The New Name Leading the 2028 Presidential Race

- Welcome to Next Up, everybody.

“I'm Mark Cowford, and fired up, ready to go.”

Editor-in-Chief Live Interactive, video platform two way, and the host here. It's the first Tuesday of the month,

always an exciting time for us,

because it's when I unveil my monthly installment of our exclusive segment, eight for 28. My ranking of the potential, Democrat, Presidential nominees for 2028, from first to last.

I get fired up about it, because I have to do a lot of reporting for this one, and I talk to top sources in politics, Democrats, mostly summer Republicans, and you'll hear the fruits of my labor in just a moment.

We have a new number one that I feel pretty strongly about. We shall see, and we've got two great guests today. The former Senator from Colorado Cory Gardner, one of the more thoughtful people

I've ever covered in elective office, Senator former Senator Gardner will be here, and then from the Media Research Institute, Chastine Brooke Murray, we'll talk to little politics, a little media,

has well-excited to talk to them both, a bad talk to them both about everything that's going on right now in this country. On policy, on politics, and on the mood of America. But first, we kick it off today with my reported monologue,

the August edition of eight for 28. New number one, which I'm excited about,

“someone who I'll tell you, honestly, in my gut,”

this is who I've always thought would be the nominee.

I'll pretty strongly Josh Shapiro, a Pennsylvania number one this month for the first time, and although he's a flawed candidate like everybody else, I'll explain to you why I have him in the number one slot. Number two, the man who's been number one,

Gavin News of the Governor of California, number three, Pete Buttigieg, number four, Comla Harris, number five, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, number six, Bernie Sanders, number seven, John Ossoff, and eight, Mark Kelly.

I'll go through, as you can see, some of them have moved up, some down, most probably significantly Shapiro moving up, and you take a look at last month, there was new some Buttigieg Sanders Shapiro,

AOC, Comla Harris, Osoff, Conna. So a few names have come off, and now people have moved around. So again, here's the movement from July and to August. Here's the changes I've made. Shapiro is up from the lower slot to number one.

Gavin Newsom is down, Buttigieg is down, Comla Harris, a little bit up. AOC stays the same, Bernie Sanders down, John Ossoff stays the same, and Mark Kelly comes on. He wasn't on last month.

So let's talk it through. Why it is, I have it the way I have it this month. First of all, what a big development in the nomination fight. We finally got the tentative announcement, which was expected to be ratified by the DNC,

of the calendar, the nominating calendar for what states are going to go and what order will show you that now. And it's been approved by the committee of the Democratic Party and the full party's expected to approve it. It kicks off in South Carolina on January 22nd.

That's a Saturday where South Carolina typically votes unlike most other states. Then the silver state, Nevada votes on February 1st, about 10 days later, then New Hampshire, then New Mexico, then Michigan, then Virginia.

So they were talking about having four or five states in the window before super Tuesday. Now they've got six states in there. And two, three of them, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire have traditionally been part of the early votes,

although not in this order. The New Mexico Mission Virginia, their brand new. And so you've got three states afforded this extraordinary

responsibility who have never been given this responsibility

to go early on to help win out down the field and pick the nominee. And then three who have done it before, New Hampshire is not first under the Democratic Party, but the state law says they have to go first. And the Democrats say, if a candidate campaigns in New Hampshire,

if New Hampshire goes first, they can't be in their debates. There's a lot to work out. So I wouldn't say this calendar set, but we do know some things about this calendar and what it means.

At least tentatively, we can make some judgments. Based on this calendar, there are three kind of candidates who are awarded based on the calendar as it's laid out by the Democratic Party. It benefits people who can raise a lot of money.

And this is a criticism that I have and some people have of this calendar. It's going to be a lot harder under this calendar for someone to have an underfunded campaign and still break through.

So raising money is important.

“Winning the black votes important and the Hispanic vote”

because these early states have very large populations of black and Hispanic votes in the Democratic primaries. And it probably favors moderate candidates over the progressives, probably. I can't emphasize enough though.

The way the system worked for decades in early in my career and in the most of the modern era, Iowa first New Hampshire second, South Carolina third roughly. The press knew how to cover that. The press knew sort of the rhythms of it.

And it was always irrational to say,

you're going to be the nominee, that makes no sense.

“Because they don't have very many delegates,”

but the early states were awarded with this influence where you do well in the early states. And then the media says, if you don't do well, you got to get out and the donor stop getting your money and your poll numbers go down in the cycle of destroys you.

That's what's worked in the past. I can't say as much certainty as others are saying that once you break this tradition, that the same pattern will hold.

In other words, somebody could lose the first four.

And by the way, Joe Biden did exactly this in 2020. Somebody could lose the first three, the first four, whatever. And still stay in the race if they have enough money to try to compete in the bigger states of super Tuesday. Don't know what New Hampshire's doing.

As I said, we don't want the candidates who are going to do if New Hampshire follows that state law and goes first. We don't know what the Republican schedule's going to be, but we're pretty confident it's not going to sync up

with the Democratic schedule. So that's another variable that's going to affect how the media covers the thing. OK. And we'll see what the Republicans do.

How do the Democratic get contested covered if they're not the same day as the Republican events? I am convinced now that there's not going to be a frontrunner in this race for the Democrats. And that runs counter to what we've seen in the past.

There's always-- if there's no obvious frontrunner,

there's a vacuum. And somebody becomes the frontrunner. Some of my sources, who I talked to, to report this week, this month's ranking. Some of them feel so strongly about it.

“They say, you should lead the top slot open.”

There should be no number one. And there's some logic to that. OK. No frontrunner, meaning whoever I have is number one, I believe, is the most likely.

But it's a little bit different than it's been. It's a little bit different than it's been. Between now and the end of the year, there's two important phases that are going to flesh this out a little bit.

Number one is the midterm campaigning. Who's going to be in demand out on the trail to go to the Battleground Contest Senate, house governor, and campaign? And how did they do?

How do voters react? How good are they raising money for other people? That'll be really key. And then the other is what we're going to see in November and December, right after the midterms.

Nobody's going to announce for president before the midterms. They're all the same mantra. This is about the midterms and the presidential can wait. How did they do those deliberations around the holidays?

November, December. I'm sure certain some people will get in in November, December. There's some might wait until January very, very March. But there's going to be a premium to get in early and to start to build a campaign team,

start to raise money, start to make a splash. And I'm telling you right now that some people, on my list, some people, not on my list, but who get talked about, they're not going to make the race. They're not going to enter.

As much as it seems wide open, as much as it seems as an opportunity, taking the plunge for president is a big deal. And a lot of people now who are traveling to states, who are going on TV, who are welcoming

the speculation about their running, they're not going to run. They're going to look at the fundraising demands, which are, as I said, even greater now to win the nomination than before.

