And, This is How Trump’s Tariffs Cost YOU Money With Anthony Scaramucci

Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci joins the podcast to talk tariffs and a theoretical Trump third term.  

IG: @ThisisGavinNewsom
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: 855-6NEWSOM

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, we're finally here. It's liberation Day? Or is it?
In America? Is it recession Day? Is it tax Day?
Is it liquidation Day? All the punditry out and the realities,
the new realities of unprecedented tariffs, unprecedented tax increases in
the United States of America, certainly in peacetime up to

(00:20):
twenty three percent, tariffs all around the globe. Are we
in a trade war? What does this mean in terms
of you and your household and expenses? Are cars going
to get cheaper? Or as Donald Trump says, it doesn't
even matter. We're going to talk about all of those things,
as well as what went right, what went wrong with

(00:40):
the Harris campaign? What is the path back for the
Democratic Party? With Anthony Scaramucci up next on This is
Gavin Newsom. This is Gavin Newsom, and this is Anthony Scaramuci.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
The governor knew some going for the silver Fox. Look, okay,
this is this is Latin American dictator Brown governor.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
If you ever need it's called, it's called just for men, Anthony,
That's what that's called.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
Well, I was using Cuban leader Black, but it looked
terrible on TV.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
So I've likened noven do you have to do it?
I don't even have the guts to try to turn orange.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Well you don't. You definitely don't want to turn orange,
especially these days. That would be a bad color for
both of us.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
Speaking of of orange, I mean, uh, I mean we all,
we all waited for this moment. Uh did you predict
it be this volatile, this reckless? I knew it would
be bad.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
I didn't. You know. The thing that you always prayed
for is that he would have some people around him
slow him down. You know, he if you talked to
him in Uchin, or you talk to Gary Gary Cohen
former Goldman Sachs President, chief operating officer, they slow he
This was the potential implementation in twenty eighteen. They slowed

(02:02):
that down. Kelly slowed it down. Minuchin. All of those
guys did not want this, and so he wasn't able
to do this. Now he has willing accomplices. Gap. You know,
how do you want me to address you, governor of Gavin?

Speaker 1 (02:18):
How do you want Gavin works? I mean, I get
you know, walk the streets with me. I'll get asshole,
I'll get everything. So I'll take gavinbody.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
I've been called a lot worse than Mooch and Anthony.
Trust me, you can't. You can't go into politics without
getting some shit.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
But let me I'm curious. I mean it is interesting
because Trump one point zero. I mean, obviously this fixation
that he's had for decades. You've known Trump for quite
literally decades, you know, on and off, and obviously worked
briefly for him. But I mean, he's the one thing
legitimately he has been consistent about as a former Democrat,
pro choice Democrat. It's an interesting area of consistency. It's

(02:52):
on the issues of tariffs. So to your point, this
obviously must have been on the agenda at least internally
in the first administration. But did you ever see it
at this level? I mean, this is not even reciprocal tariffts.
These are sort of seemed random, and they seem almost
I mean it's like a that was a strange I mean,
it's always a reality TV show. But you had to

(03:12):
see that board yesterday and the nature of how they
came up with the numerics and divide by two. I mean,
that couldn't have been necessarily on the docket in the
first term.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
Was it? No? I don't think it was this level
of unseriousness. I think in the first administration it was
he wanted to attack on across the board tariffs, and
he wanted to put up a border, a financial border,
if you will, around the United States. Remember, he wants
to wall the United States off literally and physically from

(03:45):
the rest of the world. The Trump doctrine and the
reason why he goes back to McKinley. During President McKinley's administration,
ninety seven percent of what we produced we consumed inside
the country. And so Trump's attitude is that the world
has free loaded off the US and that we need
to wall ourselves off literally and physically from the rest

(04:07):
of the world. Now that misunderstands how actually the world works,
and this is the problem we're all having. We need
somebody like you to organize the scent and explain to
people that what Trump is doing is actually catastrophic for
our economy. What he's doing would take us back to
the nineteen thirties with the Smooth Hawley Act, which steepened

(04:30):
a recession and turned it into a Great depression. Trump
could touch off deflation, Governor Newsom. And if you touch
off deflation in a society like ours, it's absolutely catastrophic
because remember we're in a debt laiden society. So let
me just give this example. If you have a two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars mortgage and an eighty thousand

(04:51):
dollars job in a deflationary society, your salary is going
down alongside the goods and services, but your debt's not
going down. You're forced to pay back the debt with
dollars that are worth more than the dollars you borrow.
In an inflationary situation, you can pay back the debt
with dollars that are worth less. But if the counter

(05:13):
should happen, it's absolutely devastating for the society. And so
the FED is going to be forced now to cut
rates because the FED fears deflation way more than inflation.
So what he's doing is actually historically catastrophic. He's doing
something that literally, if you said, governor, if I said

(05:33):
to you, okay, let's get in a room, you and I,
and let's dismantle the global trading system. Let's get every
one of our allies sore at us, and let's give
our adversaries a leg up. Let's give China an opportunity now,
to re engage with Europe and become their number one
trading partner. What should we do to do that in

(05:54):
sixty five seventy days? And this is what you would do.
Everything that he's implemented is doing that, and his unserious cabinet.
They can't defend it. I mean Lutnix on TV tried
to defend it. Cannot defend it. I feel bad for Scott,
you know, the Secretary Treasury Bessent. It's like blink twice,
we'll get steal Team six and they'll take you off

(06:15):
to see and we'll take you off the CNN shout,
you know. I mean, it's it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing for
all of us because, Okay, there are this is the
and this is the thing with Donald Trump. There are
things about him that centrist wall Streeter centrists do like
they want a stronger border. I think you've had several
people on your show that have articulated that they want

(06:38):
some banking deregulation, some positive crypto regulation. But with Donald
Trump's or you go to the buffet table with your tray,
you can't pick the things that you want. Alec cart
he force feeds you everything you know, he force feed
you the mean coin, He force feeds you the rhetoric
on the fifty first state. He force feed you the

(06:59):
nonsense about NATO and the and the UH. I mean,
what the dressing down of Zelensky, what they did to Zelenski,
to me is literally one of the most un American
things that I've seen. So so we're in a situation
now where even ram Paul, Sir, even ram Paul got
to the airwaves last night and said that what he's

(07:20):
proposing is absurd. And of course the markets are reacting
with their signal, not noise signal, they're signaling how absurd
this all is.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
So there's so much to unpacking what you said, and
I want to I want to explore a number of
the points you made, but let's just go back to
a fundamental point. And it goes back to just you know,
the person that is Donald Trump. He wants to be loved.
The markets matter to him. It's it's the one sort
of objective scorecard. He's got to see this kind of volatility.
I mean, he sort of previewed a little bit of it.

(07:51):
You've seen some of that volatility over the course of
the last few months, and he pulled back on some
of his assertions and some of his threats and promises.
I mean, what happens you think in the next few
days on the basis of this reaction, global reaction, but
profound impacts in terms of the market volatility.

