Loading summary
Transcript94 lines
- [00:00]
Jonathan Martin
Foreign.
- [00:11]
Charlie Sykes
Welcome to the to the Contrary podcast. I am Charlie Sachs. I'm wearing the tie because I just did tv. But also I wanted to dress up for Jonathan Martin because that I get to talk with senior politico writer, former New York Times writer, best selling authority guy who is going to explain what the hell is going on. Normally, I have a hard time deciding what, what to start with, but I'm going to go back to what I wrote in my, in my newsletter on, on, on Friday. They, first of all, I always love these, these metaphor alerts that the FAA had to halt flights after Elon Musk's starship rocket exploded and rained down debris that just seemed like, almost like too much. You have to just kind of perfect. And look, I meant I know we have too much on the nose. I know we have more important things to talk about. I mean, the on again, off again, no dance of the tariffs, the kind of droopy job numbers, the chaos of the Social Security, all the Democratic infighting, the administration's new fight with, I don't know, colleges, lawyers, the media, and of course, the ongoing dismemberment of the free world. But, but I have to admit, Jonathan, I am absolutely mesmerized by this. You know, what's, what's going on between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And I, what I wrote was it's like watching an impending crash between racing trains filled, overflowing with clowns wearing bright red bonnets, festooned with ferrets, except you know that it's going to be worse and you can't take your eyes off of it. So you saw the big story in the New York Times. Politico broke the story originally.
- [01:53]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah.
- [01:54]
Charlie Sykes
So let's just start with this one because the headline is inside the explosive meeting where Trump officials clashed with Elon Musk. And apparently Marco Rubio found something like a spine. Although I don't want to overplay that. The lead on this story by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman. Marco Rubio was incensed. Here he was in the Cabinet Room of the White House, the Secretary of State seated beside the president, President listening to a litany of attacks from the richest man in the world. And Musk is insulting him, saying, you haven't fired anybody, you know, and he said, maybe you fired, you know, one person. And Rubio, stewing, stewing, stewing, had been privately furious with Musk for weeks, ever since the Doge team effectively shuttered an entire agency that was supposedly under Mr. Rubio's control. The United States Agency for International development. If he was furious, he never said shit about it until now. In this extraordinary Cabinet meeting in front of the president, around 20 others, Rubio apparently went off on Musk. So, Jonathan, what do we need into this? Is that. And then apparently, according to Politico, Trump kind of clipped Musk's wings and said to the Cabinet members, from now on, you're in charge of your own department. So what's happening? What's going on?
- [03:09]
Jonathan Martin
Well, first of all, thanks for having me, Charlie. I appreciate it. And I'm flattered that you put a tie on for me. Your description is vivid. I'm reminded of our friend Mike Murphy's succinct description of Musk and Trump as two tomcats in the same pillowcase, which I thought was pretty good line.
- [03:28]
Charlie Sykes
Unfair to Cat.
- [03:29]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah, yeah. No, no, no. My. My pals Maggie and. And Swan have a good. A good story inside the room, as they say about. This was inevitable.
- [03:42]
Charlie Sykes
Yes.
- [03:43]
Jonathan Martin
All the Cabinet secretaries and the senior staff of the White House was, of course, going to grow irritable about somebody who knows absolutely zero about government and bureaucracy trying to run the federal government in their spare time while also running like, other companies and.
- [04:02]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. Whose rockets are blowing up. Yeah, yeah.
- [04:05]
Jonathan Martin
I mean, this day was coming. In some ways, the news is. It actually took until March for it to finally happen. And why did it happen? The classic Washington way. Because these Cabinet folks are looking bad, and Musk is making them look bad. And so they're finally lashing out. And of course, there's leaks, because people are. People are sick of the Musk show. So when you're Marco Rubio and you're getting hammered for not pushing, you know, enough staffers out the door, or when you're Sean Duffy, who's also in the piece, and you got, you know, a litany of aviation accidents, and there's talk about laying off air traffic controllers. Guess what, Charlie? That makes you look bad. You, the Cabinet secretary, that is. And you're gonna then hit back, because this is all survival of the fit. This is a Darwinian political game, right? And Duffy and the rest of them want to live, you know, however long the Trump shelf life is. A year and a half, two years, who the heck knows what it is? And they know that Elon can generate bad press for them, which, of course, for Trump is the kiss of death.
