Zohran's New, Harsh Tone Rattles Moderate Democrats; Trump Slams Democrats on Shutdown

Summary

2WAY Morning Meeting: Zohran's New, Harsh Tone Rattles Moderate Democrats; Trump Slams Democrats on Shutdown

Date: November 6, 2025
Hosts: Mark Halperin (C), Sean Spicer (D), Stephen Olikara (B, guest host; Democratic strategist; former WI Senate candidate, Bridge Entertainment Labs & Schwarzenegger Institute)
Key Guests: Listener call-ins, including David (H), Stacy (I), Blake (J)
Main Theme: Post-election analysis, the government shutdown standoff, cost-of-living politics, new confrontational progressive leadership, and internal party tensions over Israel, the filibuster, and affordability.

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the aftermath of the 2025 election: what Nancy Pelosi’s retirement signals, how Trump's approach to the shutdown and messaging on affordability aligns or conflicts with the real economic concerns of Americans, the Supreme Court’s pending ruling on tariffs, and the new confrontational posture of left-progressive leaders like Zohran Mamdani. The hosts and guests dissect these topics with plenty of behind-the-scenes insight, direct analysis, and invited listener perspectives.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Pelosi’s Impending Retirement and Its Fallout (07:44–10:27)

• Pelosi’s departure is seen as a seismic event for Democrats in the House; her behind-the-scenes influence and fundraising abilities have been unmatched.
  • “She ruled that place within... down to the millimeter.” – Sean Spicer [09:12]
• Leadership vacuum: Questions about whether Hakeem Jeffries can step fully into her shoes.
• Republican fundraising: Pelosi has long been a powerful “villain” for GOP fundraising, but “now... it’ll switch to Mandami.” – Spicer [09:12]

Trump Administration Announcements: Weight Loss/Ozempic Drugs (11:01–13:35)

• White House Announcement: Trump is expected to announce a lowering of prices for weight-loss drugs, with implications for Medicare/Medicaid and VA schedules.
  • “Millions and millions of Americans are paying anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500… To get this down to 149 is a big, big deal.” – Spicer [12:38]
• Debate over medical efficacy—Mark expresses skepticism about these drugs but agrees lowering prices is good policy.

The Affordability Imperative & Election Post-Mortem (14:58–22:39)

• Both parties are being pushed to focus on cost of living. Post-election autopsies show winning campaigns hammered home “affordability” over social issues.
  • “Why did Zohran Mandani do so well last night? He relentlessly focused on affordability.” – James Blair, Trump advisor [15:30]
• Trump’s answer to affordability concerns is mixed and sometimes disconnected from voter experiences:
  • “Beef, we have to get down… We’ve got prices way down... when energy goes down, everything comes down.” – Trump [16:35]
• Panel notes Democrats also struggle to present a credible affordability agenda, risking alienation if they only critique Trump without alternative proposals.
  • “What people are saying right now is they’re not feeling it enough yet. That was a driving force..." – Olikara [20:16]
• Republican messaging failure: Repeated calls for better messaging on GOP "wins" regarding affordability and healthcare costs.

Current Shutdown Dynamics (22:39–29:45)

• Senate Democrats are divided between striking a deal and holding out ("we’re winning the PR battle"), but looming air travel delays (due to staffing shortages) could force their hand.
• Republicans are gridlocked over the duration and structure of a continuing resolution.
  • “Everyone agrees they want to go to lunch. No one agrees where.” – Spicer [26:23]
• Trump's role: Speculation about whether he can or will break the deadlock; most think he remains durable politically despite negative polling.

The Filibuster: Listener Call and Strategic Scenarios (44:51–54:05)

• Listener David proposes an intriguing tactical fix: temporarily nuke the filibuster to pass critical funding and then immediately restore it.
  • “Why not... get rid of it today and put it back in tomorrow?” – David [47:48]
• Panelists largely supportive of creative filibuster reforms but warn of slippery slope consequences.
  • “Once you start going down this slope... I think a lot of them [Democrats] would do it, not because they believe it but because they have to.” – Spicer [48:55]

Supreme Court: Tariffs, Executive vs. Congressional Authority (32:20–35:31)

• Anticipation over how swiftly and how broadly the Supreme Court will rule on Trump's tariffs.
• Sean Spicer: Court likely to rule Congress must have authority over taxation/tariffs, perhaps splitting the baby on certain goods or emergencies.
  • “Trade is a constitutional congressional authority... I do think they will split the baby.” [32:53]

The Mamdani Mystery: Progressives’ Hard Turn (35:31–39:24)

• Newly elected NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani's more aggressive progressive rhetoric is rattling moderates.
  • NYT headline: “Emboldened Mamdani Sheds Conciliatory Tone Fresh from Stunning Victories.”
• Trump, perhaps surprisingly, adopts a measured, non-combative response:
  • “He has to be a little respectful of Washington, because if he’s not, he doesn’t have a chance of succeeding. And I want to make him succeed. I want to make the city succeed.” – Trump [37:03]

Israel/Antisemitism Debate within Parties (40:21–43:55; 57:08–60:55)

• The Heritage Foundation controversy over internal dissension seen as mostly an internal GOP matter.
  • “More of a made up controversy…” – Spicer [41:08]
• Panel splits distinction between classic support for Israel (older right) and a growing non-interventionist, America-only streak (younger right/Marjorie Taylor Greene).
  • “What Marjorie’s issue isn’t... She’s saying we shouldn’t be—do. That’s kind of where they are on Ukraine too.” – Spicer [43:00]
• Caller Blake offers historical/theological context for the generational divide in Republican support for Israel, citing the Scofield Study Bible’s impact.
• Concerns over left antisemitism acknowledged as a growing issue among left youth/progressives.

Healthcare Headaches: Real-Life Voter Frustration (54:11–60:30)

• Stacy (Florida caller) shares her struggles with teacher family health insurance and Obamacare:
  • “I could get a policy… that was cheaper than being on [my husband’s] health insurance… Ever since Obamacare, it consistently has gone up, and it is so expensive.” [54:29–57:08]
• Consensus: the ACA’s “unaffordability” is a problem—Democrats broke promises; system now depends on ever-costlier subsidies.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “She ruled that place within... down to the millimeter. So from that standpoint, I think she leaves a vacuum because Hakeem Jeffries [still] takes his cues from her.”
  — Sean Spicer on Pelosi’s shadow [09:12]
• “Why did Zoran Mandani do so well last night? He relentlessly focused on affordability.”
  — James Blair, Trump advisor [15:30]
• “I think the biggest problem is Republicans don’t talk about it. They don’t talk about the word affordability. And the Democrats lie about it.”
  — Trump, on why voters aren’t feeling economic progress [16:58]
• “You can’t force someone to believe something in their gut… They either think things are cheaper, [or] they don’t.”
  — Sean Spicer [21:04]
• “Everyone agrees they want to go to lunch. No one agrees where. And that’s the problem.”
  — Spicer, on shutdown deal dynamics [26:23]
• “Why not... get rid of [the filibuster] today and put it back in tomorrow?”
  — Listener David [47:48]
• “We created, not we—The Democrats created a system and now…and promised us that we’d keep our doctor, that we could keep our plan, that affordability would be…none of it came true.”
  — Spicer, on the failings of the ACA [60:51]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 07:44: Pelosi’s retirement implications
• 11:01: Trump’s announcement on drug pricing
• 14:58–21:04: The post-election affordability debate; campaign autopsies
• 22:39–27:38: Shutdown standoff, Democratic and Republican dynamics
• 32:20–35:31: Supreme Court hearing on tariffs/presidential powers
• 35:31–39:24: The Mamdani ‘mystery’ and Trump’s response
• 40:21–43:55: Heritage Foundation, Israel, and internal party controversies
• 44:51–54:05: Filibuster debate, listener David’s “nuke it and restore it” idea
• 54:11–60:30: Healthcare frustrations, listener Stacy’s story
• 57:08–60:55: Shifting religious bases for GOP Israel policy (listener Blake)
• 61:16–62:26: Upcoming programming, reflections, and episode wrap

---

Tone and Flow

The discussion is brisk, slightly irreverent, and filled with insider anecdotes and sharp political analysis. Hosts avoid hyperbole, aiming instead for candid, clear-eyed breakdowns of D.C. realities. Listener participation is respected and informs much of the program’s energy.