The notion of raising a massive multiple times greater than they've ever raised before. And they're going to look at the candidate who can raise money. And they're going to say, do I really want to run a campaign on millions when other people have tens of millions or hundreds

of millions? That's number one. Number two, they're going to think about their kids. A very high percentage of these folks who are thinking of running, they got young kids.

Kids at home, kids not in college. And even with kids in college,

“do they want to put their family through this scrutiny?”

And they're two categories. They're people who know their stuff in their background that will get scrutiny that their kids won't like. But then there's just people who just say, I don't want to put my kids through it.

There's nothing in my background, but I don't want to be away from my kids. And then there's the questions about scrutiny. So we'll see what happens in our rankings, and in the process overall, midterms and then the fall, OK?

Right now, here's how I'd see the race. And this really informs my rankings. And it goes to what my sources of all said, almost to a person, OK? There's two categories of candidates.

There's the-- been there done that candidates. There's the candidates who kind of sneak but they can't-- they're processing them. The Democrats have seen them.

And not exciting, not exciting. And then there's the up-and-comers, the outsiders, the new faces, OK? Those are two categories. And you got to think about, if you look at our list,

there's people who clearly fit in one category or the other. And then there's some, let's see, let's see which category they're. And they could go either way.

And then there's a second pair of categories

that also is important. Again, been there done that up-and-coming insider outsider. That's one category.

And then there's the establishment lane.

“And the establishment candidate, I believe,”

who will emerge and will have-- we want to finalize for the nomination. It's the person who can build the biggest aircraft carrier, raise the money, hire the staff, go on, high-pressure TV shows, do well in the debates.

But that establishment candidate is going to have to have ties to the left of the party. And it's going to have to be somebody who the establishment rallies around to say, we have to stop the progressive candidate to socialist candidate from being the nominee.

So I think that's going to end up now. You can have a socialist candidate who's not new and exciting, like a Bernie Sanders. You can have an establishment candidate who's not an old face, someone who's new.

But more likely, you'd think that the socialist candidate would be an up-and-comer. And the establishment candidate would be someone who's been around in the block, like a Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton.

OK. The reason I've moved Governor Shapiro to number one

“is I believe that he's the most likely candidate for that second slot.”

For that establishment slot of a candidate with ties to the left who can build an aircraft carrier and who the establishment can get excited about. The other establishment candidates who are high on the list

and who do well in polling and who are amazing fundraisers,

the two best fundraisers in the establishment lane, are Kamal Harris and Gavin Newsom. But I believe in looking at the responses I got from my sources this month. Governor Shapiro has flaws and people raise them all the time. We'll talk about them.

But he is the least flawed of the people who can build the aircraft carrier, raise the money, build the team, et cetera. Harris and Newsom are flawed. We'll talk about that.

Governor Shapiro has done a very smart thing. He is framed 2026 on terms, very favorable to him. He's running for reelection in the ultimate background state. So he's got to win that. He also has state house exceptions.

And the legislative basis in Pennsylvania continue to hold the lower house there, but take control of the state senate. And then there's four competitive, super important US house races in Pennsylvania that he's heavily involved in.

Don't know that he'll achieve all of his political objectives in Pennsylvania, but he probably will. He said a very concrete set of expectations that are a reach but achievable. And this past few weeks, part of why I moved him up,

besides what I just said, he's got 2026 of laying up well for him politically. In terms of the message of a governor who gets stuff done who can help other Democrats win. He's been very strong in his recent interviews.

And he's done something this month that no one else has done. He got LeBron James to come to his state to play for the 76ers. Now, some people care about sports, some don't. A couple things here.

First of all, the guy took a risk.

He got out in front and publicly connected to the notion of trying to recruit LeBron. And he demonstrated which is something that's true. He's a huge sports fan. And we've all seen the importance of the hangtests,

the ability to talk like a normal person. And I believe compared to Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom again, the other two main contenders in the establishment wing that he is, he's strong, he's strong in the hangtests. Here he is talking about LeBron James coming to the 76ers.

- Phili fans are going to love LeBron. And I think what he's also going to do together with Jalen Brown is bring a championship mentality to a team that has not had that in a lot of years. I mean, he and Jalen Brown know how to win a chip.

And I think they are just going to infect this entire team with that desire to win and that championship mentality. I think it's going to be awesome. Folks are celebrating LeBron James day today. And they don't care if you're a Democrat Republican

who you voted for. They don't care about any of that. They want to be joyful about a team they love and a player they respect and admire. And we need more of that in life.

We've got to find more ways to come together. And I think hoops and sports in particular allows us to do that. - Hoops and sports, this guy's a normal guy. He's a normal person.

And he loves sports and he can talk about sports and he's got all the skills. What I think is going to happen if I'm right that he's number one is at some point the establishment. Good before the primary is to begin, even.

The establishment people, the key people are going to say, we got to be for Shapiro because we got to make sure we don't have a socialist nominee. I think the Clinton's Neo-Bomas who love Shapiro, they love it, Nancy Pelosi loves him.

A lot of the donors love him. I think Jim Clyber in the South Carolina Congressman who such a kingmaker. I believe that there's a good chance to pin it out how this lays out, that they will mobilize to make sure that he's the nominee.

“Okay, that's what I, that's my gut, that's my gut.”

Now we look at the list overall.

and then this month was about Kamla Harris.

Should she even be on the list? Some of my sources said no, she shouldn't even be on the list. She's not going to run if she runs she'll be a disaster. Other people think she should be number one. They've looked at her performance of Lee

and they just don't think she's going to do it. My female sources, Democratic sources interestingly, were in most cases not all, but in most cases were pretty down on her. Okay, a lot of reporting that says she's not decided,

but she's doing a lot of things to leave open the option of running. And she spoke to the Urban League a few days ago and she's clearly tilting left. She's clearly thinking about running, she's former vice president. She's going to be an establishment candidate.

“But she's clearly thinking, how do I take some of that?”

Some of that populist anti-establishment progressive wing of the party and tap into it. Here she is speaking in front of the Urban League a few days ago. This is Kamla Harris talking about her agenda. S11, please.

And we must allow for a real conversation about revisiting certain things. For example, and I know this is going to be controversial coming from me in particular, we need to revisit the electoral college. [APPLAUSE]

We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts. [APPLAUSE] We need to revisit if they so want statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.

Yes. [APPLAUSE] If we regain control of the Senate, I served on this committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, when I was in the Senate.

Now, there's some weasel words there, we need to revisit. Not, let's get rid of the filibuster. Not, let's make Puerto Rico state. We need to revisit. That's a kind of caution.

That's a kind of shifting and shading that a lot of people point to to say, she's not going to run if she does. She'll have a problem.

“But she's smart, I think, and my sources meant”

several of my sources pointed out if she does want to run. She's smart, they said, to go left, because she's going to have to be a grassroots candidate. The donors, the political class, the media,

they're never going to root for her.