- [05:16]
Charlie Sykes
Okay? So, I mean, there's also the human physics, the law of human physics, which is that two sociopathic narcissists cannot occupy the same space at the same time. So we Always knew that there was going to be a clash between Trump and Musk, but this one feels a little bit different. So there's three things that happen here. Let's just break this down. Number one, that this Cabinet meeting took place, which apparently was going to be a bitch session. That's number one. Number two, that. That. Number two, that it leaked out. And then number three, that Trump then used it as an opportunity. So let's just talk about that, because this must have been bubbling for some time. My guess is the only way that this happened would be if Trump had given kind of a little nod, saying, you guys want to go off on mosque? Yeah, you know, well, you know.
- [06:07]
Jonathan Martin
Well, the fact the meeting was convened in the first place makes clear to me that the Cabinet secretaries and the West Wing staff wanted to show Trump that the Elon show ain't all fun and games. And so this is also them. Them getting Elon in the room with the boss and sort of making clear to Trump that this guy is causing some. Some real headaches for us.
- [06:34]
Charlie Sykes
But the boss let it happen. That's the other thing.
- [06:37]
Jonathan Martin
Right, of course. But, but, but I mean, to your point, clearly orchestrated by the West Wing staff and the Cabinet secretaries who wanted, who wanted to send a message to Elon. And the leaks, by the way, also wanted to send a message to Elon, which is. Enough's enough. And you're. You're jamming us. You're jamming our colleagues on Capitol Hill, you're jamming Republican governors, and this is not helpful politically.
- [07:04]
Charlie Sykes
So you mentioned Sean Duffy, my fellow Wisconsinite, by the way. He's dumber than a box of rocks, but apparently he'd had enough as well. Sean Duffy went back and forth with Musk about the state of the Federal Aviation Administration's equipment for tracking airplanes and what kind of fixes needed. Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, jumped in to support Musk. But Duffy said that the young staff at Doge, you know, the guys like big balls. We're trying to lay off air traffic controllers. What am I supposed to do? Duffy said, I have multiple plane crashes to deal with now, and your people want me to fire air traffic controllers.
- [07:40]
Jonathan Martin
Ooh.
- [07:40]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, this, this, this was. This was pretty intense again, because, because.
- [07:46]
Jonathan Martin
It'S Duffy's ass on the line when there's, when there's aviation accidents. Musk isn't going to get blamed for that, at least not proximately. Duffy immediately will. Right. So he's responding to, you know, a tough first six weeks on the job. Beginning with that accident over the Potomac River. And so, yeah, Duffy is lashing out. Look, they all know Musk is living on borrowed time. They know that Trump is not going to keep having this guy taking attention away from him. And they know that Musk is politically unpopular, which for Trump is everything. If you're unpopular, Trump doesn't like you. And so I think they're trying, Charlie, to be totally candid, to hasten the day when Musk is out of their hair.
- [08:31]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, but what is the role of Trump? I mean, I get that, but Trump has been joined.
- [08:37]
Jonathan Martin
If they have pressed for Trump.
- [08:40]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. So where do they go now? Where do they go now? You know what I wrote? Yeah.
- [08:47]
Jonathan Martin
That's why Trump told the Cabinet folks, you're in charge. And that was to send a message to Elon, stop fucking around with these Cabinet secretary staffs in ways that are getting them in trouble politically. And they're getting me bad press. Look, there is no Trumpism besides good publicity for Donald Trump. That is the extent of what Trumpism is. It's not some nationalist project. It's not a sledge. Trumpism is the perception of victory, the perception of success for Donald J. Trump. That is the beginning and end of Trumpism, and everything goes from that. Right. So Trump cares 99.9% about the coverage and the perception of his administration. So far. That's everything to him. So you've got these Cabinet people who clearly, and as his West Wing staff, who clearly are going to him as our governors, as our members of Congress, and saying, Mr. President, I can't say in public, but, you know, this is really getting tough for me because the Elon, you know, so Trump's feeling the heat privately about Elon from his own allies.
- [09:51]
Charlie Sykes
So do you think that. Is this the beginning of the breakup? Because I can't see Elon, you know, basically going quietly into the corner and going, okay, I've been. I've been put in my place. It's just. It just. It just me and the rockets and the ketamine now he. He's going to be doing that. I am not going to be ignored, Donald routine. Right? So, I mean, what. What happens now? What is. What. What's the next steps?
