Pam Bondi’s ‘Cage Match’ and Trump’s Fraying Coalition

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Opinions

Episode: Pam Bondi’s ‘Cage Match’ and Trump’s Fraying Coalition

Host: The New York Times Opinion team (Michelle Cottle, David French, Jamelle Bouie)
Date: February 14, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into explosive recent political showdowns, centering on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s contentious appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. The hosts dissect how Bondi’s combative performance—and the administration’s broader personnel choices—reflect deeper dysfunctions and rifts in Trump’s coalition and the Republican Party. The episode also explores shifting energies in both parties ahead of the midterms, highlighting key primary battles in Texas and New Jersey as microcosms of broader trends.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Pam Bondi’s Testimony: Chaos and Consequences

Segment: [02:03]–[11:01]

• Pam Bondi, serving as Attorney General, appears before the House Judiciary Committee to answer for the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files.
• Her performance quickly devolves into combative exchanges, refusal to answer questions, and personal attacks—culminating in a “cage match” atmosphere.

Notable Quotes:

• “She clear had no intention of answering much of anything… Not in a good way, but still wild entertainment.” — Michelle Cottle [03:06]
• “That kind of pressure should not result in you having a visible meltdown for the public. And to my mind, this is just a defining aspect of Trump’s second term… Here we have people like Bondi who should not be within a hundred miles of these jobs.” — Jamelle Bouie [05:13]

Committee Dynamics:

• Democrats and a few Republicans (notably Thomas Massie) press Bondi aggressively, scoring political points amid Bondi’s evasions.
• “Democrats are able to evoke that reaction from Bondi [which] is a political win for Democrats.” — Jamelle Bouie [04:21]
• Bondi uses distractions and personal attacks (e.g., accusing Rep. Becca Bailin of antisemitism), which backfires: “Are you serious? Talking about antisemitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust? Really?” — Michelle Cottle quoting Becca Bailin’s response [07:22]

Bondi’s Priorities and Trump’s “Audience of One”:

• At one point, Bondi tries to deflect Epstein questions by citing the Dow at 50,000, a clear signal her “real” audience is Trump, not Congress.
  • “All of this was for the audience of one, and that’s Donald Trump.” — David French [08:03]

2. Dysfunction and the Erosion of Institutional Norms

Segment: [11:01]–[16:20]

• The hosts reflect on the evolution of Trump’s personnel decisions: moving from conventional GOP officials to loyalists like Bondi who lack qualification and independence.
  • “He’s selected for people whose sense of morality… is somewhat deficient. Like Pam Bondi, not known for running sort of like a clean AG office in Florida.” — Jamelle Bouie [12:03]
• The loss of DOJ independence means career prosecutors are quitting, leading to an exodus and leaving only the “bottom of the barrel”—which compounds incompetence and corruption.
• The failed attempt to indict six Democratic members of Congress (a grand jury refusal almost unheard of until recently) exemplifies this collapse.
  • “You reached almost the incompetence corruption singularity with the effort to indict the six Democratic members of Congress. I mean, that is absolutely impeachable stuff.” — David French [14:24]

Legal and Institutional Fallout:

• The administration’s approach—unapologetic vengeance with no internal checks—hollows out critical institutions.

3. The (Un)Accountability of Pam Bondi

Segment: [16:20]–[18:41]

• Will Bondi be ousted? Predictions are “perilous” with Trump, but performance may matter more than embarrassment.

  • “Pam Bondi would lose her job because she was not sufficiently effective at carrying out the vengeful agenda… not because the vengeful agenda was creating embarrassment for Trump, but because she’s just not good at it.” — David French [17:15]

• Even if Bondi were replaced, her likely successor would repeat the same pattern of “corruption plus staggering levels of incompetence.”

• “You might get Matt Gaetz… but Gates isn’t going to be any more competent. He might be more aggressive, but it’s the same basic problem.” — Jamelle Bouie [18:16]

4. Republican Civil War: The Texas Senate Primary

Segment: [18:41]–[24:59]

• Turning Point Action (TPUSA) endorses Ken Paxton over John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary. Paxton is beset by serious corruption allegations, yet the far right rallies behind him.
  • “Ken Paxton might be the most corrupt prominent politician in America.” — David French [20:11]

“Character” in Modern GOP:

• Support for Paxton signals to many that values like integrity and personal conduct are disposable, so long as you “punch the left.”
  • “Integrity now is a liability in Republican politics for one very clear reason—because it means you have some guardrail.” — David French [24:13]
• Voters don’t see Cornyn as “conservative enough,” though he is a staunch partisan; even modest compromises are disqualifying.
• “Character matters, just not in the way that you might…” — Michelle Cottle [25:41]
• “Character matters. But I’m gonna give character this baroque definition that no one else follows…” — Jamelle Bouie [25:58]

5. Democratic Party Energy: Progressives, Moderates, and Reform

Segment: [25:58]–[34:21]

• Jamel Bouie recounts the upset victory of Analilia Mejia in New Jersey’s special House election, beating favored moderate Tom Malinowski. The race reflected Democratic grassroots’ anger and appetite for accountability—especially postwar policy on Israel and immigration.