They're always going to try to bring her down. That's just the nature of where she is after losing in 2024. And she's got a big fundraising list. She's done events for her book tour around the country, including around the South.

She's strong with black women, voters. So she's going to be in establishment candidate. But she's going to try to get that black folk. Remember what I said, the new calendar seems to favor candidates who can raise money or have money.

Is there a rich candidate who can appeal to black voters and Hispanic voters, and candidates who are more establishment rather than socialist progressive? That's Comwell Harris. But again, she's got a problem, which is never

going to be favored by the media. Gavin Newsom, who I dropped from one to two, has a similar problem, the other California candidate. He's got the same problem he already had in 2008, which is the problem that the Walt Disney Company had.

I used to work at the Walt Disney Company. There's something you become a big figure, and you become snake bit.

You become somebody who the press never gives a break to.

If somebody dies at the Walt Disney World, it's a huge story, no matter how they die. If somebody dies at a Comcast Park, it doesn't even make the news. This is a problem for Gavin Newsom.

And we saw it in this month with a couple stories that popped first, a woman who had an affair with that had previously been written about, and he talked about it previously. She wrote a piece for Vanity Fair about the relationship.

Didn't put him in the best to light. Here's the Vanity Fair headline. How I blew up, then rebuilt my life. She talks about her affair with Gavin Newsom, and a lot of detail.

Here's how the New York Post covered it.

“And the New York Post plays a key role here.”

They now have a decalifornia edition. Ruby Rippy, that's the name of the woman, a great cover after Slatius essay exposed Gavin Newsom affair details. Here's another New York Post story.

Newsom said he'd release his tax returns. He was required to release him, but he didn't publicize them in the sense that he didn't post them on the internet or give them to reporters.

He told reporters they could go to a reading room and take a look at them. Other politicians have done that. Here's the headline from the New York Post. Gavin Newsom sneaky tax return quote

unquote, "release sparks at rage." Then problem Newsom has now, and as you know, I've told you before, I'm not a certain as everybody else is gonna run, but the problem he has now is very similar

to what happened to John Kerry

I call it a swift boveterence for truth problem,

which is the conservative media will go after Newsom for everything.

“The New York Post and all the conservative media”

on social media, anything he does, they will cast in the most negative light. And then what happens is that stuff on a conveyor belt goes to the more what I call the dominant media,

either because they pick up the stories kind of on the merits, or they write about the fact that the conservative media is going after him. That's what happened with John Kerry and the accusations from this group,

Swift boveterence for truth, that some of you will remember. And recall, there's a criminal investigation into Gavin Newsom in his wife. Don't know where that will go,

but there's gonna be both real and made up stuff about Gavin Newsom. It'll never end. That's why I think he may not run he wanna put his family through it.

But he is like a conlair.

He'll never be considered the fresh face.

He'll never be considered new and exciting. He'll always be cast by a lot of people in the party as old, even though he's never run for president before, but because he's been around on the national stage for so long.

Okay, Pete Buttigieg, on my list, and number three, I have Mahatto Kamla Harris. I'm higher on him than most people, I have been for a while. Interesting to say, which category is Pete Buttigieg? Is he new and up and coming?

Because he's a younger guy and he's really still not that well known, or is it a snake bit older, old face? Because he's been around. The right goes after him a lot too, but he also goes with great confidence on Fox News

and other places. I don't know what category he's in. He's very good in interviews. And I continue to believe, even though this calendar doesn't necessarily favor him,

I continue to believe that he's gonna strong candidate.

“And I think he's likely to run and remember,”

my rankings aren't part based on whether somebody's gonna run or not. I think Shapiro will run. I'm not sure that Newsom and Harris will run. I think Buttigieg's will run. Here he is, speaking to the National Urban League,

the same event Kamala Harris spoke to S2. I believe the reason that the kitchen table has become so difficult is because of what's going on in our political system, in our democracy. This political system, where politicians choose their voters

through gerrymandering instead of people choosing their leaders. The reason why it is even possible to cut funding for Medicaid when most Americans think we need to do more and not less for health care is because elected leaders

do not have to be responsive to the people that they serve. - And guys, it's very good. Goes to the Urban League. Again, it's a challenge for him for a variety of reasons. Just as Governor Shapiro, some people say,

"Can't be the nominee 'cause he's a Jew." People to judges, "Guys, people say, "Well, those are just qualifying." I don't think either one will be disqualifying. I'm not sure they're a benefit,

even within a Democrat nomination fight. But I just, I continue to be impressed by his skills. Same with Governor Shapiro, how well he handles himself. Okay, next, the two socialist candidates, Alexander Ocasio-Cartez and Bernie Sanders.

I had Sanders higher last month and man, I got a lot of pushback, a lot of pushback. Even before I ranked him high, people say he's not gonna run, he's too old. Now I will tell you, there are people in Bernie's life

who wink and nod to me, oh yeah, if there's a vacuum, he may have to run. I don't think he wants to, but I don't think AOC's gonna run. And a lot of my sources don't either.

“I think Senator Schumer from New York will retire.”

A lot of people around him think he's not gonna run for reelection in 2008, even if he takes back, as far as he takes back Senate control. But I don't think, I think AOC will run for that Senate seat. I just don't see the indication that she wants to go for it.

Now, she does occasionally say stuff that makes me waver a little bit. Here she is in an interview, talking about whether she might run for president and the fact that she's leading in some polls, this is S4, please.

- Of course, I hate to ask you about I got you. There's a big poll today showing that you are the favorite amongst Democrats in 2018 and that's a long way off. I know you said before, polls are a long way off or not. - Well, I feel very deeply flattered and humbled.

And we, I don't want to kind of discount this house support if people have been and it genuinely is very meaningful. And we also want to make sure that we're making decisions

that's what the country first.

And so I'm just, you know, thank for the support. - Okay, thank you. So she'll talk to Senator Sanders about it. But I don't think she's gonna pull the court on this one. That's my feeling based on my reporting and my gut.

And so if she doesn't run, people say, well, Rokana, the Congressman who's been on the program and clearly is laying the grant work to run. But there's a lot of skepticism that he can get lift off. A lot of people say, house member, not that well known.

He's made a lot enemies this year. He's also built a lot of support.

that Rokana can be there vehicle,

then there's two options.

“One is Bernie Sanders runs and I end up being right,”

but maybe he doesn't. So what do they look to? Some people say they might look to one of the two senators named Chris, Chris Murphy from Connecticut, Chris Van Hollen,

from Carol and Drather. I don't think so. Those guys, I'll just be honest. He asked Democrats about them. If compared to Sanders and AOC and Rokana,

don't have the charisma. They're not real socialist. They're talking the socialist game, but they're not real socialist. And they're completely unvetted, personally unvetted,

and as presidential candidates. So I'm skeptical of that.

