← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Dem Uniters and Dividers Shape the Party's Future, Dominant Media Hypocrisy, Lessons Kamala Missed
01:32:50
Mark Halperin opens today’s episode with a sharp new reported monologue on the Democratic Party’s biggest challenge heading into 2028: how to unite enough of the country to appeal to a deeply divided America. He traces how recent presidents left office with more polarization than when they began and explains why Democrats must reconcile their instinctive opposition to Trump with the need to broaden their appeal. Within the party itself, Mark highlights the growing tension between “Uniters,” who seek to expand the tent, and “Dividers,” who double down on base-energizing strategies — a split personified in figures like Gavin Newsom and AOC, whose ambitions and tactics reveal where the party may be heading. Larry O’Connor then joins to unpack the fallout from Charlie Kirk’s memorial and what it reveals about America’s fractured political culture. Mark and Larry discuss the need for compassion and dialogue, and why both are essential if the country hopes to bridge divides, even as par...
Loading summary
Transcript175 lines
- [00:03]
A
When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, the heaviest industries face the toughest challenges. That's where we come in. ExxonMobil is investing in technology to help American industry lower its emissions, including in our own operations, all while empowering businesses and creating job opportunities. It turns out that fewer emissions can mean a stronger economy. Exxon Mobil, let's deliver.
- [00:31]
B
You can't count on much these days. No way, Jim. This is incredible. But you can always count on Sundays with the NFL on CBS and Paramount. Here we go. This time for real. Watch your local NFL game live every Sunday all the way through the AFC Championship game. And he's in for a touchdown. Visit paramountplus.com NFL to get started today and count on Sundays with the NFL on CBS and Paramount. Oh, welcome in, everybody. It's Thursday and you know what that means. It's another episode of the little program we call Next Up. Welcome into nexter's Old and New. My tone is light. My heart is heavy. I'll tell you why. I am Mark Halperin, editor in chief of two Way, the live interactive video platform, host of this program, and I bring you my exclusive reporting and analysis of all the stories in the news, what matters most right now and what that says about what's coming. Up next, two great guests today, two smarties, Larry o', Connor, host of the Larry Podcast for Town Hall Media, and the morning radio host in Washington, powerhouse radio station wmal, the station of my youth is where I learned to listen to sports talk radio. And returning, Patty Solis Doyle, the Democratic strategist, former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton and one of the smattest people I know about politics in general and about her party. Those two coming up next up. But first up, my reported monologue. I am typically very optimistic about pretty much everything. And coming back from Arizona on Sunday, having covered the memorial service for Charlie Kirk and watching their reaction and then rolling into the Jimmy Kimmel situation, both of those things both did show the red blue divide, put it in sharp relief. But they also have both widened the red blue divide. It's extraordinary where we are right now after 10 years of Donald Trump and going back to the polarization we've seen from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump again. It's a very dark time. And part of that is, of course, the assassinations, the shooting in Dallas and other acts of violence, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and the debate over whether the left or the right are a bigger cause of all these things. But there's more going on. There's More going on in this country right now. And I don't remember a more fraught time, a more tense time, really. Struck by a new poll that came out this week, asked the question, do you think there's a political crisis in America? Quinnipiac poll and take a look at the numbers. Overall, 79% of voters say, yes, there's a political crisis. 93% of Democrats say the a political crisis in America. Lower for independents, 84% and for Republicans only 60%. I suspect if there were Democratic president, the number would be higher. Political crisis. This is the most stable country in the history of the world. There's so much good goes on every day. There's so much to love about America. Not in the abstract only, but what's happening. But to see percentages like this, every group and Democrats well over 50, but every group over 50%. Political crisis, what does that mean for us? What does that mean for us? I'm thinking a lot and doing a lot of reporting around the Democratic Party because they face a divide in the electorate. And if you want to lead the Democratic Party, and let's be honest, if you're going to lead the Democratic Party right now, that means leading it as the presidential candidate in 2028, because we're not going to see leadership from any governors or senators or House members in a, in a national sustained way. So if you lead the Democratic Party and you look at the electorate and you look at how people are responding to this crisis, these crises, you're going to see a division. And this is not a new thing, but it's really, really prominent. Now. Some people want a president and some Democrats want a nominee for 2028 who will oppose Donald Trump at all costs. That's the defining standard. If Trump's for it, you got to not just be against it, you got to be loud and proud against it. Gavin Newsom would argue you got to do something about it. That it's not enough to just say, I don't like what he's doing. You have to use the powers, you have to actually confront him. And there's no doubt that that's where the energy is in the party. And that's not uncommon. It's the same on the right. But then the internal mystery of our presidential campaigns for the last 20 years or so between 30 years really is a lot of people in the country want someone who will unite us, who will bring the nation together. And if you look at starting in 1992, we had three straight two term presidents. First time it's happened since the founding of the republic. Clinton, Obama and. Sorry, Clinton, Bush and Clinton, Bush and Obama, three straight two term presidents all said that they would unify the country. All of them put that front and center in how they ran. And you could argue Joe Biden did it too. And all of them left office with the country more divided than when they took it over. The polarization happened on their watch and you couldn't find three people, again, Clinton, Bush and Obama. You couldn't find three people who, based on their past records, their rhetoric, how they announced when they ran for president, who were more determined to make this a more united country rather than, rather than divided. And yet didn't happen. Right? Didn't happen despite how, how, how determined they were. And then again, I said Joe Biden did the same thing. I think one of the biggest mistakes, I don't say it's the biggest mistake, but one of the biggest mistakes people make about Donald Trump when he ran in the first time in 2016, was he really wanted to unite the country through policies that he knew united. And the press would say, well, Trump's positions on immigration or trans rights or, or trade, that these were red meat base issues, mag issues. Now look at all the Democrats who voted for Trump the first time and, and more the second time. Independents who leaned left. He, he had the same instincts. He stylistically was different, rhetorically different, but in terms of what he saw in terms of issues, same thing. So now we look at the Democrats who'd like to lead the party in 2028, and I think you can divide them roughly into two groups. I call them the dividers and the uniters. And the dividers are being pressed by Trump derangement syndrome, by Donald Trump's actions, which are really offensive to a lot of Democrats and independents, and by what they see as a need to win the nomination. First, worry about the general election. Second, it's always a fatal mistake. It's always a fatal mistake. Go look at, for the last five presidents, Trump twice, Obama twice, Clinton twice, Bush twice, Biden once. Go look at their announcement speeches when they started their campaigns, when what was immediately before them was a primary nomination electorate. The speeches they gave could have all been their convention species, could have all been their inauguration species. They started the way they ended. And I think that's partly a big part of why they won. But what you have now in the Democratic Party is a couple of realities. First of all, the party is far to the left at where it was when Bill Clinton ran and Bill Clinton ran to move the party further back to the center. But the Democratic Party was nowhere near as far left on a range of issues as it is now. So over the time we're talking about from Bill Clinton 92 through today, the Democratic Party's further to the left and then second is. For 10 years the party has been defined as oppositional to Donald Trump and hasn't figured out why does Donald Trump do well now his approval rating is not the highest of anybody, to be sure. He lost one of the three races he ran. But they haven't figured out the puzzle. They have not figured out the puzzle. Why does Donald Trump win? And as the these candidates talk in the last couple weeks, I listened so closely to them. A lot of them have been out and about responding to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, responding to the question of Jimmy Kimmel's short term suspension, and then responding on a regular basis to the things Donald Trump is doing that the base of the party certainly does not like and, and others don't like. But particularly the base of the party, the, the threat of prosecutions by, of opponents of the president, enemies of the president, some of the other steps he takes that don't do more than violate norms, but in their view are, can be illegal. And then in the case of things like immigration, where the president's doing what he said he would do, or the tariffs where he's doing what he said he would do, they, they're just instinctively oppositional. So I want to talk about some of the Democrats as I've studied them and asked people to rate their chances. And I'll start with Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, previously very well thought of as a potential nominee. His stock has gone down in part because people don't think he has the instinctive feel for the base of the party. And for those who say you can only run for the base or you can only run for the center, you gotta do both. And the question is, can you convince the country as Bill Clinton did and Barack Obama did and Joe Biden did, can you convince the country and your party that even though you talk about uniting that you're still gonna be a tough partisan and still fight? And can you make the tough partisans in your party say, well, that person may be not as partisan, as much of a divider as I'd like, not as anti Trump as I'd like, but I wanna win the general election and know based on the data that we see pretty much every four years, that whoever controls the center in the general election is gonna win the election. So Governor Shapiro does Not put his head up as often as some others like AOC or Gavin Newsom, but he has been this week and I want to show you him from Jimmy Kimmel where or on Jimmy Kimmel, rather, where he went on Meet the Press and he talked about his view of free speech and American tradition. Please play Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania S3. Our foundational principle in this country, which has roots in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, William Penn State, settled here in the 1680s, is. Is about freedom of expression, freedom of speech. And to see that being undermined by the long arm of the federal government is extremely dangerous. Again, whether you agree with Jimmy Kimmel or not, whether you found him funny or not, to fire someone because he told a joke about the president repeatedly and the President didn't like it, to fire him because he was in artful in his words, in the wake of the killing of Charlie Kirk, when you have others in the media, and I mean, this is no disrespect, who are.
- [11:33]
A
In artful every day, Right.