  • “Democratic voters have bloodlust right now… They don’t want Democratic lawmakers who are not willing to reflect that back at them.” — Jamelle Bouie [28:22]

• There’s a strong “anti-establishment” mood, but not the institutional nihilism of the Tea Party; Democrats want to “fix” rather than dismantle institutions.

  • “This isn’t so much like we want to tear down institutions. This is, we want the institutions to work better, in that corrupt people are making them work worse.” — Jamelle Bouie [30:51]

• Upcoming Texas Democratic primary (Jasmine Crockett vs. James Talarico) seen as a test case for different “change” approaches, unmarred by scandal.

Big Question for Democrats:

• In 2029 (if Dems get a trifecta): will the party enact sweeping reforms or focus on “cleanup” of Trump-era damage?
• “That can come from places you might expect, might not come from places you expect. So… this is going to be one of the things you kind of find out in the doing, in the campaigning, in the situations, in everything that unfolds.” — Jamelle Bouie [34:07]

6. Notable Moments and Quotes

• Bondi’s “burn book” performance likened to Mean Girls: “Her performance with her burn book was a little like the scene out of Mean Girls.” — Michelle Cottle [06:13]
• Party balloon/laser defense debacle: “A botched test of a laser or directed energy defense weapon… results in an impulsive shutdown of flights into and out of El Paso, which is not a small place. I mean, it’s a parliament of clowns at some point.” — David French [15:01]
• Grand Jury refusal as a new norm: “A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. The statistics are staggering… that happened until 2025 and 2026, and now you’re beginning to see it with some regularity.” — David French [14:24]

---

Important Timestamps

• Pam Bondi’s explosive testimony and the committee’s response: [02:03]–[07:50]
• Bondi and the Trump personnel shift: [05:13]–[11:01]
• DOJ exodus and executive branch dysfunction: [11:01]–[14:24]
• Republican Texas Senate primary fallout: [18:41]–[25:58]
• Upset in NJ Democratic special election, party trends: [26:34]–[31:21]

---

Final Takeaways

• Trump’s second-term governance style has replaced institutionalists with loyalists—often multiplying incompetence and eroding guardrails.
• Bondi’s messy performance and broader DOJ dysfunction highlight the perils of presidentially driven, loyalty-first appointments.
• The Republican Party’s base now sees “character” less as personal integrity, more as MAGA loyalty and aggression—while the left’s energy is about demanding genuine accountability and institutional reform.
• Both Texas and New Jersey primaries are closely watched as bellwethers for the future direction of each party.
• Political accountability, institutional competence, and the personalities in power are all on the line in these turbulent midterms.

---

Memorable Quotes by Timestamp and Speaker

• “[Pam Bondi] appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday… testimony turned into this kind of wild back and forth.” — Michelle Cottle [02:03]
• “I think any person who watches that hearing does not think, oh, Pam Bondi… a reasonable, sober minded political official, law enforcement official. They think Pam Bondi a lunatic.” — Jamelle Bouie [04:13]
• “Her performance with her burn book was a little like the scene out of Mean Girls.” — Michelle Cottle [06:13]
• “All of this was for the audience of one, and that’s Donald Trump.” — David French [08:03]
• “You combine them all, you reached almost the incompetence corruption singularity with the effort to indict the six Democratic members of Congress.” — David French [14:24]
• “Integrity now is a liability in Republican politics for one very clear reason… it means you have some guard rail.” — David French [24:13]
• “Democratic voters have bloodlust right now. That’s the best way to put it.” — Jamelle Bouie [28:22]
• “This isn’t so much like we want to tear down institutions. This is, we want the institutions to work better, in that corrupt people are making them work worse.” — Jamelle Bouie [30:51]
• “If there’s a democratic trifecta in 2029… does the Democratic Party push forward on its substantive agenda or does it engage basically in like a cleanup operation?” — Jamelle Bouie [34:07]

---

[Recommendations Segment] [34:34]–[38:22]

• Jamelle Bouie: Recommends Marvin Leroy’s pre-code films (Criterion Collection) and highlights “Gold Diggers of 1933.”
• David French: Recommends C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters—“relentlessly insightful into the human condition.”
• Michelle Cottle: Recommends exploring mocktail menus—“drink masters are now applying themselves” and the results are impressive.

