← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Truth About War Polling, and Sen. Rand Paul on Inflation, Gas Prices, and How Iran Could Go "Endless"
01:09:02
Tensions with Iran are escalating, and new risks are emerging that could make the mission far more difficult than the Trump administration expected. Mark uses his reported monologue to break down the military, strategic, and public perception challenges now facing the United States, including, most immediately, the zero-sum fight to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the role of drones and asymmetric warfare, and why growing concerns inside Washington are raising questions about how the conflict could unfold. He also explains why public opinion may ultimately become the decisive factor in the mission’s success or failure. Then Sen. Rand Paul joins the program for a wide-ranging conversation about the war with Iran, warning that the conflict could become another long and costly Middle East war if leaders are not careful about defining clear goals. He also discusses why he believes the national debt poses the greatest long-term threats to the United States, how inflation and tariffs are a...
Loading summary
Transcript78 lines
- [00:00]
Mark Halperin
Your place works hard, just like you do. From last night's dinner to everyday messes, you want a clean that actually delivers. Lysol kills 99.9% of viruses and bacterias on surfaces and now leaves behind a fresh lavender scent you'll actually love disinfecting, wipes, handles, phones, remotes and everyday surfaces. The All Purpose Cleaner keeps kitchens and bathrooms in check. And the Power Toilet Bowl Cleaner disinfects the brush and bowl for two in one disinfection. Strong clean, great smell, no extra effort. Don't just clean Lysol, clean.
- [00:30]
LifeLock Advertiser
It's tax season and at LifeLock we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to billions. That's the amount of money in refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [01:02]
Mark Halperin
Hello and welcome in everybody. And welcome to NextUp. I'm Mark Kalperin, editor in chief of the live Interactive video platform 2way and your guide to everything coming up in real time and in the future, everything that's coming. Next up. I'm glad you're here. A lot to talk about in the midst of the conflict with Iran and a great guest to share with you. Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky, whose views are different on many issues from a lot of his colleagues and who speaks for tens of millions. I'm always grateful for his time with him, to hear his point of view, which is so underrepresented on so many topics. So Rand Paul will be here in a minute, but first I'm going to give you my reported monologue talking to people in the United States and around the world about the status of the conflict with Iran. The mission is righteous and the goal of making sure Iran is not a threat is shared by so many. But this complexity of what's happened in the last few days has turned me concerned. Not about the bravery and strength of America's men, American men and women's fighting strength, but about the challenge of reopening the Strait of Hormuz and the other things that have gone on the last 36 hours or so. I'm going to share with you my reporting on why this has raised the level of concern about where things are now. It's a snapshot of the moment and where they might be headed. So take a quick break. When we come back, my reported monologue on the status of the conflict with Iran. That's next up. Small businesses, they're the backbone of the American economy. But getting funding from traditional banks can be an uphill battle. Of the 36 million small businesses in the United States, over 70%, they report needing additional capital each and every year. While revenue is at an all time high for the big banks, they're tightening standards and approving fewer loans than ever, leaving owners stuck with mountains of paperwork. But if you want those bank rates without the bank delays, check out Cardiff Co Mark for up to $500,000 in same day funding. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in America, having funded over $12 billion since 2004. Their application, it takes less than five minutes. It's got no impact on your personal credit. And approvals happen in minutes. With same day funding, banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key big banks. They may not want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and you're pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same day business funding at Cardiff Co Mark again go to Cardiff Co Mark to check it out. Real growth, fast funding. Cardiff borrow better. All right, let's get right to it. My reported monologue on the conflict with Iran. I really don't want to be misunderstood today, folks. So listen carefully to me. I'm just giving you my reporting about where things stand. It's based, as always, on historical analysis as well. But really, this is where I think things are. And in the last 36 hours I have, I've developed doubts about this mission. And that's based on talking to people, including people in the administration who have doubts and concerns about where we are. Things are going well and I'll take those off and they shouldn't be ignored. But this is not the level of concern is higher publicly and privately amongst many than it was just a couple days ago. You know, back during the Vietnam War, Walter Cronkite had what's called the Walter Cronkite moment, where he came back from a reporting trip to the region and spoke out against the Vietnam War. It had an extraordinary effect on, on the conduct of the war. People said basically, if you can't hold Walter Cronkite, then you've lost the country. I'm not Walter Cronkite and I'm not here to. To say people should abandon this effort. But I've any. Almost every journalist who's serious about holding the government accountable always has looked at that Cronkite thing to say if, if there's a conflict for some in some way. You're a reporter and you're a patriot. You support America's military, but you also know that sometimes the military is used in ways by political leaders that isn't rational, that isn't sensible. And so there's no conflict really between speaking out when you see that a war effort may not be going well or isn't going well, and supporting the military, even supporting the objectives of the war, getting the Communists out of Vietnam, reasonable objective. But if the war is not working, if the theory of the mission's not working, it's incumbent upon journalists to say so. I'm going to tell you today why I'm concerned. I'm not telling you the President's foolish to have done this in the beginning. I'm not telling you the mission should be ended. But I want you to hear what Walter Cronkite said back during the Vietnam War and listen to the tone he had, which very nuanced and very, very specifically tailored to the moment. This is Walter Cronkite, 1968 on a special report from CBS News. Roll S1, please.
- [06:10]
Senator Rand Paul
For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. We are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, if unsatisfactory conclusion. But it is increasingly clear to this report that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.
- [06:41]
Mark Halperin
Now, there was skepticism about that war from the beginning, some of it cynical, some of it healthy. But Cronkite, because he was so trusted, really crystallized the support, and it helped lead to the end of the war. It could have also caused people in the government to say, you know, let's think anew. Let's think about the mission and whether we're executing it right. What I'm going to tell you today is not meant to undermine the effort. It's not meant to say it can't succeed. But there's some real questions right now that have come up just in the last couple days that have people using words like quagmire, have people using words like unprepared that are really dangerous. Now, what's going well, if we believe the Pentagon and there's no reason not to believe the Israelis. A lot of Iranian capability has been destroyed. Naval capability, command and control capability, missile capability. The leadership has been decapitated. There's plenty of the core mission that's going well, but there's some things that are undone, some things that are backfiring, some things that aren't working. And that's what I want to walk you through here on this snapshot of the moment. The real danger here, in some ways more profound than just the military battlefield action and whether America is. Is a victor in the, in this battlefield, is the credibility of the United States. The United States has now said, with Israel as its junior partner, we're going to, we're going to achieve these missions in Iran. We're going to vanquish Iran's capacity after decades, to do harm to the United States and other countries in the region. Okay, that's a, that's a, that is a righteous mission, is. It is a set of goals shared by every one of Donald Trump's immediate predecessors. However, however, if you try and you fail, as has happened to many American presidents since Vietnam, you risk hurting America's credibility, America's ability to say to countries, don't do that. If you do that, something we don't like, like threaten the United States and Israel and other countries in the region, we will use force and we will get our way. The most pronounced problem right now that even administration allies like Newt Gingrich have said publicly, make or break, must control the Strait of Hormuz, must open up this incredibly important piece of watery real estate to shipping particularly, but not only the shipping of oil. Fertilizer goes through there, lots of other things, and not just the United States economy, but the world economy. Some American allies, like India, like Japan, extremely dependent on the oil that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. And the Iranians have shut it down. Newt Gingrich said, if it's not opened up, the war is lost.