- [11:35]
B
That is dangerous when we are selectively firing people because of their viewpoints. So what does it mean to be what I call Governor Shapiro an instinctive uniter? What does that mean? First of all, tone. You heard his tone there. It was not. It was not frenetic or fiery. He thinks about Trump voters all the time in his state, but nationally, his state's a, you know, bellwether state, has rural areas, urban areas. He thinks what, what's motivating Trump voters? Can he win Trump voters, as he, as he did many of in his president, in his gubernatorial reelection campaign, he picks principled fights. And when he disagrees with maga, he says so. But he doesn't do it in a disrespectful way. And then finally, his theory of the case of politics is not fire up my base and turn them out. His theory of the case of politics. Same as Bill Clinton, same as Barack Obama, same as Joe Biden. I gotta get everybody, I want everybody possible who might vote for me to consider in a serious way to vote for me. That is his instinct. And I'll say it's not the only reason his stock has gone down. But in the party right now, they're not looking for instinctive uniters. If you look at people who are doing better, it's people who are. Who are not taking that path. Okay, so who else would be in that camp? Who else in the Democratic potential fields? Distinctive uniter, Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan, Governor Beshear of Kentucky. It's a smaller group the group that's clearly from the uniter camp, but history suggests that's where the party goes. The last batch of Democratic nominees. Same with John Kerry. Same with Hillary Clinton. They're unsuccessful nominees. They've all been from that group. They've all been from the group. Does it mean that they don't have liberal positions on some issues? No, it doesn't. They have a lot of liberal positions, but so did Bill Clinton. But they do stake out, at least on occasion, positions that challenge the base of the party. I'm looking for a tough and skilled Instinctive United to be the dominant player in that lane. Who else likes distinctive Uniters? Instinctive Uniters? Donors. The donor class. Because the donor class always believes that the best bet in the Democratic Party is somebody who can take the center in the general election. Rahm Emanuel historically has been an instinctive uniter, but he faces so much pressure from his past doing that as governor, as mayor of Chicago, that you see him in his interview with Megan Kelly, some other interviews he's done. You've seen him kind of picking his way through. Can he be that uniter? He's from the Bill Clinton school, and we'll see if he's. If he. If he can sustain it. Bill Clinton won as an instinctive United. So did Barack Obama because they had so much credibility with the far left of the party. They cut him some slack. Rahm Emanuel won't get that. Okay, the dividers, the instinctive dividers. Front and center is aoc. Governor Pritzker put in that same category of Illinois. But AOC right now, I hear more and more Democrats saying she will run for president and that they think she'll be formidable. I still want to see her answer tough questions. I want to see what her policy positions are. She has a lot of really liberal positions to the left of the country. I'm skeptical of her candidacy, that she'd be successful even winning the nomination. But Gavin Newsom, as you know, is got this ballot initiative in California to try to gerrymander the state to offset some of the losses Democrats are going to face in Texas and elsewhere. And he made an interesting choice. He recruited AOC to do a campaign ad in support of voting yes to gerrymander the state and try to win five seats for the Democrats in the U.S. house. Listen to this ad. If you're. If you're watching on YouTube, watch this ad and listen to all the hot buttons she hits. This is not a uniting ad. This is a dividing ad to fire up the base of the Democratic Party, Go Ahead and roll S2, please.
- [15:39]
C
California, you know we don't back down from a fight. And this November, the fight belongs to you. Donald Trump is redrawing election maps to force through a Congress that only answers to him, not the people. If he gets away with it, all bets are off for our health care, our paychecks and our freedoms. With Prop 50, we can stop him.
- [15:59]
B
Prop 50 levels the playing field and.
- [16:02]
C
Gives power back to the people. Fight for democracy in all 50 states. Yes, on 50.
- [16:09]
B
That is left wing populism. That is anti Trump. That's about fighting. Right? Fighting's the key word. If you hear a Democrat talk about fighting, fighting Trump, you know that they're trying to, they're trying to fire up the base. There's nothing in there that's unifying now. It's a ballot measure. But the fact that she was chosen, the fact that she's doing this ad for California shows her national ambitions. And that ad shows her skills. She is a great communicator. She is very like Trump, very watchable. People are drawn to want to hear what she has to say. My test always is, if that were on in a room and you walked in and the sound was down, would you want to turn it up to hear what she had to say? That's what people have done now for years for Trump. They do it for her, too. All right, two guys I want to talk about finally, both of whom may well run. I'm not sure either of them is a sure thing, who I think are instinctive uniters, but are being big dividers now. And this shows where the centrifugal force in the Democratic Party, two guys who, again, their instinct is to unite the country. They've taken moderate policy positions during their careers. Their tone is moderate. They're willing to go on conservative media, a sign of a uniter. But both of them are now have been sucked into this orientation of you got to show you're confronting Donald Trump. You have to be anti maga, not try to understand maga. And again, these are two guys I'm talking about, Pete Buttigieg, former Transportation Secretary, and Gavin Newsom, Governor of California. These are two guys who have been students as much as anybody else in the party, really, of why maga, why is Donald Trump succeeded? What did they care about? How does the Democratic Party win them back? And yet in the current moment, I don't see either of them showing their inner unifier. They're both, they're both playing that, that other card. They're both playing the divider card. Here's Pete Buttigieg. This is from Meet the Press also, and he's talking about the Trump administration and how they operate. Is this from Meet the Press? I think I have that wrong. No, this is from a podcast interview with Kara Swisher, not Meet the Press. Pete Buttigieg with Kara Swisher talking about the Trump administration. Roll S5, please. You know, part of their project is to assert total control over this country. Not just lead the government, but control everything. This is something that is enabling them to try to do that even more. We've seen that sort of thing before. I mean, history teaches us some provocative incident then leads those in power to have a way to consolidate their power. If there's any cohesion, any pattern in what our president, this president does, it's. Everything he does is about consolidating his own power. Will it work? It could. I mean, if he's actually able to use this as a pretext to undermine groups and people who are politically difficult for him that are not in any way associated with this or any other act of violence, but are a political problem for him. Given that you have a court that's unwilling to check his power and a Congress that is unwilling to check his power, that could happen. Now, the tone is calm. He's not, he's not screaming, he's not using profanity. But that is a critique of Donald Trump that you could hear on Rachel Maddow, you'd hear in the far left of the party, and it's certainly plain to that part of the party. So much has happened in the last couple weeks that would give an opportunity for a Democrat who wanted to show understanding of what's, of how people in MAGA feel, why Donald Trump has won the support of so many people who, who don't like his style, sometimes don't like his issue positions. Things like double standards on censorship, where you have all these Democrats now saying, oh, no, no one should ever be canceled for what they say. Things like an announcement from YouTube that they were going to restore, a bunch of accounts from conservatives that were, that were canceled. Things like the assassination of Charlie Kirk where the reaction of a lot of Democrats has been to criticize Charlie Kirk, cherry pick quotes, take quotes out of context and not show the understanding to the tens of millions of people so connected to him and so affected by his, by his murder. These have been opportunities for these Democrats to not pull their punches necessarily in terms of their principled opposition, but to understand what Mag is going through. And I've not heard that being emphasis from Pete Buttigieg. Probably the most interesting prism to look at this question of how Democratic leaders who may want to run for president are thinking about where the party is now is Gavin Newsom. He continues to be the most visible of all the Democrats. The press turns to him on almost everything. He continues to play his mock mocking of Trump game on Twitter. And he was in New York this week, Clinton Global Initiative, some environmental meetings, lots of high profile appearances. And I'm such a student of his. He's been on the program and I know throughout his career as mayor of San Francisco, as lieutenant governor, as governor, he has been a critic of the excess, liberal excesses of his party. He has been someone, as I said, who's studied conservatives, took a lot of heat for putting people like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast. And he did that, as he has said, because he wants to understand. Now he takes heat and sometimes he soft pedals and says, well, I'm not having them on to understand Magham having them on so we can all learn from them or figure out what's going on. But he wants to study the other side and his heart's in the right place, not just to some tactical advantage. He really wants to understand how to grow the Democratic Party the right way by appealing to people on economics, on other issues where he thinks his party needs to do a better job of reaching out. So because he's been in the east, he's been doing a bunch of media in person, right? And if you're, I've said this before about him. One of the reasons I think he in the end he's not going to run. I'm the only one still who thinks that is it's hard to run for president from California. There's so much of the activity, the, the key states, the media, the other politicians are in the east, right? In Washington and New York, et cetera, New Hampshire, Georgia. But so when he is in the east, he does a lot of media. He's done this before he comes. He's been to the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City before. Here he is doing Stephen Colbert show a couple days ago. And again, listen to how he talks about Donald Trump and by implication how he talks about the MAGA agenda. This Stephen Colbert with Gavin Newsom S1 please. This guy is flooding the zone. He's dominating the narratives. Facts don't seem to matter. And Democrats frankly have had a difficult time pushing back. And Democrats feel that at times there's sort of this weakness that dominates our brand and our party. And I think what people appreciate is that we're willing to fight, and not only fight symbolically by having a little bit fun, but fight substantively. We have 41 lawsuits against this son of a bitch. We're pushing back and we're winning, you know, and, you know, and we're filling a void on a lot of issues. I'm out here for Climate Week. California is the tent pole in terms of climate policy in this country.
- [23:38]
A
As he walks away from Paris, he.
- [23:39]
B
Walks away from leadership, moral authority around the rest of the world. California is trying to assert itself on health policy.
- [23:46]
A
Same thing.
