Bill Kristol: Keep Up the Pressure, Dems

A few years ago, the customer and the specialised object of the project are used. My role is "Shoppy-Fi" because "Shoppy-Fi" is the other platform I tested with, with the famous friends. I've been waiting for all the questions. All tools that are important for the development of the company are, to find out from the store, find out directly at the dashboard.

Now, your cost is at www.Shoppy-Fi.com. Hello and welcome to the Bullwark Daily. I'm your host Tim Miller. It is Monday, so of course we have editor-up large Bill Crystal. Hey, Bill.

Hey, Tim, how are you? I'm doing well. I've got some announcements for people real quick. Take us to the live shows, ACC Country, our on sale. Bill is going to be with us in Atlanta.

We're going to do Atlanta stuff while we're there. So get your tickets now.

“We have, I think, a really exciting guest.”

I want to jinx it coming in Charlotte. Not the bill's not exciting for Atlanta, he is. I can take it. I can take it. I'm not offended.

It's just, I'm happy to be. I'm happy to be.

Second banana is me, you know?

I think people will be excited about the Charlotte guests. And I'm playing on getting a little loose. I got one of my buddies coming in Columbia. So what are any of the shows will be a win? Get your tickets to the Bullwark.com/events.

Last week, Bill and I discussed that the Labor Day pod be a retrospective on 1996. And then also kind of a look ahead. Did this midterm sort of a wave year special episode?

“We heard a lot of feedback to people want that.”

So I'm getting my Harriet Meyer's stories ready. Bill's refreshing is memory of that 1994. I got this T-shirt brought to me. My former pod co-host Cameron Kasky brought this to me. This is an Operation Desert Storm T-shirt, so that was a freedom and justice for all,

so we're kind of getting in the 90s spirit for Bill. Thank you, Sam. I'm pleased you didn't have a World War II shirt for me. World War One, you know, a Spanish American one. Operation Desert Storm, the good old days.

Anyway, so that's all coming up. Today's show, you know, the world is so strange. I guess we're going to start with war. We're going to do some Operation Desert Storm references. We'll start with the war being back on Ish and Iran.

There was an exchange of fire in the state of Hormuz yesterday.

First, the US forces struck Iranian launchers on the Lark Island.

The rockets were allegedly according to Central Command set to disperse sea mines into the straight. Now, that is interesting, because the administration was bragging to Axis, just like 36 hours prior to that, that the seas were open, the seas were open, and you know the seas are open when you've got to bomb the launchers that have the sea mines on them.

That's a great sign that seas are open in insurance companies. Love that hours later, Iran retaliated by firing a few missiles towards Jordan, all of which were intercepted. We are kind of running out of interceptors, so partial good news there. That is the state of play.

Meanwhile, there's also a leak with some warnings from top generals, military leaders, advising heights out to prolonging large-scale operations that Iran's unsustainable at risk, tweaking their ability to confront threats everywhere. There are too many troops there, 50,000. The warnings came from the head of the Army Navy and Air Force, and Force Dark Commanders

overseeing US operations in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. That was quite the leak to the Washington Post, so that's the state of play. Honestly, it's good that some of the military are someone in the Defense Department. I suppose, or maybe elsewhere in the government that actually had to cancel our revealing certain things to us since the military, the defense department has been utterly unrevealing

about anything that's happened very struck by this recent report. I people who were in the military are getting more and more alarmed and also outraged what's happened to our bases there, for example, something we've discussed before, and that agreed to which the damage that was done to huge US hubs by Iranian drones, disabling

“them, and we know that's why the sailors on the US, us like and couldn't get the provisions”

and all that. Yes, it's a huge, it's a big, I think maybe a big example of base anywhere, certainly in the broader, anywhere in the region, certainly.

And the idea that it just gets put out a commission basically, and then, of course, we're

not told about it, and they sort of mislead everyone about it. Oh, we're throwing it, we're winning, it's a slaughter of the Iranians, and anyway, yeah, it's bad. And just on this, this was a Captain John Court of Retired Captain, like wrote about this in military times, but you know, it's basically saying that the more we learn about the attacks on the NSA,

the Naval Support Basin and Bahrain during the opening days of Operation Epic Fury, the clear becomes why the news of its near destruction was not initially reported or acknowledged

So the bases, more damage than acknowledged, casualties, at least the injuries, the number

of injured troops, more than they were initially acknowledging. You know, some of this any time in war, like there's some element of this, like you don't

“want to, you know, signal like, hey, we're really fucked in Bahrain, right?”

Like there's some strategic reasons to not do this, but this feels like more than that, especially when you listen to ex military people, as far as the degree to which they've been hiding the ball. And you put it on top of the line about the straightest open and we're winning, and they're decimated, they have no capacity left to use anything to do anything anywhere, and then

suddenly they're launching missiles at Jordan, you know, again, and it is true, like the blockade of the Iranian chips does seem to be having some impact if you look at reports on the Iranian economy.