Speaker 2 (08:12):
Well, he has sent out his keyboard warriors this morning
to say to people, come to the table. Eric Trump
is out on X or whatever they call it now
saying hey, come to the table and negotiate with my dad,
or it's going to end badly for you. I've seen
it my whole life, you know. And so they're nervous,
you know, they're sending out signals to people that okay,

(08:33):
we've obviously overstepped. Obviously this governor I call it the
anti ten Commandments. It's like the Evil ten Commandments. He
had this big tablet in his hand. We had orange
Moses descending from Mount Evil with the you know, indiscernible tablet.
But they now know that they've overstepped, and so they're nervous,

(08:55):
and they're they're they're trying to tell leaders, now, come
to the table, my father declare victory. You know, you know,
Prime Minister Carney, come to the table. And then he'll
put out on truth social I've lowered the terriffts for Canada.
You know, this sort of thing, And it's actually it's
actually embarrassing. You know, it's embarrassing because I can't speak

(09:18):
for the school system in California, but I would imagine
sometime in the first grade, like the school system here
in New York, you read The Emperor has No Clothes.
I was seven when I first read this brilliant piece
of literature, and I remember remarking to myself at age seven, well,
who would be stupid enough to tell an emperor that

(09:40):
he has clothes on? When he has no clothes on?
And of course, now here we are in twenty twenty five,
it's fifty four years after I read this beautiful piece
of first grade literature, and I'm watching people in the
President's court do things. I'm they're bobbleheads, Governor, you know,
they're bobbling. They're their head saying yes, yes, yes, we're

(10:03):
privately they're saying no, no, no, And so I do
think there would be a breach. But I want to
go back to your loved thing, because I think this
is a forty year idea for Trump. He mentioned it
to Oprah Winfrey in the mid eighties, and he wants
to implement it and so if it causes hardship. In
his perverse mind, he thinks that this is a solution

(10:27):
for America. He thinks this is a reassuring solution for America.
He thinks this is an end of the freeloading. You know,
this is what his team says on signal. But of
course you and I know that that's not the case.
And I can prove to your viewers and listeners that
this is not the case. America, by integrating with the

(10:48):
rest of the world, created a bigger market for America,
more prosperity for America. Is it perfect? No, Should our
political leadership have checked some of the rights that the
Chinese had wto as the Chinese economy grew? Yes, I
accept that. Should we have checked some of the towers
that could put on us, certainly, But the notion that

(11:09):
America would integrate with the rest of the world and
then generally provide a security umbrella for the free world
has led to incredible amounts of peace and incredible amounts
of prosperity here in America. And let me just point
this out to you before you ask another question. In
nineteen eighty two, we had approximately five percent of the
world's population and twenty six percent of the world's output.

(11:33):
It's the same number today. So think of the rising
living standards around the world. I can prove to you
prime a facia that the policies have generally worked. We
just needed to have done a better job. We left
a vacuum of advocacy your party, Frankly, my party, my
old party. We left the vacuum of advocacy for white,

(11:54):
middle class, blue collar workers. And I would suggest that
we got to get back to that. You know, if
you want to have the counter narrative to the nonsense
that's going on those families, and this would be my
own family. You know, they voted for the Franklin Roosevelt's,
they voted for the Jack Kennedy's, they voted for the
Lynda Johnson's. But it seems like we just lost our

(12:14):
way and we left those people out of the American
aspirational economy. You know, many of those people now so
feel desperational.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
So and I appreciate that. I think it's what led
you to appreciate Trump as a Republican. And you were
out there campaigning for Jeb Bush and others. But I
think you constantly.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
You're you're a Catholic? Is that right?

Speaker 1 (12:36):
Governor there, I'm right out of the old Irish Catholic.

Speaker 2 (12:40):
Because you know, I just could be a confessional for me.
I won't have to go on Saturday. You know, I
can confess all my sins. I can confess all my
sins working for Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (12:48):
No.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
But but but I'm going to compliment you a little
bit because what you just expressed is what you also experienced.
And you talk often about New Mexico when you're out there,
and you saw him at least talking to those folks,
not talking down to them, and acknowledging them. I see you,
I care at least asserting that he cared. And you
saw my party that seemed to be defending NAFTA, defending TPP,

(13:13):
defending some of those trade deals, or at least struggling
with them as it relates to an electoral strategy, not
fully appreciating the magnitude of the displacement and the despair
in the faces and the heart of so many, and
so what you know, appreciating that and appreciating there were
people there yesterday with President that you know, united, our

(13:34):
workers and others that just feel like this is we
are getting ripped off and you at least this gives
us a shot again. I mean, what is there a
case that you can make. Is there a case that
Trump himself at this moment particularly he can defend or
do you just think he went further than he realized
he went? And this is completely reckless, not just taking

(13:55):
the risk.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
So again, the case could have been made for or
fifty years ago, but it can't be realistically made today.
That's the problem because NAFTA caused a full integration of
the Canadian and almost the full integration of the Mexican economy.
So as an example, a Prime Minister Corney who's a
personal friend of mine, I worked with mcgoldman thirty five

(14:19):
years ago. He would tell you that autoparts are coming
across the border back and forth at least six times
before they get installed in the car, and you can't
charge twenty five percent tariffs each time it moves across
the border. And so we've integrated the economies. If you
said to me we needed to right size elements of

(14:43):
the tariff system to protect American working class families, I
would say resoundingly yes. Have you said to me we
need surgical tariffs where we need to go through the
tariff system and say, okay, the Chinese are dumping this
product into our market, they are subsidizing it with their
government's help, and they're giving an artificial price of rosa.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
And we saw that of course with Biden. I mean
he built off Trump's targeted tariffs, and Biden administration certainly
had that meant yea, they.

Speaker 2 (15:12):
Went more delicately through the list. And this is the
thing about Donald Trump that we have to acknowledge. There
are kernels of truth in what he's saying. It's the
implementation of the policy that's flawed. But if you're telling
me we have a problem at the border, Milton Friedman
would have said years ago, well, if you have a
welfare state in the US does have one, you have

(15:35):
to protect your border because free market forces dictate that
people will cross the border. And so I think what
happened is because of anti Trump sentiment, President Biden reversed
all of that through executive action. It was more of
an anti Trump statement than it was real thought out policy,
and that hurt the Democrats. In twenty twenty four, but

(15:56):
there was a kernel of truth of what Trump was saying.
It's more about theventation and the heavy handedness. And again
same thing with the tariffs. The President is correct that
we need to bolster living standards in America for lower
and middle income people. The President is correct that there
have been elements of the trade system where we've been

(16:19):
taking advantage of. You know, the World Trade Organization let
China in with extraordinary emerging market latitude, extraordinary, and they
never corrected it as China arose. And I'll say something,
Governor does not reflect well on me, but I'll share
it with you. At the age of twenty, at the

(16:39):
age of thirty five, in nineteen ninety nine, the World
Trade Organization, there were protests in Seattle. Do you remember these?
I don't. I remember, of course, okay, And so Ralph
Nader was up there. Working class families were up there.
They said, please, please, do not let the Chinese into
the WTO, and you'll cause a hollowing out of our manufacturing.