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• Affordability is the rare true cross-partisan message post-election, but neither party is telling/winning the story convincingly with the public yet.
• Hard-charging progressive voices like Mamdani are gaining leverage—a challenge for moderate Democrats, and shifting the GOP’s go-to villains.
• Trump remains a political force, but “electoral gravity” may finally be catching up with him.
• Shutdown negotiations remain bogged down in tactical minutiae and likely will only break with tangible voter pain—e.g., mass air travel disruptions.
• Healthcare and insurance affordability is a concrete pain point, with both parties’ solutions leaving many feeling stranded.
• The filibuster’s fate is increasingly up for grabs, with even creative tactical fixes considered openly.
• Debates over Israel and anti-Semitism now split both parties internally, reflecting deeper generational and ideological change.

---

For anyone who missed the live show, this episode provides an essential roadmap for understanding this week’s biggest political stories, what’s coming next, and where the establishment is feeling rattled on both sides of the aisle.

Transcript

[A]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams. Yay. BJ Novak.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

Kathy Bates. Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless, obsessive, compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[C]

This is it.

[B]

The world as you know it is over.

[D]

Completely done. It's not about to be over.

[B]

It's over.

[D]

Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm. I was selling AI as a great thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong. There is a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in control. While others say that AI will usher.

[B]

In unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that.

[D]

It'S going to be the most important.

[B]

Invention that humanity will ever make.

[C]

This really will be a world of abundance.

[B]

And among these fears and these fantasies.

[D]

We seek the story of our future.

[B]

Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[C]

Welcome to the morning meeting. This is two way, and it's November 6th, two days after election Day. Borrow the line from the great John McCain. Everybody's had a chance to speak, but not everybody's had a chance to speak about everything. So we'll continue to talk about the election. We're going to talk about the shutdown, the president's brand and polling numbers, the Supreme Court, and what I call the Mamdani mystery. We'll talk about that, all of that today with Sean. And of course, you may have noticed if you're not listening to the podcast version, but watching Dan is off today. Stephen Alcari is here. Stephen, welcome in. Stephen's a regular on two way, including on two Way tonight. This is your inaugural appearance on this program, correct?

[B]

First time. Very honored. I'm still trying to get that fashionable two way swag that you're both usually wearing, so I need to get on that.

[C]

Yeah, well, we are, of course, close thank you for noticing. Closely connected to our good friends at Fairway and Green. And Sean, tell us what you're wearing today.

[D]

Actually, Mark, that's a great question. I made sure I didn't screw this one up. I'm wearing the buffalo merino long quarter zip sweater again. You can tell it's a light charcoal. I thought it was gray. Apparently, this is light charcoal. It happens to have the morning meeting logo there on the side. But, you know, I could have styled this with a beautiful fairway and green polo underneath. I chose a just a real comfortable T shirt showing you can casual it, you can make it a little more dressy. But that's the beautiful thing about all these products from Fairway and Green.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And Even though we're 2048 hours away from election day, the big sale, the special election sale, is still on. So go to Two Way TV Fairway and use the promo code. Elections 25. It's still 2025. Elections 25. 25% off site wide. Including all the.

[D]

It's five more than usual.

[C]

Yeah, five more, including all the great merch that like Sean's wearing that has our logos on it and our catchphrases, so.

[A]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis. Morris Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams. Yay, BJ Novak.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry Dogs run faster. Thank you, grandma, for turning me into a hopeless obsessive compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[C]

Do that. And again, if you're here on the platform and you want to be on part of the conversation, raise your hand, as many already have. But we'd love some new people, too. Never raised your hand before. Today's the day. Get in on the conversation. And if you're watching on x or on YouTube, Stephen, you ever put smack in the chat it seemed would be so unlike you?

[B]

I haven't yet, but I, you know, I know that's not the way here of two way.

[C]

Steve. One reason we love having Stephen on two Way is because he believes in Peace, love and understanding legit. Almost anytime I say to Stephen, hey, do you know a certain Republican? He says yes. And he doesn't say yes, I've hung them in effigy. He says, yes, I met them in a green room or I've worked on a project with them. Stephen, just tell people a little bit you ran for Senate in Wisconsin, where you're from. Just tell folks sort of what you do for a living now.

[B]

Yes, after running for Senate. And this is part of my long term mission in transforming our politics as being a bridge builder. And right now I'm focused on the role of political bridge building through entertainment and storytelling. I run an organization called Bridge Entertainment Labs. I launched a few years ago, and I'm a senior fellow at the Schwarzenegger Institute where I focus on political reform.

[C]

Awesome. Well, thank you for being here.

[D]

Can you do a Schwarzenegger impression?

[B]

I can. I'm probably not going to inaugurate it here, but.

[D]

Oh, no, no.

[C]

You should just, just give us one.

[D]

Literally, just a little.

[C]

No, just, just literally one word. Just say like pepper or, you know, or, or seance. Anything.

[B]

Well, I think the way you would say pepper is pepper.

[D]

That's not bad. That's good.

[B]

The main way that him and I bond is around terminating gerrymandering and terminating polarization. So that's, that's how we roll.

[C]

Awesome. Thank you again for being here. All right, quick word from another sponsor and then on to our daybook, Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth discount also amazing. 40% off. Yeah, you heard me. You might think. Adjust the sound on your monitor, whatever you're listening on. Yes, 40% off on everything on the site. Cozyearth.com promo code mark for 40% off. Black Friday has come early to Cozy Earth. And you can get the bedding, the blankets, sheets, towels, bubble cuddle, blanket, pants.

[D]

Everything we talked about I was going to order yesterday. Well, you talk. You were talking about the towels. It's a must have, right?

[C]

Towels are a must have. I didn't even have the towels.

[D]

I'm gonna get the towels.

[C]

Mine haven't come yet, but they're, they're apparently as soft as the bubble cuddle blanket. Hard to imagine getting out of a bath shower and having the opportunity.

[D]

I was on the site last night. They've got a waffle towel, so I think that's what I'm going with.

[C]

All right, anyway, 40 off. Go to cozyearth.com for full discount on all the products. I gotta find the catchphrase here because I haven't memorized it. Here it is. I love this catchphrase. It's new. Wrap the ones you love in luxury with cozier.

[D]

So go buy it mattered to me. I wanted to be wrapped in luxury.

[C]

Yeah, go buy some of your holiday presents right now. That would be my recommendation. All right, here we go. We're going to start with the election and how people are reacting. You can see there's cable. I don't know why we have that up, but it's interesting that Fox is leading with the shutdown. Joe and Mika, Nancy Pelosi breaking news announces she's not running for reelection. Well, that's not a surprise. But let's start there. Stephen, obviously we'll try to be forward looking here. She's been a hovering presence. What will her absence mean in the next Congress?

[B]

Well, it'll be significant because we know, as you said, she's been a hovering presence. Even despite stepping out of her leadership role, she's still very much a leader in the party, someone who exerts a lot of influence. So this is a big deal. I think we saw the tea leaves for a while that she was likely to not run for reelection. And there's some pretty serious people who've lined up to run in that district.

[C]

Yeah. For a long time people thought her daughter was going to replace her, but I think now she's got another candidate. Right. I vaguely remember she's got.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

I assume that means she, Alexander, didn't want to run. Right. Is that.

[C]

It's not Alexandra, It's a different Christine. Right. Yeah. Yeah, I assume I had sort of lost the threat up, but I remember reading she's got some other candidate. But Sean, again, just be a little forward looking, but obviously we should pay a little bit of homage. Incredible figure is this. Republicans rejoice that she'll be absent because she's been such a master strategist and the press loves her so much.