- [09:17]
Senator Rand Paul
There are three huge challenges that this administration has tackled. The first is that, and they should have frankly moved on this on day one. They have to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. I don't care what it costs. If they can't keep it open, this war will, in fact, be an American defeat before very long, because the entire world, including the American people, will react to the price of oil if the strait stays closed very long.
- [09:47]
Mark Halperin
Opening it up is really hard. I did a lot of reporting on this in the last two days. How do you open it up? You gotta, you gotta figure out a way to get these ships to be willing to go through. You got crews and captains and companies who even if you give them insurance, they don't want to go through. Okay. And. And right now the Iranians are letting a few ships through a friendly, friendly ships, but they are using drones and the threat of other attacks to close it. And the President's made clear it's got to be open. Big meeting at the White House. I was told on Wednesday. How are we going to get this back open? Now? The President publicly is suggesting. Not a problem here. Here's the President traveling domestically in the Midwest on Wednesday, giving his update on where he thinks the Strait of Hormuz stands. This is S3, please.
- [10:35]
Senator Rand Paul
We're just riding free range over that country. And now we're going to look very strongly at the straits. The straits are in great shape. We've knocked out all of their boats. They have some missiles, but not very many. I think we're in very good shape. We're in very good shape.
- [10:52]
Mark Halperin
Not in good shape. I just respect the President. His own advisers will tell you they've got to deal with the submarines of the Iranians, the drones of the Iranians. There's apparently weaponry on the coast along the strait that is threatening. All this stuff has to be taken out and the clock is ticking. This isn't a project that can take for a long time, maybe as little as two weeks. The Iranians have threatened to take oil to $200 a barrel by keeping the strait closed. There are people in the administration who say, yeah, that's what's going to happen. It is going to go to 200 and have a cataclysmic effect on the world economy. So this is, if you believe Newt Gingrich, if you believe my sources, there are two things that are true. This mission is vital. Open up the straight tug ships, and this mission's tough. Some of my sources say they're not going to be American ships leading through the strait, but rather clearing out the threat and air cover, which is safer than putting the ships in the water. We'll see. Right now, this is a binary really. Either it's going to be open or it's not. And if it's going to be open, it's going to be open by force. Now, maybe the Chinese will get involved, maybe other countries, the Saudis will figure out whether they have influence or military might to reopen it. But right now, this is the United States versus Iran. And there's no ambiguity, there's no compromising. It's open or it's not. And it's got to happen relatively soon. And again, that's a daunting prospect. What else makes it daunting? The Iranians are not just threatening to blow up ships, they are blowing up ships. They blew up ship in Iraq. They've blown up ships in the region, using drones, primarily, we believe, and that's really dangerous. So that's number one. Number two, the regime's still in power. All the reporting out there suggests from the Israeli side, the American side, that even though the top level was eliminated, the Ayatollah Son has taken over. Did his first statement, although it was a written statement, and some. Some believe he's still incapacitated, but nonetheless, no signs of protests on the street, no people defecting, no reporting of a coup among some leaders, no divisions within the government. And obviously, even though command and control has been diminished, without a doubt, the Iranians still have a lot of capacity to fire missiles, to deal with their allies in their network of terror, to file, to put up the drones, to close the Strait of Hormuz. So that's a massive problem for the United States, in part because obviously it allows Iran to fight back, but also because for some people, even though the President's been back and forth on this, certainly for the Israelis, this needs to end with regime change. And so if we're going up against a regime that's not moving out of the way, that's a problem. Another advantage for the Iranians that has been on vivid display is they have what are called asymmetrical advantages, right? They. If, for instance, you go back to the Strait of Hormuz, let's say the United States starts getting some ships through, they create the circumstances with insurance and with protection and the diminishment of the Iranian threat. You get a couple of ships through, let's say you get 50 ships through, and then the 51st ship is destroyed by the Iranians or attacked effectively by the Iranians. That's a big problem. That's a big problem. They don't need to. They don't need to have a majority hit. They just need one. Okay? Related to both these issues is the age of the drone, right? This is the first war like this, besides Ukraine, Russia first, that the United States is directly involved in, where drones are just front and center. They're being used by the United States and Israel. But it's an asymmetrical advantage for the. For the Iraqi Iranians. They don't have the firepower of the United States. They didn't when the conflict started and they don't now. But what we're seeing every day in real time is the drones give the Iranians the ability to compete with the United States. Attacking ships, attacking Israel. Okay, that's a real problem. And it's a problem like the question of how the United States wasn't prepared to deal with controlling the Strait of Hormuz. They seem not prepared to deal with the drones. And people are asking, including some of the administration. Republican allies of the administration are asking, how could the United States have initiated this conflict without, it appears, a plan on the Strait of Hormuz and a plan on the drones? Okay, I'm saying they didn't think about it or they had nothing, but they didn't. They're, they're, they're improvising now to come up with ways to counteract those two challenges against the Iranians. Three things raised their hand, raised their, raised their face here in, in the last couple days that also, again, are very ominous. Cyber attack. There's report of a big Iranian cyber attack. The Iranians have long been known as one of the premier practitioners of cyber warfare and of hacking. So now there's been one. Now, now we need to be on guard for more that would open up another front where the Iranians again have an asymmetrical advantage. Reports of potential, potential sleeper cells, including potential use of drones, either sleeper cells in the United States or drones coming to the United States. Big report about a potential attack in Los Angeles. Again, doesn't need to happen to destabilize people, to get a lot of people concerned in the United States, maybe people who aren't paying super close attention to this. But that's be, that'd be, that'd be a three new fronts. Cyber front, sleeper cell front. Drone attack on the United States front. Again, not happening. Not. Doesn't mean the United States will be destroyed by these things. But that's three more things that need to be. The United States needs to be worried about. And then in the Middle east, water. The Iranians have opened this front a little bit. They've, they've, they've hit at least one desalination plant. An extraordinarily high percentage of the water for drinking and bathing and irrigation used in the region is salt water that's desalinated. And this is another front that the Iranians could open up that they've, they've already showed. Again, hugely destabilizing if they choose to do it. Okay, now, one thing that is going well is you don't have China And Russia complaining about this in a, in a way, that's a problem. There's reports that Russia's helping the Iranians with targeting, but they're not hugely in on the side. It's not World War III against the United States. And because in part, the Iranians attacked the Gulf states, the Gulf states are supportive of this. The Europeans are not, are not, you know, killing themselves to stop it. But there is no coalition of the willing. There is no international support for this. And you have some countries in Europe and Canada in particular who are dead set against this conflict. Is that a deal breaker? Is that something Donald Trump can't live with? No, it's not. But it's a problem if we think about a war of choice in the view of a lot of these countries that is right now disrupting the world economy. And could, if things continue, if the strait isn't open, put pressure so it's not hampering the United States right now. But if things continue to be bad, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, the lack of a coalition of the willing to help reopen the Gulf strait, for instance, it's a problem. Tensions with Israel again, incredible historic alliance between the United States and Israel to launch this in attack on Iran to try to deal with all the issues of the navy and the terror and the missiles and, and eventually nuclear. But there are tensions now between the United States and Israel. And I'm hearing them more and more in my reporting. Again, is it, is it going to destroy the mission? No, but it is a problem. Okay. And the environment in the United States matters. It matters what public opinion says matters. And increasing signs in the last couple days of this conflict being framed in negative terms. Here's some stuff from Fox and Friends. This is from Fox and Friends on Thursday morning. This is not all their coverage and they had plenty of pieces of coverage that were more upbeat about how things are going. But this is representative of the tone of how they started their show. 6am on Thursday morning. This is S2 Fox and Friends. All right, buckle up.