So that is not holy made up, like there's something to that, and who knows, like pressure

that could end up putting on that, and like ships haven't been being able to get through the straight and foremost recently, but it's just not anywhere near the pre-war rate. And, you know, again, we're not anywhere near any sort of actual, sustainable deal, obviously. Based on the missile firing over the weekend. Yeah, and based on just the fact that everyone in the Middle East and around the world,

as we can see from different reports is adjusting to this new reality where we were unable to impose our well on Iran, unable to keep the straight open, unable to keep it open, going forward without some degree of bowing to Iranian demands and pressure, the nuclear program is whatever it was, it hasn't changed, you know, I mean, there is not suddenly the Iran is not harming to the table to assure us that they're giving up their nuclear weapons

from stop to end, you know, so it's a failed war, and failed wars have real consequences. The average gas price is still over four bucks, again, on two, so negative impacts here. On that Washington Post thing, more threats from the administration to crack down on the leakers, I was a serious, like across the board, you just continue to see assault on, you know, on free speech on efforts to communicate the truth about the administration, Trump

was threatening Kristen Walker, ridiculously, over the weekend, like we just continue to see like a lot of examples of this from the administration. Right. And then also hiring people there at the Defense Department, too. Well, we're going to get to those, okay.

Okay, okay. Okay. I keep track of all the fuggishness at DOD, it is terrible. I just want to, we'll come back to maybe hexath also since we all have such a low opinion of them, but having a thug running the Defense Department, I mean, is bad, really bad for

the country in so many ways and foreign policy in at home.

“I think it's really come home, hasn't it?”

I feel like I've always been, of course, critical of hexath, but as you have, but I feel

like it's really come home in the, well, of course, the war does that right. And then the last month or two or three, just across the board, how damaging and dangerous it is. Yeah. An incompetent thought, you've got that.

Yeah, not even, like, really a skilled one. Speaking of thuggishness, in foreign policy, the Venezuelan oil deal over the weekend, as total madness, I just want to read some physicists from the Wall Street Journal's report on this. The US government is going to take a direct financial stake in a private company, private

ish, that will, would be granted century long rights to some of the world's largest, proven oil resource in Venezuela and ties to the unelected government in Venezuela, the Delsea Rodriguez, you know, cool government that we put in, the US would take a 35% passive stake in this company is run by Alejandro Betoncourt, and we'd secure preferential rights to purchase 20% of its production at cost.

Betoncourt did face criminal investigations of alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland. So that's the guy that we're all going into business with, it's the US government. And the substance agreement is in direct conflict with Venezuela's constitution, the coup was also in, in violation of the constitution, and then private, like oil companies in America are going, what are we supposed to do now?

Like we're going to be competing against the government that is, you know, pilloring the foreign

“country and taking some of the oil at cost, why would we do that?”

What is this stability here, what happens when Trump's gone, what happens if Rodriguez is gone? And it's really a crazy deal to have the US, like the part of a state run, essentially oil company in Venezuela. I mean, I think the odds of anything real happening there are pretty low, I mean, you

know, this is, as you say, it's like, Trump's negotiating something that the next US government is not going to feel that it should be, go ahead with and the interim government of Venezuela is negotiating something, it's not democratically legitimate, or any, you know, approve by some of us kind of assembly there, anything real. So, but it's undercutting US companies, I don't think it's mostly, it's a PR stunt.

I mean, I have some effect, and I guess reassuring markets that this plenty of oil, so they shouldn't, none of that oil is healthy, they can come to the market for years.

down the oil reserves quite as much as we are or that they'll be filled up again into

the way three or four years with this oil for Venezuela, but it's a PR stunt, it's to make

“it look like everything's working out, remember that Venezuela one, that one went better”

than Iran, and I look, we've got a good deal on oil. I mean, a socialist PR stunt, I guess, yeah, I mean, part of it is, he's saying this going to help refill out the reserves that we've been draining, and I think that there is maybe like some kind of market bullying, like they were doing at the beginning of the Iran War, like a feeling like, oh, you know, there's going to be increased supply

into the market, and that puts downward pressure on the prices, but there's so many ways to criticize the insanity, I mean, we're doing imperialism again, you know, like it's the 1800s, and it's also like we're getting in business with a corrupt illegitimate, really Venezuelan socialist government, and like a corrupt favored businessman of the socialist government that did a legit crimes, you know, in Europe, it is just a completely unacceptable

way for us to do business, and I don't know, and I think that Trump, I guess, bets that it's like too complicated for people to get, and that the right wing that would be, you know, up in arms, if it was Barack Obama getting into business with a socialist government, you know, just batting correctly that they're not going to push back on it. >> I guess I also don't know how much people believe it.

I do feel like, don't you think the Iran War, I feel like it's gotten, it's been so bad. >> Yeah. >> So, there's so many lies, it's gone so badly, and the real world affects us so obviously bad, great, you can gas prices at home to the G.S. strategic complications in the Middle

“East and abroad, I think Trump's effort desperate efforts to kind of save it, or in this case,”

you know, to track to Venezuela, to see that one's working out well, I don't know, I feel like it's not going to work, actually. Do you think, politically, I mean, here at home? >> I mean, I don't know that it will actually work politically now. I do think that it is, like setting a dangerous precedent for us to be going back to this type of formality, right? I am for the future, assuming that there's a future Rubio or

Vance Administration, like this is like now an acceptable part of the toolkit, I think that's concerning, and I think that for Trump, in kind of more of an amorphous way, if he ever is able to get back on a positive foot politically to be able to like kind of position himself as like a deal maker, like what I did in Venezuela, like I got us all the oil, like I told you these

other guys were stupid, they took us to a war in Iraq, and they never got the oil, and I did it.