---

For anyone who missed the episode, this summary captures the major themes, political context, and trademark wry tone of the hosts—as well as the most revealing moments and quotes.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, my name is Dana. I am a subscriber to the New York Times, but my husband isn't and it would be really nice to be able to share a recipe or an article or compete with him in wordle or connections. Thank you, Dana.

[B]

We heard you introducing the New York Times family subscription. One subscription, up to four separate logins.

[C]

For anyone in your life. Find out [e-mail] family.

[A]

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news, here's what to make of it.

[D]

I'm Michelle Cottle. I cover national politics for New York Times Opinion. And this week I am coming to you from beautiful Aust, where I am wallowing in the very juicy Senate race that's going on in the state. But do not fear, I still have with me my usual partners in crime, columnists David French and Jamelle Bouie. Guys, welcome. How's it going, Michelle?

[C]

Hot take on calling Austin beautiful.

[D]

What? Why the hate?

[A]

Why the hate?

[D]

David?

[C]

I've never figured out why Austin took off before Nashville when Nashville is objectively the superior city to Austin. But, but that's just a me thing. That's just a me thing.

[D]

I have no beef with Nashville. I went to school there. I love it. So we're just going to let that slide. I just, it's like there's room for both, David. There's room for both.

[B]

Jamel, hello. I have no opinions on either Nashville or Austin. Parts of the country I visited and they're fine in my opinion.

[D]

And he is overwhelming us with his.

[B]

There are other places that I would rather go. And you may notice I'm losing my voice a little bit. So apologies if I start cracking like a 13 year old.

[D]

It's gonna just make you sound very emotional for today, which is gonna really work with our topics as listeners are all too aware because in part we keep reminding them this is a midterm election year and thanks to some early primaries and special elections, we're already some emerging themes in both parties which Jamel and David, I trust that you are both prepared to dig into. But first we have to talk about this week's Pam Bondi meltdown. The Attorney General appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. She was ostensibly there to answer questions about the DOJ's handling of the Epstein files, but she clear had no intention of answering much of anything. Testimony turned into this kind of wild back and forth with lawmakers. I find it.

[C]

How many have you indicted?

[D]

Excuse me, I'm going to answer the question.

[C]

Answer my question.

[D]

No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question.

[C]

You answer the question the way I asked it.

[A]

Chairman Jordan.

[D]

I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. Some of them angry about the fact that many of the victims names were released while the names of possible perpetrators were redacted. But Bondi, to her credit, gave a truly electrifying performance, I have to say. Not in a good way, but still wild entertainment.

[B]

You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch, not on our time. No way. And I told you about that Attorney General before you started.

[D]

You don't tell me.

[C]

Oh, I did tell you because we.

[B]

Saw what you did in the Senate.

[D]

So we are taping this on Thursday morning. So, as always, facts on the ground may change before you hear it. But, Jamel, I have got to get your thoughts so far on this spectacle. Not just on how Bondi did, but also on how members of the committee, like lots of Democrats and even a Republican or two, responded to her just stonewalling.

[B]

I'll answer the second part of the question first. I think Democrats and those handful of Republicans like Thomas Massie did quite well. No administration wants their Attorney general looking like a raving lunatic for the cameras. And that's what came across. I think any person who watches that hearing does not think, oh, Pam Bondi, you know, a reasonable, sober minded political official, law enforcement official. They think Pam Bondi a lunatic. And I think that the fact that Democrats are able to evoke that reaction from Bondi is a political win for Democrats. Even if Trump is sitting back in his chamber. I don't know, I'm imagining him like a Jabba the Hutt in the palace, like, looking at television. Um, You know, even if that's the situation and Trump is enjoying it, it's just, it's political malpractice to allow something like this to happen. As for Bondi's performance, you know, my honest reaction when I saw her kind of unravel and she's flipping through her papers looking for various burns to use against Democrats was this person is a lightweight, right? Like you. You should be able to handle pressure from the congressional committees responsible for oversight. You should be able to handle pressure from your political opponents. That kind of pressure should not result in you having a visible meltdown for the public. And to my mind, this is just a defining aspect of Trump's second term, really, as opposed to his first. His first were many of the high level positions were taken up by people you might find in any Republican administration. Here we have people like Bondi who should not be within a hundred miles of these jobs, who are demonstrably unsuited and unqualified for these jobs. And we're seeing why. Right. Both in terms of performance and in terms of substance. They just cannot do what they're tasked with doing, whether that's good or bad. Right? Yeah, even. Even the corrupt stuff Bondi's supp to be doing, she's not good at.

[D]

Well, I did wonder, like you, how President Trump was looking at this performance, because she did not seem tough and defiant. She seemed petulant and panicked and 100% on the defensive, which is not gonna do anything to help the President overcome lingering suspicions that he has something to hide. I mean, her performance with her burn book was a little like the scene out of Mean Girls. And I totally agree that Democrats brought the heat. I mean, they've been slammed for not being tough enough on this administration, but they were not given an inch. As far as her kind of distractions and deflections go, all she was doing was name calling and bringing up former votes they had taken on completely unrelated things. She accused Representative Becca Bailin of having, like, forwarded some kind of anti Semitic agenda. And to her credit, the congresswoman, who is Jewish, went nuclear.