- [23:47]
B
We created this West Coast Collaborative. We're not going to listen to this guy. We're not going to listen to him trying to pronounce a set of medicine or we're not going to sit there, listen, all that. No one trusts the guy. So what's the biggest applause line that Newsom gets in that. In that, in that segment? Right. Biggest applause line is when he says, we've got. Bring it back up here. We have 41 lawsuits against that son of a. Okay. Why has Newsom moved ahead in the polls? Why are people talking so much about him as a potential nominee? Because he's using the powers of the governor of California on social media, as he said, to have some fun, but to be in the daily news cycle, but also to bring lawsuits, instigate policies, sign legislation. Right. And almost everything he's doing is anti Trump and, and not meant to appeal to maga. This is not a uniter saying, vote for me because I'll bring the country together after four years of disunity around Donald Trump, it's vote for me because I'm going to take the wood to that son of a bitch. Right. That's not all of Gavin Newsom. Certainly. He's always, he's always been anti Trump, but he's also, you know, met with Trump and worked with Trump. He said over and over again during COVID So this is a, this is a clear indication that right now, where is the Democratic Party? Where is the centrifugal force? Where's the. Where's the allure? It's to be in the uniter divider wing. It's to be the. As most anti maga, anti Trump as you can be. And the danger for the Democratic Party, and I hear this a lot from Obama people and Clinton people, is that's not what's going to win the general election. That's what's going to drive some support, maybe from Grassroots activists maybe raise money online. But if the long game is to win the White House, not just to win the nomination, if that's the long game, then the goal is to not just be someone who divides and revs up the base. You got to do that. You have to rev up the base. But the danger they see, and a lot of Republicans have pointed this out to me this week with glee, is if the contest is to be as far to the left, angry, not thinking about how to win over Trump voters, if that's the contest that defines who can be the Democratic nominee. Republicans are delighted with that. What they want to not see is a contest where somebody says, I love the base of my party, I oppose Donald Trump, but I also want to win over people who are Trump voters. And that requires an economic agenda, it requires talking about health care, it requires talking about long term understanding of how to afford a house, et cetera. It's hard to do that. Ro Khanna tries to do stuff like that. The congressman from California, does he get attention for that? No, he gets attention for hounding the president on Jeffrey Epstein. So continue to watch. Whenever you see one of these potential Democratic presidential candidates on tv, do what I do. Watch every frame, listen to every syllable, every nuance. Are they trying to be a uniter or show people at least the capacity to be a uniter, the way our last successful presidential candidates have done? Or is it all about who can out maga, anti out anti maga, the other folks? That's the allure. That's what gets you on msnbc, that's what gets you retweets, that's what gets you online contributions. There's a lot of allure there. And as I said, if you're a political pro, you say, yeah, we need all that. We need to be on msnbc, we need to be active on social media, we need to raise money online. But if you do all those things at the expense of learning how to be a uniter, history suggests you're unlikely to be the nominee and you're certainly unlikely to win a general election. I have been staggered, staggered by how divided the country's become. We're going to talk about that in a minute with Larry o'. Connor. I did not think it could get like this, but the resonance of the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been something I've been thinking about since the day he was killed. I still am trying to get my arms around it. My trip to Arizona, my conversations and emails and texts and talking to people who knew Charlie personally. And those who just admired him suggest to me there's a lot going on here that continues to evolve, but that we haven't processed as a country. So we'll continue to watch it. But as I said, one of the great prisms to use is these presidential candidates who's a uniter, who's a divider, and who's feeling their way through where they want to be if they decide to run. All right, next up, Larry o'. Connor. He's host the Larry podcast for Town Hall Media and morning radio host for WML in Washington. One of the smattest people I know, followed by Patty Solisto, also wicked smart. That's all coming next up. Hey, if you're 64 years old or older, I've got an important announcement for you. The Department of Justice recently sued three major, major Medicare brokers for claiming they were unbiased while allegedly pushing people into plans that got the brokers the biggest kickbacks. It's true. So many insurance agents, they just can't be trusted. But you can't rely on the government. Forget the best information, either. That's why I want you to know now about something called chapter. CHAPTER was started by people who went through this experience personally after their own parents were pushed into the wrong Medicare plan by an agent who was more focused on commissions than on good care. Chapter's mission is very simple. To give every American the honest, straightforward Medicare advice that they deserve. And here's what makes them different. They're the only Medicare advisor that compares every plan all across the country, not just a few. That saves their clients an average of $1,100 per year. There's really no reason not to call. It's quick, it's easy, and they can review your options in under 20 minutes. If they find you're already in the right plan for you, they'll let you know that. But if there's a better plan, they'll help you make the switch. This could be one of the most important calls you make this year. Dial £250 and say chapter Medicare to get the peace of mind you deserve. Again, that's £250 and say chapter Medicare.
- [30:00]
A
Can lighter structures really be stronger? Yes, they can. ExxonMobil is helping advance American industrial innovation with Proxima systems, enabling a lighter and stronger alternative to traditional rebar while lowering greenhouse gas emissions to help build a more efficient construction industry. With sustainability in mind, ExxonMobil, let's deliver.
- [30:30]
B
Okay, we're back. Next up, using my best radio DJ voice, because my guest, Larry o' Connor, host of the Larry Podcast for Town Hall Media and the morning host at the great WMAL powerhouse station in Washington, D.C. frequent guest on Two Way and Good Friend of Sean Spicer. And I would hope to be considered at least a moderately good friend of mine. Larry, welcome in.
- [30:54]
A
We'll go with Moderately good. Hey, 10th caller gets the free tickets to the Nats game tonight. Make sure you call in.
- [30:59]
B
Yeah, 10th caller. I love, I loved being, you know, having to time, like, if it's like 20th caller, like you don't want to call right away. Right. You don't want to wait too long. Did you ever win anything on radio?
- [31:11]
A
I never won. I won my radio job, actually. It was a contest that got me on the air in the first place.
- [31:16]
B
And can't believe we've never talked about that. Not for today.
- [31:18]
A
That's actually not true, but it does explain a lot.
- [31:21]
B
Oh, very funny. I felt I won a Blondie album. Which name of the one that has the Tide is High.
- [31:28]
A
Oh, yeah, that was 79, I want to say maybe 80. Right. When that new wave sort of East Village kind of thing was happening. Right.
- [31:40]
B
Is Deborah Harry alive?
- [31:42]
A
I tore her ticket once at a Off Broadway theater called Naked Angels. I was my one. You remember Naked Angels? It was a great Off Broadway theater. I was.
- [31:50]
B
But is she alive or not?
- [31:52]
A
I think she is, yeah.
- [31:53]
B
Is she older than you or younger than.
- [31:54]
A
I think she's still kicking. She's older than us.
- [31:57]
B
Us. Okay. Anyway, Larry is here and we're going to talk about the thing that's been on my mind. I talked about it in the monologue. I feel like after, you know, decades of division, particularly the 10 years of Trump, that the assassination of Charlie Kirk has taken us to a different, more fraught, darker place. And to the extent you agree with that, I'm wondering why you think that is. And if you don't agree, we'll move on.
- [32:21]
A
But I, I sadly agree. I don't want it to be so. I want this to be a time where we can sort of have some understanding here. Remember John Edwards? Of course, Senator from North Carolina and John Kerry's running mate. He used to have this go to stump speech about how there were two Americas. And the two Americas, of course, from his perspective, were about class and economy and wealth and economics. But the two Americas, I think right here divided along ideological lines here. And I've reached an understanding that I didn't realize as a conservative in America at this time, Mark, and that is that I really think the left, the people on the political left in this country truly don't understand me. They truly don't understand the people in our movement. And I think that that memorial sort of, I think it demonstrated that starkly there were, there was talk that it would gonna, it was gonna be, you know, a rabble rousing and full of hate and full of, you know, invective against the political left. There was a little bit red meat. No, it was, it was a faith based revival atmosphere. It was about remembering Charlie, about what as much as we could, what he stood for in a positive light and what we could do to sort of carry his torch forward. And the lack of understanding and sort of comprehensive of who we really are, especially those who are of us, who are motivated by our faith. I'm seeing so much in the rearview mirror now that it sort of all makes sense. I remember during the, the fights over abortion in this country, whereas a pro life conservative, I truly did care for the lives of those unborn children. I really did care for the emotional and mental well being of the mothers who were faced with a horrible decision. And sadly, they only heard one side of the equation and moved toward extinguishing the life of that unborn baby, their child. And I had compassion for them and I wanted them to know that there was another choice. At the time on the left, all I heard from Democrats was that I was just trying to control women's bodies, that I was misogynist and I didn't. It wasn't really about the baby. I just wanted to control women's bodies because I hated women. It was the war on women, remember? And now that I look at it, I realized they really don't understand us. They really don't get us. And somehow we gotta bridge that. We're going to a dark place, Mark, if we can't figure out how to take each other on face value and actually listen to where we're coming from so that my political opponents can understand me. Because if they don't understand me, it makes it that much easier to put a bullet in my head.