[D]

I mean, it's a combination. Look, she, I think when she was speaker, legit, you know, I used to hear stories about literally she would approve, you know, interns and staff assistants in the cloakroom. I mean she ruled that place within, I mean, down to the millimeter. So from that standpoint, I think she leaves a vacuum because Hakeem Jeffries, it sounds like, really still takes his cues from her. So one, it opens up a leadership vacuum because I think even people who might not like Hakeem, and I'll defer to Stephen on this, but I think realize that she's still there and it's like Mommy still home. We're not going to screw with this guy, right? So, one, it opens up a vacuum here. Two, on the Republican side, I have in my. You know, as you've seen, Mark, I'm a bit of a political hoarder. We used to sell at the rnc. Cufflinks, it said Fire Pelosi. We had banners outside, Fire Pelosi. She was a national figure. We literally raised boatloads of cash on her. And so I think there's a little bit of a void on that side, which is why you're gonna see a big pivot to Mandami. The Republicans need a boogeyman. And it's like she's gone officially. And now, you know, it's one thing, even when she was still sitting around, you could use her. Now she'll be gone. I think it'll switch to Mondami.

[C]

I wonder. Last word on this, then I'll run through the daybook. I wonder how much time she'll spend fundraising this cycle because she's an epic fundraiser and she could make a huge difference raising money for Democrats.

[D]

This is the test, right? Because she's always been there. So when you give money, and this is the one, I mean, a total lesson learned from Virginia. These guys spent three years in office and I don't know how they weren't. Didn't realize there was an election on the calendar.

[C]

But.

[D]

But Pelosi's always been effective because I think they knew she was there. The question is, does the left still want to give to her, knowing that she's not going to be there to, you know, have them reap the reward?

[C]

She'll have to do it on nostalgia. All right, the president scheduled today at 11. He's making an announcement in the Oval, open to the pool. It's been reported by several places that it has to do with making the prices for weight loss drugs lower. I find those drugs to be dangerous and damaging for people. I'm not sure that this is the best use of our government's time.

[D]

But then he's got just to be clear again, without going down a rabbit hole. It's much bigger than that. I mean, you look at the cost and accessibility of these drugs writ large for the general public. But then when you look at what it does in terms of long term, chronic stuff, and this is the other part of the announcement, is that it's putting, it appears to put not just the prices on the Trump RX for average, everyday folks, but it allows the Medicaid schedule to add it on There. What that does is two things. One, it means that it's going to be available for people 65 and older, a lot more than, than type 2 diabetes. But secondly, the VA, so many other people, so many other things drive their drug price and availability insurance companies off of the schedule that Medicare uses. So this sounds wonky, but at the end of the day this is, this is going to drive down cost. This is huge. We're talking millions and millions of Americans. We're not talking about just weight loss, but chronic diseases going forward, cardiovascular, things like this, long term, type 2 diabetes. So this, I actually think that this announcement and Bhatia made this point on my show the other night, like Trump is addressing drug prices. This is one of the biggest issues in affordability that American Americans face every day. So he's done it before on heart medication, some of these other drugs. These are drugs that millions and millions of Americans are dealing with every day. And for the Trump administration to take tackle it is huge. Here's the caveat, Mark. They did this last time they did it and then they said, okay, we put out a press release. This is the kind of thing that I know it may sound like a quick Oval Office thing. They should be going out there and singing this from the rooftops. Millions and millions of Americans are paying anywhere from 1,000 to $1,500 to get this down to 149 and is a big, big deal. And this is, we talk about the election. What the takeaway was, what, what everyone in the White House, what everyone on the left is saying, it's affordability, affordability, affordability. This is one where they should be taking five victory laps over and over and over again and getting the cabinet out there.

[C]

I agree with everything he said except I think these drugs are not sufficiently tested because I've seen people using them and it don't like, I don't like the impact they have. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about myself. I could use some weight loss, but I would never trust those drugs. But for all other drugs things, it's spectacular. Six o'.

[E]

Clock.

[C]

The President participates in a multilateral meeting with Central Asian countries. Not a great American first item to have on your schedule if you're trying to pivot. Back to America first and then dinner with the Central Asian country leaders. The meetings closed press. The dinner, 7pm Open press. Don't know what the Vice President's doing today. On the Hill House Democratic leadership is holding a hearing on food and health care with the Steering and Policy Committee Speaker Johnson's got his usual 10 o' clock press conference. The Democratic whip, Representative Clark and a few others are holding a news conference at 10:45. And the Senate has some war powers. Voted five. All right, that's that. Let's talk about the election. Newt Gingrich, Wall Street Journal editorial page. What's his name? Olson. What's his first name? Henry Olsen. Karl Rove. There's general agreement, except among some, that Republicans had a bad day on Tuesday and even the president in his interview with Brett, suggested things weren't great. And you've got, you've got this notion from James Blair, president's top, one of the top political advisors, deputy White House chief of staff, that the focus is now going to be on talking about affordability. Can we have, do we have Blair at 115? If not, just put up the headline here it is.

[F]

75% of Mickey Sheryl's ads were positive, overwhelmingly talking about cost of living and, and heavily talking about lowering power costs. Jack didn't really talk about that. He talked about taxes and he won the tax vote, but he didn't address those key issues of affordability very effectively. He was mostly talking generically about change, New Jersey, and I'm not denigrating Jack, but it was not in line necessarily with what voters were saying. Two, in Virginia, over half of winsome Sears ads talked about transgender. And it's not even the top five issues, according to voters. Why did Zoran Mandani do so well last night? He relentlessly focused on affordability. People talk about communists. They can say all these things, but the fact is he was talking about the cost of living.

[C]

Folks that I'm talking to privately who.

[D]

Are supporters of President Trump think that.

[C]

He needs to be talking about cost of living a whole lot more. Are we going to see that pitch?

[F]

I think you'll see the president talk a lot about cost of living as we turn the year and into the new year. The president is very keyed into what's going on and he recognizes, like anybody, that it takes time to do an economic turnaround. But all the fundamentals are there. And I think you'll be see him be very, very focused on prices and cost of living.

[C]

Very, very focused. Not always associated with Donald Trump. Here he is yesterday with Brett Baier saying everything's pretty much okay except for beef. This is 105, please.

[G]

She is a registered Republican all her life. She voted for you three different times. But she is not happy about how her prices have not come down, down that she sees and she said this, quote, I want the Republicans to keep control of Congress in 2026, but something has to be done fast. I don't see the best economy right now. Wall street numbers do not reflect my Main street money. Please do something. President Trump. So I guess what do you say to Regina and people like her? Well, I do say this beef, we have to get down in terms, I think of groceries. You know, it's an old fashioned word, but it's a beautiful word. Beef, we have to get down, but we've got prices way down. And think of this, energy. She drives a car probably, and her energy prices are way down. And energy is so all encompassing, it's so big that when energy goes down, everything comes down, everything follows it. And I have energy down to 5, 6 year lows. Now. You think prices are coming down from this? That, Yeah, I think they're coming down, but I think they're down already. I think the biggest problem is Republicans don't talk about it. They don't talk about the word affordability. And, and the Democrats lie about it.

[C]

Look, Sean, to paraphrase Mark Twain, everybody talks about affordability, but no one but Mamdani is doing anything about it. The president sounds like Joe Biden when you say that to White House officials. They bristle. But how is he supposed to talk about affordability? How's he supposed to talk about inflation and people's anxiety without sounding unlike himself and sounding too negative, but also not sounding out of touch?

[D]

I think this goes back to what I said just a moment ago. I mean, look, the number one issue for so many Americans is the cost of health care, the cost of prescription drugs. He's done it before, he's going to do it again today. I think he's right. But, and this goes back to exactly what I said a minute ago. They do it and then they move on. Right. I mean, if you're tackling the issue and you don't tell anybody it, they should be having all of the folks at hhs, Kennedy, Oz, Makary, Bhattacharya, going out there and doing events, doing.

