Podcast Summary
Discussing international and domestic news, including Iran standoff, impeachment trial, and 2020 primary: Celebrating third anniversary, discussing Iran crisis, impeachment trial, 2020 primary, promoting new book, and encouraging listeners to subscribe and support the podcasts
On this episode of Pod Save America, hosts Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer discuss the latest international and domestic news, including the standoff with Iran, the impeachment trial, and the 2020 primary. They also celebrate the podcast's third anniversary and mention a new season of The Wilderness. Dan Pfeiffer also promotes his book "Untrumping America" and a special promotional giveaway for those who preorder it. Additionally, they mention an episode of Pod Save the World discussing the escalating situation with Iran and what Congress can do to prevent war. Listeners are encouraged to subscribe and become a supporter of both podcasts, especially during these critical times.
President Trump's response to Iran crisis and Dan O'Brien's book promotion: Despite a tense situation between the US and Iran, Trump's unpredictable actions and O'Brien's book promotion offered a pause. However, the potential for renewed hostilities remains high due to Trump's unpredictability.
During a tense geopolitical situation between the United States and Iran, President Trump's response and Iran's retaliation led to a pause in the crisis. Dan O'Brien, during a live stream, encouraged listeners to preorder his upcoming book, "Go Trump in America," with a portion of proceeds going to Fair Fight Action. He also offered alternative incentives such as signed headshots or a 12-month Dan calendar. The Iranian government's response to the assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani was met with Trump's tweets downplaying the situation and later expressing gratitude and happiness. While some see this as an off ramp for both parties, the unpredictability of Trump's actions raises concerns about the potential for renewed hostilities. The quote of the day came from a Democratic congressmember, acknowledging the need for two unstable leaders to start a war, but fortunately, Iran did not have one at this moment. However, the danger remains high due to Trump's unpredictability.
Understanding Trump's Iran Policy through a Cable News Lens: Trump's impulsive decisions, influenced by popular actions and misjudgments, have created a strategic muddle in US-Iran relations, leading to potential escalation and instability in the Middle East.
President Trump's foreign policy actions regarding Iran can be understood through the lens of a cable news viewer who values popular actions like killing terrorists and avoiding endless wars. Trump's impulses towards bellicosity and isolationism have created a strategic muddle, leading him to make unpredictable decisions. The killing of Soleimani was an example of a massive overreaction, potentially influenced by the Pentagon's misjudgment of Trump's decision-making style. From the Iranian side, the conflict is far from over, as they may retaliate in various ways and have resumed their pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The ongoing instability in the Middle East and the potential for further escalation underscores the complexity and unpredictability of the situation.
Trump's Criticized Remarks on Iran and Obama: Despite Trump's claims, Iran wasn't a nuclear threat during Obama's tenure, and his current Iran policy has not made the situation safer. Political tensions persist, with the impact on the election uncertain.
President Trump's recent remarks regarding the Iran situation and his blame of former President Obama for the current crisis have been met with criticism and confusion. Trump's statement that the Iran deal signed in 2013 led to the recent escalation is not supported by facts, as Iran was not firing ballistic missiles or actively pursuing a nuclear weapon during that time. Furthermore, Trump's Iran policy has failed to make the situation safer, as Iran is now actively pursuing a nuclear weapon and preventing the US from going after ISIS. Trump's inconsistent stance on the Iran deal and his blame of Obama for the current crisis have been seen as politically unwise and potentially damaging to his presidency. Ultimately, the political landscape remains polarized, and the impact of these events on the upcoming election is still uncertain.
Tensions between US and Iran not likely to impact 2020 elections significantly: Despite Trump's handling of Soleimani's assassination receiving disapproval from most Americans, his base remains loyal, and the chaos theory applies. Democrats need to effectively communicate in the modern media age, including through digital ads, while addressing Trump's Congressional problems on this issue.
The assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the tensions between the US and Iran are not likely to significantly shift the political calculus for the 2020 elections. Trump's handling of the situation has been met with disapproval from a majority of Americans, as shown in recent polls. The chaos theory, which suggests that anything adding to the sense of instability or chaos hurts Trump, also applies here. Trump's base remains loyal, but most Americans prefer more stability or the status quo. Trump's campaign's use of Facebook ads to promote the killing of Soleimani is a divisive topic. While it's frustrating that Trump gets away with things that a Democratic president wouldn't, it's also important for Democrats to communicate effectively in the modern media age, including through digital ads. The briefing of Congress on the intelligence leading to the assassination was met with criticism from both parties, highlighting Trump's political problems with Congress on this issue.
Senators Unsatisfied with Military Intervention Advice: Senators criticized for not debating military intervention against Iran, highlighting the need for congressional oversight and potential consequences of neglecting it.
During a recent military briefing in the United States Senate, some senators were left unsatisfied and distressed due to being advised not to debate or discuss the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. Senator Mike Lee criticized his fellow Republicans for their lack of oversight and enabling of the administration's disregard for congressional demands. The administration's message that debating or questioning military involvement would embolden Iran was seen as an insult to Congress and the Constitution. This incident highlights the long-standing issue of foreign policy warmongering within the Republican party, with figures like Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio advocating for a confrontational stance towards Iran. Despite the discomfort caused, it is unclear if this will significantly change the current political landscape. However, the incident underscores the importance of congressional oversight and the potential consequences of neglecting it.
Tensions between White House and Congress underscore need for maximalist stance: Democrats must maintain a strong stance against the administration and voters need to turn out in November to hold them accountable.
The ongoing tensions between the White House and Congress, specifically regarding funding for potential military action against Iran and the impeachment trial, highlight the importance of having a maximalist stance against the administration. The administration has been trying to bypass Congress's authority to limit funding for military actions, and the impeachment trial in the Senate is currently without witnesses due to McConnell's refusal to agree to a fair trial. This underscores the need for Democrats to maintain a strong stance against the administration and the importance of voters turning out in November to hold them accountable. The Clinton impeachment trial rules, which the Senate is currently following, limit the trial to opening arguments and written questions from senators, making it uncertain when additional witnesses and evidence will be considered. However, some senators, such as Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, have expressed a desire to hear from witnesses like John Bolton.
Senate Impeachment Trial: Pressure on Vulnerable Republicans: Vulnerable GOP senators face uncomfortable votes, Bolton may testify, and new evidence from Parnas could emerge. Dems argue for a fair trial with witness testimony and evidence access, while McConnell sticks to Clinton rules, opposed by most Americans.
The ongoing impeachment trial in the Senate is expected to be uncomfortable for vulnerable Republican senators who may be pressured to take an "uncomfortable vote" for supporting a cover-up. John Bolton, a potential key witness, is criticized for not sharing crucial information publicly, and there's a possibility that more evidence from Lev Parnas could surface. The Democrats argue that the trial should not strictly follow the Clinton impeachment rules, as the American people want to hear from witnesses and have access to relevant evidence. McConnell's insistence on the Clinton rules is met with opposition from a majority of the American public, including Republicans in crucial swing states. Democrats need to emphasize these points to put pressure on the Senate and ensure a fair trial.
Pelosi's Impeachment Delay Tactics: Speaker Pelosi is delaying sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate to put pressure on McConnell and vulnerable Republicans, raising concerns about a conflict of interest in his meetings with Trump.
Speaker Pelosi's decision to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate has put a spotlight on Senate Majority Leader McConnell's handling of the impeachment trial. During the Clinton impeachment trial, Democratic senators, including Tom Daschle, refused to coordinate with the White House, and Pelosi is following a similar approach. McConnell's meetings with Trump at the White House raise concerns about a conflict of interest, and Pelosi is using this delay to put pressure on McConnell and vulnerable Senate Republicans. The Democrats' internal disagreements about the timing of sending over the articles are overblown, and Pelosi's goal was to generate attention to the trial's fairness. Additionally, the House could subpoena John Bolton to testify, as he has said he would respond to a Senate subpoena, which could lead to a legal battle over executive privilege.