- [19:16]
Senator Rand Paul
Iran launching new attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormutz. This as oil prices are surging. You got oil prices, they're going up. Hezbollah overnight got more directly involved in this war. More than 100 rockets were fired over the border into northern Israel in a period of less than an hour. Number of drones launched. There were some reports of injuries on the ground in northern Israel. Tankers on fire overnight just off the coast of Iraq. Coordinated attacks by Iran's small navy. We saw a significant attack by an Iranian drone yesterday that targeted fuel storage facilities that Hezbollah would launch 100 rockets in. These rockets were launched very close to the Israel Lebanon border. These countries are coming under significant attack. They still have drones and shorter range missiles positioned in western Iran that allowed them to target these countries.
- [20:07]
Mark Halperin
But look at that. Right now the price of a barrel is about $97.
- [20:11]
Senator Rand Paul
Now it's back up to almost $100.
- [20:14]
Mark Halperin
That's just a, you know, a montage of not great stuff. And you hear that increasingly from people. You know, there's the, there's the Tucker Carlson wing of the MAGA movement that has been against this from the beginning. But there are people now who are fully supportive of it, who are worried, who are worried and, and part of what they're worried about is they think there needs to be a broad coalition, there needs to be a, a rallying. Democrats in Congress, of course, have been against this from the start, with few exceptions, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and a few others. But that's another area where, you know, we say in politics and, and these issues, good gets better and bad gets worse. The, the Democratic criticism of the mission overall, why is he doing it, didn't ask for permission from Congress, etc. All of, no, no exit strategy, all of that criticism becomes more powerful, more covered, more pointed. If things aren't going well, and again right now because of the Straight and other things, they're not going well. Public opinion, you know, wrong to say Republicans are against this or even MAG is against it. In fact, MAG is pretty supportive still. But some segment of MAG is not for this. And independent voters, whether they're true independents or they lean Democrat or lean Republican, have real questions about it. I'm revising my view on a couple things related things to go to public opinion. One is, I had said on this program and elsewhere that the President's shifting and inconsistent positions on all sorts of things related to the conflict were not only not bad, but actually were good. They gave him flexibility, they allowed him to appeal to different people and different things. They kept the enemy off, off balance. But now I think it's a problem because when he says things like things are great in the straight, as we heard earlier and people know it's not true, it really does speak to credibility and it, and it worries Republicans in Congress even if they're publicly supportive. And then the other, the other issue is public opinion is not rallied. This is going to be hard. There's going to be sacrifice involved, as there always is when there's a War. And it's not just a sacrifice of the men and women in the military and their families. There's going to be public sacrifice. There already is. If you buy gas. There's already sacrifice being asked for in, in order to achieve a bigger goal. Understanding the bigger goal is vital. And I have said, if you watch Caroline Levitt's briefings, there's no doubt that they, I think they've laid out why they're doing this. To diminish the capacity of the Iranians to, to have terror networks, to have new, potentially have nuclear weapons, to have missiles that can hit Israel in the United States and elsewhere, and their navy. Now, they've also said it'd be nice if there was regime change, but I don't think it's clear enough. And I. You can tell it from the polls, you can tell it from talking to people, as I do, on two ways they haven't been clear enough. And now that we've got this binary conflict, this zero sum conflict around the Strait of Hormuz, now we're into this question of does the public want to have that fight? What's that going to involve? How much money are we spending on the mission overall, the operation overall? How much is it going to cost to open the Strait of Hormuz and how effective will it be? Will any Americans die? Public sentiment. What the public thinks about this is so important. I want to read you three quotes from great American presidents and what they've said about this question that pertains to domestic policy, too, but it's particularly germane when it comes to war. Abraham Lincoln said, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed. Woodrow Wilson, public opinion is a more potent force than any army. And Harry Truman, again, another president thinking about the importance of public opinion, said, in a democracy, the will of the people is the law of the land. Okay, these are, these are things that are absolutely true. And right now, the public opinion polls show the base of the Republican parties for the war. But this war is not going to be one with the base. The President needs broader public support. And his inconsistent rhetoric, I think, has undermined that. And I think when, when the beginning, when all we were hearing about was how effective the US And Israeli strikes were, it didn't matter as much. It matters now. Public opinion matters more. Now some people say, well, the President can negotiate his way out of this. The problem with that is, who do you negotiate with in Iran and are they trustworthy? The reason this conflict started was because the President's Advisors told him, we can't trust the Iranians. They're not trustworthy partners. Now, maybe in the new leadership, there's trustworthy partners, but that's gonna be hard to imagine given the control of the regime and the, the ascension of the Ayatollah son. So, so it probably can't end that way. And, and now it can end by the President walking away, which is what I thought was going to happen. I thought he was just going to say to Israel, we're done. Wash my hands of this. We got a lot done. If we need to come back, we will. But let's take a pause and see how it goes, maybe see if the Iranian people rise up. There's too much credibility on the line now, I think. And then the strait has to be open. Iran now, we know, has the wherewithal and the willingness to shut down the strait. So I don't think the US can walk away without achieving that portion, that vital and difficult portion of this mission. And of course, the nuclear weapons, that has been the main go to argument for every president, including this one and its spokespeople. They cannot be a nuclear power. We cannot allow them to be nuclear power. The ballistic missiles, the Navy, the terror networks want to eliminate those, too. But it's about being a nuclear power. And as far as we know, nothing's been done on that. And so when you say, well, the President could just walk away, that nuclear material, as far as we know, remains in the country. And here's finally what makes this so devilishly challenging for the president, who said, no quagmires, no forever wars, no massive loss of American life or spending American treasure. Here's what makes it complicated, which is, he's in now. He said, we're going to open the, we're going to open the strait. We're going to, we're going to defeat the Iranian regime, which is, you know, intact in a sense. This is from Euro Intelligence, a great daily newsletter that my friend John Ellis recommends regularly and cites regularly in his newsletter, quote, it is very common for the sacrifice one. Sorry, start over. Is very common for the sacrifices one makes in war to cause them to dig in. A very tragic and damaging example of the sunk cost fallacy. And this is what we saw in Vietnam, it's what we saw in Afghanistan, it's what we saw in Iraq. Presidents say, I've spent all this money. People have died. We need to keep going. We need to win. We need to achieve the mission. That is not typically Donald Trump's way, but it is what history shows happens more often than not and far too often. And right now, because he's initiated a conflict with Iran, because he's allowed Iran to shut down the Strait, because he's allowed Iran to thumb their nose at him and Israel, it's very difficult for him to get out and very tempting for him to stay in. But then you go back to the question, what's the end game? What's the exit strategy? What is victory look like? And I think it's been unfair for people to say, oh, he needs to know exactly when and how it's going to end. That's not the way war works. But another way war works is bad, gets worse. When things go bad, they, they start to get even worse. And today, as a snapshot of where we are today, no matter how supportive you are of Donald Trump, no matter how supportive you are of this effort, you have to be concerned just on the, just on Hormuz, just on the Strait of Hormuz. That has to concern you. It concerns Newt Gingrich said it on Fox Business. He couldn't be a bigger supporter of the president. He couldn't be a bigger supporter of dealing with the threats posed by Iran. And he said this is a big concern. This has to be addressed. The US has to win the battle over the Strait of Hormuz to win the war against Iran. So I'm not predicting defeat. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm just telling you, based on my reporting today and the last two days have not been good for this effort. And there's a lot of daunting factors out there. The president's going to have to dig deep. His team's going to have to dig deep. The coalition, to the extent there is one with Israel and others, needs to dig deep. And he's going to have to have to ask the American people to dig deep. This is not going to be easy. No idea how long it's going to go on for, but it is not going to be easy, no matter how long it takes. All right, that's my reported monologue for today. Send me a note, let me know what you think. Am I being too negative or maybe too positive about where things are? What are you hearing out there? What are you seeing? Send me your latest intel, your latest thoughts. Email me@nextup halpernmail.com and also, as always, we want to build the network of Nexters. So tell all your friends and family and go guys across the street what, what you heard on the show today. Ask them to give it a listen. And if you're watching on YouTube, make sure you check to subscribe and go to the YouTube channel. If you're listening to me on the podcast, we'd love to have you on YouTube as well. Go to YouTube.com NextUp Halpern. You get the full episodes there, plus bonus content and a chance to make sure you see every episode. If you'd like to listen, grab the podcast on all the top podcast platforms. Make sure you've got downloads checked so you get the program right away. Here my report and monologues only here only on NextUp. All right, quick break now. And when we come back, an opportunity to talk to a senator who sees things differently than a lot of his colleagues, both on Iran and other matters. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is next up. Are you being lied to? They tell you to defer paying your taxes by saving in a 401k or maybe an IRA because you'll retire in a lower tax bracket. But if that were true, why are so many retirees now in the highest tax bracket of their lives? It's time to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money. Bank on yourself is the proven retirement plan. Alternative banks and Wall street desperately hope that you never hear about it gives you guaranteed predictable growth that doesn't go backward when the market drops. It can provide tax free retirement income under current tax law, putting you in control of your future tax rate. You also have control of your money. Access it when you need to with no government penalties or restrictions. And your money, it keeps growing even when you use it. Right now you can get a free report that reveals how you can bank on yourself and enjoy that tax free retirement income, guaranteed growth and control of your money. Just go to BankOnYourself.com mark and get your free report. That's BankOnYourself.com mark. BankOnYourself.com mark it's tax season and at
- [31:20]
LifeLock Advertiser
LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points lock lifelock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com special offer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [31:52]
Mark Halperin
All right, next up and joining me now, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as I say whenever he's here, and I said it in the introduction at the top of the show, he speaks for tens of millions on many issues where very few other members of Congress at all represent that point of view. So always grateful, Tim, for making time and. And always interested in hearing what he has to say about great matters of national international concern. Senator, thank you for coming back on.
- [32:15]
Senator Rand Paul
Thanks for having me. What.
- [32:16]
Mark Halperin
What would you say to the families of those school children who were killed, apparently by an American accident? What would you say to those families to explain this?
- [32:27]
Senator Rand Paul
You know, I think war is always a tragedy. It's a tragedy for those who choose to be the combatants, but even more so a tragedy for those who didn't choose and are, you know, the byproducts of war. So it's awful. You know, I mean, there's no real other way to put it. It's why that our default position should be less war, not more. That war is the last resort, not the first resort. And it's why we should carefully and with trepidation, go into war. We should have debate, full debate. People often say, well, it's in our national interest. Well, that's a conclusion. You have to have a debate as to determine what is in our national interest. And you have to hear both sides. And so I'm one who believes war really should be the last resort. I think this was a war of choice, and it really wasn't my choice.
- [33:20]
Mark Halperin
What would you say to the Iranian government? We're all seeing through a glass darkly about who they are and what they believe in and whether negotiation could be possible. If you were in Tehran and having a conversation with whoever the leaders are, what would you say to them?
- [33:36]
Senator Rand Paul
Well, I think when we're discussing who is good and who is evil, without question, I think America does represent good, and I do think that the government, Iran does represent evil. That being said, if our decision to go to war, our thought process on going to war is that we are going to eradicate evil or we're going to free oppressed people. Unfortunately, that just becomes an interminable war. It becomes a project without end. You know, the people of Tibet would claim that they are oppressed. The Uyghurs would claim they are oppressed. Many people across the mainland of China would claim they are oppressed. The many people in Russia are oppressed. Many people in North Korea. So it's a. It's if. If that is our goal is removing oppression. It's. It's a goal without limit. And so it really can't be the goal. And the goal has to be what's in our interest. And I think really the biggest threat that we face to our national security at this point is actually our debt, and this is going to incur more debt. And I think there is a breaking point at which our not only will we not be capable of being the world's police, but we may actually destroy our country or our currency through so much borrowing.
- [34:51]
Mark Halperin
You just raised two issues that I want to ask you about. One is the absence of a public, robust public debate before the United States committed to going to conflict with Iran. And the other is the debt and the deficit. You ran for president. You care about being a leader on these conversations, but I know it matters to you and your kids and your grandkids someday that there actually be a change, that those two things get addressed rather than just Rand Paul getting to talk about them. And on those two points, you speak for tens of millions. Tens of millions are horrified that there was no national debate. Across the political spectrum. Tens of millions think the future of this country is imperiled more than by anything else, debt and deficit. So let's talk about the war debate. Other presidents of both parties have taken the country to war without a robust debate or congressional approval. What's the practical way to change that? What's the practical way? Is it electing members of Congress who promise to do it? Is it finding the rare president who's willing to do it? How can the country be different on that score?