- [34:54]
B
Yeah. So, Larry, it's so interesting that you say that because right after Charlie was assassinated, I said to the people on the left on all my shows, I said, you have to understand, you need to spend the time understanding why this is so emotional and so wrenching for people in MAGA and followers of Charlie. I said that particularly I heard from so many well informed Democrats who follow politics. I think I've heard of Charlie Kirk, you know, or I haven't heard of Charlie Kirk or I know who he is. He's that guy who does X. And they would say some sliver of what Charlie did. And I said to them, you all need to spend time. This is a great opportunity for you to spend time understanding not just Charlie Kirk, but why all the things about Charlie Kirk that have been so inspirational to tens of millions. And then I said to people on the right, don't think this is going to go well for America if you don't even in your moment of grief, spend time explaining. And I took a ton of heat for that from people on the right who said, how dare you? We have no, they just killed one of our heroes. We have no obligation to reach out. And I just, I agree with what you said, which is we have to spend the time on both sides understanding more. And this if we don't do it now, what will dominate in the national town square is the anger. And in many cases ignorance fueled anger. People on the left so ignorant about who Charlie was, they say he was a hater, right? Nothing makes me more sad than when people call him a hater because he was not a hater, okay? And then people on the right, on the left saying, well, there's all this, January 6th, there's all this rhetoric on the right, Maga, you know, Charlie Kirk was against gun control. And again, I say to people on the left, note, no, use this opportunity. So Erik Erickson, very smart man, talker and writer, he wrote in his substack this morning about the thing that I've been trying to convince the people on the left, which is the prism for so much of MAGA anger, which is our national debate. Despite the rise of talk radio and Fox News and Newsmax and social media, the national debate is two to one because Hollywood and the corporate media is for the liberals. And all these two to one debates undergird so much of the frustration and anger. And so in the context of the debate about, well, is there more violence on the left or more violence on the right? Here's what Eric Erickson wrote. Now, CNN will routinely talk to its audience about right wing violence as a standalone category of violence. But all left wing violence must be taken with a heavy dose of quote, unquote, both sides do it and quote, why did Donald Trump provoke it? Right? It's just, it's, it's so true. If, if, if, if, if the equip. I've said this, I'll keep saying it to Democrats. If the equivalent of Charlie Kirk or somebody who was a Democrat who worked for Barack Obama and It helped Barack Obama get elected, had been assassinated by someone who seemed to be of the left, of the. Of the right. The coverage of that. First of all, there'd be a lot more coverage of the. Of the assassination, but the coverage of it would be that the right killed the person, and they would be breaking out of all the things in the right. Whenever it's left wing, the dominant media just tries to not cover it. They just try to. They just say, oh, it's just one crazy person, or, we need gun control. They just don't cover it that way. So try to explain to people who listen to this program who are on the. On the left, who are Democrats, try to explain to them why that is so troubling.
- [38:25]
A
Let me try to put it this way. And I agree with Eric. I've known Eric a long time, and I agree with him. Although I wouldn't say it's 2 to 1. I think it's further than 2 to 1. You can't leave academia out of the equation.
- [38:34]
B
Yeah.
- [38:35]
A
What happens on our college campuses. Add that to the mix. Because I think that one of the reasons why Charlie was seen as such a danger by his opponents is because that's where he was gaining ground, and that's where he. That's where he was murdered eventually by an assassin's poet. And. And that assassin did not kill Charlie Kirk because of what he was saying. He was killing him because people were listening and it was making a difference. And they didn't try to stop Charlie Kirk. They tried to stop that conversation from happening. In this case, it had to do with the ideology behind transgender policies in this country that, you know, are taking a turn. So I'm sort of talking around the issue here, Mark, in that Charlie was silenced because they want to stop and silence our ideas. And whether it's this violent act that was meant to marginalize our dias and make them worthy of murder, or the more subtle actions that are taken by the media and by academia by saying that voicing our opinions is equivalent to violence. You know, words are violence. They say that so that when we use words, it's okay to use violence against us. Trump is a Nazi. Trump is a fascist. Ice Age ice. Law enforcement officers are just like the Gestapo. These words dehumanize us. They marginalize us. The fact that we're not booked to be on the Sunday shows as members of the roundtable. Oh, we can go on there as a guest so that we can get attacked by the journalist who runs that Sunday show, but we're not invited to the roundtable to participate on an equal footing with all the other voices in Washington D.C. because our voices and our opinions are not worthy of political polite discussion. This all builds into this, this dehumanizing effect. I, I believe in this country that marginalizes those of us who, by the way, are in the majority politically right now, based on the last election.
- [40:34]
B
Right.
- [40:35]
A
So it's, it's so, and I, like I said at the beginning, and, and I think that you're right to say that, that the left and people on the political left are not trying to understand us, but I think it's because they have been told for over a decade now that we are not worthy of their empathy. Our voices and our opinions are so toxic that they don't even need to bother to listen to us. They should ignore us. And if we continue to speak and we get too loud, we should be silenced.
- [41:03]
B
Two other things in the news this week where the media coverage is just so laughably unfair and one sided. One is the potential indictment as we sit here, talk today, potential indictment of Jim Comey. And every time I turn on MSNBC or cnn, I hear some analysts say a version of the following. Can you imagine living in a country where someone is indicted not because of the evidence, but because someone wants to make a political statement to extract a politic? Can you imagine how that undermines the country? And there you have.
- [41:38]
A
What would that look like?
- [41:39]
B
What would that look like? And no awareness. And I always go back to the two New York cases, the case of Letitia James and the case of Alvin.
- [41:48]
A
Bragg, because the real estate case and the Eugene Carroll case, because in both.
- [41:51]
B
Those cases the prosecutors ran for public office saying, vote for me and I'll go after Donald Trump, not because I've done any investigating, just because I'll go after him. And then both those cases, any fair legal observer would say these are weak cases. Anyone would say these are weak cases. It was being fair. And many liberal legal analysts said that. And yet both cases were brought not against a former FBI director who's, whose liberty, you know, he's entitled to not be falsely charged. I'm not saying he should be, but, but he's not. He, Jim Comey is not the front runner for the presidency, which is, which is what they did to Donald Trump. The lack of awareness in the media, no, no scrutiny on the other side of Jim Comey. The fact that Jim Comey regularly has been, has violated standards in public openly, as he did with Hillary Clinton in 2016, has not been truthful about his relationships with the media. So that double standard, that double standard of saying, oh, it's fine to indict Donald Trump for political purposes, but it'd be horrible if you indicted Jim Comey for political purposes. That's another one. And again, I'd love for you to try to explain if we, if we had a bunch of liberal Democrats here or they're listening now, why is that so upsetting to conservatives?
- [43:09]
A
Yeah, many reasons why it's upsetting, but thank you for pointing out, because everyone's trying to equivocate this. You know, Trump going after his political opponents. James Comey is not running for office. He's not an elected official. He was one of the most powerful law, if not the most powerful law enforcement officers in the country as the FBI director. And if he abused his power and lied to Congress and their oversight role while in that role, he should be prosecuted. And that's not a political opponent. It's not like what was done to Donald Trump where he was, was running for office. And these laws were sort of, you know, creatively applied to him, as you point out. Secondly, I think that when you look at this, objectively speaking, when you look at the facts and take the politics out of the way, and I understand that that's difficult, when you look at those two cases in New York, the Letitia James case and the Alvin Bragg case, it's pretty hard to figure out, just looking at them on face value and looking at the facts, what law was broken, let alone whether Donald Trump was guilty of breaking those laws. You really have to sort of contort yourself and twist yourself into pretzel.
- [44:14]
B
And they were unprecedented. There had been cases like that. And the bar. And the bar, rather than being higher for a former president and the front runner for the presidency, the bar was lowered.
- [44:24]
A
That's right. Add to that the fact that they ran for office as a campaign incentive. Vote for me and I'll do this, as you said. Secondly, when you do the exact same thing with Director Comey, when you look at his testimony under oath before Congress about whether he leaked information and whether he talked to the press and his conduct during the early days of the Crossfire hurricane investigation into Donald Trump, objectively speaking, if you set politics aside, it's hard not to see that, yeah, it sure looks like he didn't tell the truth under oath. That's perjury, and that should mean something. But secondly, he also openly bragged about what I would characterize as abuse of power when going after General Flynn. You know, that that famous exchange with Nicole Wallace when James Comey was selling his book. Maybe you can run the clip here on the podcast where he laughs about the fact that he took advantage of the chaotic early days of the Trump White House. He would have never done it under Obama or Bush and sent an agent in there to talk to Mike Flynn and potentially trap him in a perjury trap. By the way, the agent that he sent was Peter Strzok, the guy who was text messaging with Lisa Page, the.
- [45:34]
B
Most anti Trump FBI agent maybe ever. Okay. All great. And again, I just want to be clear. I'm not a big fan of the president publicly saying to the Justice Department and privately prosecute my political enemies. I'm not a fan of that. I think that's horrible. Do you agree with me that that's horrible?
- [45:51]
A
Well, I don't think he used the words prosecute my political enemies.
- [45:53]
B
But that's what he's saying. But that's what he's saying. I agree.
- [45:57]
A
If I could move one step backwards. We used to laugh about it in this time used to be a punchline and you can probably finish it, Mark. You can get a, a U.S. attorney can get a federal grand jury to indict what now?
- [46:10]
B
A ham sandwich. But I prefer to say, I personally say bacon because I like bacon.
- [46:13]
A
Bacon's lovely. Fabulous. Either way, not so kosher, but great sandwiches. Here's the problem, Mark, and everyone laughs about that. The ham sandwich is innocent. The ham sandwich didn't do anything.
- [46:24]
B
Yeah.
- [46:24]
A
Why do we think it's funny and sort of a quaint little throwaway line that a U.S. attorney has that kind of power and the grand jury in.