[A]

Deming.

[D]

Oh, I just want to be clear.

[C]

Do you want to go there?

[D]

Attorney General? Do you want to go there? Are you serious?

[C]

Talking about anti Semitism to a woman.

[D]

Who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust? Really? I mean, it was complete cage match with this stuff. And so, David, I wanted to get you in here to talk about what you. You are seeing in response on the right or also just how you view the whole spectacle.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, the most telling moment was when she tried to stop questioning about Epstein, which was ostensibly the subject of the testimony, by saying the dow is at 50,000.

[D]

Oh, my God.

[C]

Which is about as relevant as saying, why are we talking about Epstein when the Knicks won last night? I mean, you know, it's that kind of non sequitur. But that tells you more than anything, Michelle, more than anything who our audience is. Because who is always talking about the Dow, Right. Who is always pointing at the Dow? That is the one external check that Trump pays attention to is when the stock market crashes. And he will do things or stop doing things, and when it rises, he crows about it. So that tells you all of this. All of this was for the audience of one, and that's Donald Trump. And, you know, one of the things I think the second Trump term is showing is Trump is performing a function of the great illuminator of the true core of people, because he really is putting in front of a Pam Bondi, hey, Pam, here is your job in one corner, and here in the other corner is reason, logic, morality, and decency. You have to give up all of those things, but if you do, you can continue to be the Attorney General of the United States. And this is the test he's putting in front of basically everyone in Republican politics right now. And I will say, Michelle, that you're beginning to see, definitely not in the administration, but sort of out in the commentary class, you're beginning to see cracks. Now, some of it is from people like Eric Erickson, whom I know who has departed from the president before. I mean, he's not somebody who is a yes man to President Trump. He's one of the few Trump supporters who has, you know, actually calling him out regularly. Others, like Andy McCarthy of National Review is running a really remarkable series on Trump corruption. And all of these things are coming up and bubbling up. And others are taking on members of his administration in ways. But again, it's still the same pattern. The same pattern is Trump is being failed. It is Pam Bondi, you're botching the Epstein release. It's Pam Bondi, you're doing this wrong. Pam Bondi, you're doing that wrong. When the bottom line is Pam Bondi would not be doing any of this stuff but for her boss. And the frustration, though, that she's experiencing, I think, is she's doing everything that Trump wants her to do, and it's falling apart because what Trump wants her to do is crazy. Trying to indict six members of Congress, Democratic members of Congress, over an ad that just repeats some of the messaging in the Department of Defense Law of War manual. What is she going to do next? Indict the Authors of the DoD Law of war manual for saying there are circumstances where unlawful orders must be disobeyed? Is she going to indict Pete Hegseth, who said the same thing several years ago? I mean, it's a remarkable development, and I think that it was just so clearly illuminating to people. It was just right there how craven and ridiculous it all gets.

[B]

Can I add. Yeah, two things. One comment. I'll add two things. One comment is that it is very funny to see the kind of like good czar, bad boyar dynamic happening. I think among commentators, it's sort of a classic rationalization for bad authoritarian governance, which is a bit of a redundant. Authoritarian governance is bad as a matter of course. But it's just funny to see. The two comments I wanted to make is one, David, you said that Trump puts your job on one side and your morality and so on, so forth, the other side. And this gets back to what I said a little earlier, which is that, I mean, this is one of the things about this administration is that he's selected for people whose sense of morality in the first place is somewhat deficient. Like Pam Bondi, not known for running sort of like a clean AG office in Florida. Right. Like, not known for being a super scrupulous person. So she is, like, primed to do exactly what Trump wants her to do. And the second substantive thing, third thing, total is. And this is my hobby horse, as you guys know, and yours to an extent too, as well, David. To me, this just lays bare the insanity of the idea that the entire executive branch must follow the political priorities of the president. Right. Like, DOJ independence wasn't just something that emerged to, like, frustrate the aspirations of strong executives. It serves a practical purpose in the practical purpose is that when you're asking the attorney general to do things like prosecute members of Congress, you're asking the attorney general to do things like investigate the spouses of people killed by your government, as was the case after Renee Goode was killed, what will happen is that the good faith, highly competent, patriotic prosecutors that work for you, they'll quit. They don't want to do that. They want to do the thing that they signed up to do, which was like, enforce the law and try to bring some measure of justice to people who have been victims. And so what you're seeing in the DOJ and in offices like in Minnesota is like an exodus of attorneys. And so not only is Trump asking Bondi to do insane things, and she's trying to do them, but in trying to do them, she's hollowing out the DOJ and rendering it unable to do its actual job. And I think you can see this everywhere, like, everywhere, that the Supreme Court in particular has essentially given the sanction to this notion of a unitary executive whose job isn't to execute the will of Congress, but to be able to bend the executive branch in service of their political agenda. Everywhere that touches, you see dysfunction. And I don't think it's just because it's Trump. I think it's because the very notion is actually at odds with any idea of. Of good governance.