Some people say, well, who else could it be?

'Cause that lane has to be filled. People talk about Dr. Alsead, if he wins in Michigan, Elizabeth Warren, the talk today in Politico, of Sean Fein, the head of the UAW. I don't think so, ladies and gentlemen.

It's easy to say, oh, just plug in a socialist and give him Bernie's endorsement. I don't think so.

“I think right now that that lane is almost certainly”

going to be filled by AOC, I don't think we'll run, by Rokana, about whom there's a fair amount of skepticism that he can actually win the nomination, or Bernie. And if all three of them fall short, either by not running, or not lifting off,

I don't know what's going to happen, because you think the socialist have to have a candidate. Okay, last two on my list are two guys who may not run, but I'm more inclined to think they might that I did before John Ossoff, who's running

for a election in Georgia. Man, the buzz about him still continues. Here he is, in a charming exchange with a guy from TMZ on Capitol Hill who asks him about every senator's favorite topic, BDE.

Here that is S7, please. - Hey, John, a lot of people being saying that you've got BDE, you know, BDE. - Oh, my brother. - A lot of people being saying,

but like, we walk in confidence, you carry up food. - Only and Aussie, would guess me that. - Right, I'm doing very good. Thank you very much, good to say you too, Patty. - Good to see you again, good to see you again.

- Catch you around, you too. - All right, now the Ossoff trial balloon, which has been flooring for a long time, has come down to Earth a little bit. And here's the manifestation of that in Axios.

A headline this past weekend, that's A5, please. Axios talked to a bunch of Democrats. I bet some of them worked for our associate with other people who may run. And they say, maybe not on John, on John Ossoff, A5, please.

Ossoff, the next thing or great white hype.

The reality is, and John Ossoff would tell him

tell you this himself, he sold several of my sources. This buzz has gotten out of control. He hadn't even won real election yet. He's got young kids, he may not run. But like I said, there's going to be

an establishment attempt to find somebody to make the front run to coalesce around. I don't think that's going to be Gavin Newsome. I don't think that's going to be Kamla Harris. They both would wear that like a badge of honor.

They both would say, we've got big email lists. We've got grassroots support. We don't need these establishment. And it's not an establishment time in the party. If they don't consolidate around Shapiro,

“if he ends up not running, although I think he probably will,”

they may try to coalesce Randolph, or Mark Kelly. I've been skeptical about putting him on the list because I didn't think he was going to run. But there's a new story in the Atlantic magazine that came out this month, that A6, please.

That really, he leaned really hard into maybe running. Called the Wingman, Mark Kelly's resume, and the Goodwillies recruit is Gabby Giverd's spouse. Have granted him a high level of admiration. Can he translate to excitement for a presidential campaign?

He read the piece if you're interested in whether he'll run or not. It definitely looks like he's thinking about it. I still am skeptical in the end. He's going to want this scrutiny.

The piece didn't deal very much with questions that screwed me, and what might come his way. But he's on my list now because again, if Shapiro claims out, if Asaf doesn't run, Kelly may be the establishment choice of people rally around the way they rallied around Joe

Biden in 2020. And then here are the people I have below the line, who my source is all mentioned, not every source mentioned everyone, but these names come up. They've come up before some of these folks have been on the list

in the past, Governor Pritzker of Illinois, Governor Beshear of Kentucky, Governor Moore of Maryland, former Congressman, former Ambassador Roman manual, Rokana. We mentioned that then, let's just slide again.

Senator from Michigan, who did a big long piece with Politico in which she leaned heavily into the thought that she might run. She's my sleeper, ladies and gentlemen. If she decides to go for it, the establishment could rally around her, even though a lot of people in the party say,

after Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris lost, they don't want another woman. But I'd watch her. She's one I'm watching. I want to see how she does in the midterms campaigning for others.

with a contested Democratic Senate primary.

And then I want to see how she deliberates after the election. This reality, as I mentioned before, that there's not going to be a front runner, I don't believe. People will be crowned the front runner, but they won't be a true front runner.

Remember whether you're a socialist or an establishment candidate, a more moderate establishment candidate. You gotta raise the money. You gotta play the calendar. You have to be fresh, new and exciting,

“and you have to get through the gauntlet of the media.”

That's true, whichever category you're in, establishment or socialist. I believe, however this breaks down in the end, there'll be a final between one establishment and one socials. There might be other people hanging around

and not to clear the field. But this process, because of the change in the calendar, this thing could go a long time. This thing, I'm not predicting a brokered convention, but the unsettled nature of this whole thing.

No front runner, not clear how the calendar, nominating calendar plays out. And the fact that right now, the highest currency in the party is progressive, outsider, and the party traditionally does not nominate a progressive outsider.

They rise up to stop them, is a lot of uncertainty here. My list, eight for 28s, the best I could do under those circumstances with the uncertainty, thanks to the help of all my sources who help me with their guidance about how to get to the list. And I look forward to doing the reporting

of the September edition one month from now. That's the August installment, eight for 28.

As always, let me know what you think.

Who've I put to eye? Who've I put to low?

“Do you think the Democrats will nominate someone who's Jewish?”

Or is that just off the table? Will they nominate a woman or is that off the table? Will it be a socialist who will fill that lane? All questions I'd love to hear from you on. And right in, and maybe we'll feature you in my upcoming

regular segment that follows after eight for 28, which is eight for 28, eight. Send me an email next up at devilmakeairmedia.com. Who do I have to eye? Who do I have to low?

Who should be on the list? Who should be off? Next up at devilmakeair. Next up at devilmakeairmedia.com. All right, quick break.

And when we come back, former Colorado Senator Corey Gardner, Corey Gardner is next up. (upbeat music) Talking now about life insurance, we all know we need it, but many people put it off because it feels complicated,

expensive and like something they can wait. Well, now's the time to stop waiting. Take care of it today with select quote. In just 15 minutes, high quality coverage can be secured to fit any lifestyle or any budget.

Here's what makes select quote different.

They're licensed insurance agents work for the consumer, not for the insurance companies. They compare options across multiple trusted carriers to find the right coverage at the absolute lowest price. Unlike other brokers who push policies

that pay them the most, select quote agents, they're different. They actually shop around with nearly 40 years of experience and over two million families already help. This is the expertise that you can trust.

Even with health issues such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, their agents know exactly which carriers will provide the very best rate. For those in good health, same day coverage is available with no medical exam required.

Don't delay the peace of mind, select quote. They shop, you save. Get the right insurance for you. For less, at select quote.com/mark again. Go right now, go to select quote.com/mark today

to get started. (upbeat music) All right, next up and joining me now, a rarity in public life. Someone who's been elected to a high office

who everybody who knows him says is nice and competent and can start about the public interest. Not easy to find, unfortunately. Former Colorado Senator Cory Gardner at now president of the Internet and television association.