- [46:31]
B
The base, they typically do. Historically, they do. Grand juries rarely balk, although they have in a few instances lately. But, but my point is, my point is the, the, the president shouldn't be using the Justice Department to settle political scores.
- [46:45]
A
No.
- [46:46]
B
That's hard.
- [46:46]
A
Biden shouldn't have done that.
- [46:47]
B
And well, and President Trump shouldn't do it either. And Letitia James shouldn't do it and Alvin Bragg shouldn't do it. My point to conserve to liberals and people who don't like the president is in on one side, the media and academia and Hollywood say go, go get, go get Donald Trump.
- [47:05]
A
They celebrate it.
- [47:06]
B
No celebrate no interest in the evidence, the fairness, the precedents. And in this case, those same groups that control so much of the media, so much of the national town square are saying horrors, horrors. That someone would be have their liberty threatened because of a political agenda. That's my point. On that and then the same thing on all these free speech issues.
- [47:26]
A
And again, real fast, though, those of us on the right Mark feel that the only way this stops is if a couple of them start to get indicted. And I know that seems wrong, I know that seems hypocritical, but they need to recognize these tools can be used against them until they stand up and.
- [47:41]
B
Say, okay, enough, I understand it. And I get eye for an eye. And, and I get the, you know, people tell me there's all this game theory that shows unless you make them pay a price for it, they'll keep doing it. I don't like either. But what I also don't like is the, is the, is the fact that the media and academia just sides with one side. It's one thing for partisans to be partisans. It's another for it to be two on one. Or as you said, maybe more than two on one. Same thing with all these free speech issues. Kimmel himself was delighted for conservatives to be canceled. All these media reporters who are now outraged about Kimmel being canceled were delighted. These establishment media reporters were delighted when it was being done. And they came up with the funny name cancel what they call it Cancel consequence.
- [48:26]
A
Yes, I believe, I believe our pal Bride Stelter on CNN did a whole segment about Lou Dobbs getting fired by Fox, which, by the way, listen, it's Fox's sandbox. You've worked for corporate media. I work for corporate media.
- [48:37]
B
They can fire who they want, but.
- [48:38]
A
The ownership of my radio station or town hall media decides that they want to fire me because of my content. I won't like it. I may speak out against it, but it's their sandbox. They pay me to play in it. And if I'm not playing by their rules anymore, right?
- [48:50]
B
And there is a principal difference here because in this case, the president and head of the FCC have used government authority to try to get people fired. And Ted Cruz and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and other conservatives, John Thune, have said no, that's, that's no good. So that is a distinction. But the other distinction is it was reported this week, YouTube is restoring accounts to conservatives who were canceled for the content because they were conservative. That's barely covered in the establishment press. Just as to this day, they don't cover the Hunter Biden laptop, cover up all this stuff. And Jimmy Kimmel, what he said. And again, I'm not for using the government authority and I'm not for people. I still wonder if it was in the teleprompter he just ad libbed. But I'm not for people being canceled for stuff they say, even if it's factually wrong, even if it's hurtful. But what Jimmy Kimmel said was factually wrong and was hurtful. And there's nothing in the establishment media, the dominant media, about that. It's all, how dare you fire someone and again use government power to get rid of somebody you don't like. And again, try to explain to liberals why is that so upsetting to people on the right.
- [50:02]
A
Yeah, well, first, and by the way, even if it wasn't in the teleprompter, Haney ad libs that, you know how this works. They tape that five hours before they.
- [50:10]
B
Could have killed it out.
- [50:11]
A
You're right. Network standard and practices. Look at that stuff. They let it.
- [50:15]
B
You're right.
- [50:16]
A
It's, listen, it's, it's. I can only do my best to say what we on the right have been trying to say for decades now, which is it's not an even playing field. It's not fair in any way whatsoever. We very rarely see our perspectives voiced. That's how Fox News came about. That's how Rush Limbaugh came about and the rise of talk radio came about because we've had gone for so long without any fair representation for our ideas and our policies, which by the way, at any given time, the majority of Americans hold and agree with. And so, you know, listen, I am with you. I don't like the government leaning on corporations and trying to move this along. As far as we know, all we have is Brendan Carr statement on the Benny Johnson show. If, if that was it, it pales in comparison to what the Biden administration.
- [51:06]
B
We also have the president on social media.
- [51:08]
A
Well, again, on social media, that pales in comparison to what we know occurred with the FBI and with the Biden White House, Twitter and Google, in fact with YouTube, we learned this week they came back to the White House and said, listen, these guys have not violated our terms of service. And the White House says we don't care. You get rid of them or you're going to answer to us. That's, that's major pressure right there. 100% agree, number one. But, but that said, listen, you're worried about people losing their jobs or losing advertisers or losing revenue because of their content because people have risen up and try to put pressure on these corporations to do something. Cry me a river. Take a look at what conservative talk radio hosts have been dealing with since the mid-90s. You want to talk about a president applying pressure at an emotional time to a network. I'm old enough to remember Bill Clinton blaming Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing. All right. And the exodus of advertisers after that happened. I remember when they blamed Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for Gabby Gifford shooting in Tucson, which had nothing to do with politics. This is something that we on the right in media, whether it's talk radio or podcasts or on Fox News or other cable news stations, have been living with for decades. We constantly have to be watching how we say what we say and how we present it, lest we run afoul of the people who are watching every syllable to boycott our advertisers or try to put pressure on our companies to take us off the air. Thankfully, there's still a huge audience for what we do. That's the only thing that's kept us on the air. But I have friends who have lost their jobs, Mark, in the same way Jimmy Kimmel lost his job and they didn't get the kind of support that Jimmy got.
- [52:44]
B
Yeah, Larry, one of the reasons I just have so much respect for you and appreciation to have you on is you have the historical memory, not back to Jeffersonian times, but. But the Clinton thing is something I know about because. Because we're same age roughly. And. And I covered it. And. And again, you think about when Bill Clinton criticized Rush Limbaugh. It was not seen as by the dominant media as abuse of power of a president criticizing a host and causing dislocation the market. It was seen as good on you President Clinton, for criticizing a conservative. Now it's the opposite. And that double standard. I try not to make all of life about the dominant media and make everything into a media story. But more and more, as I've watched the coverage of Charlie Kirk's assassination, I can just feel as vividly as I ever have just how important that is to conservatives. And a lady we played, her last episode came on two way and she said this is just like the Biden coverup. The mental acuity attempted cover up that she said, it's so resonant for me still. She said, I thought after the debate it would be like the Emperor's New Clothes. Everybody would say, well, of course now we need to admit that we helped tried to cover this up. She said, of course. I thought after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, people on the left would say, okay, we get it now. If you go around saying people are Hitler and fascists, at some point something's going to happen. Horrible. And yet. No, no, the coverage, the attitude towards an assassination of a 31 year old father has been veering on hostile.
- [54:23]
A
Yeah, yeah, it has. I, I, I can't add anything to that other, other than the fact, I want to point out that I think that for the last several years of your Listen, I, I do feel, Mark, that you have made an attempt throughout your career and I think that the record shows it. You try to get both sides of the political discussion included in how you present the news. But for the last couple of years it's been part of your business model, it's been part of how you go to market every day, that it's an important part of the element of your programming to have these conversations and expand it and give respect to both sides of the political equation. And I think once you go there and once you start hearing it and seeing it, you can't unsee it anymore.
- [55:03]
B
Yeah.
- [55:03]
A
And now it's starting to become even more vivid for you.
- [55:06]
B
Yeah. And you know, Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about, you know, supporting Ted Cruz for his opposition to the FCC commissioner speaking out. And, and, and it's, it rhymes with the reality that Ted Cruz has never gotten such positive press coverage, but because the press like the fact that he was opposing Donald Trump. But the principle is what's important. And so when they say, well, I love the fact that Ted Cruz is speed, the press says, I love the fact that Ted Cruz is speaking out on this because it's anti Trump. But then they can't go the next step to say, well, we should probably have spoken out when Donald, when Joe Biden's administration used government power to coerce the social media platforms.
- [55:47]
A
Right.
- [55:48]
B
Like that. So it's just totally unprincipled. And again, we expect political actors to be hypocritical. We expect political actors to, to not be consistent and to just worry about their own interests. But we also expect the press to be fair and to be consistent. And what this puts in sharp relief is they're just not.
- [56:07]
A
Well, the silver lining, I think in all of this, and I think it really goes back to the pandemic and the 2020 election and the censoring of the Joe Biden laptop or the Hunter Biden laptop story, I'm sorry, is that there is, there is a hunger for media that cuts across the grain and doesn't do the same kind of programming you see on the cable networks and on the broadcast networks. And, and you're providing it. I'm providing it. Megan's providing it. Rogan's providing it. Tucker, to a different degree, is providing it. Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire folks. Charlie was, by the way, also providing that content on his podcast. And as my colleague on Salem Radio and, and we're rising. Our numbers are exploding, and especially on the most important development in delivering facts and information analysis, and that's video streaming, like we're doing right now, and all of those other business models that spend 10 to 20 times more than we spend, as you know, if not more, they're failing. They're not getting the numbers. The big backstory of Jimmy Kimmel is how atrocious his numbers are, right? How, how small his audience is. I mean, the, the biggest audience that Jimmy Kimmel got over the last couple of years was shows like ours, talking about what he said last week, right? That gave him the boost. So I think that, listen, if you care about the truth, you care about the First Amendment, you care about freedom of speech and what Madison was trying to envision when the Bill of Rights was first authored, then you will be happy, right now that the American people are getting their news and information. They're just not getting it where they used to get it. And ultimately, you're not going to be able to keep that down. Our First Amendment and freedom of the press is there not to protect reporters, but to protect we the people. Because our founders knew that we couldn't have a functioning constitutional republic using democracy to choose our representatives unless we had a free press, unless we got the government out of the free flow of information. And, and they were what they were right about that. I love freedom of the press, but that doesn't mean I have to love the New York Times, right?