(17:02):
You'll ruin our middle class aspirational jobs. Please don't. I
was a young Wall Street person at the time, and
I had bought into the Wall Street narrative that this
was going to lower the cost of capital deployment, lower
the cost of labor, and was going to be generally
good for the economy, the stock market, and generally good
for people. And it was an advancement. It was progress.

(17:25):
But those workers were right, Governor Newsom, I got that
wrong at age twenty nine, because the aftermath of what
happened twenty five, twenty six years later is this dilemma,
this systemic rise in populism. Moreover, when President Bush implemented

(17:46):
the TARP money, he made a very big mistake, and
I think he's willing to admit it today. He put
a trillion into the banks. If he puts seven to
fifty into the bank, sir, and maybe two point fifty
into the lower and middle income people, you maybe wouldn't
have had the Occupy Wall Street movement. Maybe it wouldn't
have morphed into the Tea Party movement. You see, there

(18:06):
was a there was an unfairness in the policy that
created a prairie fire of popularism.

Speaker 3 (18:14):
The iHeart Radio Waango Tango presented by Fiji Airways, Pontington
City bach Joja kat.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
When Stefani.

Speaker 1 (18:25):
David Ghetto.

Speaker 3 (18:28):
Mean trainer for early bird pricing and to qualify for
access to the Ultimate FanPit by your tickets before April
fifteenth at AXS dot com. For complete rules and alternate
method of entry, you go to Wango Tango dot com.
Wango Tango is produced by iHeartMedia, Los Angeles in partnership
with Code four.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
No, I mean, I think you mark two profoundly consequential
moments the WTO. It's interesting just even talking to members
of the Clinton administration talking former President Clinton himself about WTO,
and it's half math. I think there's there's not only
a reckoning in terms of our politics today and direct
connection in that respect, but I think there's a growing

(19:08):
recognition of the outsized consequence of the WTO. But I
also appreciate your point around the Wall Street relief and
this sort of main street Wall Street frame and after
the financial crisis, with you know, and obviously the biding
excuse me, Obama administration inherited a lot of that and
sort of maintained not totally dissimilar policies as it relates

(19:31):
to that bailout and the consequences to the populism that
we're experiencing today. Let me just back up, just talking
about the challenges of today. I mean, how does knowing
Donald Trump as the way you know him, how does
he get out of this? Is it just you know,
he's got sixty countries, he got sixty leaders come in
one off, he starts negotiating bs deals that he claims

(19:53):
credit for having quote unquote succeeded in level setting the
playing field. Or is there going to be more sweeping
across the board recalibration with the EU as an example
or other allies. What's your over under in terms of
the next days not just weeks?

Speaker 2 (20:10):
Yeah, I mean, I mean, I mean, anything is possible,
Governor Newsom. But but I'm and I'm generally an optimist
about life, but I'm pessimistic about this. And just hear
me out for a second, and I'd love to get
you to react to it. We've had a bipartisan commitment
to this economic, geo political footprint. We've had a bipartisan

(20:30):
commitment on containment, the NATO security umbrella, the free trading
mechanisms around the world, America absorbing some of that because
we're the richest nation. And he's ending all of that.
He's ending all of that very abruptly, and he's doing
it in a way that's raising risk premium around the world.
So said differently, if I was a European leader, I'd

(20:52):
be like, Okay, whoa, it's not just Donald Trump. Fifty
percent of the people voted for him. There's something wrong
in the body politic in the US now. That's going
to make the US a little bit more arbitrary and
a little bit more capricious. And it's decision making unless
you're telling me we can find a transformative, postpartisan leader
that can galvanize the Americans. Again. If I'm in Europe,

(21:15):
I'm like, Okay, I got to have other options now.
And I think the market is signaling even if Trump
tomorrow says okay, EU, here's this deal, and China, here's
that deal. And oh, by the way, I wave my
beautiful magic wand here's the new tablet coming down from
Mount stupidity, and here's what we're going to do now.
I think he's upset the apple card enough where you're

(21:39):
now creating different sets of outcomes and different sets of
decision making from other responsible political leaders. Do you think
I'm going too far and thinking that as a no?

Speaker 1 (21:48):
I mean, I think that course was set weeks and
weeks prior to the tariffs, as it relates to the
reorder in our alliances, and you know Jade Vance's speech
in Munich, the security coffer talking down and past our allies,
and as you said, the ambush in the Oval with Zelenski,
and the messages that have been said, And I can

(22:09):
just let me just reinforce that point of view on
the basis of the kind of outreach that I've directly
received as governor of a state that happens to be
larger than twenty one state populations combined, the fifth largest
economy in the world, where foreign leaders have reached directly
out to California to express that anxiety and concern from
a sub national level and look to engage us directly

(22:32):
with all the volatility and the uncertainty again prior to
this tariff announcement coming from the White House. So I
think the consequences are off the charts and profound. And
it begs then this question, Anthony. You look, we watched
Project twenty twenty five. I felt some of us were
accused of crying wolf on it. But this sort of

(22:54):
shock in awe, this flood in the zone, as Bannon
loves to say, as one speeds, you know, he puts
his foot on the gas. There's no break with Trump.
Has that even surprised you to the degree that he's
moved this early?

Speaker 2 (23:10):
That didn't I think what has surprised me, frankly is
the willing sick events, the willing enablers. There's usually people
of conscience in the room that say, WHOA, that doesn't
work for me, you know, John Kelly. John Kelly fired
me Governor Newsom on the thirty first of July twenty seventeen.
We've become very close friends, and you know, we socialize together,

(23:33):
and my wife Deirdre and Karen and him hang out
together and we talk about the dilemma of working with
Donald Trump, you know, and this is a weirdness to him.
There's like an anti there's a conflict of boys. I've
been dying to ask you this question since I saw
you at the night of the debate where you and
I were in September together in Philadelphia. Both they are

(23:54):
supporting Vice President Harris when he attacks you, the president
President trum he attached you as a keyboard worrying bully.
But then when he has to face you in person,
and thank god, you're tall, sob because I'm not as
tall as you. At least you can stand off to
him face to face. He never attacks you face to face. Oh, Gavin,

(24:18):
you're a great guy. You know this sort of stuff.
What do you make of that, sir, if you don't mind, man,
And I wink I was just with that question for
six months.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
Anthony, I've had for me sort of a bookmark in history.
Interesting experience. I was there near the end of the
Biden administration in the Oval for about ninety minutes up
in the residence with President Biden, and then invited back
same guy, same state, same Democrat a few weeks later,
and I think I was the first Democrat to sit
down in the Oval with Donald Trump. And it was

(24:46):
ninety plus minutes, and they kept trying to extract us
from one another. And it was because it was deeply
engaging and personal. He's incredibly charismatic, as you know.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
Well, look, he said, I hate to say this to people,
but he's a very charming guy in that.