I think it probably doesn't work, but I think it's still pretty appalling and ground that's worth fighting over, of course. >> Oh, very much so. I think it's really damaging. I mean, I say this is someone who spent my college in grad school years, you know, arguing against all these Marxists or kind of quasi Marxists historians who were great critics of American imperialism was all based on economic interests, and there were cases, obviously, the 20s and 30s,

where that was very much the case, and some of it's still in the 50s and 60s united fruit and all that. We discussed that a few weeks ago, but it's all about rapacious, you know, corporations and governments and crot-ecapitalism and crux, basically getting rich off imperialism. Now, whatever one thinks of US foreign policy since then, I think we're pretty innocent of that. I mean, you know, obviously Iraq is stake in terrible cost and all that, but it wasn't for the sake of

states, you say, taking their war, I'll go ahead, go ahead, the contrary. We were so proud when they voted,

you know, in their first democratic election there with the purple fingers, when with that,

and all that in 2004 and five, what's happened is that all the democracy was supposed to be bringing to Venezuela. I haven't noticed an election being teed up there. I haven't-- >> I don't think we are, and Marco, and I don't think cares about that. >> Yeah, getting the American public to support doing things abroad, it's obviously costly,

“and not it anyone's immediate interests. You can't really prove that you have to do these things,”

getting other nations to support us, that does require having some sense that it's a good faith effort to improve the situation there, as well as improve our own strategic situation, obviously, and in that respect, Trump is just given it all that moral high ground away, and you could say, well, moral high ground, what's that worth, but it is worth something, actually both at home and abroad. >> I will say it, you can confirm whether or not this is in your words, but they're making

the Marxist professors that were criticizing it right, they're making them correct. Like their critique was correct, and again, there are long-term potential unintended consequences to that. It was something I was thinking about this morning, like the Venezuelan people, for a while, there is this fake nonsense where, you know, we were putting people on Gulag, because we were so concerned that there were Venezuelan gangs, Tvintarragua, invading the country,

and it's like, okay, but if we're that concerned about that, wouldn't this, potentially, you know, in sight, future hard feelings, or future desires to get back at the United States,

kind of just basically rape their country, of their resources, and take it, they're consequences to that.

There are sometimes, you know, not necessarily direct and predictable. We're just going to stick on the Department of War propaganda, as you mentioned. The next thing I had my nuts was Laura Lumer, and I'm just, I'm not ready to talk about her yet. I gotta keep get my dandruff a little bit more on Monday morning, then we'll get to Laura. So, as you mentioned, the Pentagon is, well, we'll summer actually credit to Will, our colleague, basically broke the

story, because there is like, if this drama, do you get a listen if you missed in me and we'll talk to him about this last week, but this is drama, you know, burst out into the public between a high mid-level political appointee in the government, and this Twitter person named data Republican, and they started attacking each other on social media, and through that, Carfuffle, it became revealed that data Republican is this like sock puppet anonymous online account.

There was always posting pro Trump stuff. It was actually on the payroll of the government,

of the Department of War, Department of Defense, Herzegz, or the Spangler. And then Will, you know, and others started kind of pull some strings to realize it's not just data Republican, there were a bunch of these, and the Washington Post report over the weekend kind of expanded on Will's report against, and has this, the Pentagon secretly installed several conservative military veterans with large online followings in government roles. Didn't disclose their assignments

as they amplified Hegsa's viewpoints and attacked those who scrutinized the Trump administration. By the way, among the people that they had them attacking, was Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, because of the internal fighting within the administration, a few of these Pentagon employees that were posing as independent whenever journalists, content creators, include Rob Bannis, a retired Colonel, and Kurt Schlichter, a longtime bulwark critic, who's also Hugh Hewitt's

substitute host on Salem Radio. So Bill, I, and this is pretty crazy. The Department of

“Defense using our taxpayer dollars to have secret propaganda that are meant to propaganda as us,”

not like the Iranian people. Doesn't this remind us of other places, other nations around the world, and other regimes, and other times using the civilians, using the military, as you propaganda is their own people. I mean, it's terrible, really, and that's something we've been pretty good. Again, it justifies all the critics, the past critics of America, you know, there's been, there have been instances of this a little bit, of course, in the past, and

and this shows how corrupt our whole system is, the achievement of building up a reasonably apolitical and unpopigantistic military, mostly over the last few decades is really an achievement, right? It's an important part of what it means to live in a free country and a liberal democracy. And again, this is just being tossed away. Also, these guys, I mean, I don't think that the Kurt Schlichter's of the world had any integrity before, but I shouldn't Salem Radio have to say

something about this. I mean, you, you, it's guest host was on the payroll of the government and not reviewing it, not telling anyone. And it's one thing to just be propagandizing for Trump just because you like it, or because you want attention. That's not great, but to be doing it and be financially benefiting from it with our money. My taxpayer, I was just going to pay for

“Kurt Schlichter's erectile dysfunction pills. I don't like that. And I do what I think that Salem”

would have to say something about it in town hall. It was kind of a horrifying image. You just put it about this in my mind. In my mind. So, Kurt Schlichter for people on earth and in the background has been long posted about people at the bullworks. Sorry, Bill Kusher's Dix. He is very big about attacking us as cooks in blah, blah, blah, blah, like Wimpy and like the Magna Man or the Real Man, which to me means you're overcompensating for something. And like now, he's been taking secret

taxpayer money. No, it is terrible. And again, if we had a Congress, it could look into this I suppose. And maybe they will, if they, if one of both houses change control and, in November, they could look into it. You know, there are this continued resolution is coming up and when the Senate gets back. And since we can have two weeks, I guess, they have to resolve the house incentive version. So, someone's going to have to vote for something to continue funding the federal

government. Yeah. Why are we funding this? I mean, shouldn't the Democrats say this is a tiny little

thing? It's only a few million dollars. But, you know, what? No funding for any of this. And also

no funding deals to say for all the horrible things. Houses doing a no funding for a bunch of other things. I would say, but I mean, I feel like people are sort of passively saying, well, I'm Trump on the elections. I guess we have to accept this, really. Thank you, Bill. Let's talk about that. Boy, it's Congress. We just want more to our friend Hugh Hewitt. I'm just waiting to hear