- [58:08]
B
And, and again, if the shoe were on the other foot and you had all these Democratic members of Congress criticizing Charlie Kirk on the day of his memorial service and using things, saying things that weren't true. If you had a killer, alleged killer, who had the ties that this person seemed to have in the motive he seemed to have, every Republican in the country would be asked about it. Every elected official would be asked, do you support these statements? Do you, you know, what do you say about your party's complicity in this murder? Right? None of that from the press. None of it. And I just say to people on the left, try to understand how people on the right feel. And I'll say again, even though people on the right don't like it, I know you're grieving, but understand this is an opportunity to get what you say you want. You don't want Constant combat. You want change, you want fairness, you want things to be different. And this is an opportunity to do it.
- [58:58]
A
Yeah. I have to ask you, given that, and I agree, are you surprised that Jimmy Kimmel didn't have Ben Shapiro on the show with him the first night he came back, or somebody from Turning Point usa? I, I think they would have come, yeah.
- [59:13]
B
I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised because he, he's indignant and he's part of a cultural left tribe. I'll tell you. Your friend Sean Spicer, my co host, I, I asked him to follow the example of, of Erica Kirk and, and forgive Jimmy Kimmel. And Sean said he couldn't. He's just too angry. And I think it would have been very combustible for whoever showed up from Turning Point. And Kimmel, as you saw, wasn't ready to apologize. He wasn't ready to say he made a mistake. He went with the Weasley. If people were offended, I'm sorry. And I think if he'd done that, it would have been brilliant. I think he should have given a big donation. I think he should have explained why he said what he said. But he's not willing to go there. Some combination of principle and tribal loyalty. And it's unfortunate because it's now just kind of slipping away. It's off the front pages, and except for the station boycott from Sinclair and from nexstar, I'm not sure it's a story until, of course, he goes off the air because his business model's not there.
- [60:25]
A
The strange thing is, for what you and I do for a living, almost everything in our culture and in our daily conversation in this country has to be shot through the prism of next election.
- [60:35]
B
Right?
- [60:36]
A
And in this case, as set aside next month's elections in New Jersey and Virginia for the midterms and for the presidential election, you know, Republicans are still in the mode right now of trying to expand that conversation. You know, let me put it to you this way. If Turning Point, Turning Point usa, or my show or, or Megyn Kelly show, I think they'd love to extend the invitation to Jimmy Kimmel and have it out and have a conversation and actually exchange ideas. Those hosts on the left and television shows and cable networks that appeal to Democrat voters, they're not interested in that. And sadly, so were the elected officials who benefit from that media complex. Until a Democrat is willing to step forward and reach out and have that conversation, I don't see them doing well and expanding their base. And anyway, they may still think it's the economy, stupid. And that's enough. They're still telling themselves they lost in November because of the price of milk and meet and that's not entirely what it was.
- [61:33]
B
Yeah, Larry, I want to have you back and just do some dramatic reading from 107 days, like I would.
- [61:40]
A
Frankly, I prefer your satirical version.
- [61:42]
B
Yeah, thank you. I was very proud of that. Didn't get enough attention.
- [61:46]
A
I retweeted it as much as possible. I'd love to do that. I really would. Thank you for that, Larry.
- [61:52]
B
Thank you for coming in. Tell folks where they can listen to your work.
- [61:55]
A
You know, the best place to go is my substack, which is Larry vip. That's sort of a clearinghouse for my radio podcast, my daily podcast, my columns and. And some food selfies actually now and then.
- [62:09]
B
Why is it called Larry vip? Are you actually a vip?
- [62:12]
A
No, no, no. Anybody who comes there becomes a vip. So they can get all access to.
- [62:17]
B
Larry VIP on substack and you can listen on all sorts of places. Use your modern technological skills to find Larry's content.
- [62:25]
A
Whatever platform you're watching or Larry's on right now, you'll find me Larry o'.
- [62:29]
B
Connor. Larry, thank you. Grateful have you here.
- [62:31]
A
Thank you, my friend.
- [62:32]
B
I appreciate it. All right, next up, Democratic strategist Patty Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Clinton's campaign manager and a keen observer of everything that's next up. Everybody want to tell you a story about a guy named Leo Grillo. He was on a road trip and he came across a dog who was severely underweight, clearly in trouble. The Doberman was saved by Leo. He rescued him and he gave him the name Delta. Sadly, though, Delta just one of many animals that needed help. That gave Leo the inspiration to start a group he calls Delta Rescue. It's the largest no kill, care for life animal sanctuary on the planet. Over the years, they've rescued thousands of dogs, cats and horses from the wilderness. And they always do right by them. They give them shelter, love, safety, and a home. That dedication and everlasting love to animals, that is Leo's mission and his legacy. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions from people like all of us to do their good work. So if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak right now to your estate planner. Because there are tax savings and estate planning benefits to giving to the organization. You can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. Check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and to speak with an advisor There we call dog man's best friend for a good reason. You can help those dogs who need it most. So please right now visit deltarescue.org today to learn more. Again, that's deltarescue.org your skin should never come second.
- [64:04]
C
That's why Pact makes Everyday Essentials from the purest organic cotton. No toxins, no harsh chemicals, just softness you can feel good in. Because wellness isn't just what you put in your body, it's what you put on it too. From the first layer to the last, getting dressed should feel like self care. Visit wearpacked.com and use code dresswell for 15% off your first order packed. Dress yourself well, sometimes an identity threat.
- [64:32]
A
Is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details. I need a coffee. And you need Lifelock because your info is an endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40 your first year@lifelock.com special offer terms apply.
- [65:04]
B
Next up, Patty Solis Doyle. She's been here before. We love having her on. She's a Democratic strategist. She was Hillary Clinton Clinton's campaign manager in 2008. I typically get that wrong. So I'm very proud that I got the year right. And she, she's got roots in the Midwest, Chicago gal. And that means she's plain spoken and clear thinking. Patty, welcome back to Nextup.
- [65:26]
C
Thanks so much. I'm so happy to be here.
- [65:28]
B
Did you ever meet Charlie Kirk?
- [65:31]
C
You know, I never met him, but the, the assassination was obviously horrific and a tragedy and even though I never met him, it just, it just really hit me hard. And I'm trying to figure out why because obviously I didn't agree with much if not all of his ideas. But you know, how do I put this? Even I'm guilty of this. I mean I, I never said it in public and, or on TV or on podcasts or anything like that. But I'm guilty of whether it's watching Fox or, or listening to conservative media and I hear things that, you know, I vehemently disagree with and I say, man, I hate these guys. The truth is I don't hate them. I disagree with them vehemently, vociferously, you know. But what I guess hit me hard is that Charlie Cook Kirk really, you know, used his platform and his, you know, I don't want to say celebrity, but his platform to really go out and talk to people that he disagreed with and listen to them and engage them. And I guess the impact it made on me is I'm going to try and do more of that.
- [66:59]
B
Yeah. And you work at a firm where you've got Republican colleagues. And I mean, when people say Charlie was a hater, I don't think there are that many haters in the world and in politics. But you're like Charlie. You have just a huge heart. It's one of the reasons, like Charlie, such a great leader, such a great boss, when you've run big organizations and such a sensitive observer of understanding people are in politics like you and Charlie, to help people, to enact your vision. Not for power, not to destroy others, but to build up. And, and I'll just, I want to go back to. Given all that commonality between the two of you, can you enunciate more? Why. Why? It's. It's been upsetting to you. Is it. Is it. Is it. Is it just the vulnerability of someone being assassinated? Is it his age? Is it. Is it his. Is it his faith? What. What do you think contributes to it?
- [67:46]
C
I mean, all of it. All of it. He was a young man, married, two little kids, and again, I mean, we don't know everything, but it appears to be. Have to have been murdered because of his ideas. And that's just tragic. I mean, the hallmark of this country is to be able to disagree with people and to have conversations, publicly disagree with people. But violence, murder, assassination based on political ideology is just. It really hit me hard as it has hit, I think, most of America. Really, really hard.
- [68:34]
B
Yeah. What would you say? And again, I'm trying for reconciliation here, not conflict. If you and I were having dinner with Erica Kirk and some of Charlie's producers and team from Turning Point, and they said, patty, we look at some members of your party criticizing Charlie Kirk on the day of his funeral. We look at some people pointing to things Charlie said and taking them out of context to say, well, he is a hater. Can you see why that so upsets us? What would you say to them?
- [69:02]
C
I would say, yes, of course. And speaking of Erica Kirk, her remarks at the service were, I mean, so compelling and so poignant and really powerful. And of course I would say, yes, of course. I mean, again, it's a. It's a symptom of our politics that even on a day like that day, the day of his memorial, that you know, people would turn it into politics again. It was a, it was a memorial service.