- [10:15]
Jonathan Martin
I tend to agree with you that there's not going to be an explosive breakup tomorrow, that this thing's not going to end in a bang. I think it ends in more of a whimper. I just think that the two are so invested in each other that they need to have a good breakup eventually. So I think you Know, the metaphor I sort of used yesterday with one senior Republican as close to Trump was, is the air going to come out of the balloon? And this person said, yeah, that's okay.
- [10:43]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, that, that, that makes, that makes sense.
- [10:45]
Jonathan Martin
But look, Trump's money and Elon, and Elon needs Trump's influence, so they don't want to have a bad breakup, you know.
- [10:55]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. So they're still going to be in the, in the, in the sack one way or another. So let me go back to the point that you just made, because I think it's really, really important that there, there was no ideology of Trumpism. And I was on this segment where we were talking about, hey, like, what's going on with the tariffs? Because of course, the tariffs are on again, off again. Maybe we'll do it, maybe we won't do it. And really, you know, people are talking about the chaos and the uncertainty and the whiplash. And quite frankly, you know, this is the moment we live in where it's government by whim. It is Donald Trump's, you know, mood on any given day. And so if you're trying to draw a through line to a lot of things, it doesn't make any sense because it is all sort ofpeak and ID for Donald Trump. And so he can reverse a position. Although this week has been really, really extraordinary. Right. I mean, it's like we're siding with Russia at the beginning of the week. Now we're maybe threatening Russia with some sanctions. We were going to impose all these tariffs. And then people said, well, no, not for this, not for that. So let's, let's talk a little bit about that. I mean, there are some, the tariffs. Is one actual ideological through line or isn't it? Because he's been talking about tariffs for 40 years, it's a fetish for him. And yet day by day by day, he changes his mind.
- [12:13]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah. Because Trump broadly believes that the US Is being ripped off and played for suckers and we got to get tough and we got to stop these other countries taking advantage of us. Yes. That is broadly his view of the world has been for, you know, half a century by now or close. But the day to day application of that perspective can change on a dime. Because I come back to what Trumpism actually is, which is the perception of success and victory.
- [12:44]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [12:44]
Jonathan Martin
And when you're getting bad coverage or the market is tanking day in, day out, that's not a good story. And so Trump responds to that stimuli and calls off the tariffs. But because he's invested in tariffs broadly and likes using them as a tool. He can never walk away from them completely. So we're in this situation, Charlie, where it's day to day, and some days the tariffs are on and then the market crashes, the coverage turns sour. He gets pressured by the big three automakers and gives in and calls them off, or, you know, Trudeau or Sheinbaum are nice to him on the phone and promise him, you know, one, one zillion more border agents that they don't actually have, and he calls them off to save face. It's just D to day because the only actual animating force in his life day to day is the perception of success. And when the market's bad, the coverage is bad, and that's that.
- [13:36]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so this is a little higher stakes. His. The complete betrayal of Ukraine. I mean, the last two weeks, we've seen basically America, you know, switching sides with the vote in the United nations and the humiliation of Vladimir Zelensky. And by the way, there's. There's something. Before we get into the great, you know, cosmic significance of the Post World War II World, there's something visceral about the relationship between Trump and Zelensky, isn't it? That the Trump really wanted to humiliate Zelensky. That there's something about Zelensky that.
- [14:12]
Jonathan Martin
And, you know, Vance certainly did.
- [14:14]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, yeah, right. You know, and I think in part because Zelensky has, you know, stood up against him. He's cut off the intelligence, they've cut off the satellites, they're cutting off, you know, so many things. And yet on Friday, he seemed a little bit annoyed that. That Vladimir Putin is. Is taking advantage of. Of his pause to hammer Ukraine and suggesting we might impose more sanctions. Now, we've already imposed virtually every possible sanction against Russia there is. So what do you make of that? Is he. Is he like, Vladimir, you're making me look bad here. I'm willing to give you everything. But. But why do you have to be so, like, you know, in my face about it?