“about your statement, your position on your guest house, being a secret propaganda,”

instead of government. Because, I mean, I guess Hugh Hewitt's been a propagandaist for Trump for 10 years now. But I would think that this would cross some journalistic threshold over

for five weeks, the house. Great summer. I mean, you know, everybody needs a vacation. I took a vacation two weeks this year. I thought it was pretty generous, right? So, if you took a one week vacation, but you know, we're working the private sector. Congress has been off for five weeks. Again, they're taking our money as well, not just church-lector, and they're coming back to pass this budget that you mentioned. There's this continuing resolution to avoid a government

shutdown. And then their plan is to go back on vacation. I just don't know why the Democrats would not just absolutely do everything possible to, you know, put sticks in the gears of this

plan. Like these guys should not just be allowed to come here, like basically on the cover of

darkness pass a budget and then go back and hang out at Bedminster and go golfing again for a couple more weeks. And these are public servants. I don't maybe if they want to jam it through with all Republican votes on a party line vote, then make them do that. I guess, and maybe that will be what happens. I mean, I'd love to see, but in the Democrats, I'd be, you know, using every procedure possible on the House floor to raise the issues you just laid up. I'm right.

I mean, the fact that we're secretly funding mega propagandaists with our taxpayer dollars,

“the ice killings. What about the ballroom? What about the arc? What about the stupid war in Iran?”

I mean, no funding for any of this. I'm sorry. And using the ability they have in the two days or whatever it is that they're in DC, you would think that they should be going maximum pressure applied. Totally. They should scream bloody murder and they should oppose a German resolutions and all the different things they can do. They can more than you can do in the Senate and the House. I guess this idea is the House will pass the Senate. So you are this week

and get out of town and that's the, you just wait for them to do it. But yes, they should fight blood. I took a, I was on a call just the other day and it was, you know, I have to know a member. We really have to stop some of this stuff. You know, you can try to stop some of it now. Right, you may not succeed, but make put them on the spot. Let all these Republicans vote for this for propagandaizing for the defense department. We've been complaining about this for a couple

“weeks now. Have you heard any compelling pushback to this? Like to our point of view?”

I think the only argument, the political argument is they're doing the Americans are doing well in the midterm elections, risking a government shutdown, throws a, you know, a predictables,

spanner into the works and let's just let good enough be well enough be well enough. I've always said

and not not mess around to watch and let people go home and campaign and we're doing okay in these campaigns. A little bit of prevent defense. I would say two months. Yeah, I'm not compelled by that. I'm not, I'm not compelled by that. Let's talk about the state of play and assess that. There's a poll that you flagged from a U.S. AMhurst. Just over one fifth, 21% of Trump voters now express second thoughts about their vote one in six, 16%, now say they would change their

2024 vote if given the opportunity. I'm always kind of a little bit skeptical of these kinds of polls and like they're a little bit self-selecting, but even if it's half that, right? That's still a pretty meaningful number and it's meaningful in particular. And this is why I'm not keen on prevent defense because the places that they need to win are places Trump won by 11, 12, 13%. Like that's the difference between having a good year and having a 1994 year, which we get to

next week, right? As I can you win in these places that are that Trump won by 12, 13% both in the house and most importantly, they'll in the Senate, Iowa, Ohio, Alaska, Texas, maybe Kansas, name whatever floor to Mississippi, whatever. Can you win in enough of those places to make it real

wave? And you know that humorous amorous poll, basically, says like that's in play, but it's not there.

Yeah, totally. I exact same reaction to it when I saw it last night, you know, because bargain for this morning, but now it's out. So yeah, I'm that 16%, maybe high, but let's just do a little very elementary math. I mean, the states you were talking about is the Trump plus 11, plus 12 states, the Democrats need to win to win the Senate, Iowa, Alaska, Ohio, Texas, and then Kansas, which actually Trump's margin in Kansas was a little was the same as in Iowa. I know why

people don't put Kansas this morning, the first tier, but anyway, and Florida, for that matter,

“point worse, those are states with Trump got, I think in almost every case, right around 55%, 55,”

56, right, in those states. So let's do the math. Let's say 16% of the Trump voters are wouldn't vote from this time. Let's say it's 10% as you're saying. 10% of 55 is 5.5, so that takes you down to 49, 50% for Trump. Now, it's a little complicated. Not all the will then vote for the Democrats, some of them would just stay home, so the Democrats doesn't go up to 50, quite even if Trump comes down, but it's in place. If Trump is approval or Trump, let's call it

the Trump vote today, if they were vote today, which is what they're trying to capture that

candidates in those states, whether it's Texas or Kansas or Iowa, et cetera, are our risk.