- [69:38]
B
Yeah. Are there people in your life, family, friends, colleagues, who were really emotionally connected to Charlie Kirk?
- [69:50]
C
I have family, relatives who very much agreed with him. I, I don't know if I would say emotionally connected, but certainly were impacted by his assassination.
- [70:05]
B
Yeah. And did you, did you, do you feel like this is a watershed, seminal moment in our politics and our culture or just a really unfortunate thing that's kind of a one off?
- [70:16]
C
I hope it is. I hope that everyone on both sides of the aisle look in to themselves and see how we all can do better. They can do better, and we all can do better as a, as a, as a country, as a. The way our political system works, you know, and sort of dial it down. I hope, I hope it is. I really hope it is.
- [70:43]
B
Yeah. Are there some Democrats, elected officials who you've seen talk about this moment that you think are good role models for, for how the parties and everyone should, should be expressing themselves?
- [70:59]
C
That's a really good question. I think. I don't have any specifics and then I don't want to say. I don't want to call out the people who I don't think have handled it well publicly and in their public comments because I think I'd just be feeding the beast on.
- [71:22]
B
Yeah, okay, full stop. Restart. Different topic. More political. Kamala Harris's book, I'm bewildered by the whole thing. I'm bewildered by the kind of book she chose to write. I'm bewildered by how she's out there selling it. I'm bewildered how she's reacting to people's reaction to it, particularly her fellow Democrats who she criticized. So I'd love for you to just talk about what you think about what she wrote and what you think about how people have reacted to it.
- [71:50]
C
Well, so full disclosure, I have not read the book yet. I'm not sure I'm going to read the book, in all honesty, but I haven't read the book. I've read excerpts. I've seen some of her interviews. I'm kind of puzzled by it, too. I don't know what the purpose of it. I'm certainly not in her inner circle. If it was a business decision to go out there and sell books and get speaking engagements, I think it will sell books. I think she will get speaking engagements. If it was, you know, relaunch of, you know, potentially running again, of her public Persona being, you know, relaunched again in the political public sphere, I'm not so sure. That landed so well. I mean, I just, I think the, I think it would have been a much better book. And again, I didn't read it, so I don't know all that's in there if it were much more a look at, you know, why, how Democrats Lost Middle America and why. And I thought she had great ideas on the campaign trail, why those ideas didn't resonate as well as the Republican ideas and Trump's ideas, I think that would have been a much better book. But then, I mean, some of the anecdotes that came out, they just seemed, you know, really petty, you know.
- [73:14]
B
Yeah.
- [73:14]
C
I mean, call me back. Shapiro is focused on the Art in the Red. Like, it just, it just seemed very petty to me.
- [73:21]
B
Yeah. What about the way. And again, I know you haven't read it, but I'm sure you've read this. I read about these parts. What about her? Her taking issue with Joe Biden and Jill Biden, Joe Biden calling her right before her debate with Donald Trump, Jill Biden taking Kamala Harris's husband aside and saying, you know, are you loyal to us? Do you see the purpose of those stories.
- [73:43]
C
On the, the recklessness that she.
- [73:46]
B
Said.
- [73:49]
C
Having left the decision to run again to Joe and Jill Biden? I think, I mean, my initial thought was a day late, a dollar short. In retrospect, I don't really care because it's done now.
- [74:06]
B
Right. And.
- [74:10]
C
Again, the, the calling her before the debate, I just think, again, a little bit petty. We want to move on. And again, I thought she had very, very good ideas when she ran. I would have loved a focus on that. And also, Democrats want to put 2024 behind them. But books get written after an election. They just do sort of the style and tenor and approach is what should have been, I think, thought out more clearly.
- [74:47]
B
Right. I want to ask you one more question about her book, which I think is important for understanding her place in history, important for understanding her capacity to be honest about things. Her portrait in the book is very different from what my reporting was in real time. And since the book has come out regarding how she was treated by what you White House types would call the West Wing, my perception was that they went because, in part because Joe Biden was so poorly treated by the Obama administration that they went out of their way to arrange meetings for her with foreign leaders to make sure she had the staff she needed, to give her high visibility assignments, to support her when she was attacked, to listen to her concerns, to try to hire her, the very best people when some people didn't work out, I believed in real time that there'd never been a White House staff, the president's team that worked harder to build up and protect a vice president. And her claims in the book is just the opposite, that one of her big problems, including being a presidential candidate on her own, was that they undermined her, they didn't defend her. Based on your knowledge of her people and the President, Biden's people, which of those is closer to the truth?
- [76:01]
C
Well, I mean, first of all, as you know, because of all of the presidents that you've covered and the president that I've worked for and vice president, there's always a. There's always a tension between the president's staff and the vice president's staff always can get what issues, you know, who's in what meetings, which staff is in what. There's always, always tension. And anybody who tells you there isn't is lying. Having said that, if you just look at it from what we saw play out in public, there did seem to be some tension. She did sort of get the issues that kind of were the most political, politically volatile. But I knew many of the people on her staff, and they're smart and tough, and I think there are no shrinking violence.
- [77:02]
A
Right.
- [77:02]
C
I think if you wanted to say something or get their point across, they would have done it.
- [77:09]
B
Yeah. I mean, you're right. There's tension because there always is. But I think about Clinton, Gore, I think about Obama, Biden, I think about Bush, Quayle, Cheney's a little bit different because of 9, 11. But in all those instances, the vice president's office was told, no, you can't do that. You can't meet with our donors, you can't be the lead on an issue that's important, et cetera. You know, so what if, you know, you don't like your team, deal with it. I saw a Biden White House that bent over, went the extra mile, much more often, much more respectful of her place, much less inclined to disrespect her compared to the other ones I named. So, sure, they didn't get everything they want, but I know that there were some people in the West Wing who said, we're doing too much. So much of this is oriented towards building her up, but that Joe Biden thought it was important. And also they had to be ready for her to be president in case something happened to Joe Biden and they took that obligations seriously.
- [78:10]
C
Right. I very much agree with that last part of your assessment. I kind of agree with all of it. But Joe Biden was in that spot, right? He knew how important it was to have a really integrated staff and an approach to governing where they work together, and certainly believed in his heart and soul that whoever the VP was needed to be ready to be able to do the job if they needed to do the job. And so I agree with that. I think Joe Biden was in that very, very unique position where he knew the value and the importance of the role of the vice president. So I agree with that for sure.
- [78:54]
B
Okay. Talk about 2028, because so much has happened since you were last on. And again, I trust your knowledge and instincts about this literally as much as anybody I know. So I talked to the monologue about candidates putting themselves forward as uniters, people who seem to be striving to understand Trump voters versus the dividers who are just really trying to rev up the base. And Gavin Newsom clearly has moved from any pretense, or almost any pretense of being a uniter, to saying, I'm the guy who's using the power of my office to fight Donald Trump, filing lawsuits, signing legislation, going on social media. Do you believe that he has moved himself now to be the front runner? Not a front runner, but the front runner, which the polls and some analysts believe.
- [79:46]
C
You know, we are so far away from actually having a primary, and I believe a really good primary is going to be. It's going to. It's gonna. Is gonna fix a lot of things for Democrats, in all honesty, and it's gonna. It's going to make us feel really good because we're going to kick the shit out of. Sorry. We're going to kick the shit out of all of these candidates who are thinking about running, and we're going to see how they do without a primary. And again, with the caveat that it's so far ahead, I do think that Gavin Newsom has sort of risen to the top in terms of potential contenders out there. He was able, through social media, really sort of show the kind of, I'm going to say, absurdity in Donald Trump's tweets and social media posts and sort of the way he engages with other electives, et cetera, just to show it was coming from Gavin Newsom just how kind of crazy it is. And I guess Trump can get away with it, but Gavin Newsom sort of showed that he could get away with it, too. Now, in the, in the, in the uniting the, again, I want to. The Charlie Kirk assassination, you see Gavin still being a fighter, but sort of lowering the temperature. So I always thought he wasn't going to be able to sustain that sort of really aggressive stance. And I think he's, he's pulling back a little bit. But right now, anyway, if Democrats want a fighter, they have it in. Gavin Newsom.
- [81:31]
B
Yeah. I want to talk to you about Congressman Ocasio Cortez. I got nothing against her and I recognize her talent. I understand how compelling she is, how much energy she has, how much of a great feel she has for the, the, the left, grassroots, populist wing of the party. I respect her ability to raise money online, to be compelling online. I just see, I'm confused by people's enthusiasm for her running because she lacks so many of the other things that people who are nominated generally have. Like she doesn't have a long standing identification with any issues that are popular. She's got superficial association with things like the Green New Deal, but those aren't broadly popular. And she's not the architect of the Green New Deal. So are you more in the camp of yes, she's a, she's going to be a major force here if she chooses to run? Likely. Or, or do you share my skepticism that, that a lot of this enthusiasm is, is maybe not warranted?
- [82:33]
C
So I really like her. I think she's wildly impressive to see what she's done in a very, very short period of time in politics. I think it's pretty, you know, crazy. It's, it's just she's been wildly successful. She's young, she's smart, she's attractive. You know, she, she's engaging. I think she's got a lot of talents. I don't really agree with her on a lot of issues and I think her very far left approach is probably not. Although I'm not convinced where the party needs to in terms of winning back working class voters. I would like to see her run in a primary because I want to see her again, excuse my French, get the shit kicked out of her. A lot of different groups to see how she does it, to see how voters react to her, to see whether her ideas can stand the primary scrutiny. I'd like to see her run. I think she's, I think she's a talent. I think she's a, I think she's a huge talent.