[D]

Well, you do wind up with this cycle where the good people leave who have a moral core or who have a respect for our kind of government and the Constitution. And so then the Trump administration can continue its hiring of people who, let's just say, have a certain ethical flexibility and whose guiding star is the political whims of an autocratic leader, as opposed to any kind of actual values.

[B]

And those people are often, like themselves, bottom of the barrel, right?

[C]

Oh, yeah. I mean, the incompetence that we're dealing with here is. It's not just corruption. It's corruption plus staggering levels of incompetence. And you combine them all, you reached almost the incompetence corruption singularity with the effort to indict the six Democratic members of Congress. I mean, that is absolutely impeachable stuff. It's not just a direct attack on a competing branch of government. It's also a direct attack on free speech, just basic free speech. I mean, this is about as core kind of speech as you can imagine. And, guys, let me just say this. If any of you are listening, are lawyers or wannabe lawyers. If this ever happens to you, just quit and go sell cars or something. They could not get a single grand juror, not a single grand juror, according to reporting from the Post, to go along to indict. And, you know, the old saying is that, you know, a prosecutor can indict a hamz sandwich. The statistics are staggering. If you actually look at grand juries refusing to indict. Tiny few, tiny few circumstances that. That happened until 2025 and 2026, and now you're beginning to see it with some regularity. That's staggering levels of incompetence tied to the corruption. And then this whole bizarre thing that happened earlier this week where there was a botched test of a laser or directed energy defense weapon that was apparently aimed at first it was gonna be a cartel drone, according to Pam Bondi. Other reports say it was a party balloon that then results in an impulsive shutdown of flights into and out of El Paso, which is not a small place. I mean, it's a parliament of clowns at some point. And yet, you know, the Trump administration has really absorbed this ethos of no apologies, no scalps, and so this is just gonna keep happening. That's sad, but it's a reality.

[D]

So it's pretty clear Trump's not gonna pay a price for this directly. I mean, in part because he's a lame duck. His party, however, could take a beating for enabling and, in some cases, encouraging this sort of nonsense. If you were talking about electeds. The midterms are coming up, but even before then, do we think there's any chance, speaking about, you know, Pam Bondi was performing for an audience of one, and her performance is getting pretty roundly trashed. Do you think that her days are numbered? Do we think there's any chance she'll maybe pass some point where she's such an embarrassment that they start thinking about getting rid of her? Or do you think that just because she's loyal and she'll dig in and make a fool of herself, then she just keeps on keeping on?

[B]

I. I mean, you go ahead, David.

[C]

I, I just say predictions are perilous with, With Trump sometimes, but I'd say, yeah, I don't think her job is secure. I think, you know, this is one of those classic situations of be careful what you celebrate if one attorney general resigns here, because in all likelihood, Pam Bonnie would lose her job because she was not sufficiently effective at carrying out the vengeful agenda. And not because the vengeful agenda was creating embarrassment for Trump, which is the truth, but because she's just not good at it. And I think that that's the next shoe to drop.

[D]

Oh, my God. Could it be that this is Matt Gaetz's big moment for a comeback?

[B]

But, I mean, this gets to the point I was gonna make, which is that, okay, let's say Bondi goes and it's Matt Gaetz. It's some other CHUD that the President wants. And for those who don't know, chud refers to cannibalist accumulated underground dweller from the 1984 film.

[D]

Just had to go there. I'm sorry, I have to take a beat on that.

[B]

Continue.

[D]

Sorry.

[B]

Gates isn't going to be any more competent. Right. He might be more aggressive, but it's still going to be the same basic problem of, A, what you're asking these people to do is stupid, B, in addition to being corrupt and unconstitutional, and B, the mere act of trying to get anyone to do it degrades the capacity of the agency itself. So it just makes things worse.

[D]

Okay, so I wanna go to a different kind of swirling chaos on the right, and it speaks to what kind of damage could happen in the next few years. And that is, you know, the fight over control for the Senate and whether we're gonna get some guardrails back on this administration. And we've got the midterms coming up, and already we've got some primary action going on. I'm here in Texas this is a particularly juicy Republican primary going on just this week. Turning Point Action, the political arm of Turning Point usa, which is the conservative student group that Charlie Kirk co founded. They endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Republican Senate primary. This, surprisingly, perhaps for a lot of people, sparked some pushback and outright disgust in certain conservative circles. Now, you know, on its face, this is a conservative group endorsing a very conservative candidate. David, why don't you tell us what the big deal is going on here?