- [14:54]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah. Well, again, I come back to Trump wants Trump success. Trump wants Trump victory. Headlines. Trump wins. Trump is the best. Trump is the biggest. Trump is the loud, whatever. And when. When Putin won't come to the table and Putin keeps attacking Ukraine, and Trump sees clips on TV of Ukrainian destruction at the hand of the Russians, and Trump has somebody encourage him, somebody's probably more of a hawk and says, you know, you ought to do a little bit of pressure on Putin just to make sure he knows that we're not, you know, you know, rolling over for him. You get the tweet that Trump did, but Trump just wants to get a deal, Charlie. He doesn't give a damn what the details are. Yes, he'd like to get some minerals from Ukraine so that he can say that he got something out of the transaction. But you and I know what he mostly wants. He wants the big headline, Ukrainians, Russians agree to stop the war. Trump is the Metternich of our times. And guess what? There's a big engraved gold stamped envelope in the mail, and it's the Nobel. Yeah, the Nobel Peace folks. And they have a big invitation for Donald Trump to come to Oslo.
- [16:10]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I think that's, that's probably more of his fantasy than a reality there. I think he's going to be getting the, the Nobel Peace Prize. But. Okay, let me, let me float.
- [16:21]
Jonathan Martin
If he was willing to share it with Zelensky, it's actually a great Trump question. Would Trump accept the Nobel if he had to share it with Zelensky?
- [16:30]
Charlie Sykes
I think so, yes. What do you think?
- [16:32]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah, because if it still meant Donald Trump and Nobel Peace Prize, I think the answer is, yeah. I mean, I think he'd probably share it with, like, idiom, truth.
- [16:40]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so I'm going to float a possibly contrarian theory by you because, you know, obviously one of the other markers of Trump's, you know, first six weeks, or actually his last, you know, 10 years, has been flooding the zone. He's just picked one fight after another and makes it almost too difficult to pick, like, so he's picked a fight with the media. He's picked a fight, I mean, just with, with one institution. And, and this week, and just like last, I think, you know, 72 hours, he's picked a fight with Columbia University, he's picked a fight with major Washington law firms, he's picked a fight with the media. He's now picking a fight with evangelical churches over the cutoff of, of, of aid. And again, the normal. I, I think the, probably the conventional and also the correct analysis is that, is that he calculates that by having so many fights that he divides the opposition. Nobody knows what to do. The contrarian possible theory is that at a certain point, you've created so many enemies, you are fighting so many fronts that you have created an opposition. So the legal community is looking at him and going, bullshit. The media, not very strong. But at some point does all of this begin to force the resistance? Because he's, he has created so many targets, so many targets that need to Kick back against him. So what do you, how do you analyze this?
- [18:07]
Jonathan Martin
It's a lot of chaos. It's a lot of flooding the zone. I think it helps him in some ways that it's hard to do accountability and scrutiny when there's so much to shoot at.
- [18:16]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [18:18]
Jonathan Martin
That that obviously helps him. Here's why. I think, though, over the long term, it's not beneficial. It's part of the reason why, Charlie, he lost in 2020.
- [18:28]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [18:28]
Jonathan Martin
Very hard to beat an incumbent president in, in modern times. I think the exhaustion factor, Americans don't like inflation. They really don't like chaos. They want to see normal, functioning government for the most part. They don't want to be embarrassed. I think the exhaustion after Covid in 2020, it was just too much. And Americans wanted normalcy again. And Joe Biden was a grandfather. And, you know, Sleepy Joe was like the worst possible nickname for him, because America's like, yeah, sign me up for Sleepy Joe. I can use a freaking nap after four years of Trump. And I think Trump is sowing the seeds of his own demise or his party's demise here once again. The chaos does not sell, and I think people get tired of it. Charlie, here's a question for you. Has there been a weekday since January 20 that Donald Trump has not addressed the cameras in some capacity?
- [19:21]
Charlie Sykes
No. Has there been?
- [19:22]
Jonathan Martin
I don't think so. Every day the Trump show is airing, and people get tired of anything in this country, they don't have any attention spans. It's just, it's too much, you know?
- [19:31]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it is too much. So let's talk about, I mean, he had a big speech this week. I want to turn the camera around a little. What was your take on the Democratic response? And I'm not talking about Alyssa. We can talk about Alyssa Slotkin in a moment. But the way one of the big questions was, how would Democrats in that room respond to him? Were they effective? What do you think?
- [19:53]
Jonathan Martin
No, it's just, look, being the minority party during those joint addresses to Congress, it's a no win. And especially in the Trump era, you know, standing up and interrupting or holding up little church, you know, church fans or bingo hall fans, it's just, it's not gonna move any numbers. Just don't freaking bother. I, I, I know you want to say something. I know these members of Congress have had their phones getting lit up every day with pressure to confront Trump. I get that. But it's just not doing anything, I think, for the party. So I don't get why they did it? I don't think it matters. But, Charlie, to be bigger about, I don't think the speech matters that much because things move so fast. There will be five more. There will be five more stories between that speech and next week. I just, you know, nothing has staying power. Everything that, you know, sort of dries up on contact. And so I don't think it matters that much necessarily.