- [35:54]
Senator Rand Paul
Well, you know, I think the original debate we had, the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, from Hamilton to Jefferson, they all agreed that the power to go to war should be in Congress. The power to initiate war, declare war should be in Congress. But you're right. In the last 70 to 100 years, presidents of both parties have repeatedly taken us to war without the approval of Congress. Sometimes we have. I mean, the Iraq war, actually, there was a vote. The Afghan war, there was a vote there as well. So it has been the exception rather than the rule, though. And you say, well, how do we change that? There is one way that we've been able to force some debate on this, and this is through the War Powers Act. The War Powers act allows for privileged votes. So when you've seen these votes on the floor on whether to invoke the War Powers act, the only reason we're having those, it's not because the leadership wants to have them. They absolutely don't want to have them. They're being forced under the duress of the Rules that allow us these privileged votes. Right now, the Democrats are actually pretty unified on this and a few Republicans. Now, I can say this hasn't always been true. When President Obama was bombing Libya and I brought these things forward, there wasn't much Democrat support for limiting President Obama's powers. But I would say right now there is a consistency among Democrats that really the executives should be reined in. We'll see what happens when there's a Democrat president in the White House again. But ultimately it takes probably new people, the majority of people up here, the vast majority of Republicans, believe in what this sort of unitary theory of power, that the president just has all these inherent powers and that Congress is just an ornament. We are an ornament, but not something of any real power. Madison said that the powers, the separation of powers would work by having pitting the ambition of Congress versus the ambition of the president, acknowledging that all men and all women are seduced by power and will want to get more, but at least each branch will want to protect their own power. They have the ambition to protect their own power. But I think Madison could have never imagined a Congress with no ambition. We have a Congress that has no ambition to protect the legislative authority. There's some showing up, but there hasn't been consistent ambition on both. This shouldn't be Republican versus Democrat. This should be the legislature protecting its power, both parties of the legislature protecting its power vis a vis the presidential power. And that's how you'd have checks and balances, but you don't have any checks and balances because there hasn't been enough congressional ambition to exert their own authority.
- [38:42]
Mark Halperin
Senator, I agree with everything you said, and I think it's well stated about both the history and the current practice. But I'm going to ask you again, respectfully. You didn't say how it could change, you know, people, people who agree with you. But meaning what? Meaning people vote for senators who say, I support this. Because there are a lot of people who do support, as you said, most of the Democrats do.
- [39:03]
Senator Rand Paul
Yeah. Democracy is, is. Is messy in the sense that people make promises and you don't always get what they promised. So, for example, President Trump wasn't my first pick in 2016. I was involved in the primary and we had differences, but when he won the nomination, I was actually enthusiastic that it was an abrupt and significant change from the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was a preemptive war. The Bush Doctrine was that we were going to spread freedom at the tip of a bayonet. Worldwide, and that we're going to bring peace and harmony to the world once we've gotten the world rid of all the tyrants. I always thought that was utopian and a recipe for endless war. And so I was pleased when Donald Trump came on, on the scene and really talked about some of the things my father had talked about, some of the things I had talking about. And really, in the first administration, I think there was less eagerness to be involved in foreign wars. Even through the 24 election, most of the rallies had President Trump talking about no more Middle Eastern wars. He cautioned that electing Kamala Harris, that she would get us involved in a Middle Eastern war. He was the peace candidate. He still sees himself that way. But he surrounded himself with people who have spent their lives advocating for regime change in Iran. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio. This is their basic philosophy. It always has been. And so you end up with this strange anomaly that people elected President Trump in many ways to stay out of Middle Eastern wars. And now we're in this war of choice, and this is not my choice. I think it actually makes us less strong, less secure to be involved in another Middle Eastern war.
- [40:48]
Mark Halperin
As we sit here today with all the, all the upheaval in the region and the fight over control over the Strait of Hormuz, what's your current worst case scenario for how this could go that you think Americans should be aware of?
- [41:01]
Senator Rand Paul
I think worst case scenario is it devolves into a long war. You know, in the very beginning of the Afghan war, I wasn't here, but I would have voted to go after the people who attacked us on 9 11, and I would have been for a very significant and swift battle to try to get those people in Afghanistan. But I wouldn't have stayed to try to create a Nation for 20 years. And it turned out to be an abysmal failure. You know, we took a country in the Stone Age that cooks on open fires. We tried to bring the concept of treating women humanely in a modern way, the way we treat women. We kind of succeeded until the very end. And they're back in the Stone Age 20 years later and trillions of dollars later. That's, that's a recipe for what we don't want to have happen. I still think that the president, his instincts aren't to have troops on the ground. He keeps saying he's not going to rule it out, but I think his instincts are less towards that. And I hope he is not convinced or persuaded by others, you know, to put troops on the ground, because that's, that's a recipe for a long war.
- [42:05]
Mark Halperin
You put yourself forward, as you said, to be commander in chief 10 years ago. So I know you've thought about the obligations of the office. I know you don't want to be in a ground war. I know you don't want to be an expensive war. I know you oppose this as a mission. But are you concerned at all that now that the United States has said we're going to win this war, that it has to be continued at least in part because of the prestige and credibility of the United States and the commander in chief? Is that a concern of yours?
- [42:31]
Senator Rand Paul
Well, I think it's important to discuss and determine what winning means. I think a week ago the President said that meant unconditional surrender and that he would pick the next leadership for Iran. This week his comments have been more. I think we've hit all the targets. You know, there's not much left to blow up. We've utterly defeated them. And I think there's some truth to that. I mean, militarily, we've just completely and utterly overwhelmed them. And we've probably destroyed 90% of their capability will take them quite a while to come back. So I think they're redefining, you know, what, what victory is now. And if the redefinition of victory includes a shorter war, I'm for the new definition. I think that the oil price is spiking, the gas prices spiking. And if we are still bombing Iran in October and the price of oil is $100 a barrel and the gas prices crept up over $4 a gallon, that's not a real recipe for a great electoral victory in November. Right.
- [43:35]
Mark Halperin
But staying with this issue of credibility and prestige and American credibility in the world right now, the President has basically said we need to open up the Strait of Hormuzzi. He's very bullish on the prospect and, and even his characterization of where it stands. Now, if you, could you be convinced that, if you, I'll say this, if you were convinced that the rest of the world would see a loss of American credibility if he doesn't pay whatever price is necessary to open up the strait, would that be a factor that you think the President should consider in deciding how much to commit to it in terms of money and blood?
- [44:09]
Senator Rand Paul
Well, a couple of things. One, I think it's in Iran's self interest to open it up. They can't get their oil out through the straits either. So they have a great deal of incentive to have the Straits ultimately open. I don't think a permanent closing of the straits is in Iran's interests. So that's one thing. As far as opening it up, and whose responsibility would we lose credibility? I think the attacks, while I haven't been for the war, show one thing, that we do have incredible military dominance and people know it. Our allies know it, our enemies know it. And so as far as losing credibility, I don't think you lose credibility because we've exerted our military might and been incredibly successful with it. I think military might alone is not enough probably for regime change. I think unless the people of Iran rise up and start a war, and it would probably require a civil war to rouse the mullahs and the irgc. Unless they do that, I'm not sure if they will get another country. But I'm also not sure that you can give someone liberty. I think ultimately you have to fight for your own liberty. And that's going to mean the people of Iran, bloody as it might be, would have to rise up and they would have to fight in the streets against the mullahs and the irgc. And it could happen swiftly. I mean, if they took a. If they actually fought and took a major city and hung onto that, it could be that other people would follow their example. But ultimately they have to fight. We can't give it to them. And I'm not for putting our troops on the ground, but our national interest and our job as leaders of our country is not to ensure the PR campaign says that we look credible. It's the security. What is in the national security interest of our country. And so to my mind, the biggest threat to our country right now is our national debt. It gets worse with war. It gets worse with more military spending. And so I'm for ending the war as soon as possible and I'm for bringing, bringing our troops home. I think many of the parents of these soldiers are all brave. They're willing to fight and give their lives to their country, but they also don't necessarily want their kids to be cannon fodder. I guarantee you most of the moms and dads are hoping for a swift end of this war as well.