“And that's why that poll is, and I look at, instead of this poll simply confirms in a sense,”

other polling, too, it's not like it's a weird outlier that, you know, there's plenty of state-level polling that shows these races competitive, there's national polling that shows the generic Democratic edge around seven, eight, maybe a little more, if you get to the really likely voters. So it's consistent with these states being in play, and I agree, that's why you shouldn't play prevent defense, and it's why, and it is encouraging, though. I mean,

that's, I don't know, yes, you see, I'm a little dubious with these retrospective quote, you know, "Would you vote today for this and that?" It's a little too easy to say in the Senate vote isn't quite the same as the Trump vote, but the Trump car, you know, Wound Brown saying says this over and over. Susan causes the only Senator in the Trump era. Only Republican was one of the Senate race in a state where Trump was below 50% approval.

And so if you're knocking down Trump remains the most important thing, which again, as a reason

why the Democrats in Washington, they tell themselves this stupid story, we've got to get back to our district and campaign and back to our state. It's, we're such persuasive people. They're we show up in extra three days, and that state is going to make a difference. The thing that's looking to make the biggest difference is getting Trump's numbers down, and the way one way to do that is to expose what Trump is doing, and all of his failed policies.

Yeah, you really got my damn drop now, because, like, also, there is a reversion to the mean sometimes, too, at the end of these, right? Like, you can go either way, right? I guess this

“is what I think. Like, sometimes, as originally, there's data out there, says that, you know, Democrats”

for whatever reason have pulled better in the summer recently. Like, we could give all kinds

of theories on why that would be. But like, if you're specifically talking about these red states,

and like, these voters, if it's, if you're at that number, where Trump's at 49, right? Like, every vote matters, and a lot of those voters, if they're not being pounded with negative Trump information between now and November, the easy thing is to say, well, this stay. I don't know, the Democrats are pretty crazy. Like, I'm just going to, you know, the left is a little too crazy for me. I'm just going to, you know, stick with my guns this one more time, or I'm not going

to vote, right? Like, that is the easier thing for those people to do. So you really have to keep parallel to the metal on this stuff, and I think particularly around the war, you know, I just kind of not letting it get into the, or it's just like atmospheric noise, and nobody's talking about it anymore, except feels like nothing has changed. It's like, no, people's lives are still being negatively impacted. Like, the troops are still being, that are stuck there,

still being negatively impacted, right? The gas prices are fertilized, right? So I like, they got to

“keep driving this message. I agree. You should go to your district and do stuff, but like,”

they've had plenty of time. They're just fighting it out in the national narrative and continuing to put Trump on his back foot. And tariffs on top of that. I totally agree on that. I look like you could obviously in your pay to advertising it and what they say back in their states, the Democratic candidates, tailored to the states of tariffs is a bigger issue. And so these Midwestern states were the farm economies been covered by them very much for focusing on that.

The deportations, the ice stuff, and Ohio, I think, is a very good issue to beat up a state on who's been timid and hasn't really said much one way or the other at the District, what's got the go to tests, stuff that's happening in Springfield, Florida. The beginning to deport Venezuela, as I talked to a friend from Florida over the weekend, who had been unhappies, where we are in these issues, unhappy that his fellow Floridians were not very alarmed by the

immigration stuff. They didn't feel like it was happening, but there was that much happening there, went all the news, it was in Minneapolis, and then he'd be for that in other places that call a Californian elsewhere. But he said it's now hitting home. To get their numbers, to get Steven Miller's 2000 today, you got to go after Venezuela's in Florida. That's a big TPS, formerly TPS, formerly protected category, who've been now made illegal. And, you know, people

have farted, and I think it's a bad thing to have these Venezuelans working and living there and paying taxes and being law-abiding citizens and starting businesses and stuff. So you can localize the races to the degree that is appropriate in terms of issues. But yeah, you got to keep the national pressure on. I really agree with you on that. We have some breaking news since we've been taping, Trump has given them another issue that they can campaign on if they so choose. This

is a bleet from Trump this morning. The only reason the community throughout the USA should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards in tour. If they want to be successful and rich with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let the data rain. Wow. Okay. I've got some mixed views on the whole data center issue. It's more of a case-by-case issue for me. That said. Sometimes there's moments for good demagoguery. This might be one of

those with Democrats. And I just as a strategic matter, I've seen a lot of kind of wishy-washy kind of comments on this from Democrats. And like the numbers could not be clear. Trump is giving

there could not be a better opportunity for the Democrats right now if they took the mantle.

“Yeah. Well, you just read from Trump. Of course, it gives the Democrats the middle ground.”

This Trump is just for, you can't suppose any data center anywhere apparently, but you're saying it in that way. Let the data rain. So let the data rain. That should become a famous, you know, mission accomplished type phrase that Democrats can say, "Look, we're from biological progress and we're for appropriate, you know, blah, blah, blah, but we need to have to be regulated in local communities." And they can't take it away a middle

grad, which probably is the sensible place to be in terms of showering. And I do care what

them do in pitchforks. They can also do a little pitchforks. That's a, you know, a third pitchforks

to third-middle grad. But Trump's given them a huge opening, right, by this extreme position, which is silly. Now, like beyond the position of governor Abbott and Texas, this belongs to the position of Republicans elsewhere running for office. It's beyond the position we at least the professor, the stated position of the AI companies themselves, which are all, like we want to work with people in blah, blah, blah, you know, they know that that's a kind of

suicidal. Everything, we can build whatever we want in secrecy. At any scale, we want, you know, with no limitations like anything at all, people are not for that and they shouldn't be. Sheridan, I've do, like all of these guys, like, really should be out front on this, though,