Is grappling with what I keep telling you all

“is the most important problem facing the country today”

and yet one, many of you find boring. Well, it's not gonna be boring 'cause they'll bring it to life. How do we make AI work for all Americans without killing all of us, without destroying every job,

but rather opening up a world of possibility. Ladies and gentlemen, next up right here, Cory Gardner. Senator, welcome, thank you for being here. - Hey, thank you so much, Rabbi Mark. Great to be with you.

- These are like the biggest public policy challenges I've ever seen and I've seen many as of you, but this really is an existential on the upper upside of beating China, existential threat. If China beats us in AI, our grandkids will be,

our grandkids will speak Mandarin. And if we win, I'm not sure we get to the top yet of two day work weeks and root beer and the water fins, but there's a massive upside. And amongst the many fights

are should this be regulated only by Washington,

And I can tell you this, and you know this,

“the smartest and most intensely focused people”

in the Trump administration, don't have an answer to these questions because it's moving so fast. How do you get normal people to appreciate, we'll get to solutions or possible solutions?

How do you get normal people understand the stakes of what's happening right now, unprecedented, not just in our lifetimes, but in human history? - Yeah, you know, it's a great question and to get to the point where people can be comfortable

or to understand what's happening, we really have to have honest conversations that haven't been had with the American people about what that future looks like, what it means to them.

Mark, I'll share a quick story with you. This happened years ago and it's happening Colorado and it's perfect because it involves beer, so a perfect Colorado story involving beer. There was an autonomous delivery,

the first ever commercial delivery through an autonomous vehicle, truck, from Denver to Colorado Springs, delivering beer. First of its kind, and I live in a small town in Colorado out of the Eastern Plains, a lot of truck drivers live in that town

and one of my friends I've known forever came up to be truck driver said, "Hey Cory, did you see that article about that autonomous truck delivery of beer?" And I said, "Yeah, wasn't it great?" And he said, "Well, yeah, but what's gonna happen to me?"

And you know, I've thought about that ever since that moment happened of what's going to happen to me. So for people to understand the table stakes, for people to understand the geopolitical dimensions to be, for people to understand what happens if China wins

and we lose, they have to get past the, what's going to happen to them part?

It's so critical to understand what it means

for them, what it means for their kids, what it means for their family, their brothers and sisters that are affected by this. So that's part of the conversation that I don't think has gotten enough attention so far.

- I told you, Gary, and it's hard to have the conversation 'cause it's kind of like healthcare on steroids. It's so complicated, there's no, there's no simple story. Healthcare is about Medicare, Medicaid, VA, private health insurance, drug costs, everything, this is 10 times more complicated

because it's everything in life. People say the digital age and the internet, oh, it's everything in life. Again, this torfs that for our leisure, our work, our family, our healthcare, our jobs,

it's everything. So who can lead that conversation? I'll tell you who can't lead it. Our current president, not just 'cause he's polarizing and not just 'cause he doesn't fully understand it,

but he's too busy. This is like, this is kind of being our classroom, it's got to be in our workplaces. Who can lead this? Is it CEOs, is it union leaders?

Who can lead this conversation? - Well, that's a tricky thing, right? Because I mean, do you really try out a leader of one of the AI companies as they tell you how great it's going to be for you?

- Yeah.

“- Do you try out somebody who's leading a meta or apple?”

- Yeah. - And say, "Hey, I'm a billionaire and I know I've made money." - Trust me, trust me. So I mean, that's a real question. So, you know, years ago, Henry Kissinger wrote a piece

in the Atlantic, and it was about how government, and this is again, 2017, maybe so almost 10 years ago, right around that timeframe, about how the government wasn't prepared to have these conversations. They weren't from an ethical standpoint,

from a workforce standpoint, from a sheer humanity standpoint. Well, here we are. They followed up, I think years before a year or so before he passed away, Eric Schmidt, and he teamed up for another sort of redo of that article.

But I don't think that component of what he had identified a decade ago has ever been addressed. So who is it that has a conversation? It's going to have to be political leaders, whether we like it or not, they're going to do it.

They have to be part of it, but it does have to be finding that trusted voice in our communities. It's going out and expressing to leaders on mainstream, not Wall Street, what it means for that business, that local jewelry store, what it means for that local bank,

not Wells Fargo, but the bank of downtown, not the big Wall Street types. It's going to be the local mayors and the commissioners who are having these conversations. And so yes, it's schools, but we're nowhere near that

because they don't understand it either.

“And I think that's part of what we at NCAA have been trying”

to do is to build an agenda to have those conversations and to make sure that people have the policy tools they need so that we don't fall behind our competitors around the globe and that we can bring the people around us along with us as we advance.

- It's so hard to make this concrete for people for a variety of reasons. And you and I are talking about it at this abstract level. Here's my metaphor that I came up with the other day.

Imagine a 1 million Martians invaded the United States

and just landed all over the United States and they're super smart. And some of them want to help us grow food better and more entertainment options, all the stuff. And have them want to kill us.

And we don't know which is which and the people who control the Martians,

Every 15 minutes, they're way smarter.

Both the evil ones and the good ones. And we're trying like in a sci-fi film, we have to fight the Martians.

“We have to figure out which ones are going to kill us”

and which ones are going to help us. Because they don't tell us. That's what this is like. And part of why it's so hard to talk about is imagine that situation.

When you walk outside your home, and there's two Martians out there. It's moving too fast. It's too discombobulating. - Well, what's interesting too.

I had a conversation with one of the leaders of the AI industry. And the conversation went to robots and it went to how in the future people have these robots, the robots will be great because they'll be doing the work for you.

And they can print them out, least them out at night. They'll go build roads, build housing. So we'll solve affordable housing. We'll solve the highway problem. We'll solve all these problems.

But again, you're right, the basic conversation of what happens to me still hasn't been held. So we have to win this fight. We will progress in AI. But we can't just leave part of this,

“the huge part of this out of the equation.”

And that's the people who are going to be all around us in our communities in this country, making this work. We can't leave them behind it and not understanding what it means to them like that truck driver's day.

I joke before that if the Chinese win, our grandkids will speak Mandarin. But really, what will happen? Pay to vivid picture if our AI companies aren't able to flourish. If we foolishly overregulate them,

or if the Chinese do what they've done on electric vehicles, everywhere in the world, but the United States, that they're in danger of letting them come here, what happens? What does that mean?

We lose to China and the AI and its devastating. Yeah, it means the entire streams of commerce no longer flow through the United States. They go through China. That's an economic impact, right?

It's devices. It's innovation. All of that goes to China. All the benefit, all the jobs, all that. That's a national security risk

because all that information that they contain goes right through to China. Your email is the most sensitive documents the government has goes right through China at that point, or across a device that poses a risk

through that challenge. It means that people around the globe are beholden to the whims of Chinese governance and their values, not how we're values. What are their values?