- [20:54]
Charlie Sykes
You know, it has been at least 20, 30, 40 years since any speech really mattered. And of course, we go through this ritual, and yet every single time, it's forgotten within two or three days and nothing ever comes.
- [21:08]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah. The only stuff that we recall typically are the response speeches that had some, you know, misstep or snafu. Right. That's the stuff that lingers. But the actual speeches, it's hard to recall. I mean, I guess Bill Clinton saying the era of big government is over because it was such a profound statement for a Democratic president, but it's hard to recall that much from a former president.
- [21:33]
Charlie Sykes
Right. No, I agree. So, I mean, I guess part of the larger question is Democrats are still struggling to figure out how do they respond, how do they make sense of what happened. You know, there's, you know, the third way group put out a paper about how they need to move to the center, which kind of a little bit wonky. The big thing that happened in the last couple of days, though, and I wanted to get your take on this. Gavin Newsom, who clearly wants to be president, the governor of California, comes out against transgender women in sports, does so on a podcast with Charlie Kirk. Kind of got to put a pin and question mark on his choice of venue there. But this is the first big break for the. Seth Moulton raised the issue, and quite frankly, this is a real problem for Democrats. This is because, you know, transgender athletes, this is an 8020 issue. 80 20. The public says, hey, we just don't think that that is fair. That's the position he's taken. There was huge blowback when Seth Moulton said it after the election. So what happens with Gavin Newsom? Does this open the conversation? Will Democrats begin to change?
- [22:50]
Jonathan Martin
I think the charitable assessment of this is that is that Gavin is sort of clear in the way for Democrats to actually move on the issue and accommodate public opinion and sort of take on their base a little bit. And I think he could possibly do just that. The less charitable view is that, you know, Newsom is incredibly eager to get attention, especially on the east, you know, especially on the east coast, wants to be a player in national Politics kind of bored after two terms as governor and wants to stir it up and wants to break through. And how do you break through? You got to do something different or say something different. Well, Charlie, he did both of those things. He did something different. He's a liberal Democrat who appeared with a Trumpy Republican, fairly well known in the conservative ecosystem podcast, and he said something different. He's a Democrat who said, you know what? Yeah, it's not fair to have trans girls in women's sports. So he said something different, and he said it in a different venue. And so it broke through. And that's really, I think what he's trying to do, Charlie, is just break through, is find a way to break through. And it's the same challenge all these Democrats have. Trump runs our world. He has for 10 years. How do we exist in Trump's era? How do we get through?
- [24:11]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and again, that is the problem, I guess. I mean, look, the cynicism of him doing it with Charlie Kirk, I think, obviously burns a little bit. But, you know, this is an issue that Democrats are going to have to realize that they need to have a debate about. You know, we talked about this extensively during the campaign. The fact that the Trump campaign spent, correct me if I'm wrong, like $100 million, more than $100 million on one ad, on that one ad on transgender issues hammered Kamala Harris on it. Kamala Harris never had a good response to. Played endlessly on a loop here in, in the, in the swing states. And I, And I think it actually, I think it actually worked. And so you can keep doing the same old, same old thing, but if you ever want to win elections again, you're not going to do it. Which, by the way, brings me to the last time that you and I saw one another. Yes, you saw me. Okay.
- [25:03]
Jonathan Martin
Which was last October in suburban Milwaukee.
- [25:07]
Charlie Sykes
Brookfield, Wisconsin, where you were not impressed with the event. I was part of.
- [25:13]
Jonathan Martin
I was not. And not for your lack of effort.
- [25:16]
Charlie Sykes
No, no, no, no. But, but, but you, you, you wrote, you wrote a scathing review of our performances. Vice President Kamala Harris and former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney descended on the crucial Milwaukee suburb Monday night and sitting side by side, delivered compelling political sermon. The problem was they were preaching to the converted. The event was, Bill, that aimed at moderates, Republicans. And you said that the rhetoric seemed better suited for those in the audience wearing the Lincoln Project and LA shirts. Kamala shirts.
- [25:49]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah, there was that shirt for a while that had the actual comma sign.