“and going after them. And, and to me, another angle to this that I think is politically useful is,”

this is just another example of Trump selling out to the big tech oligarchs that people don't like. And so, like, regardless, if you don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the details of every data center, and which ones are good, which ones are bad, and which ones are terrible for the community,

and where it rules, we need, like, you can just go straight at it, like, Trump from his first,

you know, Trump got elected, saying that he was going to care about the forgotten man, and he's betrayed you, and he got in there, and his inauguration, the richest people in the world sat in the first row, and he brought the richest man in the world in the White House to, and now, he's doing the bidding of the richest people in the world that want to get even richer. By building these data centers, he doesn't care at all about what's happening in your communities,

and health concerns or environmental concerns or anything. He just wants these, you know, tech billionaires to like him. I think that's a pretty compelling message. And he's in there pocket, right? We're just going to make some weaker, you know, I mean, he's not, you know, he's kind of, he's there tool, you know, they they's a lot of muscles, jump and Trump says, how high, you know? Yeah. Well, Trump is pretty like, he can't get that high, but, you know,

I have to try to believe that I've been that ugly. I'd like to see Trump try to get off the ground with a little hop. Okay, that's a lot of number. Now that my data is up, I don't want to talk about the Michigan Center. It's, of course, it's going to use Laura Limer as a foil example for all the conversation around that, because Laura Limer is herself a pretty unsuccessful podcast or really, and she's a very successful influencer and operator. She does create content, but she's not

at the top of the ranking. She's not a Megan Kelly, Ben Shapiro. She's not one of these guys or women, but she uses her social media feeds to pressure the administration and to advise

the administration, and she does have very effectively. She's a basically successfully pushed out

Mike Waltz's, the National Security Advisor and a bunch of other people, Julia, currently we had on the show, got fired basically, because when Laura Limer campaign, you know, broken clock white twice a day, she did get mildly andapolis deported, it seems like, but that shows her influence. So, like, this is a very influential person that has the White House's ear that is pushing Republicans to hold the Senate. Here's some tweets for her just this weekend. This is about

Angie Nixon, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Florida. I called you a ghetto bitch, because you are Angie and your record proves it, but you speak ebonics, though, so maybe I need to bark at you and tug your leash, and then you'll finally understand. She wrote about Randy Fines speech. Randy Fines is the racist congressman from Florida. She wrote this. Tonight at the RJC, Randy Fines calling out mainstream Islam. Lots of cheers, time for the GOP to read the

room, speak up about the Islamic takeover of America, or lose the midterms. Islam has no place in America. I would love to have cameras pointed at every mosque in a preferably inside as well. Here's another one. When is Medi Hassan going to be denaturalized, Secretary Rubio, how can this Islamic invader be allowed to stay in our country? He should be deported immediately. So, this is a very influential person, and I don't understand why every Republican running

“for office doesn't have to answer for this type of racism. This was in Florida, right?”

And she ran, actually, herself, and that's accessible if I'm able to stay in congressional candidate for where we're going to Florida. Yeah, it shouldn't. At least, let's put the Florida incumbent senator who is, you know, nationally, Medi. Yeah, who inherited the seat, right? I mean, it's run for it up on the ball for the first time. Against Angie Nixon, who I would not have voted for in the primary, I would have voted for Vindman, but I think she could be a better candidate

but I think it's actually actually better for the other Florida Democrats than Medi Hassan just

“looking at it purely and she could kind of lift boats. I think by creating some turnout,”

I think she's been very skilled in her interviews. Yeah, I agree. Anyway, Moody, the senator seems like just trying to be sort of respectable and kind of low-key kind of a kiddie brick type, I guess, you know, so from better than most Trump people, but of course, I'm off to the airport. Put around the spot to she agree with this. I mean, to she agree with Laura Lumer and representative fine there, and I, yeah, I agree. So this is where again, going on the

offensive and not simply playing preventive fence important. Look, we've talked about this a bunch. I know you care about this. I care about rising anti-Semitism in the country. It's real. It's a problem. It should be called out. As bad as it's gotten, it's like hard to imagine a congressperson calling out mainstream Jews. Speak out, speak up about the Jewish takeover of America and lose the midterms. A democratic congressperson could not survive that. Like, like, and that's

what a Republican congressperson is saying. And, you know, Jews have no place in America. But I, like, you know, that is not the type of thing that you're hearing from even the concerning discourse on the far left. And, like, she's saying this, this honest no place in America, Medi should be deported. She's saying this with impunity right now. And it's fucking outrageous. Not, not to mention just the disgusting anti-Black racism against Angie, telling her to bark.

It's, it's just really disgusting. And, you know, in some of my friends, Jewish friends, my fellow Jews, you know, kind of a little tolerant of the Islamabad, you know, the hate Islam

stuff. But it's, but it's ultimately, of course, feeds into anti-Semitism. Once you legitimately

made it in one place, it's such a cliche to almost to say it first, they come for, you know, you, but it really is true. Once you legitimately, this kind of racism or attack on people for their religious beliefs or just their religious origins, I guess, you know, will say, right, where they're from, the legitimacy of elsewhere, then you can't say the other side shouldn't do it, then your own size starts to do it, incidentally, at the same time. And you're in the hands of

in a place. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, maybe people should notice that the rise of anti-Semitism is real. And what is it coincided with the rise of Donald Trump? It's not responsible for all of it. No, it's Trump himself, particularly that way, not so much on the Jews, because for various reasons. But, you know, once you have a climate of hatred, it spills over what all kinds of ways. And that's what I do think has happened, you know. Yeah. I'd be interested in my graduate's

taken on all these tweets. I wish somebody would ask them about it. While we're doing kind of the internal, temporary stuff and the various factions, I did want to mention the Massachusetts

“Senate primary. I think, are we finally done with these? Do you still have New Hampshire?”