Speaker 1 (25:02):
Interpersonal interaction, and there's no doesn't he doesn't want conflict.
And I'll be candid with you. It surprised me on
the Zelenski I call it an ambush. I saw that
more as an ambush coming from JD. Mansh and the
Vice President than even Trump, because it's not like Trump
to do that in the old I was surprised because

(25:23):
of the interpersonal because he tends to like that rapport
one on one that said, others have different theories, but
it's an interesting dynamic that people don't fully appreciate.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
But sir, when he goes off on you on truth
social with the nonsense name calling, and then you see
him like a week later or a day later in California,
he acts like it didn't happen, right, of.

Speaker 1 (25:44):
Course no, and in fact gets a little uncomfortable when
you say, hey, you know what happened in the new
skum He's like okay, and he literally that's when he's
sort of unmoored a little bit because he doesn't want
to engage in that. And so look, and I think
that's the difficult part, is figuring out what's real, what's not,
what's performative, what's not. I mean, for him, it's about
the crowds. I mean even made that point. He goes

(26:06):
the crowd loves it, and so I'm like, okay, whatever
your crowd needs The problem is I feel like it's
you know, I'm watching Gladiator three, or at least the
preview Glattery three with the thumbs up thumbs down. You
don't know which help direction it's going to go based
upon the crowd. And that again begs my concern now,
you know, and not just concern, but consideration of a
sort of reconsideration. How would this crowd in terms of

(26:28):
the markets. You know, he dismissed his mother nature, but
the markets can't be easily dismissed. People's four oh one k.
You're even seeing it's not just Rampaul, there's some other
Republicans that are marginally expressing concern around tariffs. You're seeing
now layoffs. You're seeing announcements from these companies that we're
supposed to be spending trillions of dollars coming in the

(26:49):
United States now actually saying they're not going to invest
in these factories in some of these world parts of
the country. I mean, I've got to think, and I
know you're sort of challenging that that he's got to
reverse more quickly than perhaps even you think.

Speaker 2 (27:06):
No, yes, but I don't see how we get undamaged
from this. You know, like you know. Here's the cruel admission.
I knew how bad it was. I endorsed President Biden
in twenty twenty. As you know, I helped on debate
prep and tried to act as a surrogate for the

(27:27):
Vice President Harris in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 1 (27:29):
And you didn't try to act. You were a surrogate
and an incredibly effective one.

Speaker 2 (27:34):
This is an existential crisis, or this is a postpartisan thing.
What I My message to your party is open the door,
expand the tent. Remember what Lyndon Johnson said, Let's get
all the elephants in the tent pissing out. Let's not
have elephants outside the tent pissing in. Make it a
pro democracy movement, make it a pro America movement. Make

(27:57):
it a postpartisan transfer so that we can beat the
current Wig Party, which the Whig Party is the Maga party.
It's at a step with America. They can beat us
if we are dissembling, they can beat us if we're
internescently fighting with each other. But if we expand the tent.

(28:18):
And some of your friends on the liberal side don't
like me because I was with Trump, I understand that,
but hold your.

Speaker 1 (28:25):
Nose Okay, hold your nose like me, because I shook
his hand at the tarmac. Yes, and and and return
his phone calls. I mean, which you know, that's a
deeper conversation, and so I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
I applaud you. Look, I don't like Steve Okay, you know,
Bannon I think is a national disgrace. I'll just say that,
Thank god he's so ugly frankly, Otherwise he could be
like a more powerful figure. I think that was the
Good Lord helping us. But I'm just saying to you,
I admire you having a conversation with him, Charlie. I

(29:00):
know forever I campaigned with Charlie in Pennsylvania. With Trump,
he's a formidable young man. I think he's intellectually misguided,
but I think it's important for you to speak with him.
And the fact that your base or your coalition on
the Democratic side would lambast you for that, they are
making a mistake. If Churchill could hang with Attlee to

(29:26):
beat Hitler. Okay, And I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler.
I'm just saying we have an existential crisis going on.
He is going down Project twenty twenty five. He wants
to weekend. The legislative branch. He wants to disgrace the
media week in it. He wants to weaken the judicial branch.
He's going after our law firms in a way that

(29:46):
I don't fully understand.

Speaker 1 (29:49):
And by the way, let me those and the law
firms are quickly capitult.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
Yeahstated, he's going after our law firms in a way
that even they don't understand the long term ramifications of it.
There you go, and so guys, let's stop fighting with
each other. Okay. We love our country. We love our system.
We like the checks and balances, the decentralized nature of
the country that have allowed our families, the Newsome family,

(30:15):
the Karamuchi family to rise, Okay, from modest beginnings, whether
they were in Ireland or they were in Italy. We
came here for this great opportunity. We don't want authoritarianism
to spoil it. He wants that. Okay, If you don't
think he wants that, you're not paying close enough attention

(30:36):
and you're not going down the list and somebody like you,
I applaud you for bringing me on so that we
can discuss this. I admire you for bringing these other
guys on that I may disagree with but I admire
you for it because open the tent, let's get the
people in the tent. There's more of us that love
the country, care about the country. I may not agree

(30:58):
with you on certain pots policy, so what we care
and believe in the system together And I think that's
the resonating message that you're going for. And I applaud
you for it.

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Now and I appreciate that, and I hope our parties
listening to that because this no I mean, you know,
this is about addition, not subtraction. We can't afford to
lose any more folks. And I think the cornerstone of
this conversation is the folks we are losing is a
working class. Again. I keep going back to your story

(31:33):
that was so resonant with you, at least as you
continue to share it over the course of the years
of being there on the campaign travel Donald Trump and
giving voice to these folks. And Bernie Sanders in some
respects does as well. There's sort of populism on both
sides of the of the Aisle, but our party, for
whatever reason, hasn't been able to connect in that respect.
And to that point, I want to I want to

(31:54):
ask you this why because I thought, and my not
just think, I core believe that Joe Biden and his
four years as president, was one of the most pro
worker presidents in my lifetime. He had an industrial policy
that was workers centered. I mean, hell, even walk the
picket line, the IRA, the chips and science ac the

(32:19):
bipartisan bills, I mean there were over four hundred five
bartisan bills. But infrastructure, the fact we saw actual investments
being made again, supporting workers, supporting the heartland, supporting the
folks quote unquote that we lost in this election. Did
I read that wrong? You were a supporter of Biden.
I thought we were making that point, but it seems

(32:42):
to have been lost, or at least wasn't inherited by Harris.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
I don't think you're reading that wrong. But what I
think we have to acknowledge, unfortunately, is that the presidency itself,
to quote Theodore Roosevelt, is a bully pulpit, and so
one of the jobs of the president and he or
she is to be the great salesman or saleswoman for
the country. And the president put in the chip sacked

(33:07):
very successful the Inflation Reduction Act, which had all that
embedded infrastructure very successful. There was a lot of things
that he did that were pro worker and pro union,
very successful. But unfortunately the president was struggling verbally by
the middle of his term and he was no longer
able to passionately advocate for that. The sixty five year