[C]

But separate from health care, what about groceries and what about.

[D]

Okay, so, so groceries and groceries and.

[C]

House and housing, right?

[D]

So eggs are down 23%. Gasoline is down 2.6 to 12%. Used cars and trucks down 3.5. Car insurance is down 4 to 6%. Airfare is down 3.5 to 7.9. Across the board, a bread, a loaf of bread is down 3.6.

[C]

But the polling doesn't. The polling doesn't suggest I.

[D]

No, no. Okay. But. But here's my point. This gets back to the disparity between the reality and what they're doing. Things are actually, you go to the grocery store now and look around you. I mean, I literally live and die by I fill up my car when the price of gas is down. It was 279 for a gallon of gas at the top of my street the other day. 279, right. And I was like, okay, I'm filling up today. I'm going to probably go get the other car and fill it up, too. The problem is, is that again, it goes back to selling it. If you're not telling anyone that it's happening. Where are the president? And frankly, the president's right about this. The Republicans. And this goes back to what I've said about the shutdown. They're basically checking a box and then going home every day. Where are the events? Where is the messaging? They've got $300 million. They got outside groups that are sitting on their hands. We just had an election. I mean, by the way, the forward thinking of this, we just had two elections where both sides and I crapped all over the consultants. James Blair comes out and says, dum dums. What were you doing the entire time? How does James Blair know all this? And yet we had all of those ads going up in Virginia and New Jersey that had nothing to do but the top issue.

[C]

I mean, well, it's mind blowing. It's mind blowing to me that James Blair had no ability to contact those campaigns.

[D]

I will say this. They might contact him. I will just with I can say on several issues, a lot of times those people don't listen. And I can say that from experience.

[C]

Stephen, I listened to Hakeem Jeffries, who Brett Bear also interviewed last night. He just says the President's failed. He hasn't lowered prices. He said he would, but I didn't hear him offer a single idea. Do Democrats, in the context of the current fights and the midterms, have to have an affordability agenda, or do they just have to say the President's failed.

[B]

They have to have an affordability agenda. And I think the key to the message is part of what Sean is saying. But what's so interesting, what you were saying, Sean, is the Democrats were making a similar argument during the end of the Biden years that we've done all this good work to improve the economy. Just the people don't get it yet. And that's always a treacherous message because the people know and if whether or not people can feel it, that's their kind of lived experience. And what people are saying right now is they're not feeling it enough yet. And that was a driving force in this, in this past election. But Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats, they're putting together their three main priorities for a potential speakership and a potential majority after 2026. A big part of it needs to be affordability and it needs to be spec.

[D]

The one difference that I would make, Stephen, is I agree with you a whole bunch. I've said this forever and a bunch on the show leading up to the election. You can't force someone to believe something in their gut, whether it's crime or the economy. They walk down the street, they either think things are cheaper, they think their streets are safer, or they don't. But the problem is the statistics. The difference between the Biden administration and the Trump administration is the Biden administration was telling us, don't believe your eyes. Egg prices were up, bread prices were up, gasoline prices were up. And they were saying, you know, it's, they said it's transitory. This is not. I mean, they had the, the problem with the Biden folks was the facts weren't on their side. Trump's literally can go off and say, this is how much gas is now, this is how much bread is now. These are how much eggs are. The prices have dropped in the last year. And he can actually point to that and say, go to the grocery store, look at it. That's why I'm saying, when I drive up the street and I look at the gas little billboard thing and go, okay, it's cheap. I can see it. I will fill up. That's the difference. We have the statistics and the facts on our side.

[C]

Not, not, not on housing, not on education. There's, there's still things that are, that are super expensive. And there's still plenty of things at the grocery store and at restaurants that are way, way higher than people. People can afford and expect. All right, let's talk about the shit.

[B]

Mark, I was just going to say you, you often refer to the diner in Green Bay, which I always love when you make that reference. And it's true. They may or may not have been talking about margins. I, I did enjoy your tweet on that, Mark, the other day. But what they do talk about when you go to a diner in Green Bay is that things are expensive. That is a conversation at the diner, at the bar. It's just, that's the sort of normal person on the street conversation.

[C]

I literally went to a diner in Green Bay after the packers came and I couldn't believe the prices. Luckily, I wasn't paying. Someone else treated it, but it was, it was super expensive still. All right, the shutdown right now, I think that where the dynamics are is a lot of Republicans are saying it's going to end. Yesterday we showed you Mark Wayne Mullen saying it. Here is Marsha Blackburn with David Brody this morning saying she thinks the shutdown's about to end. This would be 113, please.

[H]

Senator, you said very soon.

[C]

What is your, can you give us some sort of sense?

[H]

What does very soon mean?

[D]

Is that a couple days, a week, two weeks?

[C]

What do you think? Where we're talking about hours and days, hours and days. I don't know where Chuck Schumer's head is, but here's what we do know. There's about 10 Democratic senators who want this to end and are looking for a solution and are negotiating. Then there's about 10, maybe a little fewer, who don't think Democrats should do anything right now because they won the election and they think they're, they're winning the PR battle and they don't, they don't want to deal. The biggest pressure point of the moment in the news cycle is something that the secretary of transportation, Mr. Duffy, is floating, which is that starting tomorrow, 40 major airports, including all the ones I use, are going to see a reduction in flights because they're simply not the capacity for air traffic controllers to manage the normal load. Here he is on fox and friends 103.

[E]

So, Brian, we always assess risk in the airspace, right? Where, as you've seen, and I think you have talked about, controllers are making decisions about their families and their income and some of them are not coming to work. It's a problem. I want them to come to work and do their jobs. But that's the reality that I deal with. And so you've seen a lot of delays and cancellations through the airspace. It changes every single day based on what controllers are coming to work and which ones are not in what airspaces. But we were seeing increased pressure in these 40 markets and we looked at the data. This was data driven. And so taking 10% of the flights out will reduce that pressure, which is what we want to do.

[D]

Now.

[E]

Does that mean there's going to be no delays? No, Brian, there's, there's potentially still going to be delays. If we have staffing triggers and we don't have enough controllers in an Airspace where we did cut 10%, you might see additional delays. However, you've covered Newark, right? We have.

[C]

All right, Stephen, are the senators, the Democratic senators who want a deal, and I believe they're all meeting today again, the Democratic caucus in the Senate, the ones who want a deal going to win or the ones who say no deal going to win at this point?

[B]

That's a good. Well, I think it changes as every day passes. I, I did, by the way, look at the betting markets to see what the top predictions are. And they're the, the, the top contracts are trading for late next week or through the end of next week and.

[C]

Right.

[B]

I think as you get to that point, even the Democratic senators who say we don't want to help the Republicans or talk with them at all, I think even they will have enough pressure, especially as you get even closer to Thanksgiving, you have travel delays. This to our theme about do voters feel it? That's where the average voter truly feels it. And the politics changes.

[C]

Sean, do you see any sign that any congressional Republicans want to be accommodating or they want to stick with their open the government and then we'll talk position?

[D]

I think it's a Rubik's Cube. It's like we'll open the government. I mean, we've talked about this. The solution is very simple and yet complicated at the same time. I mean, the pieces are easy. Vote on prescription drugs, open the government, continue CR to X amount. Then you kind of pull off the top label and you go, oh, there's a lot more underneath that, which is how long for the cr. You heard Marsha Blackburn and others talk about, you know, the appropriators want like two days of CR because they don't want to give up any power. And everyone else I talk to would almost want and welcome a long term CR that covers the rest of the fiscal year. So I think the contours of the deal continue to be right in front of everyone's face. The problem is that they can't. It's like everyone says, yeah, I want to go to lunch. And you go, I'd like to go to Capitol Grill. I'm like, I can't afford that kind of stuff. So I'm more like, hey, let's go to Tropical Smoothie. So everyone agrees that they want to go to lunch. No one agrees where. And that's the problem that they continue to face. So I, I think there's broader and broader agreement that like, let's have the conversation. And the second you started, it's no, I don't agree with that piece that, you know, the duration of the CR, when and how the vote's going to go down, etc. Etc. So I think the problem is both sides generally agree on the contours, but then they won't go any further on the details.