We still have New Hampshire like Delaware. The New England, we haven't ever, some reason is really into September primaries. I think that you have just the only real one left. I think after this is Democratic. It's been a slog this year. I'm not, I'm not really looking forward to the next round, but okay, we'll see. I just want to mention the seven molten Ed Marky race. Well, I've some thoughts

in it, but why don't I give you the floor first? So, on bias was some a friend of Sass and of

normal long time. First met him in Iraq where he was as a lieutenant, one of portrayers is kind of special aids. And when I went over in '07, you know, they brought a few of us over there to see what the progress they were making on the search, stuff was that the dinner we had with portrayers. He was then he then pinned our son. When he went at the ring court in 2009. So, anyway, go way back with Sass. So, I'm totally biased. Get a little money to his campaign. He's behind in the polls.

Ed Marky's 80 years old. Ed Marky has been at Congress first the house and then for the bulk of that time. And then the Senate for 50 years. Ed Marky was elected to Congress before Seth Bowler was born. Now, if you think it's great to have it and he's been it undistinguished. I think we can say we safely say member of Congress for 50 years is how like there's like Ed Marky a giant of capital tail. So, there we are. And I don't know, did Democrats want to be in the business of

renomiting distinguished 80-year-old members of the senators? Or did they want to have someone

“in his, what, mid-late 40s who's been, he's not a great politician. That's why he made a”

beat marky out of state because he's actually an artist and thoughtful guy. He's not very good. It's a soundbites. It occasionally says things. It doesn't think through the maybe shouldn't say this on that issue. But he's an impressive person. It'd be very good for the Democratic Party to have in the Senate. I think it'd be good even in the campaign and it says that Matthew's going to be democratic either way, but it would help with the general sense that the Democrats are the

party of the future, and it's tele Rico, and it's molten, and it's terrific, and Iowa, and you know, and it's hells, I had fun with that. Yeah, and fine. Let's have some diversity. What do I could, I wish maybe hadn't been nominated, but whatever they are, and there, it puts the Biden thing even more behind them, actually, which I think is kind of important politically. Mostly, I think it would be a very good Senator, and he's behind in the polls, it's like these primary

polls are difficult. Obviously, Steven's behind by whatever, 13, 15, and came within one or two.

by this as a former campaign person. They're friends of mine, so I'm not criticizing them,

but they're, you know, our door knocking is going very well, and we're hearing really good. If the ground game is really excellent, and I don't know, I've been into many campaigns where the polls were bad. The ground game was good, and the polls are right, but it could matter, you know, I've recently loaded an out September 1st primary. If the molten voters are we're energized, that makes it different. So I don't think it's out of the question. The

“molten polls are an upset foreignite, and I think it'd be good for the Democratic Party if you did.”

And the polls have been back in both directions. Like, for example, that John Larson, who was an older house rep, was running against kind of a molten-ish Harvard mayor, younger guy, and the polls have that as a coin class, and the younger mayor looked brown and ended up killing them, like 20 points or something. And then, obviously, on the other side, you've seen you know, differences in the, in the mystery and race. So I go, we'll see how the polls turn out.

My point about this, I don't, I've been a friend of not knowing either. I mean, I've talked to Seth a couple of times, but I don't really, you know, have a personal bias in this race. I don't have anything particularly against that marquee. But like, he's 80 years old, and he's going to be 86 at the end of his term. People like to go, it's Massachusetts, safe, whatever. It's like, Scott Brown won a Massachusetts special election that cost the Democrats,

like the public option in Obamacare? I mean, literally. I got, if you care about that, like, the fact that, like, they had to have a special election and then Scott Brown won that surprising special election, and that meant that Joe Lieberman, or, you know, was the, was a swing vote then in the Senate, it took the public option out of Obamacare. That results by itself. In this day and age, it could be some way worse than that, right? Like a Republican could win

of Massachusetts government. Republican has been Massachusetts governor, like two minutes ago, Charlie Baker. And so, you know, you have 85 year old guy in there, and whatever it is, 20, 20, 30, I can, that midterm, you know, anything can happen. And it's also just kind of like, what, who is, is he really the Senate? You know what I mean? Like, his staff isn't really driving this, and I don't want to vote for Ed Marky staff. I don't know what his chief of staff is going to be

in five years. So, anyway, I just think it's a practical matter. Like, the Democrats turning the page,

“unless a reticent to you. And they'll say, I think, which is fine. Like, I think, to your point,”

is like having Tarrick and Abdul and Milton and Papas in New Hampshire and to Etaulereco and NGL, that a younger crop that has diverse both demographically, but also ideologically, I think it's better for the party and I'd be for South tomorrow. So, that's my take on that. I want to close with your newsletter this morning. You referee the cabinet rankings that me and Sam did last week, and just kind of remind everybody before we get to bills grade where

Sam and I landed. I feel pretty strongly about my, about my position, but I'm, I'm open to feedback,

and here it is. My ranking was Worst Marco, Second Worst Tag Seth, Third Worst Blanch,