Close systems for thumb on the scale, bad on human rights, you name it, that we lose out they win and the globe suffers as a result. So that's the scale that we're talking about. And it's not just us, it's Europe, it's South America.

Nations around the globe that are going to have a choice. Do they go down this path or that path? And we have to make sure that we are leading so that our values prevail and it's not just a value as a human rights, it's a value as it relates to

how we're putting together a licensing system for usage, how we're putting together safeguards and making sure that we have the right permissions in place to protect them and the people and the freedom that goes with it.

“Do you think China's interested in permissionless innovation?”

Absolutely not. Are we interested in that? Absolutely yes. So permissionless innovation that has allowed technology to flourish goes away if we don't get this right.

I want to talk about politics a little bit,

but really I always think say this,

politics is a prism to understand America. How many states does Colorado border? Oh gosh, yeah, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah. Yeah, all those with one or two exceptions are red states.

And they're not just kind of red states, they're there, they're Ruby red states. Colorado used to be a red state, then it was one of the ultimate purple states. And now it has become during the Trump era,

just a purely blue state. Everybody almost everybody elected as a statewide and the legislature's all Democrats. How did that happen? I forgot Arizona too, by the way.

Yeah, look, if you go back to 2002, I think every statewide office in Colorado was held by Republican had majorities that were in the state legislature that were Republican.

By 2004, that started to change by time, I got elected to the Senate in 2014.

I was the first Republican Senator to be elected.

Let me refer to this. I was the first Republican Senator in 2014. In 2014, I was the first Republican Senator in 10 years. It's been now 12 years since that election took place. So 24 years on the only statewide elected

federal official Republican out of Colorado. So what happened in 2002 accelerated, accelerated with President Trump as people from California and New England states moved in and as Republicans weren't carrying an agenda

or a policy formula that appealed to the people of Colorado? Well, but why? Because when I think about people leaving California,

People who leave are normally the conservatives looking for a state with more freedom. What are the people of Colorado, not a reacting to regarding President Trump's agenda that others bordering states do?

Yeah, well, it's interesting. They don't like lower taxes, they don't like less government. What is it? Yeah, and I don't know if it's actually,

if you can say that this is President Trump,

“I think certainly the state has voted against President Trump.”

And, but if you go back to the election,

it's first election in 2016,

he actually did better than Mittensney or John McCain. He went there the final weekend of the campaign to try to win it. So it's only gotten worse since then, for 2020, of course, that changed dramatically.

And so that period, the people of Colorado rejecting a lot of the policies that the president was putting forward the time. But one of the differences between, say, Florida and a Colorado, it's interesting, people made sort of,

and I have this conversation with a couple members of Congress from Florida, Texas about this. People made a ideological choice most likely to move to Florida. They didn't like what was happening in their state.

So I individually, ideologically, I'm going to move somewhere where I grew with more. When Colorado started to see this change in the early 2000s, the late 1990s, it was less individuals and more people moving with their jobs.

So they didn't make an ideological leap of why they were leaving a California or New York to come to Colorado.

“It was more, look, I'm getting moved with 2000 of my colleagues”

to Colorado, I guess I'll go because I need to keep my job. And so there was less of an ideological reason, perhaps, at that time, that there may have been another state that we've seen like Florida or Texas. - All right, three rapid fire questions.

You can give short answers to all these. Why do people, not the other answers were too long, just as a rapid fire ran? Why do people like Marka Rubio so much? - Well, look, I think Marka Rubio is inspiring.

He's aspirational. Yeah, I was the first Senator to endorse Marka Rubio when he ran in 2016. And I saw his work uphand, I think that continues today. And people see that, they know that, and they're drawn to it.

- Okay. Why did so many Republican elites have come to soldiers

like JD Vance and right comms about how they'll never vote

for him and they'll vote for Democrats. Why did so many Republican conservative thinkers not no longer like JD Vance? - Yeah, I think JD approaches things with a different orthodoxy, right?

And I think that's hard for some to take. And they haven't either agree with it. They don't agree with it, they might not agree with it. But they haven't taken the time to actually get into it with them, they just have a sort of natural objection

to it based on just the orthodoxy.

“I think that's what we're seeing with a lot of things”

that are happening right now. - Right. All the Democrats talked about his potential presidential candidates. Who's the most formidable general election candidate and why?

- The Democrat candidates, if you could find somebody like a Josh Shapiro or even an Andy Bashir, I wouldn't think that they would be very formidable. Now whether they can get through the process, coming from where they are, I don't know.

But I would think that a governor would sit well. Somebody who has had that prior leadership and somebody who seems to be able to appeal to left, right and center at the same time. - All right, ladies and gentlemen,

I hope you understand now why so many people like Cory Gardner, even more than I like Mark Arrubio in some cases, former Senator from Colorado and again, President of the National cable

and telecommunications association. Center great to see you and the board continue to talk to you about AI because anyone who's got the slightest access to the National Town Square must help lead this conversation

because we're falling so far behind the ability of the citizenry to participate in what is I continue to say,

the most important conversation America

ever has had or needs to have. - Absolutely, but it's great to be with you. Thanks for having me and look forward to our next conversation. - Okay, thank you, Senator. All right, we're gonna take a quick break

and when we come back, I'm gonna take a look at an expiry exchange that happened over the weekend on cable TV and what responsibility the media has to question authority. Questioning authority is next up.

(upbeat music) Okay, right now, think about the last 30 bucks that you spent. Maybe it was on a streaming subscription, you don't even watch or a lunch you've already forgotten. That's 30 bucks and it's gone forever.

Acre Gold, they let you turn that loss money into something that are physical, 24 karat, swiss gold. You simply pick a plan, your balance builds up and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your door.

Real Gold in your hand at your house and over time, you're now sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And hey, for you collectors out there, they just dropped the limited edition Hot Wheels collection.

These are super cool, officially licensed by Mattel. They're strictly Captain once they're gone. They're done, they're history.

to something else, the free club sweepstakes.

They're giving away a 1 gram Hot Wheels Gold bar plus, a massive grand prize, the 10 gram, 24 karat Gold Hot Wheels bar. Both of these special objects come in official collector packaging and they're up for grabs right now. So start stacking for just $30 at getacregold.com/mark.

Again, go check it out, that's getacregold.com/mark. Go and subscribe today. (upbeat music) - Save, because people didn't get the vaccine.

“That's why I'm not saying that it entirely--”

- You are saying nonsense. - You are saying something that you cannot show me. - Okay. - A single stamp. - I am not saying nonsense. - I am talking what somebody told you.

- Excuse me. - And you-- - Let me show you what study-- - What study? - What study?

- No, what studies are you talking about?

You're talking about studies that actually don't exist. I want to talk about-- - I am talking about it. - I am not talking about it. - I am not talking about it.