Impact of Bolton subpoena and recent endorsements: The Bolton subpoena could delay the impeachment trial, while recent endorsements in the Democratic primary can boost campaigns, generate excitement, and serve as effective surrogates
The ongoing impeachment trial in the Senate and the decision to subpoena John Bolton could potentially give an out to both Bolton and Senate Republicans, delaying the process and potentially undermining the case. Meanwhile, in the Democratic primary race, endorsements from politicians and groups can bring good news, generate excitement, and serve as effective surrogates for the campaigns. Notable recent endorsements include Joe Biden receiving support from four freshman house members and Bernie Sanders from the Sunrise Movement. Elizabeth Warren's endorsement by Julian Castro has also proven valuable, especially in Iowa. AOC's endorsement of Bernie Sanders and Castro's endorsement of Warren have been particularly impactful in consolidating support from the progressive wing of the party.
Political endorsements can impact campaigns: Surprising or aligned endorsements can boost a campaign, while lack of endorsement can harm it. Political ads remain crucial in shaping public opinion and reaching voters.
Endorsements in politics can significantly impact a campaign, particularly surprise endorsements or those that align with a candidate's larger message. Surprising endorsements, such as John Lewis endorsing Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008, can be devastating, while endorsements that fit with a candidate's narrative, like Biden's electability argument bolstered by endorsements from vulnerable House freshmen, can be valuable. The endorsement of the Sunrise Movement for Bernie Sanders is a recent example of a surprising and impactful endorsement, providing a boost to his campaign with the support of organized and motivated activists. Additionally, the lack of an endorsement can also be detrimental, as some speculated about the potential impact if AOC had endorsed Warren instead of staying neutral. Political advertising continues to play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and reaching voters.
Super Bowl Ads: A $20 Million Investment for Mike Bloomberg and Donald Trump: During the Super Bowl, both Mike Bloomberg and Donald Trump spent $10 million each on 60-second ads. To maximize their investment, they should create engaging, unique ads that differentiate themselves and criticize their opponents.
During the Super Bowl, both Mike Bloomberg and Donald Trump have spent $10 million each on 60-second ads. While the financial cost may seem insignificant for wealthy individuals like them, the real value comes from the massive audience and the attention the ads receive. To make the most of this investment, the ads need to be interesting, catchy, and able to stand out from the competition. Given the cynical and critical nature of the modern media landscape, it would be wise for Bloomberg to create an ad that heavily focuses on criticizing Trump rather than himself, in order to rally Democrats and differentiate from typical political commercials.
Trump Campaign's 'Morning in America' Ad: Trump campaign plans an ad acknowledging his reputation as an asshole, but the impact of Super Bowl ads may be lessened due to content saturation and focus on virality.
The Trump campaign is expected to create a "Morning in America" type ad, taking credit for the economy and terrorist killings, with a message that acknowledges Trump's reputation as an asshole but positions it as necessary to shake up Washington. However, the impact of Super Bowl ads may not be as significant as they once were due to the abundance of content and the focus on virality, leading to a saturation of predictable and inauthentic ads. Companies and politicians alike are struggling to create truly innovative and attention-grabbing content in this age of information overload.
Authenticity is crucial for resonating with audiences: Trying to replicate viral trends or generate controversy artificially can come across as inauthentic and hinder engagement with quality content, be it in entertainment or politics.