[C]

Senate is supposed to be out next week, but Thune is thinking keeping them in.

[D]

Can I just say this? I've said it over. How the heck can you possibly say we're not going to be in session? Yeah, that's insane.

[C]

Yeah, because sometimes when they go away, they, they solve things. That's why. But I agree with you, it's insane.

[B]

I think one other key factor though, and I'm curious what Sean thinks about this, is President Trump tying the election result to the shutdown and the public's perception that Republicans are responsible for it. Isn't that a game changer in the, the negotiations to some degree?

[D]

It's a good observation. I mean, you know, but, but I mean, I don't think he somehow says, I think until there's a pressure point and I frankly think this air travel thing is going to, could best potentially be it. But this is, I mean, to your point, Stephen, this is what Chris Murphy, the senator from Connecticut, said it would be very strange if on the heels of the American people rewarding Democrats for standing up and fighting, that we surrendered without getting anything. So at the same time, their view is, hey, we won an election in two states, we should get something. And we are now treating the American people like a political football where it's, you know, if you're traveling right now. And one of the questions that came up further in that interview with Sean Duffy and Lawrence Jones with Lawrence said, what should we do? Should we buy a ticket if we want to go for the holidays? And Duffy said, yeah, sure, buy it. But you're now buying a ticket knowing that 10%, there's a 10% possibility the flight's not going to exist and probably growing. I think that this is, as we've said before, as this shutdown, it wasn't real for so many people. Like we've said before, the Trump administration in some ways did a really good job of not doing what Obama did. So there's no tape around the World War II memorial. There's no, like, they've tried to keep things open. And by doing that, it had a plus, which is people didn't feel in some cases the impact the way that normally you would. But for that exact reason, now there's less pressure to Find a solution. Because so many, not as many people are clamoring, saying, it's affecting my life.

[B]

Right.

[C]

For the last 10 years, on a regular basis, I hear from Democrats who say Trump's time is up, poll numbers have cratered. His, you know, his. His lies have caught up with him, he's a failure, et cetera, et cetera. I'm hearing it now, again. I've heard it for the last 10 years, but I'm hearing it from some people who've never said it to me before, serious Democrats who look at the data and they say, yeah, he said some foreign policy achievements, but he can't get 60 votes in the Senate for anything. The shellacking on Tuesday, the poll numbers, even on some of his strongest issues, immigration and the economy, traditionally strongest, are down, and he's a lame duck. Stephen, what's the best piece of evidence that this time might be different and Trump's in a political jam he can't get out of?

[B]

That's a good question, because I generally don't bet against Trump's ability to recover from a political jam. He always has before, and he's very skilled and adept at it. I think the polling on the shutdown is so mixed right now in general that President Trump will be able to recover. I don't bet against him on that.

[C]

Okay, Sean.

[D]

Oh, I got a question for Steven. Steven, you ran for the Senate, right?

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Did you in your campaign make any pledges to get rid of the filibuster?

[B]

I called for a talking filibuster, which I believe is the way to go, that senators should exact a physical cost to filibustering. They need to go to the floor and talk as opposed to sending an email.

[D]

Okay. My point is, I do think that one of the things that. I think President Trump's going to keep pressuring the Senate to get rid of it. Any Republican that doesn't believe that the Dems will do it is an idiot, because they will change it day one. And so I think that that is going to become a greater and greater viability. The votes aren't there yet, but I think President Trump should keep pushing for these guys to do it, because it's going to happen whether we do it or not.

[C]

Boy, I'd be really. I'd be really surprised if Thune did it. Really surprised.

[D]

I would, too. No, no, don't get me wrong.

[H]

I.

[D]

But he needs to show. Trump needs to be showing paths forward how to end this thing. I'm the president. How can we do it? And the More, he says, but even.

[C]

Even a path that's a failure stopped by his own party.

[D]

Well, he needs to be saying, here, I'll do it this way, I'll do it this way. I'll do it this way, you guys. I mean, like, I think that what you want to be always doing as an elected official is showing people I'm finding ways to. Yes, I'm finding a solution. You may not like every solution, but I'm going to keep telling you, I'm fighting for whatever will get us to yes.

[F]

Right.

[C]

All right. Before yesterday, the betting markets thought the Supreme Court would rule with the President on the tariffs. After the arguments, the conventional wisdom and the betting markets shifted to say no. The justices seem pretty skeptical. But if you listen to the full argument, the entire thing, it's easy to see a possible 5, 4, even 6, 3 victory for the President on some perhaps limited basis. And even that one of the top lawyers arguing to strike down said one option would be let the white, let the administration keep the money they've already banked and just going forward.

[D]

They can't do that. That's not a possibility. It's not.

[C]

He argued for it. He's respected.

[D]

I know, but look, I will tell you, I've said this to the extent that anyone who's actually paid attention to what the actual argument was, what IEA says, trade policy. And again, this is why pundits who, with all due respect, have never worked in the trade world, you don't understand the laws, say things like, well, the President's going to have broad executive power. It has. Understand the Constitution, who has what authority. Trade is a constitutional congressional authority. This is why I've said before, I do think they will split the baby. They will say on fentanyl, he's got China, Mexico and Canada, Everything else goes. And then he resorts to 232, 338, 301.

[C]

Could be, but not a sure thing. Stephen, I'm constantly complaining the court doesn't like to act quickly. This needs to be done quickly. They're on a fast track. They may do it in a couple of weeks, but they also may do it in five months. What's your sense of whether the court has an understanding this would be better done on a faster track? I'll just say my theory is they don't want to fast track things and follow my, my advice. Because then people will say, hey, why don't you always do that? Why, why does your branch have the luxury of sitting around and thinking about stuff for five months? Go Ahead.

[B]

Yeah, that's a good point. My sense is they will try to fast track this because they're so much going coming down the pike on on tariffs. I was really intrigued by what I what I heard from John Roberts and I think I really don't know which way the Supreme Court is going to go on this because on one hand this court has been very partisan in favor of the Trump administration. On the other hand, hearing Roberts and others talk about tariffs are a tax and that authority is under Congress. I agree with Sean was what John was saying that generally these policies should be done by Congress and I come from the good government community that's been calling for a long time for the first branch of government, the first article Congress to reassert itself and have a rebalancing in relation to the executive branch.

[D]

If you listen to all of those questions that were asked, especially of the six, you know, the ones that spoke on the on the conservative side, how would you ever get this power back to dah dah dah. It's not again this has not people are misunderstanding. This is not a broad executive authority like you can under the Alien Enemies act or anything like that that are inherently Article 2 powers. Trade is an Article 1 power. IEPA was the Congress telling the president here's what we'll let you do and if IPA doesn't allow it, you can't then give it away. That was what the court was saying yesterday. You can't take something inherently in one of the other articles and make it part of the other branch in theory.

[C]

But we'll see what how they roll because they're result oriented. They like the president. All right, two more topics and then your questions. Yesterday Mamdani was more confrontational and the president was more conciliatory. If you just look at what they said. The president with Brett Bear Mondavi did a number of interviews and the New York Times which has been basically his his PR operation and his and is always cast him as being extremely, you know, charming and fun loving said this in their headline after they interviewed him and emboldened Mamdani sheds conciliatory tone fresh from a stunning Victories are on Mandami. The mayor elect said in an interview that his supporters wanted quote a politics of consistency and aggressive action, including on taxing the rich. Jamie Dimon reached out to Mamdani and said that he wanted to keep the lines of communication open. Most the business community, not all but most of the business community is at least publicly along the same lines. And here is a surprisingly, to me, sounding conciliatory. Donald Trump in his interview with Brett Baer. Number 106, please.