- [46:17]
Mark Halperin
Let's talk about that in depth. And the same question of how there could be change, which so many would like to see. Based on your direct conversations with the president and people around him and your observation, how would you compare the priority you make of reducing the debt and deficit to the President's?
- [46:34]
Senator Rand Paul
I think there's, you know, there aren't many People in Washington who have the same degree of concern over the debt that I do. There's a handful, maybe 20 or 30 in the house that are concerned with the debt. There might be four or five on any, on a good day in the Senate that are concerned with the debt. The President has not, you know, he's talked about liberative government. He is conservative. He's, you know, way more conservative than the alternative from, than a Kamala Harris. But at the same time, it's not been the pressing concern that I think it is for some of us. And I worry not only about sort of the gradual decline of the country, the gradual erosion of the dollar, I worry about a precipitous decline. And these things aren't predictable. Sort of like the stock market crashing, you know, in 96 or in 2008. They aren't as predictable. But bad things can happen in a 24 hour period. And we are gradually getting more and more debt, we are gradually getting more and more interest. And there's a lot of reasons for people around the world, five or six adversarial countries want to get out from under the dollar. They have been, they've been loading up on gold and emptying their coffers of dollars. So a lot of things are happening. And I want our country to be strong, I want our dollar to be sound. And the best way to do that are some very practical things. Spend what comes in, don't borrow so much money.
- [47:59]
Mark Halperin
So obviously the forces that want to spend are supreme because this has continued now for a long time. Since President Clinton, both before and after President Clinton, we haven't seen a balanced budget. President Reagan didn't do it, the Bushes didn't do it. Donald Trump hasn't done it. So I asked the same question. Besides electing more people, there are a few groups in Washington that are devoted to a responsible federal budget. I think there's a group that has just that name. And as you said, you've got some colleagues in the Senate, a few in the House who feel that way. What would have to happen? Is it a lobbying group? Is it a President who's willing to risk the political downside? What would have to happen to make a serious effort on this front?
- [48:41]
Senator Rand Paul
This is sort of the frustrating thing of politics because in some ways it did happen. In 2009, 2010, there was this Tea Party movement and one of the biggest concerns of the Tea Party was debt. And the rallies were about the Constitution. There were people wearing their tri cornered hats, hearkening back to the patriots and of the constitutional era. And we thought we won. I mean, we, we won big victories. We came to Washington, I came on that wave, but it turned out not to have a staying power. And you're right, both parties are at fault. And you have to discuss why in some ways they fought. If we ever want to change it, it's an unholy alliance between right and left. The right wants unlimited warfare spending and the left wants unlimited welfare spending. So it's warfare and welfare. It's guns and butter. In addition to that. That's what we actually vote on. Then two thirds of the spending we just never vote on. It's off budget or it's mandatory spending. And these are the security programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps. They're on autopilot and you really have to do something about them. And so when, when I hear politicians of both parties saying, oh, we're not going to talk about that, that's the third rail. We're not going to talk about food stamps. See, I think that's a huge mistake. We're not going to talk about Social Security. They're all bankrupt. They all have to be fixed. And people say, well, don't you care about old people? Do you not like old people? And I say, I aspire to be an old person. I'm well on my way. I'm not trying to, trying to get rid of Social Security, trying to save Social Security, but you have to reform it. Food stamps, I ask these people all the time, should we have candy? Should you be able to be candy, a bag of candy on food stamps? Should you be able to buy a full sugared soda on food stamps? Should you be able to buy Twinkies and Ding Dongs and chips? And most people say they're a gas. They didn't realize you could do it. And I say, look, we limit alcohol and we limit cigarettes. I actually think sugared soda is as dangerous or more dangerous to the public than alcohol, frankly. And yet we continue to pay for it. And I've been trying to get one Democrat, one Democrat to place limits on food stamps. Even if we didn't lower the dollars, we left the dollars the same, but just got rid of unhealthy food. And I cannot get a Democrat co sponsor. And that just shows you how broken the system is. But on the other side, you can't get any Republicans that want to limit military spending. You know when they're going to come up with another 100 billion, there's going to be 50 billion for the military, 25 billion for farmers and another 25 billion for disaster. And it'll probably be me, you know, voting no and maybe a handful of Democrats, maybe one other Republican.
- [51:31]
Mark Halperin
What would you say to people who were part of the Tea Party movement, people on the left who don't like the military spending, people who were part of your grassroots support when you ran for president? What would you say to a citizen who said, I want debates before the country goes to war and I want the country to grapple with debt and deficit. How can a normal citizen affect those issues?
- [51:51]
Senator Rand Paul
Well, you can't give up. And most of the battles are in primaries. You know, there's only about 20 seats that are up for grabs. The rest of them, it's whoever wins the primary. So if you're a Republican, show up in the primary, knock on doors in the primary. If you're a Democrat, same thing. About one fifth of the people who vote in the general vote in the primary. And really in the general, only half of the registered or eligible people vote. So you're really talking about a small percentage of people decide who the nominee is from each party. And so if you really want to have bang for your buck and you want to change either your party or the other party, work in your primary, but you also just can't give up. People, you know, get frustrated with politics. It's like, oh, I didn't get what I wanted or I elected you to reduce the debt. I see this online. People say, well, well, Rand Paul's been there for a while and the debt got worse. It's like, well, I voted against all the spending. I'm raking the arguments, but I'm not winning. It's not my fault. I'm not winning. It's actually the fault of the voters not sending me any reinforcements. And so I work, I try to elect people, I try to find good people and work on their primary. I'm supporting Thomas Massie. He's the most conservative libertarian congressman, most fiscally conservative in all of the House of Representatives. And I want to make sure that he returns because he's an independent voice. So I get involved with primaries if I think I can help.
- [53:13]
Mark Halperin
All right, we're going to take a quick break, then come back, talk to the senator about his colleague Thomas Massie, a fellow bluegrass stater, and a few other domestic issues with Congress. Quick break. Right back with Senator Paul. That's next up. When your company is growing fast, order fulfillment can make or break your success. Shipstation's intelligence driven platform brings order management, rate shopping, inventory returns Warehouse systems and analytics into one place, saving its customers up to 15 hours per week with Shipstation, everything you need to get orders out the door. It all lives in one hub. Connect to over 200 sales channels and marketplaces. Instead of juggling five to seven separate tools, the platform compares rates across all the major carriers like USPS, UPS and FedEx, including your own discounted rates. To find the very best option every time, bring your negotiated rates, keep your savings, print labels in bulk and automatically send tracking updates. Built in analytics and return insights show when you're saving and where to optimize. Go ahead now and try ShipStation, free for 60 days with full access to every one of their features and no credit card needed. Go to shipstation.com and use my code NextUp for 60 days for free. 60 days for free gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you'll be saving on every shipment that shipstation.com code NextUp Again, go to shipstation.com and use my code next.