- [83:47]
B
Yep. Would you put her as a, as currently, as, as a top tier candidate, as many people I know do.
- [83:58]
C
I think she's a top tier candidate by virtue of her Persona. She's in her name recognition and her ability to raise Money, which in the beginning really is, is. Is the, One of the most important things. Your name recognition and your ability to raise money.
- [84:17]
B
Yeah. So another, another really important thing, which is, which is process. But it's one of the few process things that, that I talk about regularly because it matters so much is, is the calendar what states vote early. Right. Because even if you raise a lot of money, you're not going to run a national campaign that the states that vote early disproportionately influential, as you well know. And when you were running Hillary's campaign in 2008, you had to think about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina just so much more than any other place, because they were gonna determine who got to the last round. Right now we have no idea what states are gonna vote early. And we've got a DNC chair who's pretty weak. He's not gonna be like a party boss who just unilaterally makes the decision, as best I can tell. So if you were advising, you know, as a top advisor to one of these candidates, would you be trying to influence that process? Would you be trying to try to get the states that you thought you could do best in to vote early? Or based on what you see, it's just not possible to influence the outcome.
- [85:15]
C
Of course you're going to try and influence the outcome. I mean, that's, that's, it's, it's part of the political process, not influence. But the states that go first is, as you said, is a critical, critical aspect of the process. I mean, I could go on for days and days and days and days about how detrimental Iowa being first was for Hillary in 2008. We didn't really have an opportunity to impact that process back then. And I can tell you why. I think Iowa going first is problematic just because of the demographics of the states, et cetera. And I do think it's important to change it up. But if you are seriously considering running for president, I would take a look at the map, see where you think you can do better than in other places. And sure, of course, try and influence that, because right now it's up for grabs, as you said.
- [86:23]
B
So let's take Gavin Newsom. Well, if you were Gavin Newsom, what states would you want to have go early?
- [86:28]
C
Well, I don't know enough about his, you know, internal polling, but I would think, first of all, a state like California is probably never going to go early, like New York is probably never going to go early. You're going to want a state in the middle of the country with diverse demographics and one that is probably going to be very influential in deciding the outcome of the Electoral College.
- [87:01]
B
So, like. So like a Michigan.
- [87:02]
C
Like a Michigan, Yeah.
- [87:04]
B
What about aoc? If you were aoc, you'd probably want Nevada or Nevada. I never know how to say it. You'd probably want Nevada to go first. Right. It's got a big Hispanic population, big union vote. Right. What other states, if you were her, would you want to have go early? Like, I don't think she's like a great New Hampshire gal.
- [87:24]
C
Probably not.
- [87:25]
B
Yeah.
- [87:26]
C
And also New Hampshire's been first forever and ever and ever. I think it's time to change it up. I really do. I really do.
- [87:34]
B
The problem is they're stubborn there. They want to go first. Their state law says they have to go first.
- [87:37]
C
I know. And, and the flip side to that is that they take their. This. Both Iowa and New Hampshire take their responsibility of being first. Really, really serious. Yeah, really, really serious.
- [87:50]
B
I say this all the time. And people say, oh, let's just have some other states, the voters there, we'll figure it out. No, they really won't. It's just they don't have the culture of taking it seriously. And I really, as much as I share your view that they shouldn't have monopoly and it's so undemographically diverse. But at the same time, there's a real positive to having voters take it seriously. And I worry about, about what happens if other states are first and they don't take it seriously, what that means for what expected of candidates. Then it is about name ID than it is about who can afford TV ads. It's not about really digging into issues with voters.
- [88:24]
C
I totally see that. And I, you know, I saw it up close. They make it, I mean, these voters in, in Iowa and in New Hampshire, these, the caucus go. They take it so seriously. They make it a point to meet every candidate. They read up on all of their. They take it so seriously. And I admire it. I think that's great. But I just, I just think it's time to change it up a little bit. And, and let's give voters in Nevada and Michigan the credit that they'll take it seriously, too.
- [88:56]
B
Yeah. I want to finish by talking about Erica Kirk again. And you, you commented on, you know, just how extraordinary her comments were in on Sunday. If she called you and said, I want to have a big influence on our politics, I want to be doing a lot to change things, and you were inclined to help her, what do you think her potential is? What do you think her best purpose is? To use the skills and gifts she has to influence the national debate, which she wants to do.
- [89:27]
C
First of all, I would tell her how powerful I thought her remarks are. First of all, I don't think she's going to call me.
- [89:35]
B
She might watch the show and call and say.
- [89:37]
C
I don't think she's going to call.
- [89:37]
B
You're so smart. I want to, I want you to help me.
- [89:40]
C
It was, it was a really, really powerful speech. I don't know what she wants for herself, for the organization, how she wants to grow and preserve her husband's legacy. You know, doing that may not be running for public office may not be the best way to do that. I'm glad that she's taking over Turning Point because I think there's probably. She's the person who can most, you know, move that legacy forward for her husband. And I think she has huge potential. I, I can't imagine she's thinking about a political future right now. I mean, it's so soon from.
- [90:30]
B
I just don't, I, you know, do you see.
- [90:32]
C
I think she can if she wants to.
- [90:33]
B
Do you see in her the potential to be a senator, a governor or president?
- [90:36]
C
Sure, why not?
- [90:38]
B
Yes. Yeah. What is. Do you see anyone in the Democratic Party who's like Charlie Kirk in terms of influence?
- [90:56]
C
You know, we're gonna, this is gonna delve into sort of the Jimmy Kimmel situation, which I don't want to, but I think someone like a Jon Stewart who. Yes, he's a late night comedian and. Yes. But he, he takes on a specific issue and he, you know, he owns it, he pushes it, he advocates for it. Someone like a Jon Stewart, I think.
- [91:23]
B
Okay, last question. Again, pure politics. Based on the last month, do you look at J.D. vance as a general election presidential candidate your party would have to run against if he runs in his nominee? Do you look at him as more formidable, less formidable and why?
- [91:40]
C
First of all, I think there's going to be an open primary on the Republican side too. I just don't think that the MAGA movement is into coordinating anybody. I think they wanna, you know, I think they wanna hear everybody out. But I think first of all, I, I didn't think J.D. vance was. Just because purely based on his performance on the campaign trail during the presidential. I just, I didn't think he was going to be a, you know, formidable VP back. He's, he's done better than I thought he was going to do.
- [92:21]
B
Yeah, yeah. He has done Better. But the reason I ask is I've heard from so many people, including a lot of women in both parties, who've said the version of them that's been on offer the last month, angry, very partisan, kind of sarcastic on social media, that they find that less attractive than the way that he seemed before. And, and, and, and Democrats saying bring it on. Like, if the party, if the Republicans want to nominate that guy, he's not, he does not have Trump's skills. He does not have Trump's touch. I'm just wondering whether you've seen stuff that makes you share that point of view to any extent.
- [92:54]
C
I definitely agree that he does not have Trump skills. Very, very few people have Trump skills. You know, it's a, it's. I, I can count on one hand, I think that the kind of political skills that people like President Trump and, you know, former President Clinton and former President Obama have, J.T. vance does not have it. So I agree with that. But again, I think there's gonna be an open primary. I wouldn't say bring it, bring in on any potential Republican nominee right now.
- [93:26]
B
All right, finally, take a deep breath, because I'm gonna ask you to rise to your highest and best. What would you say to young people in this country who are upset, really upset about the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What would you say to them to, to try to get them to feel comforted and thinking about the future?
- [93:44]
C
Oh, my goodness. That's such a big question.
- [93:49]
B
I told you to take a deep breath.
- [93:53]
C
I would say stop reflecting on what you really care about and continue to advocate and fight for it. But don't do it on a, on a, on a, on a personal, you know, hatred way. I, I think young people, and I'm going to sound like Whitney Houston, young people are the people who are gonna move this country forward. And the fact that this is other thing that I admire about Charlie Cook, the fact that he had so many young people engaged on these college campuses, it's just, it was remarkable. And I want them to continue to be engaged, and I don't want them turned off, but I do want them to stop and reflect.
- [94:48]
B
Nice Patty sleeve, Storl. Thank you for coming back. We love having you on. We look forward to you coming back next time.
- [94:54]
C
Okay, thanks, Mark.
- [94:55]
B
Thank you. That's all for today's show. We're going to be back on Tuesday, another brand new episode. Make sure, if you haven't already, you subscribe or download. Next up, wherever you get your podcast, I mean it. Go do it now before you forget, we want you to always know what's next up. You can Watch us on YouTube, find us on social media, be a part of the nexter community. Thanks for watching. We'll see you on Tuesday.
- [95:24]
A
When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, the heaviest industries face the toughest challenges. That's where we come in. ExxonMobil is investing in technology to help American industry lower its emissions, including in our own operations, all while empowering businesses and creating job opportunities. It turns out that fewer emissions can mean a stronger economy. ExxonMobil, let's deliver.
- [95:52]
C
Your skin should never come second. That's why Pact makes everyday essentials from the purest organic cotton. No toxins, no harsh chemicals, just softness you can feel good in. Because wellness isn't just what you put in your body, it's what you put on it too. From the first layer to the last, getting dressed should feel like self care. Visit wear packed.com and use code dresswell for 15% off your first order packed. Dress yourself well.