- [25:54]
Charlie Sykes
Plus, I forgot that. Yeah, it was very heavy. And then, you know, the political odd couple criticized Trump's lack of decency, disregard for the Constitution, and again, all those things. But what your point was, the discussion here was backward looking and Trump focused. It was, in short, all about yesterday and him rather than tomorrow and her. And not for the lack of an opportunity. And I have to admit I read this sentence several times. The evening's moderator, Wisconsin conservative talk show host turned anti Trump writer Charlie Sykes, me opened with the political equivalent of a fastball down the middle of the plate. Now, thank you for not saying softball. I thought fastball was better. I hope you didn't like. We're not crossing it out, although, you know, so I assume that that was, it was a fastball, but it was down the middle of the plate, so it was designed to be hit out of the park, right?
- [26:43]
Jonathan Martin
Indeed, indeed.
- [26:45]
Charlie Sykes
Perched beneath a country over party sign, Sykes asked Harris for her pitch to the voters who supported Republicans from yesteryear but are uneasy now about casting a ballot for the Democrat. And then she answered, talking about lived experience. And that was it. You were underwhelmed by her answer to my fastball down the middle.
- [27:05]
Jonathan Martin
You tried to make it so easy for her and you got no help from either Kamala Harris or Liz Cheney, who both, I thought, played to their worst instincts and offered absolutely, well, not zero, but very little, very little in the way of reassurance for conservatives or even center right figures in Wisconsin watching on TV or in that audience for why they should vote for a Democrat from California. And you tried. It wasn't for lack of effort. They just couldn't do it. Tell me what happened.
- [27:37]
Charlie Sykes
So let me, let me give you a confession because I remember that moment very, very well before I read your piece.
- [27:43]
Jonathan Martin
Yes.
- [27:43]
Charlie Sykes
And I remember sitting there going, shit, that's it. Yeah, it was, you know, and maybe she was tired or maybe it was, but it was, I, I had the same reaction. That was like this opportunity, this, this was the whole point of the event.
- [27:59]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah.
- [28:00]
Charlie Sykes
To talk about this. And it wasn't there. And Father Jonathan, can I, can I give you another confession as well, please?
- [28:07]
Jonathan Martin
Yes, yes, my son.
- [28:09]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so at the top of my, my, my newsletter, I have the, the words, you know, no regret. I have, I have no regrets.
- [28:18]
Jonathan Martin
Yes.
- [28:18]
Charlie Sykes
My confession is that I actually do have a regret because I can remember sitting there on that stage looking right at her, thinking, you know, this is my chance to ask her about the fact that every time any Wisconsinite, anyone in this audience turns on the television, they see that Transgender ad. Can you tell me about what you really think about that? And I remember thinking, I really should ask her about that. And I didn't. I didn't. And I didn't for. And this doesn't. This is not a great answer. But, I mean, this was a campaign event. This was not a media event. You know, in retrospect, you know, that's why people like me shouldn't do campaign events, because that question needed to be asked. I don't know that she would have given the answer, but the failure to ask that question, given how big an issue it was, is one of my regrets. Look back on. On that campaign so. Well, don't beat yourself as a lost opportunity.
- [29:16]
Jonathan Martin
Well, I'm not, you know, but no, when. When she responded to your question by saying something along the lines of, you know, Americans have more in common than we do, what separates us, that. That what unifies us is more important than what separates us, or some. Some sort of, you know, cliche along those lines, I said, my God, that's all she has to offer. Because the express purpose of that day, where she and Cheney did Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania was to reach out to folks in the center and center right to say, the water's warm. Come on in. You have a. You can vote safely for me. And instead, she didn't offer any reassurance about how she governed, Charlie. She could never say that she governed from the center and that she would not be a liberal. She'd govern as a moderate. She could never say it. She was just always reluctant to go there. And that would have been the day to do it. It was early.
- [30:13]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you know, you're right. And the reality is that anyone listening to that, who agreed that Donald Trump posed a threat to the Constitution, who regarded Jan. 6 as disqualifying, they were already going to vote for her. That was the converted. And I think that this is another illustration of the problem, that she couldn't make those pitches because of fear of alienating many of the groups in the Democratic, you know, constituency that if she was perceived to move off. And apparently. And also this was during the period when she was asked, would you do anything different as part of the Biden administration? And she said no. So she was joined at the hip with Joe Biden and I think the Democrats at the time, and still. And I don't know where you're gonna come down on this, but the more that we think about it is the more, I think as you get further away, what a tremendous political liability Joe Biden was.