(33:30):
old Joe Biden, if I'm just being brutally honest, would
have slayed Donald Trump stayed in the race, been able
to make that argument and built on that legislative agenda.
Now he made that fatal Shakespearean mistake. He should have
said in September of twenty three, here are the fifteen
twenty things that I've done that very benefited the economy.
Economies on the uptick, inflation is on the downtick. I

(33:54):
heard the message. I got the message from the absenteeism
of US meaning normal Democrats, absenteeism. You know, I got
the Bernie Sanders Trump message. This is what I'm doing
with policy to fill the space. But I'm too old
for the job. And so it's September twenty twenty three.
I'm going to open up the primary, okay, not having

(34:17):
not having a Democratic New Hampshire primary in twenty twenty four. Again,
if I'm being brutally honest, or it's shameful because you're
attacking Trump for his anti democracy stance, but then you're saying, well,
we're not going to have a primary. Well, you know what,
even Jimmy Carter had that primary against Teddy Kennedy, and
I think it's a I think it's a mistake, and

(34:39):
so I don't want to go back and relitigate the
whole thing. I respect the Biden family. I'm not trying
to do that, but I'm saying going forward, you guys
got to get it together, and you got to coalesce
around a national figure that can offer the dissent, that
can offer the opposition. Now he's blowing I'm looking over

(35:03):
the camera here to see NBC. He's blown the doors
off the global economy. He's blown the doors off the
stock market. We're plus fifty percent now, greater likely to
have a recession, the poly markets saying four rate cuts
are so that's a first quarter twenty six recession. And
so get it together, beat these guys in the midterms,

(35:26):
get it together and put up a candidate to box
these guys out in twenty eight so that the situation
doesn't get worse.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
And Anthony, let me ask you a question. I mean,
it's it's tactical, and I want to talk a little
bit about your perspective on Harris and the outcome, because
I think you were like me that we felt more
confident than certainly the outcome. But in terms of the
guy or gal in the white horse to come save today,
I know, you know, parties tend to focus so much

(35:55):
on that, and my party, Democratic Party seems disproportionately always
focused on the person on the white horse to save us,
seems to me. Over the years, Uh, the Republican Party
has been a little bit more structurally focused on school
boards and focusing on legislative races in states large and small,
a bottom up frame, not necessarily a top.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
Generation operation, red maps or you know that. You know that,
you know the coinage of that term, right. We they
they said, Okay, we've got to get into those state legislatures.
They'll help us jerry mander these districts and will even
though we're a minority party in terms of registrations, let's
organize and we'll beat these guys by using the tyranny
of the minority right. The founders were worried about the

(36:40):
tyranny of the majority, but the Republicans organize and assertive
themselves using the tyranny of the minority. That's a fascinating
point that you're bringing up.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
Yeah, and so it's interesting for me. It's both and
and I one of the things that that I'm I
caution my party about is if we're too fixated on
a personality, uh, then we're miss an opportunity to sort
of reimagine our party because there's bigger trend lines here
that sort of predate COVID and even Trump as it
relates to, you know, starting to lose this multi ethnic

(37:11):
young men in particular across the spectrum. Some of that
was arrested because of COVID and Trump, but that that
trend lines now big headline and I'm curious, you know,
your sort of reflection on that, but also reflection on
where Harris may have struggled. Was it just one hundred
and seven days. Was it the lack of an open primary.

(37:31):
Was it the fact she didn't distinguish herself enough and
separate herself enough from an incumbent. Was it the issue
of incumbency? Was it inflation? Was it interest rates? Was
it immigration? Was it wokeism broadly defined. Have you landed
on any theory of the case. So what the hell
happened in that election?

Speaker 2 (37:49):
So let me let me give you three things. Some
of them are going to be controversial for your party,
and so you know you're probably going to get some
negative press me saying this on your air, and I
apologize to you in advance, but I hope that people
listening will be open minded because I want you to win.
You have to slay this maga party. This is no
longer the Republican party I lived in, sir. This has

(38:11):
been decapitated. Hostile takeover, third party insurgency has has changed
this into a Frankenstein monster, a Frankenstein monster of anti democracy.
So we have to beat them. So if I would say,
let's leave off the table of the open primary, it
didn't happen. I think we would have liked to have
seen that starting in September of twenty three, and that

(38:33):
would have built up a case and somebody would have
grabbed you got to the top of the pecking order.
That would have fortified that candidate. But in the one
hundred and seven days, I'll just make three very close observations.
Number one, the vice president is a very competent, very
capable leader. But she was not a great risk taker
in that moment. Unfortunately, to rise to the presidency now

(38:58):
it requires exogynous risks. If you've got a group of
handlers around you say, don't go on Rogan, don't go
on this person, don't go on that person. Fox News
one time, not twenty five times. If I were her,
I would have said, Hey, every morning to be on
Fox News. I'm going to eventually chum up to those
anchors that hate me, and I'm going to get some

(39:18):
messaging out there where people will see that I'm not
the demon that they're trying to present me. As you
see what I mean. I would have said, Hey, Fox News,
I want to be on every day. You know these
podcasts that people are excoriating me, these Alpha bro podcasts
at least once or twice a week. Okay, So she
was not a risk taker. That's number one. Number two.

(39:39):
Robert Carrow in his books on Lyndon Johnson, which I
think are some of the best biography ever written, he
describes Humphrey's situation with Johnson. He didn't break from Johnson.
Johnson comes out of the race in sixty eight. Humphrey
waits till October one to break from Johnson. He's not
even willing to do with any such a gentleman. Johnson

(40:00):
brings him into the Oval office and says, you gotta
break from me. You want a blankety blank on me
on the Vietnam War, blankety blank on this, blankety blank
on that. You got to do it. And so he
starts that process in October. It's too late, and unfortunately
the Vice president's respect for Joe Biden, that infamous line

(40:22):
that she says on the View, I can't think of
anything I would have done differently, is harmful to her
because we're in an anti incumbency moment and she needed
to do what Johnson suggested to Humphrey. But in Humphrey's case,
it was too late, sir. The polls were closing. He
was catching Nixon when he made that break, but it
was too late. And then the third thing, and I

(40:45):
know this is really going to drive everybody crazy. So
you have a fire extinguisher behind you in case your
hair sets on fire, because the third thing is really bad.
You're okay, you're a flame. You're in a flame retardan
vest there let's do it. Let's hear it. The third
thing is, how on God's earth do you let Bobby
and Elon out of the party? And how do you guys? Interesting? Okay,

(41:09):
I was expecting that.

Speaker 1 (41:10):
I'm sorry, interesting, I wasn't expecting you to say that.