- [54:42]
LifeLock Advertiser
It's tax season, and at LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [55:16]
Mark Halperin
All right, next up, we're back with Senator Paul of Kentucky. Senator, tell me about your relationship with Mark Wayne Mullen, your colleague from Oklahoma who's been nominated. You'll preside over his confirmation hearing. Just what's the history of your relationship with him?
- [55:29]
Senator Rand Paul
You know, I think you're gonna have to wait. You'll hear more about this. There's going to be a hearing next Wednesday, and I don't want to preempt what happens in that hearing, but I think you'll perhaps learn more about that, you know, during the hearing.
- [55:43]
Mark Halperin
About the history of your relationship or about him?
- [55:46]
Senator Rand Paul
All of the above.
- [55:48]
Mark Halperin
Okay.
- [55:48]
Senator Rand Paul
I mean, this will be a hearing to examine his fitness, but I don't want to pre examine it. I want to let him have his chance to, you know, make his argument for. For why he should be the nominee.
- [56:01]
Mark Halperin
Do you like his chances to be confirmed?
- [56:04]
Senator Rand Paul
I'm going to reserve judgment till next week. You can ask me about almost anything that I'm going to wait until next week.
- [56:10]
Mark Halperin
All right. And is that because. Because as chair, you feel you need to not prejudge anything.
- [56:15]
Senator Rand Paul
There's a variety of reasons. But I mean, if you tell everybody in advance about what you're going to say at a certain date, then there's no reason to wait till the, you know, it's a problem with politics here is that we are always preempting what we're trying to do. And really, we're going through the process now. He has an FBI background check happening. He's got different questions being asked by Republicans and Democrats. There's interview process. So just be. It's premature, you know, and like I say, the hearing will be public and we invite anybody who's interested to look forward to it.
- [56:47]
Mark Halperin
Another person who's going to be up for confirmation soon is the President's nominee to be chair of the Fed, Kevin Warshew. And your, your father as well, have all long been interested in the Federal Reserve and the role it plays in our country and our economy. How are you feeling about his, his possibility becoming the, the Fed chair? Would he be more in line, less in line with your views than the current Fed chair?
- [57:10]
Senator Rand Paul
You know, I think his chances of being confirmed are very good. I think his academic pedigree is, you know, admirable. I think that his comments over time have been, you know, hawkish towards inflation and, you know, not a big believer in easy money. So, you know, I think we'll, we'll see as it unfolds. But I think his chances for being, for being approved are pretty good. I haven't made a final decision there either, but we'll, we'll, we'll listen to the arguments as they move forward.
- [57:40]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. How's the economy in Kentucky going right now?
- [57:44]
Senator Rand Paul
You know, the biggest complaint I hear at home is about the tariffs. You know, my farmers don't like the tariffs. I've got two international shippers, you know, that don't like the tariffs. I've got the bourbon industry that really has been decimated with the trade with Canada. You know, we went from exporting $250 million worth of maybe not just bourbon, but alcohol to Canada, down to 80 million. So we. 75% reduction in what we're selling to Canada. But I don't hear any of the business interests at home clamoring for tariffs. All I hear are the problems they're having with tariffs. And I don't think that's getting through necessarily to the administration. The administration is still in love with Tariffs, the court ruling it illegal or unconstitutional has changed things. And I think there'll be another constitutional challenge to the rationale they're using now, which the current rationale I think is probably in all likelihood illegal as well.
- [58:41]
Mark Halperin
So that's a drag in your view, I take it, on the economy. But how's, how is the economy overall with all the other factors, not just terrorists, is it growing, is it going well? Are people happy with the economy? Or they have concerns not about the tariffs, but about the overall well being of the families?
- [58:56]
Senator Rand Paul
It depends on who you ask. So, for example, if you, if your salary has gone up less than 25% in the last five years, you're probably unhappy. So that typically includes people that are in the, in the middle or the lower part of the middle. So if you're making 40, $50,000 a year, and that's what you're making five years ago, you're now really making 45,000 because, you know, of the inflation, inflationary cost. And so inflation hasn't kept up with wages. So there are people in Kentucky who are struggling in that and aren't necessarily happy. But it also depends on your timeline. If you put it in the timeline of, you know, we're coming up on our 250 year anniversary for our country, you look back to the Industrial revolution beginning in 1820. It is extraordinary how successful we are. And if you, if you look at our country historically and the economy from historic terms, we are, we are richer and better than we have ever been. But it's a little difficult to have that be the only message when there are actually people right now who are struggling. And so I think the people who are struggling, what I want to do is tell them we can't keep offering something for nothing. We can't offer people free cars, free college, free this, free that, because it destroys the value of the dollar and that's why your prices rise. And I think if we can link debt to inflation, and I think people understand that, I think that people are very willing to say, you know what, maybe we shouldn't run such a big deficit every year.
- [60:25]
Mark Halperin
I saw in a recent interview you suggested your party might do poorly, maybe very poorly in the midterm elections. What would doing poorly look like to you? What's. Again, if you want to warn your party, what does the worst case electorally look like in November from your point of view?
- [60:39]
Senator Rand Paul
You know, I think that if this is a guess and everybody's got a guess, I think the chances are more than 50% of losing the House right now. I think if the war is still going on in October and oil price is up near $100 a barrel and gas prices are over $4 a gallon, I think those odds become less and less of us hanging onto the House. So if we want to win, the war needs to end as soon as possible and we need to get back on track and let the marketplace bring down the oil price. But I think that needs to get done sooner rather than later. If we're talking about this in October, we're going to have a real, a bad election.
- [61:19]
Mark Halperin
All right. That's how you see the House. What about your own chamber? Are you concerned, how concerned are you about your party losing the majority in the Senate?
- [61:26]
Senator Rand Paul
You know, I think in the Senate things are a little better. But I would say that the polls in Maine are very, very close. I'd say the polls in New Hampshire are very, not New Hampshire, in North Carolina are very close. So those are two Republican seats that are, I think, in real danger. And in a close election that swings the other way. That hurts us in both of those states. I think that there are things that a lot of my colleagues don't quite understand. Most independents and people in the middle saw the two people that were shot in Minneapolis and most people in the middle didn't like that. I mean, I don't like it. I'm a conservative. I'm not anti ice. But gosh, I didn't like this. I didn't like that. I don't like seeing people thrown down in the street, pepper sprayed from six inches away. So I think if the, you know, we're going to have a hearing on the new head of dhs. Boy, if it were me, I would be announcing to the world we were going to review our policies on rules of engagement, on the proper use of force. And our, our, all of our agents are going to get more training and we're going to get out of the crowd control business. Now, Tom Homan's done a lot of this, so you haven't seen it in the news, because he's actually doing the right thing. But sometimes people don't know you're doing the right thing unless you also announce to them that you've made changes and you admit that there were problems. So far, this has been. An administration doesn't like to admit that they've made any mistakes. And in fact, some of the people who work are worried if they admit that there was a mistake that they'll be fired. And so, but I think admitting a mistake that Mistakes occurred and then we're going to do better is I think what people in the middle would like
- [63:09]
Mark Halperin
to hear ask you about two more center races just because you're a good handicapper. You mentioned Maine and North Carolina. How worried are you about your colleague who's the incumbent in Ohio in that Senate race?