[C]

Okay, so what I'm about to say in this moment in time in American history is gonna sound like a big claim, but I think it's, I think it stands up. Ken Paxton might be the most corrupt prominent politician in America.

[D]

Well, that is a bold statement. That is a bold statement.

[C]

Sort of top to bottom, personal policy wise, et cetera. He's been under criminal investigation for a very long time. He had a remarkable circumstance happen not long ago when a big chunk of his own office quit and blew the whistle on his corruption, leading to his impeachment in a Republican dominated Texas House. He escaped conviction because the Senate, you know, was really a loss of political will, which is what happens all the time in impeachment proceedings nowadays. This is somebody who has tried to ride out the storm quite successfully, I might add, by just wrapping both arms around Donald Trump, including both arms around these stolen election claims. He is a serial adulterer. Not that that matters anymore. But you know what's so gross about it is this is the same TPUSA that after Charlie Kirk's horrible assassination was sort of proclaiming the beginning of a religious revival in the United States of America. And oh, by the way, here's this corrupt adulterer that we're going to throw our weight behind. And so, you know, what you're looking at here really is the total abandonment and even just outright hostility towards the idea that personal character has any bearing on anything at all, so long as you're going to advance the Trump agenda and punch the left in the face. And this is just, I think it's just a perfect representation that the Republican Party has moved on and not all, not all Republicans, but the vast majority have moved on so completely from the idea that there is any demand for any requirement of integrity at all, so long as you are seen as most effective at attacking the left. It's so toxic, and yet it might actually work in Texas, Michelle. And I'm hoping you're down there saying, no, David, it's not gonna work.

[D]

So I hate to disappoint You. But pulling out that line, punch the left in the nose is exactly what we're talking about here, because Cornyn is very conservative. We're not talking about a squishy rhino versus a MAGA conservative. I mean, John Cornyn is very conservative. And talking to voters down here, there's a vote. Cornyn's vote with Democrats to pass a very modest gun control bill is something that ticks off a lot of the Republicans in Texas. But it is the bigger issue of he is seen as out of step with the modern Republican Party. He's too much the part of that old kind of gentleman's Republican set that used to rule the day, I guess, back in the George Bush era.

[B]

I was just saying that's so funny because.

[D]

And it's crazy.

[B]

Cornyn is like. Cornyn is a dedicated partisan. And I think David's right to say that. Like, it's not just this obsession with punching the left, like an. Almost like a worship of the will to power. Right. Like the thing Paxton has that Cornyn may not is that Corny may feel some obligation to do the public good on occasion. Right. Like voting for the gun control bill. Right. Like he says, I'm conservative, but this. This would help people, broadly speaking, and doesn't cut too much against my own conservative views. And I have a. As a. As a lawmaker, not simply as some sort of vessel for partisan rage. As a lawmaker, I have this responsibility to lawmaking. That's. That's why I'm here. And the Paxton type is someone who rejects any obligation whatsoever except to one. Except to the acquisition of power for oneself.

[C]

You know, I'll say this about what Jamel said about integrity. I think that Jamel just, like, hit the nail on the head here. And integrity now is a liability in Republican politics for one very clear reason, and that is it means you have some guard rail.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So Senator Cornyn has guardrails. He does. You know, he's a hardcore conservative, but he has guardrails. You know, he voted to certify the election that was defying Trump. But this is where we've gone. I mean, we really went from where, for example, white evangelicals in 2011 were the community of people most likely to say that character mattered to. Even by 2015, they were the demographic then was the group that was least likely. It was either late 2015 or early 2016, least likely to say that character mattered. And now we've gone full on to where in some parts, again, the heavily evangelical Republican base. Character's just a liability. Because you cannot have any lines when you're taking on the left. There can be no lines at all.

[D]

Here's the last thing I'll say on this, which is that what I found talking to some Paxton supporters is that it's a matter of redefining what character is. It's like, character matters, but it's kind of the character definition of, are you fighting the good patriotic maga? Stop the godless liberals fight. That's much more important than whether or not you have slept around on your wife or you are corruptly using your office. So it's in their view. Cause there's always a good spin. Character matters, just not in the way that you might.

[B]

That's so funny. Character matters. But if we. I'm gonna give. Give character this baroque definition that no one else follows. Yeah, sure. Yeah. If my grandfather. If my grandmother had wheels, should be a bicycle, right? Like, sure, of course.