- [31:14]
Jonathan Martin
Oh, my gosh.
- [31:15]
Charlie Sykes
Absolutely. And there's still a lot of Biden truthers out there. Well, let me ask you this. The Biden truthers who still seem to believe that this was all Kamala's problem and that if Joe Biden would have stuck and stayed in the race, he would have won. What do you think?
- [31:32]
Jonathan Martin
No, I think Biden takes the hit more than Kamala. Look, she was put in a really tough spot. She had a good convention, a good first debate. Trump wouldn't give her more debates. And she, she, you know, didn't, I think, have a great final month because she didn't have any big tent pole moments left where she could have shown her her capabilities. She's much better with a set piece, speech or moment than off the cuff. You saw that firsthand. She's not great off the cuff and she didn't have those moments. But look, that's tactical stuff. The big picture was you have an old and unpopular incumbent who reluctantly and his party rebels, gives up power over the summer after a disastrous debate and puts her in this spot. No, Biden owns this loss more than her. I totally agree. And the idea that Biden would have run better, no, Biden not just would have lost. I think he would have taken the party down with him and they would not be within spitting distance of the House majority next year as they are right now, and they would have lost at least two to three more Senate seats, including Wisconsin.
- [32:37]
Charlie Sykes
So what was the, what was the, the pivot point of this? What was the original sin? Was, wasn't, you know, in, in by the time of the debate? Because I think the die was cast by then, but it was the decision, was it the decision for him to seek a second term? And what would have happened if, if early on or right after the midterms, he said, okay, you know what? I said I was going to be a transitional figure. I'm moving on. Let's have an open. What have happened then?
- [33:07]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah, I think that's precisely it. I think that that period from November to January, February 22 23, is the pivotal moment here in American history. Trump is scraping bottom. Trump is deeply unpopular. He announces for president in November of 22. One senator endorses him, Tommy Tuberville. And Biden is riding high because the Democrats had a better than expected midterm. But like so many politicians and so many athletes, he can't go out on top. He can't walk away after a great midterm. He can't declare victory and say, I just had an Extraordinary two years. I just defied history. And by the way, Barack and Bill Clinton had a better midterm than you guys did. And now I'm gonna spend the final two years being the best possible president that I can be. And I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm pass the baton and we're have an open primary in this party. That would have been it. Maybe Trump still wins. Maybe the primary is messy and ugly and you know, Kamala emerges, but emerges bloodied and sort of weakened and having run the more to the left. But I think that's the moment, Charlie. I really do. I think. And look, I don't blame only Biden, although I think he, his family and his inner circle are largely to blame for just refusing to bow to reality of being 82 years old and asking the American people for four and a half more years. But I actually blame Democrats in Congress, Democratic governors too, who privately were telling me for so long, telling all of us they're really worried about Joe. I don't know if he's not in great shape, good days and bad days, I'm not sure he can serve four more years. But they would never say it in public, they would never say it in public, let alone challenge him, let alone publicly say that he should stand down. You know, so they take some of the hit here too. Dean Phillips from Minnesota gets in. He's mocked, he's belittled. He was the only guy with stones, you know.
- [35:01]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, there's the book that's coming out this, this summer, I think is going to reopen a lot of those, those wounds. But I do think that the fact that this was widely known was covered up. And I think one of the painful things was that, you know, let's be honest about it, you know, Fox News, you know, right wing media was pounding away at Joe Biden's, you know, cognitive decline. And it turns out that they were right. And it's always painful when the worst people in the world are actually right about something. And you know, those people who tried to look the other way, I think, look, look disingenuous. And I, and I do think that, you know, people, we talk about the, the verdict of history. I think the verdict of political history is going to be very, very negative as, as we begin to see the links to, to which they went, the links they went to, to cover up the fact that, you know, he was, he was, he was not all there, which of course is now see, I.
- [35:57]
Jonathan Martin
Guess part of it's not going to age well. It's not going to age well.
- [36:00]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and so, and Democrats, you know, confronting the tsunami of Trumpism are going to have to figure, how do you go forward? And at a certain point, they're gonna have to cut the cable on the anchor. Right? I mean, they're gonna have to. Ideologically, they have to cut the cable on the anchor. But also, you know, they have to say, no, our vision of the presidency is not what you got there. We are not going to bring you some younger version of Biden. And I think that that process has to take place.