- I am not talking about it. - I am not talking about it. - All right, next up, that wild exchange on CNN on Sunday between Health and Human Service Secretary of Bobby Kennedy and Dana Bash still being talked

about in political and media circles. A very heated debate where they covered a lot of ground mostly about the past regarding COVID. And then some about the present future, about the connection between vaccines and autism,

what should be done in the event of another pandemic. We went through the transcript really carefully. We can fact-check the whole thing. And she was right down to Bash to CNN and was right about some stuff.

Bobby Kennedy was right about others. She'll be unsurprised to hear. In some cases, it was ambiguous. But there's a couple of things I want to say about it.

First of all, the, it's a horror of live TV,

of live interviews, that you can't fact-check perfectly. But there's a need to try. There's need to try to prepare for an interview to be ready to fact-check. And in this case, again, Dana push back sometimes,

as I said, some of the facts more favor her point of view, sometimes others. A lot of people on the right cheered, and this was one of those she's your own adventures. People on the right, and people and said,

toward a force Kennedy owned or slayed or whatever slammed or whatever he wanted to say. And then people on the left, and their allies in the media, said, "Oh, no, he was lying in horrible "and she did a great job holding his feet to the fire."

OK? As I said, if you want, I'm not going to spend the time going through all the fact-checks, because it's ambiguous. Each of them made arguments that were accurate.

“What's important, though, I think, for the media.”

And this applies more broadly than just this one interview, is the point Kennedy made about trusting the science, trusting the traditional medical organizations, the traditional belief in the reports, and this all flows out of Dr. Fauci.

The press trusted Dr. Fauci during COVID, and as we now know from the Diaries, and as we now know from Senator Paul and others, and Senator Ken and Secretary Kennedy, it was wrong to just say, "Everything Dr. Fauci said is right.

"Everything about distancing, everything about mass, "everything about the origin of the virus. "It was wrong. "It was wrong to just take him on faith." And it's difficult for the public and for people in the media

to know, in every case, what should you believe, because we're not experts, right? And a database can read 100 studies. She's not a scientist, which Secretary Kennedy pointed out to her many times.

But I think what's important in this age of skepticism, what's important in this age of mistrust of the press, is to not just blindly believe somebody like Tony Fauci, or someone like the AMA, you cannot just trust them,

not just because they might be wrong, but because that's not the mood of the public right now. The mood of the public is to question authority. Here's another part of the exchange between Secretary Kennedy and Dana Bash of CNN.

- Out there in science, and it's like a different, you're so are you like a parrot? So they actually read the science. Let's, you don't wanna hear and debate this. - I'm not debating this, please.

- Of course you are.

“- No, because I'm not saying you have to.”

- Is repeat things that people told you and say trust the experts, that's what you're turning COVID. Now we know that Anthony Fauci, who was the expert, was lying about everything, about mass, about the social distancing, about natural immunity,

about the transmission from the vaccine, about the source of COVID. He was lying, and you were punishing people for not trusting the experts. And now you're rolling out the experts again.

It's all about something that you have no personal knowledge of. - Okay, well, guess what? That is my job to talk to people. - You're job is something. - Most of the people in the media

don't do nuance, ladies and gentlemen,

Bobby Kennedy's wrong about a lot of stuff,

and Bobby Kennedy misrepresent some of the science, and he is not a perfect messenger for the message he delivered there. But the message he delivered there,

“despite his flaws, is super important to the media.”

You cannot just parrot the experts. We paraded the experts during COVID and look what happened. The impressed treated Dr. Fauci, like he was a sage, like he was a Catholic oracle,

and look what happened. So even if you think Bobby Kennedy is the most untrustworthy person ever to serve in government, listen to that message. I say that's a public and I say that to my colleagues

in the press. Do not just quote unquote trust the experts. Do not just parrot back what you hear. In the age in which we live with AI research and multiple experts at media platforms across the spectrum,

we have to search for the facts, the truth, particularly in something a serious public health. But it is no longer the mood of the country or the right thing to do to simply say,

"Well, Dr. Fauci's always right, so he must be right now." That led us to all sorts of problems during COVID. And again, that's another new ideology. It's got to do with a bunch of people wearing cloth masks

around their underneath their noses and thinking that that was doing anything. We have to move to an age where truth is divine and matters and we don't just simply quote unquote trust the experts. All right, quick break now.

And next up, a Justin Murray from the Media Research Center, Justin Murray is next up. I said this before you hear me say it again, if you're 64-year-old or this is the exact advice I'd give a friend or a family member before you sign anything

with Medicare, get a second set of eyes on it.

“That's why when somebody calls with all the confidence”

the world and stacks you into policy after policy, dental, cancer, heart attack stroke, one umbrella plan after another.

And half of it, you never needing it in the first place.

Chapter had a client like that recently. He'd already been sold a whole stack of extra coverage on top of his Medicare plan. His chapter advisor looked at what he actually had and told him plainly, most of it was redundant.

Didn't need it. He was already covered. That's the kind of call you want before you sign something. Not after. That's the thing about chapter.

They're independent Medicare advisors, the only ones who compare every plan from every carrier all across the country. Chapter folks, they're not paid to push one plan over another. Or to sell you coverage, you don't need.

You get a real person on the phone for free walking you through everything in under 20 minutes. There's no pressure, no pitch. It's who you need to call. So give my friends a chapter, a call,

before you enroll in anything. You can reach them at 262, 454, 0503. Again, let my friends in chapter help you get it right the very first time. Call them 262, 454, 0503.

[MUSIC PLAYING] Next up, and joining me now, Justin and Brooke Murray, she works at the Media Research Center. And she keeps tabs like any good journalist on pretty much everything going on in politics and media.

Justin, welcome. Thank you for being here. I appreciate you having me on. What would you say are the reasons that Democratic Socialists and those aligned

“with them on the far left of the party are doing so well?”

First, I would like to call it an oxymoron, Democratic Socialism. It contradicts itself because it's not democratic. You've got Gustavo Gradillo. He's the leader of the New York City chapter.

He went on Fox News and said, well, the name of Joe Marker C, we want to get rid of the Senate. We want to get rid of presidential elections. But back to your question, I believe that part of it has to do with the media gaslighting us for years.

They gaslit us to accept their rewritten definition of democracy, which essentially means your rights are free gifts from the government. And to speak on it from people my age, Gen Z,

we've never experienced the broad lines.

We've never experienced socialism. 75% of young people in New York, they all voted for Mam'Dani and the word that they used to describe him while they voted for him was because they liked his vibes.

OK, all good analysis. But why are they rising now and winning primaries within the Democratic Party? Is it about young people being dissolution with the economy?

What is it that they're appealing to that's allowing them to be as better funded and more establishment candidates? Well, that's part of it, right? You always hear the word affordability.