Speaker 2 (41:13):
Okay, But how do you guys do that? Okay? Bobby
is a Kennedy whole families tied to the party. He
actually wants to stay in the party. And I know
this because he endorsed the back of my Bitcoin book. Okay,
and I know Bobby forever from New York. How do
you let Bobby out of the party? Okay? And even

(41:33):
if you don't like Bobby or you think he's a
kook with the vaccines, you get open the tent, keep
them in the party because he's got that bro connectivity
that costs you a few points where you don't want them.
And Elon, I don't care what the UAW saying or
whoever told whoever told Biden to disinvite Elon from the

(41:55):
Electric Vehicle summit. I don't know who it was, but
President Biden shaid, look, man, I'm sorry. The guy's the
richest guy in the country. He's got a forty four
billion dollar bullhorn, and he's coming to the party.

Speaker 1 (42:07):
So he also created the space. You can't how the
hell you have an electric vehicle.

Speaker 2 (42:11):
You don't have to sit next to the guy. And
you may not like him because he doesn't have a
union shop, but he's our guy, and we got we
got to keep him in the party. And just so,
those two guys, they hurt you in Pennsylvania. Elon hurts
you in Pennsylvania. He hurts you in the Twitter verse
or whatever you want to call it with the toxic algorithm,

(42:33):
and Bobby hurts you. And I'm just submitting again this
is the indictment of your party. If I could be
bold enough to say this to you, respectfully, open the tent,
hold your nose. If somebody like me wants to help you,
invite me in. I will try to help you get
those guys back in the party. I know you want
to cancel them now, you want to blow up Tesla

(42:54):
vehicles and so on and so forth. Yeah, get Elon back. Okay,
calm down, calmed down. He's shooting rockets into space. He's
got an environmentally friendly vehicle that he's made, which you
guys used to buy in droves. Let's calm him down,
Let's disengage him from where he is right now, get
him back to neutral, because those three things hurt Harris.

(43:18):
No risk taking, no break from Humphrey, And how to
hell do you let Bobby and Elon out of that party.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
It's interesting and in the fact that you attached I mean,
the first two I certainly appreciate, but it's interesting you
thought it was that determinative these two individuals, these brands,
and what they represent historically and iconically. Both interestingly, two
people that are best known for their environmental stewardship.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
There were Democrats for decades, Governor Newsom, they were, By.

Speaker 1 (43:48):
The way, I can't tell you how many events I
had with both of them in San Francisco as mayor
of the city, talking about environmental stewardship, climate change, and
issues related to low carbon, green growth and electric vehicle transition.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
What he did, Asolish was, you know, to quote him,
because he says he's on the spectrum ofge It was
on the spectrum beautiful. He got them all in vance.
He told them that the unpasteurized milk that they were
pumping out of their dairy farms was going to be destroyed.
Misinformation that was, you know, he gets he gets a

(44:21):
red red card for that. He says that Biden's going
to come after them with that. And then he gets
them in a van because it can only take the
horse and buggy unless they're not driving, and he drives
them over to the voting and there's ninety nine thousand
of them vote for Trump. And I'm telling you, this
is a game of inches. You know this. I know this.
I've worked on six presidential campaigns in the last twenty

(44:47):
four years. It is a game of inches. It's a
game of risk taking. It's a game of calculated risk taking.
But when you got guys on your team that you
may not like, don't be so righteous. Bring them into
the town. I was told that some of the campaign
guys wanted me on the campaign plane, and there were
hardcore lefties that were like, nfw with that guy. He

(45:10):
wants to worked for Donald Trump. Guys, give give that up,
release anger, and let's let's study the existential threat and
work together.

Speaker 1 (45:20):
And that disappoints me to hear you say that, But
it doesn't shock me. I mean and and disappoints me
because I saw hard you worked for Biden, And then
how hard and sincerely you worked for Harris and how
you've been a pretty consistent and vocal opponent of Donald Trump.

(45:41):
And with your insight.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
This is not it's not even republicanism, sir. It is
a perverse form of populism. And I'm going to give
you a new word, okay. And I didn't know the
definition of this word, but I know it now. Do
you know what the word autarchy means? A U t
a rky. Do you know what that means?

Speaker 1 (46:01):
You got me stumped me?

Speaker 2 (46:02):
What is it? Okay? So I didn't know what it
meant either. Okay, somebody had explained it to me. Au
t aarky. It means an autonomous economic system. So Trump
wants to create an American auetarchy. He wants to wall
us off literally and physically from the rest of the world.

(46:24):
He wants to disengage America. It would be as if
Ui Long or Charles Lindbergh beat Franklin Roosevelt and created
the America First Movement in the nineteen thirties. This is
what this guy wants to do, Okay. And I'm telling
you this is an existential threat to our children and
our grandchildren. Put down the swords. Let's work together. Let's

(46:49):
figure out how AOC and Bernie can build this coalition
alongside of whatever you're representing, and frankly, alongside of whatever Christy,
myself and Kissinger and Cheney are representing. And let's lock forces.
Remember the Whigs got destroyed by a new party called
the Republicans. They got destroyed by that party because they

(47:12):
created a new party in eighteen fifty six. They went
after the abolitionists that were Democrats, and they went after
the Whigs that wanted abolition, and they created this new
party and they got a guy named Abraham Lincoln elected
the first Republican president. The new Whig party is the
Maga Party, which has the Republican name in name only.

(47:35):
They're the tru Rhinos Governor Newsom, They're Maga Republicans in
name only. Let's team up and let's build a coalition
that is a plurality, a majority to restore confidence in
America globally, to restore confidence in America economically. And then

(47:56):
let's once once we look at the burning of the House,
let's fixed parts of the House with maybe some constitutional amendments,
maybe some policies or laws that will benefit all of
us and make us safer in sort of a new
American social contract.

Speaker 1 (48:11):
Well, you're not going to get an argument from me,
and you know, I'm not that old, but I'm old
enough to remember that that's the Democratic party you were
referencing that built the middle class, that that gave us
the weekends, that gave us medicaid, gave us medicare.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
How about the gipill sir, thank you transformed everything that
was a Democrat idea, and that GI bill took Jewish
tailors from the Lower East Side and turned their children
into doctors. They took Italian construction workers and turned their
sons and daughters into accountants, lawyers, or doctors. We had

(48:47):
an ethnic middle class movement, driven mostly by Democrat policy
in the post World War two era that gave opportunity
to people that didn't have it in the Old Country
and didn't frankly have it in America prior to that.
These are these that's the idealism of your party. That's

(49:08):
the Jack Kennedy vision of your portom Amen.

Speaker 1 (49:13):
Look, let me ask you just in you know a
couple of tactical points, and I appreciate the larger tent framework.
I think this party needs a vision and needs an
economic vision. H you know, I think if you're going
to talk about Kennedy, you know, he was the last
president to bring us on a journey together. We saw
ourselves on that journey, and I think that's a big

(49:34):
part of also what's missing. What's what's the positive alternative
vision that can enlive in and excite people and people
feel included at a time of such division and fear
and anxiety. But there's also the fear and anxiety in
the vision that comes from the information superiority on the
other side, as well, the weaponization of grievance, the ability

(49:54):
to surround sound, to dominate the narrative, to flood the zone.
In terms of communication, you've got sort of a gender bias,
I would argue algorithms that skew as well. Online you
got fourteen of the top fifteen cable shows are all
Republican shows. Podcasts are dominated, as you say, you know,
it's not just that manto spare of the bro culture,

(50:16):
but sort of dominated by more moderate to conservative to
ultra conservative voices. What do you make of that landscape
and what's if you were going to just observe as
a participant. You've got two podcasts, successful podcasts. You're out there.
You've been in the media dominating for decades, back to
your CNBC days, remember a few decades ago. I mean,

(50:37):
what do you make of this environment and what do
you make of how do we begin to sort of
reconcile with that, and how do we sort of address
the reckoning that is that asymmetry?