- [36:30]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah, the party, I think, clearly wants to move on. I think the party wants to embrace tomorrow and forget about yesterday. And I think that, that, that does not bode well for Kamala Harris or Tim Walls, by the way, running for president in 2020, I think. But they probably deep down know that too. Harrison Wallace. But no, look, I. Biden will not be well served by, by history when I think everything comes out about his capacity. But we don't even need the inside story. We, we all saw Biden with our own two eyes and that was the biggest challeng. Who are you going to believe? Also your lying eyes. You know, he clearly had aged in office like everybody does. And the idea of him serving four more years beginning at age 82 was just like a non starter for a lot of people in this country. And I think if more Democrats had spoken out in real time, maybe he would have felt some pressure. But I think what happened, Charlie, is the midterms were in some ways a mixed blessing for Democrats because while they, they overperformed, they also insulated Biden from any criticism. If that was a bloodbath for Democrats, I think you would have had leading Democrats stand up and say, Mr. President, here's your gold watch, here's your Amtrak ticket back to Rehoboth. Thank you for your service. But because the old man, maybe he does know what he's talking about, maybe we should give him a shot. I'll bite my lip and somebody else can say it. And also, let's be totally candid, a lot of Democrats didn't want to answer the second question, which was, okay, you want Biden to step down, so do you want Kamala Harris to be the nominee?
- [38:08]
Charlie Sykes
Yes.
- [38:08]
Jonathan Martin
And they didn't want to deal with that question, right?
- [38:10]
Charlie Sykes
No, no, that was, that was the big break. Okay, so in the few minutes we have left, you were at the Munich security conference.
- [38:19]
Jonathan Martin
Yes.
- [38:21]
Charlie Sykes
Turned out to. Well, tell me what, what was the scene? I mean, they. Well, tell me what, what, what you saw there, we're getting indications of how deeply alarmed our allies are, and nothing has changed since that event. But tell me about what you saw.
- [38:35]
Jonathan Martin
Well, you're a Wisconsinite, so you can appreciate the scene. It's a Bavarian hotel. It's very charming in Munich, and it's smaller than you would assume. And the halls are thronged with lanyard wearing foreign ministers and defense ministers and even some heads of state from all over Europe, probably all over the world. David Petraeus is walking through the hallway with his lanyard on, and John Kerry's there. Next thing you know, and it's the president of Finland. So it's kind of a cool scene, but it's very European. And obviously they have one thing on their mind. Is the transatlantic alliance between the US And Europe a thing of the past, and they're desperately worried about it. And Hegseth got there to Europe that week and said a bunch of stuff that got them even more spooked. And then Vance came in and said, I don't worry as much about Russia and Ukraine. I worry more about your internal problems than anything else. And then fillet them for what he described as their, their insufficient dedication to free speech. And in the case of Germany, you know, blocking creating a firewall with the extreme AfD party, which of course, for the Germans is so controversial because it's a neo Nazi party.
- [39:50]
Charlie Sykes
So they're Germans.
- [39:52]
Jonathan Martin
They're Germans. So you can imagine the reaction of the Germans who are the host as well the rest of the Europeans. Look, they're, they're panicked, okay? They don't know what to expect. They don't know if Trump is going to, is going to stay in NATO. They don't know if we're going to keep US Troops on the continent. They don't know if Trump's going to, you know, show up in Red Square with Putin and sell Ukraine down the river. They don't know what to expect. And they're desperate for assurance, and they're not getting assurance.
- [40:17]
Charlie Sykes
No, there's no question about it. You do feel that, you know, that leaving aside the ephemera of daily events, you do feel that over the last several weeks that you have had this monumental, historic shift. And certainly the Europeans understand this and we may look back on history and draw a red line, you know, the before and after from, from that, from that conference. Jonathan Martin, senior political writer for Politico, thank you so much for coming on the podcast. Appreciate it very, very much.
- [40:49]
Jonathan Martin
Thanks, Charlie, and look forward to seeing you again here soon. Let's not make it four years from now on. Walk the show. Let's do it sooner than that now.
- [40:56]
Charlie Sykes
But we can do it in Waukesha. And thank you all for listening to the weekend edition of the to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. We do this several times a week because now more than ever, however, it's important to remind ourselves that you are not the crazy ones. Thanks.