[D]

So, okay, so now I want to switch to the Democrats, who, like the Republicans, are kind of trying to figure out which way their party is headed and who's gonna lead them there. So on Tuesday, the progressive organizer Analilia Mejia declared a slim victory in a special election in New Jersey for the House. So, Jamel, why don't you just kind of give us a take on what was going on with this race? Cause she was not the favorite by any stretch. And what does her victory tell us about the mood of Democratic voters there?

[B]

Sure. So for a little more context, this was a race to replace Mikey Sherrill, who's now governor of New Jersey. This is her district. My sense of what happened here is that the former representative, Tom Malinowski, who was favored to win, was in a good position to win. But two things happened. The first is that perhaps sensing what is changing among Democratic voters, Malinowski, who was a very pro Israel Democrat when he was in Congress, was willing to say he would put some conditions on aid to Israel given giving conditions in Gaza. And aipac, the lobbying group, kind of unleashed millions of dollars in ads against him for not having kind of a categorical hard line. And mind you, it's not as if Malinowski was saying that Israel's conduct in Gaza was a genocide, unlike his opponent, who was saying that it constituted a genocide. And she is an even more resolute opponent of aid to Israel. So AIPAC is unloading millions of dollars in ads against Malinowski, and in particular, they are targeting him for maybe being kind of soft on accountability for ice, like having voted for funding for ice, and Mejia by contrast, was very much running on, I will hold ICE accountable, abolish ice. And I think that is also going to be a litmus test and it's going to be part of a larger litmus test of do you want to hold this administration accountable? Like, what is your attitude towards this administration going forward? Is it going to be, let's do some reform here and there and try to get past the worst, or is it going to be, we want to hold these people accountable in, you know, dramatic ways? Democratic voters have bloodlust right now. That's the best way to put it. And they don't want Democratic lawmakers who are not willing to reflect that back at them.

[D]

So here's the interesting thing. The party's very angry and they're very angry at the failures of the establishment. And in a couple of cases, you have progressives who come out swinging, but then you also have moderates in different places, you know, like the governors Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, who were not super progressive candidates, but they were still very critical of kind of the failures of the establishment in Washington and things needing to change. We are seeing that all over. And I do think there is a kind of movement that kind of transcends your spot on the ideological spectrum of like, they just want people clearly get that something has to change. It's very anti status quo. It's also very kind of willing to push back at a kind of corrupt and disturbing administration. So I do wonder the degree to which people will kind of drill down on the progressive versus centrist. When I think more of this is coming down to are you willing to throw some punches and be honest about the failures of your team and the other team in terms of establishment?

[B]

And while there is some connection, I think, between that and ideology, I think you're right to say that it's not necessarily connected. And you can have a moderate policy program, but also be a very anti establishment figure. What's interesting though, this is maybe just inherent to what Democratic Party politics is. Regardless if we're on the spectrum that the anti establishment energy is not an anti institutional energy, this isn't so much like we want to tear down institutions. This is we want the institutions to work better in that corrupt people are making them work worse. Right? So it's not so much, and this is, I've seen comparisons not here in our conversation, but other places between this and the Tea Party energy. And that's where I'd say is a big difference. The Tea Party in a lot of ways was not just anti establishment, but anti institutional. And this is this kind of funny. This is a kind of very funny anti establishment pro fight, but for the purpose of reinvigorating the institutions so that they actually work.

[C]

I would say I look at the Texas primary where you are, Michelle. To me right now, Texas is the center of the American political universe because it's the two primaries are so instructive and will be so instructive. And the Texas Democratic primary really shows, you know, kind of the embodiment of two very different approaches.

[D]

Yeah. So Jasmine Crockett, just to make, just to be clear, Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico on the Democratic side.

[C]

Yes.

[D]

Nobody has a scandal and nobody has gone super nuclear on the other at this point.

[C]

Right. So it really is putting before Democratic primary voters. These are two very different approaches. Both of these politicians are very good representations of these two different approaches. And which one do you want? And to me, that's, I'm going to be so fascinated to see the results of that because it is a kind of a race that's untainted. Wow. A race untainted by scandal. Who's ever heard of such a thing? So I think that's going to be very, very interesting. But it is absolutely the case that a lot of the establishment that has been trying to rise up to defend sort of American institutions has its own abundant flaws. And I do think, you know, if I was going to talk about a politician just to sort of show the kind of person who maybe and Jamel and you guys can tell me this more, you know, this is just me talking out loud. Mark Kelly would say, nobody would say he hasn't fought enough. You know, he's been, they tried to indict him. You know, he has fought hard against the Trump administration, yet he is not in the, you know, more most progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Is that a profile that people would really like? I don't know. I don't know. It's going to be interesting to find this out.

