I'm just who's going to get stuff done? Excuse my language, right, Who's just going to get stuff done? That that's kind that's sort of in the rational middle, the folks that live between the thirty five yard lines.
So I'm on that scene.
So it is. It is good to see are you are you? Are you fired up about the Knicks. By the time this airs will know whether they didn't blow it in Game six or not. I hope they don't. It's fun to I hate rooting for New York teams. It's fun to root for this next team.
No, it's it's long overdue. And I know my chief of staff is fanatical about the next He is even more excited than I am.
Is Well, yeah, Jalen Brunson could maybe be the next mayor of New York City if things go right. Richie Torres, congressman from the Bronx, good to see it, Thank you well.
¶ Chuck's thoughts on interview with Ritchie Torres
I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Richie Torres, how about that he does not think much of Kathy Hokeel he is and also believes there is more power to fix New York City as governor of New York than it is to be mayor of New York, which I think introduces an interesting set of questions for Andrew Cuomo, who is the front runner to be the next mayor of New York City. How often is he going to say certain things he can't deal with because he's got a it's it's up to the it's up to the
democratic governor. So a fascinating set of analysis there from Richie Torres. I think that is somebody to pay attention to. And if he she does challenge her in a primary,
¶ If Torres faces Hochul 1 on 1 he could beat her
you know the problem. The one thing she could benefit from is if there's multiple candidates in her former lieutenant governor's challenge, possibly she could end up having two or three primary challengers, which would guarantee her renomination. The question is going to be can she win a one on one if it ever gets down to being a one on one? And I think with the anger that is out there among Democrats, I think incumbent democrats in general are all going to be have targets on their back
from voters. I think you're going to have to prove to voters that you're willing to go in a different direction, that you're willing not to sort of to sort of be a part of whatever this democratic establishment has been the last decade. So being an incumbent politician is going to be tough. I think a tougher road in Democratic primaries than maybe some incumbents are prepared, are prepared to
¶ Rumors that Kamala Harris could run for governor of California
believe in. Speaking of that, it does look like and you heard it from Rocanna. I love the fact that podcast listeners heard it here before CNN reported it, which was Rocanna said that she's been doing. The stuff she's been doing in California are what candidates for governor do, meaning she was going to events that only statewide candidates go to. Essentially, what Rocanna was saying me, the guy is thinking about running for president. It's not going to
those events. But she is now. Of course, news circulating that she appears to be leaning more towards running for governor of California and twenty six and obviously if she makes that decision, she's taking herself out of the presidential sweepstakes in twenty twenty eight. You've heard me say this before,
¶ CA governor race will be tough for Harris
but for those that haven't heard this, I think this is going to be a tougher campaign for her than she realizes. And if she does run, she is going to that the shadow, the five o'clock shadow that is Richard Nixon, is going to be hovering over her. Richard Nixon loses a close race as a sitting vice president for the presidency in nineteen sixty, decides to go home to California run for governor, and he loses to Jerry
Brown's father Pat Brown. It was after the infamous you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore, as he yelled at the press Corps after losing in sixty two. That's where that quote came from. And then he spent the next six years preparing to see if he could come back and win the presidency in sixty eight, which of course he did. I do think there are some lessons here for Harris in the Nixon campaign. I think a lot of voters saw Nixon in sixty two. Is
somebody that he was running for governor as a consolation prize. Well, Kamala Harris, if she's running for governor in twenty six has to explain she never planned on being available to run for governor twenty six. After all, I don't think anybody believes that she was going to run for governor of California in twenty six as the sitting president, So it's a consolation prize. She also is going to have to It's pretty clear, and it's going to be interesting.
Later this week, you're going to hear an interview that I conducted about last week with another candidate for governor, a wealthy developer who was close to Harry Reid for a long time named Steve Klueback. And Steve Kluebeck is quite the personality. And look, I don't want to take away from the interview itself, but when you hear it, you may be one part entertained, in one part scratching your head, and one part liking what you hear, in
one part a little uncomfortable. The point is is that he's a big personality, and he is some he's not a big fan of Kamala Harris, and he will not will not hold back, and I think that that's going to be she is going the minute she gets in, there's gonna be a whole bunch of people who are going to target her in a negative way in all sorts of directions. Her connection to Biden is going to be an issue. What did she see? What didn't she see?
Why didn't she say something? Perhaps she's going to take heat for not for the campaign that she ran for president. I think for the most part, she ran a pretty good campaign for president given the situation she was in. But she's got an answer for the fact that she didn't sound the alarm that sooner about Joe Biden that she you know, You've even had some some on the right say how come she didn't push to invoke the
twenty fifth Amendment and things like that. So while I think that's a bit extreme, she still has to provide an answer that isn't snarky and that isn't defensive, and that is believable. So look, I'm I'm a skeptic. On one hand. Look, if she's in the top two, she's
probably the next governor. But I think this is an awfully risky decision because what's interesting if she decided not to run in twenty six for any office and chose not to run in twenty eight for any office, I think she could have sort of preserved herself to possibly
¶ If Harris loses governor race, her political career is over
run for governor in twenty thirty or run for president in twenty thirty two. But she's putting herself in a situation where she loses a governorship in twenty six and she can't get and she can't win that race, her political career is over. There's no comment back from that. Not in this era. Maybe Richard Dixon could pull it off back in an era of three television channel and
no internet, no communications system like we have today. So I will say this, I think it's an awfully risky decision, and I just don't know if I'd be making a decision like this for an office I hadn't thought about running for before. I mean, that's a real question I have for her. Have you thought about being governor? When? When? You know? When was when was the first time you
ever thought about being governor of California? Did it only start after you lost the presidents Anyway, it's a it's going to be interesting to watch and it certainly will become one of the premier races that national media covers if she does indeed run. All Right, that's the end of my Monday, big kind of praise my Gnats. They swept the Orioles and the Big Beltway Series. I think the Oriols firing their manager after Game one tells you everything you need to know about the state of the Orioles.
But man paging my friend David Rubinstein, a bunch of US NATS fans were upset. David Rubinstein is this wealthy industrialist. He's the owner of the Orioles. He's also the guy that Donald Trump fired from the Kennedy Center. I will just tell you a lot of US NATS fans were disappointed and when he chose to buy the Orioles, when I was hoping he'd be the person to buy the Gnats, but he's a Baltimore native and he want to. He's going to become a reviled owner pretty quickly. Forget Donald
Trump not being his biggest fan. He's going to have the entire Orioles fan base angry with him because before he was owner, they were winning one hundred games and ninety one games. Since he's become owner, they didn't have any big free agent signings. In fact, they lost a big free agent in Corbyn Burns, and now they have a worse und I'll tell you this. I never thought they'd have a worse record than the Nats at this point in the season, but they do. This was supposed
to be an Oriols team on the rise. They've got some amazing young talent. So kudos to my Gnats, my man James Wood, Dylan Cruz even got a Homer was Homer have it on Sunday? So look, if I can't take this opportunity to use my own podcast to praise the Gnats, and what the hell do I have my own podcast for, right, So with that, I'll take the twenty four hour break of sorts and I'll talk to you the next time we upload to you again. M