Speaker 2 (50:49):
Well, I mean, it's such a great question on so
many levels and so many different layers. But I'll just
add one thing to it. While the conservatives are dominating podcasting,
and let's be honest, they are dominant cable news, mostly
through Fox. They say the corrupt mainstream media is against us,
you know, But in the meantime, the media it's almost

(51:09):
like the typewriter business, right, the big media is dying, okay.
And the reason why I applaud you starting this podcast
is you're going to reach a lot of people because
they can download you on their phone, they can go
for a walk, they can hear what you're saying, and
they'll say, Okay, I like that one, and then they
forward it to five of their friends. It's like that
old shampoo commercial and so what I would say to

(51:30):
the Democrats start over. Okay, be the engineers, and you
remember that movie Brian Grazer Ron Howard Apollo thirteen, Tom
Hanks plays Jim Lovell. Be the engineers that go into
the room and say, here's the tools on the table.
We have to reinvent ourselves. Forget the mainstream media, forget

(51:51):
the old totems. Let's be engineers. Let's be scientific, marketing engineers,
media engineers. How would we reinvent ourselves today? And what
will we do? What podcast would we have? What business
podcast would we have? What messaging do we want out there?
How do we stop attacking each other? The Republicans have

(52:12):
done a very good job of not attacking each other. Okay.
I find it curious that Bannon goes after Musk. Okay,
because I know Bannon well. I work with Bannon on
the twenty sixteen campaign. He's going after Musk for many
different reasons. But he knows that Musk is not pure Maga.
He knows this, Okay. He knows Musk is reacting to

(52:35):
what happened to him in the world of the Blue world.
He moved into the Red world or the dark Maga world.
Whatever he calls it because of what happened to him
in the blue world. So get to the table like
the engineers on Apollo thirteen. Let's start from scratch. Let's
have a summit. You call the summit. I'll be there,
and let's part a laboratory of ideas to beat this back.

(53:00):
Because the average American is kind, the average American does
not want to play the victim. The average American is aspirational,
and the average American believes in lifting the boats of others.
You know, the martial law, the Marshall Plan. Excuse me past,
because the average American looked at the landscape of the

(53:21):
world and said, the world needs this, and if it's
good for the world, it's going to be good for us.
And you know, Governor Newsom, you're at your best when
you're helping other people. Americans know this. Americans get their
best feeling on the side of giving. Donald Trump has
set up in America and I'm going to give you
these two allegories. You have one blue collar family where

(53:44):
the young man in the blue collar family rises the
great success and he pays for some tuitions. Governor Newsham,
he buys a car, He helps people with medical expenses
because he's the one rich person in the otherwise blue
collar family. Imagine the second family or the same thing happens,
but the manner of the woman builds this beautiful swimming

(54:05):
pool and this great mansion, and then they charge their
family members to come into the swiming pool. Hey, gav
you want to come to my swimming pool. It's twenty
five bucks. Which family is going to do better? Which family? Yeah? Okay?
And the Democrats know this. The Democrats know this in
their bone marrow. Get back to the table. This is

(54:26):
what we represent. This is the party that built the
United Nations. This is the party that laid the framework
at Bretton Woods for the IMF and the World Bank. Okay.
And by the way, globalism, I maintain just has bad marketing. Okay,
because the globalism has led to rising living standards here
in the United States, elsewhere, better health standards, less pestilence.

(54:53):
It is actually worked. We just got really bad marketing
people involved with this. Get back to the table and
and let's brush up on this. And I think the
counter narrative would blow the doors off these people. They
are in the minority.

Speaker 1 (55:06):
By the way, final question, just because I'm curious. I mean,
when the dust settles on Trump, Trump is'm then is
top of mind? And what's top of mind for a
lot of folks out there that are whispering, is what's JD.

Speaker 2 (55:22):
Vance up to?

Speaker 1 (55:24):
You know, you talk about Elon Musk, you talk about
others that really supported his nomination for vice president, members
of Trump's own family, Peter Thiel types and others. You've
got Bannon out there, either performatively or very seriously making

(55:44):
the case twenty twenty eight Donald Trump extending term or
it's Tran or it's Vance, and then he'll step aside
and we'll continue MAGA for another four years. I mean,
what do you make of the twenty twenty eight third term?
What do you make of JD.

Speaker 3 (55:59):
Van?

Speaker 1 (56:00):
That's how serious and concerned are you about JD. Vance
and what he represents and the people that are his
close as confidence and allies.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
Well, I mean, so you know from California, these guys
are Curtis Jorvin post the Democracy sort of people. They
believe in a monarchical structure that would be Teel and Musk,
and JD. Vance is an acolyte of that, which is
why they put him in there. It's interesting. I really
feel Trump made that decision distracted by a bullet that
whizzed by his ear. He only had seventy two hours

(56:31):
to compose himself prior to the convention, and I think
he made that decision. I don't think he likes Vance.
He's been pretty clear when he says is he my successor?
He says no. He slammed Vance after the Margaret Brennan
Sunday Morning Show where Vance said We're going to pardon
the non violent Jay sixers. Trump got pissed at him
and pardoned everybody. So you remember that scene in Fargo

(56:55):
with the wood chipper. Vance is going into Donald trump
woodchipper just matter of time because he's too close to power.
Trump doesn't like anybody near his spotlight, as you know,
and so he'll do to Dvance what he did to Pence.
So I'm not as concerned about Vance as other people.
The third term thing, I do believe people should take seriously.

(57:19):
He's eighty two when he aspires to that third term.
That's good for America that he's that old. But I
think you have to take that seriously, and you have
to take seriously that the stuff that he's doing to
weak in America. You know, I'm in the category that
you have to have at least a five percent probability
that he tries to call off an election. Other people

(57:41):
will find that incredulous, but I think you got to
get it out there because there's a law of reflexivity, Gavin.
If you get that out there, people will start socializing it,
and then they'll plan themselves to attack that. If I
talk to somebody and say, well, that's never going to happen,
well then you don't know Donald Trump. So many things
have happened in the last ten years that I literally

(58:02):
looked right down the barrel of a camera and said
that's never gonna happen, and then two months later it happens.
So I've got five percent he's going for the third term, okay,
and I've got, you know, some percentage that he could
not even have try to pretend that he can't have
an election. I do think the country's strong enough to
stop that, but I have to throw that out there.