[B]

Some of this is just going to be hard to answer. Like, you know, if there's a democratic trifecta in 2029, the big, I think the big political question is going to be does the Democratic Party push forward on its substantive agenda or does it engage basically in like a cleanup operation? I think American politics is qu. Bad at accountability. We don't like the idea of dwelling on the past. Readers of mine will know that I'm a big Lincoln head. And this is, I mean, Lincoln is chosen as the Republican nominee in 1860, in part because everyone's like, well, he's like a moderate guy. He's a moderate anti slavery guy. And he might be easily manipulable by a William Seward or these other people who'll be in the cabinet and we can trust that he won't go too far afield. And no one at the time could really sense Lincoln's own kind of like iron will, right? So when secession starts to happen, you have even Seward who's like, maybe we should make some concessions here. We don't want secession. And Lincoln is, it's almost not a low one, but like close to being one of the handful of people who is like, no, let them secede. If they're going to do it, let them do it and we'll respond. And that, that reaction, that willingness to not bend, and that's hard to predict. It's hard to see where that. It's hard to guess. That can come from places you might expect, might not come from places you expect. So when thinking about the candidates that Democrats might be attracted to, I don't know, this is going to be one of the things you kind of find out in the doing, in the campaigning, in the situations, in everything that unfolds. It's hard to say.

[D]

Now I have to say, if we manage to get Lincoln into a podcast, that actually seems like a good spot to land in, congratulations.

[B]

I can work Lincoln into literally any conversation.

[D]

Okay, well, challenge accepted. It's like this could be a future plan. So we're gonna pivot now to everyone's favorite part of the show. Recommendations. Okay, what are the eye pleasing, stomach soothing, brain stimulating, zen inducing joys you want to share with us this week, guys? Jamel, you go first.

[B]

Sure thing. Last week I recommended a Criterion collection with black filmmakers and the work in particular, Charles Burnett. I'm going to recommend another Criterion Collection collection, not Black History Month. Related. This is the films of Marvin Leroy, who was a Hollywood studio director during the pre code era. And it's a great collection. I want to say maybe like 10 films, 11 films, a bunch of movies. But they're all short and they're all terrific. And in particular, you'll want to watch the films that star a young Edward G. Robinson, who everyone will recognize because he's one of the most caricatured actors ever known for signature, like, yeah, Shay, like that kind of thing. But highly recommend the collection gold diggers of 1933. Another fun picture, but highly recommended. Think you should check it out.

[D]

Love it.

[C]

David So I had a choice in my mind, was it gonna go low or was I gonna go high?

[D]

Please tell me you went low. Low, low.

[C]

No, I've decided not to go low. I've decided not. Which was gonna be recommending HBO's show industry, which is grim dark. So let me go high. I reread for maybe I recently reread for about the 15th time in my life, one of my top five books. It's very short and it's the screwtape letters by C.S. lewis. And let me make a plug for people to read it, whether you're CS Lewis is a Christian theologian most famous for the Chronicles of Narnia books and this. But this is one of his most famous and it's got this really interesting conceit. It's a letters between a junior devil and a senior devil as they're trying to tempt this poor English bloke into hell. But even if you are not a Christian, it's a really good read because of the insights it has into human nature and all those subtle ways in which we can corrupt ourselves and all the subtle ways in which often our best intentions are turned against us to make us worse people. And it's really fascinating. And even though it's written World War II era, it is very relevant because human nature is not this changing, shifting thing. And it's a very short read, a very fun read. It's a very charmingly written book, but it is relentlessly insightful into the human condition. So I'm going to go high this time, Michelle. I'm going to go high.

[D]

All right, well, I'm just going off book completely and I'm going to say that I have been exploring the mocktail menus at restaurants lately. You know, whether you're doing dry January or just cutting back for health reasons or. Or whatever, a lot of people are drinking less. But I have to say that drink masters are applying themselves at high end restaurants. A new mocktail bar just opened up in D.C. i'm sure there's tons in New York and they are amazing. They are so delicious. I'm just gonna throw this out there and say I used to be a real kind of turn up my nose snob on this, but these guys have upped their game. It's good for your health. Give it a shot next time you're out for a kind of fancy meal and see what you get. So that's it. Okay, guys, I think we're gonna just land it there. Thank you so much as always. I'm gonna go back out into the wilds of Texas. I'm doing a tour of. You can't tour the whole state, but I'm, like, hitting Tyler, Texas to the north and Austin and San Antonio and Houston. It's gonna be magic. Magic. I'll bring you back a hat. Michelle.

[C]

Beware the lasers of El Paso.

[D]

I'm not going west, Texas. It's too scary out there. Shot down. All right. Bye, guys.

[B]

Bye.

[C]

Bye, Michelle.

[A]

If you like this show, follow it on YouTube, Spotify or Apple. The opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Allison Bruzick. Mixing by Daniel Ramirez. Original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro, Efim Shapiro and Amin Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. The head of operations is Shannon Busta. Audience support by Christina Santa. The director of opinion shows is Annie Rose Strasser.