[G]

And it worked this time. You see, his victory speech literally never worked. Yeah, I thought it was a very angry speech, certainly angry toward me. And I think he should be very nice to me. You know, I'm the one that sort of has to approve a lot of things coming to him. So he's off to a bad start. At one point he says, turn the volume up. So hear me, President Trump, when I say this, to get to any of.

[C]

Us, you will have to get through all of us.

[G]

How do you respond to that? Does that. Does that affect anything you're going to do? A dangerous statement for him to make, actually. And, you know, you talk about danger, I think it's a very dangerous statement for him to make. He has to be a little bit respectful of Washington, because if he's not, he doesn't have a chance of succeeding. And I want to make him succeed. I want to make the city succeed. I don't want to make him succeed. I want to make the city succeed. And we'll see what happens. You see reaching out to him.

[F]

I.

[G]

Would say he should reach out to us, really. I think he should reach out.

[C]

I'm here now. Again, everything's relative. He didn't call him a communist, and he said, you know, he wants the city succeed. Sean, do you think I'm misreading that? The president was being a little bit accommodating there?

[D]

So, first of all, I always say that there's a difference between Trump saying something that he and being responding to something. So in that case, Brett was the one asking him. It wasn't like he was getting up, making a truth social post or giving a speech saying it. So it's coming from him. He was reacting to a question. So that I always take with a grain of salt. I do think he did take the temperature down a little bit. But the President also knows I have a building there. I've got businesses there, I frequent there. And I think he doesn't want to make every visit to New York confrontational. That being said, I will say it seems to me it would be very hard to imagine a situation where Zoro Mandami said, I reached out to the President and asked for a meeting or said that we should talk. This is like the government shutdown where I feel like he has gone past the, you know, cross the abyss. And Stephen, hard time doing it.

[C]

Stephen, in the next year, could you imagine the two of them having a cordial meeting. Is that, is that in the realm of possibility?

[B]

I could see that. I could see that. But I am also a hopeful optimist as well. You know, I like to see our leaders working together and talking with each other. I do think it's important to look at the contrast between Mamdani's election night speech and then his next morning transition speech. Different tone, especially as it relates to President Trump. We played the clip from the election night, but when he was introducing his transition team, he basically said, I need to be working with President Trump. And you know, it was more of a working together kind of tone, which the two of them do need to work together to be effective at their jobs.

[C]

Yeah, they both blown a little hot and cold since election night, you're right. And we just played some of it. But I think they're going to meet. I think they're going to meet and they're going to have a conciliatory meeting. And I too may be being overly optimistic. All right, the last topic, the controversy continues to raise that the Heritage Foundation. Yesterday, Elian Johnson broke the story of a video of the meeting where the head of Heritage met with the whole staff there and apologized and said, you know, he made a mistake and he's going to stay. And this is all a little bit obviously inside what's going on in the leadership of Washington think tank. But it does have larger implications related to how the party is going to deal with dissent. And in the view of many. You read a lot of op ed pieces and editorials today, the party must not tolerate anti Semitism and pro Hitler sentiments within the upper reaches of the movement. So, Sean, is this story over now or does this continue to be an issue at Heritage and more broadly?

[D]

I mean, I, I respectfully don't ever think it was a story. I think it was a Heritage issue. It may continue to be a little bit between their board and some of their donors, but this is, this is them trying to support Tucker and, and missing the mark. I, I have continued to ask people who I consider very heavy into the movement. I, I get mostly it's like a. Yeah, I don't think it's that big of a deal or this is a little about Israel. Some people will claim that this is about platforming. There's no consensus about what this is even really about. So again, I think this is more of a made up controversy that created that one institution is dealing with because of sort of a mistimed opportunity to defend somebody that they had a relationship with.

[C]

Stephen, between now and the midterms, which party has a bigger problem with Israel and why?

[D]

Oh, that's easy.

[B]

I don't know if it's easy. I think that you're seeing a conversation about anti Semitism on both the far left and the far right right now. And I think both sides will have to really make an effort to address it. I think a big factor is how much is Israel going to be in the news? How much will the key elected officials be asked about Israel? But it's going to be, it's going to be an issue. And for people who are pro Israel supporters, who care about supporting Jewish Americans, you saw what Jonathan Greenblatt said on Morning show, that they have a Mamdani tracker right now. There's going to be an effort among some of these key groups to track what's happening on both the left and the right.

[D]

But just to be clear, there's two separate issues. I will admit in our party, there is definitely among younger voters a distinguishing difference about support for Israel writ large. Like the U.N. i think the older traditional Republican is unequivocally stand with Israel, supply them, arm them, et cetera. That's very different than what's going on in the left, which is full out anti Semitism, which is, you know, disparaging Jews supporting Hamas. That is not what we're dealing with. And that's a very, very big and different issue.

[C]

Yeah, I don't know, you guys. Yeah, go ahead, Go ahead, Sue.

[B]

Well, I just think that, I mean, right now Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing a major media tour and one of her big positions is not supporting Israel, that we should be America first. And I think her line is America only. And I think a lot of key leaders in the pro Israel community would say that funding for the Iron Dome, for example, has been one of the most important investments.

[D]

I agree. But that's. That goes. My point though, is that what Marjorie's issue isn't. She's not pro Hamas. She's saying we shouldn't be do. I mean, that's kind of where they are on Ukraine too, which is we shouldn't be supporting foreign, foreign wars, et cetera. So again, I admit that that's 100% what you said is true. There's a division about how we should support Israel or if we should or support anybody for that matter, versus, I think supporting Hamas, anti Semitic behavior, not condemning outrageous protests and minimizing people. And what's going on at these universities in terms of shouting down and canceling Jewish students, not allowing people to Practice their faith very different.

[B]

Yeah, I just think that the. The labels we use here are very interesting. If you are openly anti Semitic, you know, are you really a liberal? Are you really a progressive? And so, you know, who we claim to be part of these camps is an interesting conversation.

[C]

Totally agree with that. David. Welcome in. Thank you for being part of Two Way. Tell folks where you are, what's on your mind. For Stephen and for Sean. Good morning.

[H]

I'm in Essex, Connecticut, just a little village along the Connecticut river here. Beautiful late fall morning. Thank you for having me.

[C]

Can you buy the hard copy of the New York Post and the Boston Herald at your delis?

[H]

Well, you know what? We don't have a debt.

[D]

Well, I was gonna say, I didn't know there's a deli in Essex.

[H]

There is one. It's called Olive Oils, and it's a really great little spot, but I don't think they sell the newspaper there. But I get everything online. I used to get the Wall Street Journal paper, but don't do that anymore either. Anyway, so I wanted to talk about. Oh, sorry, go ahead.

[C]

Well, I was just gonna say it's the best thing about Connecticut, which is it's the only state, I believe, where you can buy the Herald and the Post. Maybe Rhode island, too, but.

[D]

Yeah, actually, Canon Rhode Island.

[C]

Yeah.

[H]

There's a lot of great things about Connecticut.

[C]

Yeah, I think we. But I think we can stipulate that's the best. David, what's on your mind?

[H]

So I want to talk about the filibuster.

[C]

Yes, sir.

[H]

Actually, this morning I thought I listened to Squawk Box, and Speaker Johnson was on there this morning with Joe, and he talked about the, you know, the bulwark that. That stopped the filibuster from being killed last time, which was Cinema and Mansion, and they're gone. And so, Sean, to your point, I think that's probably a fair point, that given the opportunity, the Democrats will nuke the filibuster. But Speaker Johnson said that he thought that There were probably 10 other senators who were quietly praying that Cinema and Mansion would hold the line and that in their absence, two other people, or whatever the number needs to be, will step up to. To hold it together next time. But that's just. That's. That's an observation from this morning's interview with the Speaker. I thought that was an interesting take.

[D]

I don't.