And young people are basically being taken advantage of. And this has been throughout history, throughout world history. It's always the young people who are preyed upon their fears. They're bitter about the feel like society

has somehow wronged them. It's difficult to own a home. It's difficult to get out of your parent's basement.

And of course, the socialists, the free stuff guys,

“they know what they're doing when they target young people.”

But I would say there's another faction of it to the point where you had these so-called moderates of yesterday year. I don't think moderate Democrats exist anymore. I believe the reason it's actually a mainstream position

in the Democrat Party, I call it Islamal Communism. It's not even socialism. It's because those old school Democrats they bent the need too many times. They are fused to put a stop to these young, hip

socialists in their party. They believed in the big tent. But then this radical faction, which is not radical anymore, their mission, their motto, is let's insert socialism and then communism quote by any means necessary.

So you can't have a big tent with people who believe, well, let's get rid of everyone by any means necessary who disagrees with us. So God forbid, if you refuse to fall in line with the communism and your a Democrat, they will kick you out.

They will surround you in mobs like they did to Scott Wiener. - I tell all my friends on the left, stop just being angry at Donald Trump won the election.

“Stop denouncing maga as the only way you think about this.”

And try to figure out why President Trump was able to win. Why so many candidates aligned with President Trump have won general elections? What will you say if let's say Troy Jackson, beat Susan Collins in the main center race?

What lessons will you learn from that? Because, meanwhile, it's a blue state, it's got purple tendencies. It does have a congressional district that Donald Trump is won. What would you, what will your lessons be if Troy Jackson, who's aligned with a very far left position,

is able to win that race? - For people on the right, for people who and moderates centers, who are trying to reverse that they shift towards socialism, yet you have to be honest about what these socialists are.

No longer don't call them democratic socialists, because they're not democratic. And even outlets who are skeptical of these socialists, even outlets who are calling this out, they still like to use their phrasing.

They're still afraid of being politically incorrect. And I believe part of the reason another reason why this is mainstream is because even people who weren't Democrats back then,

who were never Democrats, people who were in the center

during times like BLM, during the riots, when cancel culture hits peak, people were too afraid to say anything, to put a stop to it, because we let this self-appointed army of freaks. They're the lowest common denominator in our society.

We let them take charge of the overton window of thought, where God forbid, you're afraid of losing your job if you dare to offend them. So don't say anything at all until it's too late. - Is that the reason that Troy Jackson would be able to win

that they're not scrutinized enough? Is that the explanation or is there some appeal that main voters could support? Because right now in the polls, he's pretty even with Susan Collins,

based on my reporting, it seems like he could win. So again, I'd say, what lessons will you draw about the mood of America? If someone like that who's got positions that are pretty far into the left,

“is they able to beat an incumbent Republican senator?”

- Yeah, I mean, I believe what I said. I believe part of it is that the overton window of thought has shifted so far. But I would say that once again, it does show how easily, particularly young people

are easily skewed. Our our feelings of resentment, of class resentment, are preyed upon by those who, they promise that Utopia, they promise free stuff. And it's the young generation

who's never experienced the socialism.

I would also say part of it is, we've imported parts of the third world. So I understand that Michigan has a race today. And you can tell they're constituency, Abdul Osayed, he's reaching out to an entire seventh century

of constituents. So we have this now imported foreign population. That's part of it. They're not representing American interests anymore. - Who do you mean when you say they're not representing

American interests? - Well, some of these candidates, and of course they're media backers, they're media cheerleaders. But Abdul Osayed, in a leaked audio, he didn't want to talk about the death of the Ayatollah

because he said, well, some of my constituency, the people he represents were mourning. Were mourning the Ayatollah's death. Because they're all from that end of the world. They're all from the Middle East.

They're all from the seventh century. And they believe in the ideology that there should be death to America. Yet, we've imported them in under the Biden regime

We've imported them in and they're still here.

“- I want to ask about two things showing the media this week”

that pretty sure you'll be familiar with. One, on this week with George Stephanopoulos, they did a roundtable conversation about largely round President Trump moderated by George Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic operative.

Two Republicans who were hostile to President Trump and criticize him throughout the roundtable and then two Democrats. You, for your former booker, how does something like that happen?

How does ABC book a roundtable like that where there's no representation of explaining the president's point of view, even with two Republicans on the panel? - It reminds me how they book the view

or how they have Republican guests on the view.

And they're never really Republicans

or maybe they were, but they're more interested in being on TV. It kind of reminds me of wireless affair is on the view, but ABC, they do this. Where they don't really want to represent all sides.

They don't want to represent those who support President Trump and they still want to put up this Republican so-called Republican ideal of yesterday year. Maybe a Mitt Romney type Republican. They're accepted Republican, maybe a token Republican

because they want to keep those who support President Trump. They want to keep them as this fringe, this fringe radical faction. They don't want Americans to know, even though it's pretty evident

that most people on the right do support President Trump.

“Of course, that's why he's here, that's why he's in office.”

But God forbid you have any representation, true representation of how the Republican party is right now. No, that will hurt their narrative. - People in my world, and I'm sure you're still talking about the weekend interview between Dana Bash of CNN

and Secretary HHS, Bobby Kennedy. What were your takeaways from that? It was feisty, and they made accusations against each other. But in terms of the bigger picture of what that means for a current state of media,

what were your takeaways from that exchange? - The way the media has been essentially treating Fauci like a poor innocent dog being wrongfully put down which did happen under Fauci. It kind of reminds me of how defensive they got

when they were caught covering up for President Biden, being incoherent and aging and falling down the steps because God forbid if the public knows that Fauci messed up, Fauci lied, Fauci was in the wrong and contradicted himself many times.

The public will also realize that the media all these years covered up for him. And they fear mongered on his behalf to the point where her colleague, Dana Bash's colleague, Jake Tapper, he was mentioned in Fauci's little diaries.

In fact, right after Fauci told the rest of America, we shouldn't be celebrating Thanksgiving. We weren't allowed to celebrate Thanksgiving. He had dinner with Tapper. And he writes that, he admits that in his book.

And you won't see CNN even mentioned that. Even though CNN actually surprisingly did mention the diaries, they didn't mention that their own colleague was written right there. So I would say that's pretty evident.

“- Yeah, just where can people read and see your work?”

- Certainly, you can head to newsbusters.org. You can also check us out at MRC video on X at Media Research Center on Instagram. And I'll do a little self-plug. I am very outspoken on X.

I am justeen under score, Brooke, be our okay. - Okay, Justin, thank you so much. grateful to have you here. - It was great seeing you. - Appreciate it, take care.

That's it for today. Back on Thursday with the brand new episode.

As always, please let your friends know about the program.

Recommended to them and subscribe to next up on our YouTube channel, or wherever you get your podcast. So you always know what's coming next up. (upbeat music)