Authenticity is key when creating campaigns or messages, whether in business or politics. Trying to replicate viral trends or generate controversy backwards can come across as inauthentic and may not resonate with audiences. The pressure to generate conversation in an algorithmic media ecosystem can contribute to this one-dimensional thinking. For instance, in the film industry, movies that don't create controversy or trending topics may not receive the same level of attention, leading to missed opportunities for audiences to engage with quality content. This issue extends beyond entertainment and applies to political campaigns and decisions as well. In the context of the podcast, the discussion centered around the lack of a clear imminent threat justification for the Soleimani assassination and the challenges of getting Iran back to the negotiating table for another nuclear deal. Authenticity and credibility are essential components in building trust and achieving successful outcomes in various domains.
Obama-era Iran nuclear deal and Biden's role in Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005: The Obama administration reached a nuclear deal with Iran, lifting some sanctions but keeping others. Biden's role in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 is debated, with him arguing for middle-class help and critics questioning the law's merits. The bankruptcy laws enable Americans to wipe debts and regain financial footing.
During the Obama administration, a diplomatic and scientific agreement was reached with Iran regarding its nuclear program, which included substantial verification measures and the lifting of some economic sanctions. This deal was a significant step towards halting Iran's nuclear development and promoting non-proliferation. However, some sanctions remained in place until Iran took additional steps to improve its international standing. Biden's involvement in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 is also a topic of debate, with both sides claiming credit for improvements to the law. Biden argues that he negotiated concessions to help middle-class families, while Biden's critics argue against the law's overall merits. Biden's stance on the issue is well-documented, and he has been consistent in his opposition to the law. The bankruptcy laws in America have historically allowed individuals to wipe out their debts and get back on their feet, enabling them to work and support their families. The lack of a robust social safety net in America underscores the importance of this provision.
Elizabeth Warren's Political Career and Fight Against Credit Card Industry: Warren's political career is marked by her relentless pursuit to fight against credit card industry exploitation and corruption in Washington, with a focus on creating a more equitable society through policies like her proposed wealth tax.
The credit card industry in America exploits people by keeping them from filing for bankruptcy, causing financial hardship for many individuals. Elizabeth Warren, during her political career, has been a strong advocate against such practices. She encourages young progressive voters, particularly college students, to support her in the upcoming elections due to her proven track record of fighting and winning against popular incumbents. Warren's pitch revolves around her ability to identify and address corruption in Washington, including the influence of money and lobbying on government policies. Her proposed wealth tax is an example of her commitment to creating a more equitable society. In essence, Warren's message is that she's a fighter for the people and will continue to work towards a government that truly represents the interests of all citizens.
Wealth tax for social programs and education: A 2% wealth tax could fund universal childcare, pre-K education, raise wages for workers, make college tuition-free, and invest in HBCUs, while reducing corruption and progressing on key issues
A 2% wealth tax on the wealthy could generate significant funds for various social programs and education, improving the lives of millions. This includes universal childcare, pre-K education, raising wages for childcare workers and preschool teachers, funding public schools, making college tuition-free, and investing in historically black colleges and universities. By focusing on reducing corruption and the influence of money in politics, it could lead to progress on issues like climate change, gun safety, and housing costs. The speaker's personal experience of having brothers with different political views highlights the potential for unity and agreement on certain issues. The key is to stay organized and focused on the long-term goals after the election.
Using the presidency to make change: Senator Warren aims to reduce costs of insulin, EpiPen, and HIV AIDS drugs, tackle corruption, expand Social Security, and implement a wealth tax through the presidency, emphasizing the importance of unity and collaboration in democracy.
Senator Elizabeth Warren believes in using the power of the presidency to push for popular policies and make meaningful change, starting with issues like anti-corruption, wealth tax, student loan debt, expanding Social Security, and reducing the cost of prescription drugs. She emphasizes the importance of working together in a democracy to build a movement and make change, and she's confident in her ability to deliver results, such as reducing the cost of insulin, EpiPen, and HIV AIDS drugs. Warren also mentioned her plans for a 1:1 debate format if there is a debate, including inviting Andrew Yang. Overall, her message is about using the presidency to put government on the side of the people, getting practical wins, and working together to make change.