Fourth Worst Nutlick, Fifth Worst RFK Junior. Sam's list was Higgseth 1, RFK 2, Mark Wayne Mullin 3, Duffy 4, Blanch 5. You wrote this morning for the newsletter that we were both wrong. Call us about that. I mean, you were mostly right. Of course, I just slightly adjusted it. You know, they asked me, oh, I got so many people, it was a wonderful show. You and people should go back and look at you and Sam was very, well, amusing. They're actually interesting in terms of your analysis

for these different campus secretaries. And you're both slightly joking around. So I think Sam was just shrunked offy. It's been such a jackass in the last couple of weeks. I might not look pick with what might have to be. Yeah, I mean, it wasn't really as dangerous as these people running these massive important national security agencies. But as I take that point, so I was being a little little bit of a cheap shop for me to just kind of walk in and say, you know, maybe see it. But

now, Samign was Higgseth worst. So I think they were pretty much a agreement, right? Sam had XF worse,

and you had Higgseth second worst, which you wanted to make the point, which I think is a good

point to make about moving. We're going to come back to the market. So do the rest of it. I want to send you back to my argument. So Mullin, Mullin, second biggest of the atrocities of DHS, and I just talked to Jim Swift yesterday about what he'd seen in Springfield, Blanch, Third, obviously, D.O.J. Terrible, what's happening there? Or if K. Jr., again, doesn't need much explanation. And who did I have this movie? I had movie, I was a fifth as a as a concession to your point that

“he's gotten a bit of a free ride. So do you have to do your mark? I think if I'd take your point”

on Mullin, I really should have had him fourth and not let Nick, but, you know, sometimes the content requires some indulgements. The mail bag, if you guys missed the same sign-up, so Leslie, I know a lot of people are on vacation and you're skipping certain episodes, but like the mail bag at the end is really funny, and it's worth hearing about Sam's morning routine,

I received this text this morning from our friend, Stan Boyger. Bill, this is, we both received

“this text actually, so I haven't even said that. Bill, Tim is obviously right, Rubio is the”

worst member of the cabinet, and he didn't even touch on his central and immigration policy. And thank you, Stan. I wanted to have this opportunity to revise an extended matter of marks, because I'm ranting about how terrible Rubio has been as a diplomat, as a head of Secretary of State, how terrible he's been as a national security advisor. I did neglect to mention that he was the one that orchestrated Sikot. I was him, and he went down to El Salvador. And obviously,

this is Trump, these are all Trump's policies, but Marko was the point, man, with Bukelle,

on that deal. Marko was the point, man, on these deportations for, of people for wrong thoughts,

whether that be Oz Turk, you know, the op-ed that she had run, remains Oz Turk. So I see it been the one that was saying that like, we should be taking away green cards for people if they express their free speech rights in a way that was not fully supportive of Donald Trump and BB Netanyahu, which is a total of front to the American experiment. It is not a gimmick that I have Marko's the worst. I genuinely believe that Marko has been the worst, and I do think that like

the fact that he gets the presumption of good faith or whatever, unlike some of these other guys, does exacerbate my feelings about it a little bit. I will now fair enough. That's a good point.

“This is why the BoW work is such a wonderful institution. We have a, we have a, why do we refuse?”

Sorry, you're moving up the list. Are you keeping it up? I can move up a little bit. I need to drop into the others down. They're also horrible. Like RFK, you know, I mean, stuff I sort of personally followed last, but then I read Jonathan Cohen and I think, oh my God, he's doing unbelievable damage to our actual, the important things about, and the health of Americans, you know, and blanch it justice. So it's just hard to, it's hard to mull in DHS. It is tough.

It's a real competition. It's hard for me to not include Brooke Rollins, you know, Secretary of Agriculture. We have another item there, the defunding of the Cyclospora Research Projects is hindering progress right now, you know, on the effort to prevent people to country from having explosive diarrhea. So like, it's mad all around. It is so there is, you know, it's a judgment call on, on how to rank. But I just, I, I want people

understand the nutlick pick was a bit. The Marco Rubio is the worst candidate member. I am 100% genuine about a thousand percent in of anything I understand at the case. And some of our ex friends, I'm sure, I don't know if that I'm in touch with that meeting than you were, but you and your ex friends, not the year in touch with that meeting,

“many more. They're all there in, you know, we'll look Rubio. I think that we can be”

for him in 2028 to see, so that's really this kind of thing. It's a happy middle ground between accommodating Trump and being sane. And he's been, I mean, I, in that respect, he's more horrifying as a, his accommodation and ifocracy and everything is more, as a personal matter, I would say is in a funny, in a way more appalling than headset, which is what he is, right?

I mean, yeah, I agree. Hashtag never rubio. That's where I'm at on this. We'll see how all

that shakes out. Bill Crystal, we'll see you next week for a fun retrospective on 1994. I've already, I've started my research a little bit and I found, I found some fun nuggets about Bill Crystal 1995. Oh, I can do an edition of it. Tim suckers me in by saying well, I'm a good talk. I'll talk about our section. I'll talk about 94. We'll really talk about what a wave of elections like while people understand it. And so I'm going to be doing, you said this

embarrassing thing and September 13th, 1994. I'm looking forward to it. Really looking forward to it. We're going to do all of that and a couple of teas. Okay, everybody. Thank you so much. We'll be back tomorrow with a whole friend of mine. I'm excited to get on the podcast and so we'll see all that. The Bull Work Daily is brought to you. Thanks for the work of lead producer Katie Cooper,

associate producer Ansley Skipper, and with video editing by Dante de Chico and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brow.