(58:23):
But I do think Vance goes into the whip chipper.
By the way, he's unpopular, he looks terrible, and if
he wants to out Trump, Trump, shave your beard buddy,
because the beard looks terrible, and Trump doesn't like the beard.
And I'm just letting you know, you're not going to
Greenland like you did and going to Space Force. You
really look like a dummy. So I'm not worried about him.

(58:44):
What I'm worried about is that younger movement. I am
worried about the Charlie Kirks. I am worried about the
the podcasters that are out there that are strong, vigorous
guys and girls that are incredibly smart, and you guys
need a counterdough to that, and so let's ship to
work on that.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
You know, No, that's why, that's one of the reasons.
I mean, that's precisely why I'm trying to bte these
folks in so we start to understand how how potent
and powerful they've increasingly become. Final final over under Musk
is gone in two months, Uh, Rubio two months? What
I mean, what's what's your over under on some of
the I mean, he can't keep players around.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Now because remember they have to own the libs, right,
so Walsh can get on signal. He's texting Jeff Goldberg
like war plans, and then it turns out he's using
Gmail for all of the other stuff. So you know
they're upset with Hillary Clinton for some reason. But then
they're doing worse than mine did. And so he can't
fire Walsh because he can't Waltz, because he can't give

(59:46):
a liberal a scalp. You know, we got to own
the Libs. Remember, he is the Napoleon of the culture war,
Donald Trump. Okay, so you guys have to find Wellington,
but he's the Napoleon, so we can't. You know, we
got to own the Libs first before we do anything else. Right,
We've got to run the ads on the trans gender athletics,
even though it's a small group of people to trigger everybody. Right,

(01:00:07):
So that guy's not getting fired. Right. So what Trump
is pushing and what you have to be worried about,
in my opinion, is that persistent clure. You guys seem
to be one step behind him in every culture war.
You know, I mean Bill, Bill's going to have dinner
with him. Okay, Bill's on your team. By the way,

(01:00:29):
don't let Bill go the way of Elon Musk. And
by yeah, Bill Maher, don't let him go the way
of Elon Musk. By give them when you're done with
me podcasting, pick up the phone, call Billy, dude, let's
go have lunch. Calm down, okay, I'm I'm sure he
had Wellington in the White House Trumps eat said every
night for dinner. Calm down, okay, and come back to

(01:00:52):
the fault here, Billy, because we need you and you
need us. You don't you don't want to go down.

Speaker 1 (01:00:59):
I have to agree with that, right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:01):
And by the way, you did great on his show
the other night. I mean, you're very realistic, you know.
But I've been on a show many times. But but dude,
you know, don't let them. Don't let them go that way. Man,
hear what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
I hear what you're saying. No, and well, and I
lied about the final final. This is the final final
because I want to pick what you just said is
really important and looking for advice here because I'm a
practitioner in this respect as governor of this state. I mean,
you know, every day my state of mind is want
to sort of just overwhelm with all the incoming that
the missives, the messages, the letters, the threats from members

(01:01:37):
of his cabinet, agency directors, lawyers, constant back and forth
as it relates to sort of this deconstructive state mindset
that Trump has in what twenty twenty five represents. You know,
from our perspective, it's difficult. You know, what do you
what do you chase? Do you do you react to
every little indiscretion? Or do you wait for the big things?

Speaker 2 (01:02:01):
You know?

Speaker 1 (01:02:01):
Is it a carville a notion? Just stand back and
watch him and plode, watch what's happened in the markets.
This is a proof point of Carville strategy. One carvill
may argue, I don't know. I mean, what do you
what do you do? Or do you do you flood
his own back? Are you constantly in everybody's face and
do what Charlie Kirk's doing every single day? I mean, what,
what's where are you in calibras?

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
I believe in the big story, Governor Newsom. I believe
in the narrative. Okay, if you study Lincoln, you study
Jack Kennedy, you study the Roosevelt Revolution when he beat
Herbert Hoover. I believe in the narrative. And so you're
not gonna beat him being a pig like him. If
you call his hands little like Marco Rubio, you end

(01:02:44):
up as like one of his knaves. Right, So you're
not gonna You're not you know, like the farmer said
about the pig, You're not a pig. The pig likes
getting in the mud. Don't get in the mud with
the pig. I don't believe in that. You have a
super narrative. Okay, you can point out to people what
they're trying to do to you, the the bureaucratic terrorism

(01:03:05):
that they're trying to do to you with the federal
government exerting power over you. You can do that, but it's
subt it got to do it subtly. The big narrative
has to be who are we as Americans? When you
look in the mirror, do you see in America that's
aggrieved and victimized? Or do you see in America in ascendency?

(01:03:25):
We represent the Americans that are in ascendency. We are
the side for good. We are the benevolent people. We're
not locking the gate to the swimming pool to charge admission.
We're going to teach other people how to build their
own swimming pools. Okay, and we've made some mistakes. You know,
maybe you've got to have less regulations so Bill can

(01:03:46):
get his roof done. I'm not saying that the Democrats
are perfect. They made some mistakes. You're working on reform
to correct those mistakes. But mistakes that you've made have
been from inclusivity. The mistakes that you've made, whether it's
bail reform or things like that, have been mistakes related
to frailty of human beings and our humanity. And so

(01:04:09):
I wouldn't focus on Charlie Kirk's rat tat tat, flood
the Zone or Steve Bannon stuff, because that's already old news.
The new new news is what is the narrative, What
is the compelling democratic narrative which allows Americans to look
in the mira and say that's me. I'm strong, I'm aspirational,

(01:04:30):
I'm kind, I'm benevolent, and I'm going to work alongside
of my fellow Americans to put down the internescent warfare
and the internescent tribal warfare. These guys want the tribal warfare,
but the average American does not, And they're beating you
on the tribal warfare and in the culture war. But
you can flip the table on them by going in

(01:04:53):
the direction that I'm describing.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):
A great way to Anne Anthony. Thank you for the conversation,
thank you for your insight, thank.

Speaker 2 (01:04:59):
You for it's it's a huge honor to be on
with you, okay and me. And by the way, you
got it. The hair, I mean hair is an asset
for you. Okay, you got to you got to use
the hair more man. Okay, it's the hair more Yeah,
I mean California asset. You know.

Speaker 1 (01:05:18):
Jesus, here we go.

Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
Very cute.

Speaker 1 (01:05:20):
What a way to add buddy, Hey, pleasure, thanks for
taking the time. I really appreciate it. By the way,
thank you for being so good to staff. That's a man.
That's your character, the way you treated everyone around me.
They said, this guy is a gentleman. So I just
want folks to know that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:34):
And I appreciate because my grandmother was a maid Governor Newsom,
so trust me, it's very important to me that I
treat everybody with great kindness because you know, and by
the way, that is a non starter at Skybridge, and
people are mean to people that are beneath them. It's
literally like an evacuation, you know, God bless but thank
you for that. And uh it not to be so,

(01:05:54):
you know, if it's not an imposition. I would love
to do this again in person. I think it'd be
a lot more fun. That would be a lot of fun.
Let's make that happen, all right, all the best of you,
Thank you to see you