[H]

I don't know if there's anything to it, but here was my question about the filibuster. Look, we don't really Have a complete filibuster anymore. We already did away with it with respect to district court judges and circuit court judges, and then we did away with it with respect to the Supreme Court justices. So we've already sort of nibbled at the edges of. Appears to be something that's relatively easy to get rid of because you just have to have a vote of 51 senators and it's gone, I guess. So what if John TH. Did this or some version of this? We're going to vote to end the filibuster today. We're going to then have the vote on the cross today, and then today after that, we're going to vote to re. Establish the filibuster and put it in place. So that's one sort of tactical way of addressing the issue and get the government open. And you can turn around to the voters and say, look, we did what needed to be done in order to get the government open. We didn't like it, but we put the filibuster back in place. If the Democrats want to get rid of it when they're in power, that'll be their choice at that time.

[C]

David, just.

[H]

Okay, go ahead.

[C]

Well, I'm just going to say the crazy thing is I had the exact same thought yesterday, so I love hearing you say, go ahead.

[H]

So my second thought was, as I said, we've already nibbled at the edges. We've taken it away with respect to certain things. Why don't we just nibble a little more and take it away with respect to anything that requires us to pay our troops, pay our traffic controllers, pay our, you know, whatever, provide food to the 43 million people in this country apparently need the federal government to buy their groceries, which I frankly just find mind blowing all by itself. But why don't we just deal with it, with the way we dealt with it there and just nibble it and take one more small bite out of it?

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[H]

And. And let the rest of it remain and get this CR passed, move on and never have this issue again because we'll always be able to pass a CR or appropriate. I guess that's really the issue is do you take it all the way to the appropriation aspect of it? But, you know, why don't we just do that? Why don't we just nibble at it or just get rid of it today and put it back in tomorrow?

[C]

Yep. David, it's a great question, Stephen. What's wrong with David's idea, if anything?

[B]

I think there's a lot of wisdom to it on both fronts. I think the longer term issue here is as our politics becomes more and more tribal, more and more divided, there is going to be less and less of a case to keep the filibuster, even though, as you know, Sean asked me earlier, my position on it when I was running for the US Senate, I think it should be a physical exercise of talking for a long time. And I think, you know, some of the great speeches have been via filibuster. You know, your idea, David, I think, is really compelling. I don't really have an issue with it. You know, if they, at the end of the day, if they have 51 votes to remove it, then bring it back. My only hope is that people don't appear like they have some kind of principled stand for or against the filibuster. They're just doing what they need to do to get the government open. And the final thing I'll just say on the shutdown is I think if you're a senator who has the opportunity to help 40 million people eat, I'm probably going to take that vote.

[D]

Yeah, Sean, I largely agree with Stephen. I mean, I believe that the filibuster does protect the minority, which, and I think there's something about that. There's a reason the framers set up the two branches differently. And I get the filibuster as a Senate rule, not the vision of Thomas Jefferson. But I do believe that there was a reason that they set up disparities in the two houses. And if you recall, obviously the Senate was initially not even elected. Right. I mean, so I like the idea. As frustrating as it can be to me as a conservative, sometimes to see these guys put the brakes on and have like endless discussions, there's a reason for it. And sometimes it allows that careful discussion and deliberation. I agree with Steven to some extent. I'd like to see people actually have to go stand out for it because then it makes it real. It's not just like raising your hand. But I will say if you do what you do what you suggested, then that's just how it goes going forward. Right. So, you know, the Democrats get back in charge and they go, okay, well, just for this issue. And then this afternoon we put it back in charge and then it's not real. I mean, I get your point. But now, as you said, we've already started to chip away at it. First it was, you know, these kind of judges, then that, then Supreme Court justices. Well, what about, like, cabinet level people that go to departments with H. I mean, like, I get it. I just, I think once you start going down this slope even more. And look, I believe in it, but I also am cognizant of the fact to your point, Cinema and Manchin left. And the reason I asked Stephen wasn't to put him on the spot, is to say most of these candidates are out there running and saying, I'm not going to vote for Chuck Schumer. I'll do this. They're going to have to be, you know, face the music. If they got the majority back at some point. And I, and I actually agree with Speaker Johnson, I think a lot of them said it, that they'd get rid of it, not because they really believe it, but because they have to. And so our side is being stupid and shortsighted to think that they're not going to do it when they get a chance.

[C]

Well, I'll say three things. One is they're not going to be in the majority anytime soon. So it's a little bit of an abstract. I mean, probably barring some massive wave, they're not going to be back at the majority. Two is, I do think, David, and this part of the beauty of what you suggested is, of course, it would lower the bar. Democrats, if they did have the majority, say you should do it for constitutional rights, so they do it for an abortion vote. But, but you'd still have to go through the process. You'd still have to say, if you're a senator who believed in general that there should be a filibuster. You'd have to say, this is worth waiving it for. And there'd be times when it would fail. There'd be times where the majority would say, let's waive it. And, and they wouldn't be able to get 51 votes to waive it. And the last thing I'd say is, obviously, if this happens, we'll call it the Dick Principle.

[H]

No, I would not recommend that.

[C]

Okay. All right.

[H]

Lots of reasons, believe me, from experience, I would not recommend that.

[C]

I just want you to get the cr. I just want you to get the credit in history. That's all.

[D]

There's so many puns.

[H]

Oh, God, Sean Punzer. I've told so many people when they've, when they've given me a reason to laugh, I'll say, call me when you're out of eighth grade. But can I just make one last observation?

[C]

And which is, yes, sir.

[H]

This moment where the government is shut down, you know where. Steve, I agree with you as much as it still blows my mind that we have that many people in this country who rely on the government for their food, which. That's a whole other issue. I agree with you. That is the situation we're in right now. Okay. So that's the moment we're in. The moment we're in is I've got a flight next Tuesday out of Hartford that I don't know if I'm going to be able to get back to California or not. So this is a moment whether we should have a constitutional issue with respect to abortion. That's a. Just not a moment. That's a. Three decades.

[C]

Yeah.

[H]

So, you know, this is a moment where something actually needs to be done.

[C]

Yeah.

[H]

And it is because of speaking filibuster. I mean, that's. All due respect, I think that's just more performance. But I think that the idea of the filibuster. I don't think we should call it that. We should just call it a rule that says in order to do anything in the Senate, you got to have 60 votes, except in these instances. I mean, that's what it is.

[C]

Yeah.

[H]

Call it. Why do we call it something like that?

[C]

You're totally right.

[H]

But in this moment, something has to be done and nothing is getting done. The government isn't working. People aren't getting paid. It's not fair to them. This is a place in time where I think it's a tactical nuke.

[D]

Listen, David, I got to tell you, I. I think we kind of. We talked about a second ago when this air travel stuff that you're pointing, like it's going to rack and stack, so you're going to miss your flight. I mean, God, I hope you don't. Someone's going to miss their flight next Wednesday, next Tuesday, and then they're going to put on a waiting list for a flight on Thursday, and that may or may not happen. And I mean, like, this is going to start to crescendo real quick and affect people's lives, because when you miss your flight, maybe you had a hotel room, maybe you had childcare, maybe you had a rental car, maybe you had a business meeting where you're going to make money or, you know, have a deal, like, the effects of this are going to crescendo in a way that we haven't seen in 37 days real quick. And I just. Here's the problem.

[F]

You.

[D]

That normally gets people to say, all right, let's get to the thing. I think it's going to embolden them.

[C]

Yeah. David, thank you Very grateful to you, Stacy. Welcome. And tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind.

[I]

Good morning. I'm in North Florida, outside of the Jacksonville area. I know this is somewhat anecdotal, but I just feel like part of the shutdown and the reason that the Democrats and the Republicans are arguing is over health insurance.

[C]

Yeah.

[I]

And my. I know, again, this is anecdotal, but for me, and it's a long story, and I will not go through it, but basically, my husband's a teacher. It was. It's cheaper for me to find other insurance than to be on his health insurance because it is so expensive. Yes, it is. So when I did some. It was open enrollment for him. I did some research. I could get a policy for me and my daughter who's in college that was cheaper than being on his health insurance.