- [63:20]
Senator Rand Paul
Ohio and Florida, I think, have a lot of similarities as far as just the electoral demographics, not necessarily, you know, Rust Belt versus this and that, or their economies, but just over time, Florida has become more Republican and so is Ohio. The polls have shown it closer. You know, we're routinely winning Florida, 8, 10 points or more. Ohio, we won, I think, similar to that. I think Trump won it probably eight or 10 points. They're showing that race closer. But a lot of times the polling in Ohio ends up underestimating the Republican turnout, I think. And really, Republicans have exceeded the polls in recent histories in Ohio. So I would say we in all likelihood will win Ohio. I don't think it's as close as the polls are showing.
- [64:06]
Mark Halperin
And in general, what would you tell Republicans to run on in November? What's the message for your party to voters in the midterms that you think is most winning?
- [64:14]
Senator Rand Paul
You know, there's so many things that the voters do like us on and that we can continue to talk about local control of schools, that minors shouldn't be having permanent surgeries on, these gender surgeries that they've been doing on minors. 89% of the people believe that and are really offended by some of these things that have gone on. Actually, the world is changing their opinion on all of these things. You know, used to be, oh, if you don't let your child do this, they'll commit suicide. They now have these large studies showing that suicide's about the same whether you do these surgeries or not, that there really is a profound problem that needs to be addressed, but it isn't necessarily changing the outward appearance of your body. And so I think there are a lot of issues like that that are true and honest issues we should do. But I think it's going home and telling people that we need to live within our means, that we want you to send less of your paycheck to Washington, keep more of it at home. The best government, really the only government that functions at all in this country with any efficiency is really local government, your county government, your city government and your state government to a certain degree. And the one government that's in utter and absolute failure is your federal government, because they, they know no limits. They Just have a Federal Reserve. They print up the money and the borrowing goes on apace. And I don't know. I think our message is one of opportunity and hope and that we want everybody to be able to succeed. Succeed and that you can. I mean, income mobility in our country is an amazing thing. I think it's 20% of people born into the bottom 20% make it to the top 20%. Over half the people in the bottom 20% make it up one or two rungs. I mean, this country is still. The American dream is alive and well. And I think a message of hope and opportunity and that you can be prosperous and you can succeed. You will be able to buy a house, I think is a. Is a real message. And we need to get away from the doom and gloom about, oh, nobody's ever going to be able house again. I just completely disagree.
- [66:22]
Mark Halperin
A couple more questions, we'll let you get back to work. What's your biggest hope for America around the possibilities of AI? And what's your biggest concern about AI?
- [66:34]
Senator Rand Paul
That's a. That opens a can of. A huge can of worms or a big discussion, I think. I don't know what to make of this. I mean, the people who are talking about AI talk about it in apocalyptic terms. They talk about it as if no one will have to work anymore. Everybody will have universal high income. And I'm just not. That, to me, doesn't seem realistic. Every other technology we've ever had, we've had some big improvements. The wheel was a big deal. The loom was a big deal. The cotton gin was a big deal. The industrial revolution, an enormous deal. And it's where prosperity began, really, across the world. You know, we. If the X axis is time and the Y axis is prosperity, mankind lived for as long as we've been around, a couple hundred thousand years. We've lived on the x axis until 1820. And then prosperity has done this and it has been a hockey stick curve. I think AI continues that. I don't think AI all of a sudden supplants things and, you know, no other technology. Technologies have wiped out jobs and created new jobs. I just can't imagine that that won't be the truth with AI but then I have smart people who tell me, oh, you know, I say, well, you know, if there's going to be a lot of robots, your kid has to learn to make the robots. And they say, well, the first robots will be made by humans, but the next round of robots will be made by the robots. I don't Know, I'm just not that pessimistic. I mean, robots work in the auto factories. And so instead of having, I don't know, 10,000 people on an assembly line, maybe we have a thousand on the assembly line, they make more money. Assembly lines, a pretty good job, high paying job. They're technical, skilled people and they work with robots. So yeah, the robots replace some people, but there are still skilled people doing it. And I think, I don't know, I just am not pessimistic about tech. I never have been pessimistic about technology. The only thing I fear, AI really is in the hands of government as far as using it to snoop and take away my privacy. So to me the Bill of Rights is something to be defended against. And technology that makes it easier to, to spy on the individual is something we should be concerned about. And I've always said that 1984 didn't bother me when I read it the first time as much as I read it again and again and again because now that we have the technology, when I was a kid and read 1984, there were no two way television television sets. You couldn't spy on everybody's home. There were no such thing as putting chips in people or things like that. I'm not saying that happens, but it could occur and, but now we have the technology. So I am more concerned than ever, but really about government's misuse of it. So it's important that we defend civil liberties against government encroachment.
- [69:19]
Mark Halperin
Lastly, as you know, I'm 10 years in now, one decade of on my mission to make people understand that Rand Paul's really fun. So what was the, what was the last fun thing you did in Kentucky that you would recommend?
- [69:31]
Senator Rand Paul
Last fun thing went to Red River Gorge, did the Natural Bridge. Love being outside. My only problem is I don't love heights. So I have to be, you know, I have to overcome my fear of heights to do some of these things. But I love trekking outside as long as the, the precipice that I look over is not too dramatic. If it's too dramatic, then you lose me and then I have to do the low road by the stream. But no, I like getting outside. You know, being cooped up inside is not my idea of a good time. And while I will watch, you know, a game on tv, I'd much rather play the game than watch. So you'll find me outside engaged in some sort of activity instead of on the couch mostly.
- [70:13]
Mark Halperin
Senator Rand Paul, a man who likes the great outdoors. Thank you, Senator. Grateful to you and look forward to the hearing next week. You've now got me appointment viewing to see how you handle the confirmation of your colleagues. So thank you for that and thank you for making time to talk to us.
- [70:26]
Senator Rand Paul
Thank you.
- [70:27]
Mark Halperin
All right, that was Senator Rand Paul. Appreciate his being here and thanks to his staff for setting that up. We'll be back this Tuesday with all the latest information on Iran and everything else that's going on. Make sure you share the show with your friends, family, everybody you know. Best way to get ready for what's next up over the weekend is to watch us and listen to us on Thursday. Subscribe on YouTube across all the past podcast platforms so you stay ahead of the curve. I hope you have a great weekend and monitor all the developments we'll see on Tuesday to make sure you always know what's coming. Next up. Lifelock. How can I help?
- [71:05]
Senator Rand Paul
The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.
- [71:07]
LifeLock Advertiser
One in four tax paying Americans is paid the price of identity fraud.
- [71:11]
Senator Rand Paul
What do I do? My refund though.
- [71:13]
Mark Halperin
I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.
- [71:15]
LifeLock Advertiser
Lifelock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.
- [71:20]
Senator Rand Paul
I'm so relieved.
- [71:21]
LifeLock Advertiser
No problem.
- [71:22]
Mark Halperin
I'll be with you every step of the way.
- [71:24]
LifeLock Advertiser
One in four was a fraud paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40 your first year. Visit lifelock.com Special offer terms apply.