[B]

Wow.

[H]

So.

[I]

And that's just what I'm saying. Like, it's so crazy.

[C]

Was it. Was it a lot cheaper?

[I]

A little cheaper over the year? It would save us, like, over a thousand dollars if we weren't.

[G]

But.

[I]

And here's the thing, too, is that we're healthy people. I go to a functional medicine doctor. I do not use this insurance, you know, and it's a high deductible. It's like, yeah, $10,000, you know, so it's like. And you're still having to pay a copay. It's just crazy. And I believe that insurance is kind of a scam anyway, especially if you're healthy and you're not using it for dire things. So, long story short, because I had had an ultrasound three years ago, I ended up getting denied health insurance because they said I had some gallbladder, you know, condition. We appealed it. I lost. So right now, I do not have health insurance. Fine. Because I feel like it's a waste of my money. I'd rather take that $6,000 a year and put it into an etch HSA and used it for the things that I do to be healthy. But I was at the doctor this week who does not take health insurance. You know, fine. But the one thing that we do use health insurance for is for labs, because I check my blood work, hormones, cholesterol, you know, all the things. So I told her, I'm like, I just need to know what our plan going forward is, because it is the one thing that I would use health insurance for. And of course, I get the bill from Quest that says, you know, all of these tests would have cost you $1,800. But your health insurance discount gave you a discount of $1,600. But you still owe us, you know, $200. She said, okay, so this is what I can do, is I will draw your labs here, and I will send them out, and it's $175.

[C]

Right. You're. You're. You're describing a situation that is so familiar to so many folks, and that's.

[I]

Why I'm so frustrated with the shutdown, because I. I am frustrated with lots of different things about it, but the Republicans should not give in. Like Obamacare, we used to be on, you know, like, have our own little policy, and it would literally cost me and my children, you know, one to $200 a month. And ever since Obamacare, it consistently has gone up, and it is so expensive. And that's why I'm like, I don't want them to keep fighting. I want the government to be open. But it should not be over. This issue, like, all of this, we just need to start over. It's all. It is all a scam. The way all of this works, it is so inspiring.

[C]

Stacy, standby, thank you for sharing all that. And again, you speak for tens of millions with your frustration over this. Blake, welcome in. Tell us what's on your mind real quick, and then. And then guys will respond to both you and Stacy.

[J]

Yeah. So I have an interesting observation on the Israel thing. I think something interesting that people don't know, maybe if they're not in the religious circles. But in the early 1900s, a guy named C.I. scofield published a Bible, and it was called the Scofield Study Bible. And in the Bible, he advocated that for the fulfillment of Jesus to come back, the Jewish people had to return home. And he wrote in the notes of his Bible, Genesis 12, anybody that speaks ill of Israel incurs the wrath of God. Now, in the 1950s, that Bible was probably found in the hands of 50 to 60% of America's Protestant Christians. Today, that Bible's virtually out of print. Nobody has it. And if you. If you notice in Tucker Carlson's interview with Ted Cruz, that was the exact Bible verse that Ted Cruz espoused for his support for Israel. So what you have right now in the Republican Party, I think, is a division between an older religious crowd that to speak ill of Israel was to basically end your political career, and a younger crowd that is still religious, I think, but they're of a totally different mindset. They have a totally different theological starting point that does not view Israel.

[C]

Okay, hold on. Right there, because we're, we're up against the clock. Stephen, first, respond to both of them briefly, if you would, to both Blake and. And the very different issues that Stacy raised.

[B]

Yes. Well, first, Stacy, I'm deeply sorry that this situation is facing you. And as Mark mentioned, it's. It's facing millions of Americans. I think the shutdown debate around the Obamacare subsidies is very, it's sort of tinkering around, but not getting at the real issue. I think if you look at it just in isolation, you need a lot of. There are a lot of people who would benefit from those subsidies. But you're speaking, I think, Stacey, to the bigger issue here, which is you have a healthcare system that's based on volume and not on health, and there does need to be more dramatic reforms, and you really need Democrats and Republicans to work together on that. The more collaboration there is, the bigger the reform that I think is possible to truly transform the incentives in our health care system.

[C]

Sean.

[D]

All I'll say is I agree with Stacey. I mean, this is a huge, huge issue. We created, not we. The Democrats created a system and now and promised us that we'd keep our doctor, that we could keep our plan, that affordability would be. And none of it came true. And now we're in this place where now we're subsidizing it because it didn't work. And it's a big, big problem that needs to be addressed.

[C]

Either of you want to be able to respond to what Blake said, or you'll leave it?

[D]

It's an interesting point. I just don't. I. I'll go check it out. I didn't realize all the intricacies, so I'll look up the books and maybe Blake can come back and follow up.

[C]

All right, thank you both. Grateful to you for being part of Two Way. And hopefully Stacy can get that resolved because it is incredibly annoying. All right, Sean, what do you have tonight?

[D]

It's Thursday. It's the panel. We're going to talk break down the election and the affordability issue. I actually want to play that clip. Just hat tip to you and to the producers, because I want to play the James Blair thing and continue that. So we'll talk a little bit about the election, the fallout, Pelosi, all that kind of stuff. Tony Katz, radio host in Indianapolis, our own Amber Duke from the Daily Caller, and then Kay Smythe will join us. So, big panel discussion today.

[C]

Okay, Stephen, tell us what you've got going on and tell people how they can see your work.

[B]

Yes, well, first, I just want I'll be joining a meeting later today, a congressional candidate that should be on more people's radars. His name is George Hornado. He's a Democratic primary challenge to Andre Carson in Indiana. And he's part of this wave of younger Democrats who are saying that we want a generational change. We don't like the gerontocracy that's in the Democratic Party in particular and in America generally, the average American is about 20 years younger than the average member of Congress. So I like that he's speaking to that. And more broadly speaking, if folks want to follow along the work I'm doing to reform our political system, just follow me @stephenolikara on social media.

[D]

By the way, I say, Stephen, you're touching on a great subject that we should go further on, Mark, at some point, which is this these primaries are popping up all over the place. When I say Ileana Presley potentially also joining Seth Moulton primary, I mean, like, I think it's a great, I'm intrigued by it because I think that the idea that Stephen, like people who are openly willing to have these discussions in our party, we wouldn't do. I mean, like, we it, it's interesting that the break is happening and people are willing to go do that.

[C]

It is. And there's still time for more to start. As you said, in the Massachusetts Senate race, an unexpected person might join. All right, Moynihan Report at seven tonight on two way. And there's no group chat today, by the way. Tell you about two programs I'm doing. First of all, six o' clock tonight, two great guests, Republican Beverly Hallberg and then Jim Kennedy, longtime Democratic strategist, worked for Clinton, Gore for Joe Lieberman, and he's written a great thing on his substack about, about Mondavi and New York. So Beverly and Jim at 6 o' clock tonight. And then later today we'll drop on YouTube and then as a podcast on next up, my conversation. First, my reported monologue on what the meaning of the election is and the midterms. But then incredible conversation. Really looking forward to Doug Sosnik, who was Bill Clinton's political advisor. And blanking Kristen.

[D]

Silver. That one.

[C]

Yeah. No, Come on, help me out, guys.

[D]

Silver, you're killing me. Smalls Davison, Kristen Davidson.

[C]

Thank you.

[D]

Davidson.

[C]

Davidson. Kristen Davidson and Doug Sizek will break down the elections and talk about the midterms. And Doug has one of his very famous memos at laying out the midterm trade. So look for that later today. And of course, we'll be back tomorrow. Dan will be back. We thank Stephen for joining us. Dan, Sean will be back. Thank you, Stephen. Tomorrow morning, Friday, winners and losers. Tomorrow, winners and Losers and what to look for over the weekend. Thank you all for being part of Two Way. We'll see you tomorrow. Have a great day.

[B]

Thank you.

[I]

It.