Pod Save America - "Blitzkrieg of blame."

Episode Date: March 27, 2017

Repeal and go f*ck yourself fails, Trump blames everyone but himself, and learns how hard it will be to pass the rest of his agenda. Then, Former Obama adviser Yohannes Abraham joins Jon, Jon, and Tommy to talk about the power of just showing up.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. Tommy Vitor. Today on the pod, we have the former head of the White House Office of Public Engagement and the longtime Obama political organizer, Johannes Abraham. Friend of the pod. Friend of the pod. Iowa friend of the pod.

Iowa friend. From way back when. Way back. I wasn't even a friend of the pod then. You weren't. I was nothing. You were an enemy of the pod. Sworn enemy of the pod i were friend of the pod i were friend from way back when way back i wasn't even a friend of the pod then you weren't i was an enemy you were a sworn enemy i was nothing opposition opposition to the pod look at me now look at you now you've uh hosted a wildly successful show on friday love it or leave it it's a juggernaut it's a juggernaut so everyone go subscribe you can listen to friday night show you can wait for the second episode where we work out some of the kinks. Whatever you'd like. You also are going to want to make sure to subscribe to Pod Save the World, Tommy Vitor's juggernaut. Yeah, this week we're talking to Gail Smith about South Sudan.

It'll be a lot less funny than Love It or Leave It. I promise you that. There is a horrible famine. But it's important you should listen. Love It couldn't even make a joke there. It's great. This is the range of options Crooked Media offers you. Get used to it.

And Anna Marie Cox is with friends like these. On Friday she talked to Mythbusters guy. Oh, Adam Savage. Adam Savage. Myths busted. Myths, the myths were busted. And she talks about conspiracy theories. It's a great, timely episode.

Go listen. Okay. Guys, it's a good day. It's a good day. I want to start with a quote from our good friend, Paul Ryan. Obama carries the law of the land. We're going to be living with it for the foreseeable future who would have thunk

that that would be the quote that we'd be hearing from Paul Ryan Trumpcare is dead, Obamacare is alive it has survived the Tea Party it survived two Supreme Court challenges and now it has survived an attempt to kill it by a Republican president and a Republican Congress why?

well does anyone want to take a stab at what happened? Why? Well, a long time ago, this group called Heritage was created. I don't know. They didn't do the work. I mean, it is still March. They didn't do the work or was anything really possible here?

I mean, my view is that they put themselves in a box because many Republican politicians, most Republican politicians, lied to voters about Obamacare from the inception. From the beginning, they told everyone there would be a government takeover. It would kill all these jobs. It would include death panels. Your grandparents would die. So that was the beginning, right? And then what they decided to do, and none of that stuff came true, was they waited for every problem with the law. And then they tried to tell people that by repealing the law, they would take care of that problem. So were their premiums higher than they should have been? Yes. Were their deductibles too

high? Yes. Were the copayments getting too high? Yes. But the problem is, Republicans said, if you elect us and we repeal this bill, then all that stuff will go away. That was a lie. For the vast majority, for the last seven years, the problem with the Obama health care bill has been Obama, not the health care bill, right? And there are some exceptions to that. There's some problems with the legislation that's written that need to be updated and adjusted. But the proof point there is that they didn't develop an alternative in seven years. And then Paul Ryan, despite saying that Obama ran a secretive process, that they passed this thing in the dead of night, that they didn't have committee hearings, he took like a couple of weeks and he presented them a bill without any options, without any process to have real debate or real amendments. He just said, hey, this is the thing you need to

blindly vote for without a real CBO score, without any sense of like what it would do or hurt in their district. And it was a total flop. Yeah, it's what they ended up with was just a very, very shitty version of Obamacare. We've talked about that before, but that was actually is a really surprising turn in this. Right. After all these years of saying the Obamacare itself was a fundamentally flawed idea. He kind of kind of got himself stuck in his position of offering similar tax credits but worse, similar benefits but worse. Well, the central challenge for the Republicans is what they actually believe is that government should not guarantee the right to affordable medical care for people. That is the belief of most Republicans.

There's some moderate Republicans still out there who believe that government should play just a very small role in helping people afford Medicare. But the Tea Party, most of the Republican conference right now, doesn't believe the government has a role. That's not what they argued. That's not what they ran on. That's not what they fought for. And so when it came time to put an alternative forward, because they know that most Americans, if they have problems with Obamacare, it's because Obamacare doesn't go far enough in helping people afford insurance. That's the key.

And we should be a little bit more cynical about it, too, because a lot of what the Republican critique of Obamacare is actually a critique of health insurance generally, which is there's a real disconnect between what people pay out of pocket, what people pay for their health care, and the health care they want to receive. Everybody wants the same thing. Everybody wants fantastic health care for as little money as possible. And as a country, we're going to pay all the health care bills, right? Whether it's the hospitals are going to pay it, or the taxpayers are going to pay

it, or individuals are going to pay it, or businesses are going to pay it, we're all going to pay the bills, or people are just going to die without the treatment that they need, which is something that goes on anyway. And Republicans have been sort of feeding this myth that there could be this free lunch, that we could lower deductibles and give you good insurance, and everybody could have insurance, and the government debt would go down, and the government taxes would go down. And it just was never possible. There was a fundamental lie at the heart of everything that they were promising. Yeah, I think there's a so the thought experiment is could any bill have passed? And I don't know that anything could have passed with

only Republican votes, right? You have the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus is already saying, let's pull back what are called essential health benefits, like mammograms, things like that. And then you have then they're pushing to eliminate parts of the bill that required coverage for preexisting conditions, kids staying on their cover. So they're 26. That that gets you to a place where moderates are just not going to be able to go along with this thing. So, OK, could Trump have passed something if he tried to do it with Democratic votes? Maybe. But I don't know that you could have called that a full repeal. You already would have been accused of breaking your big campaign promise. You're absolutely right. The only thing

that Donald Trump could have passed with... So first of all, the only way something might have gotten out of the House is probably with Democratic votes. You might have been able to get the Freedom Caucus and the moderates to grant something if it wasn't quite as messy and you spent a long time, but probably you needed Democratic votes to get it out because those Freedom Caucus... The only people that were true to their beliefs in this whole thing were the freedom caucus because their belief is no no no government involvement in health care whatsoever we don't want it so they want it and certainly just to be fair to them too like and certainly the answer is not going to be some bastardized half government involvement that kind of creates these crazy rules like they're not like

so you're going to end up with subsidizing shitty insurance like they're not going to be for that which is reasonable so that so therefore you lost 30 or 40 votes because you weren't going to end up with subsidizing shitty insurance. They're not going to be for that, which is reasonable. So therefore you lost 30 or 40 votes because you weren't going to do that. To get Democratic votes, you would have had to increase the subsidies. You'd have to give people more help for health care. And regular Republicans weren't going to go along with that. So what really happened in this bill is every time Trump tried to make a concession and Ryan tried to make a concession to the Freedom Caucus, it pissed off more moderates, Republicans. And here's the big thing. Why were the Republican, we call them moderates, they're really not moderates, but why were these other Republicans

not okay with that? Because they lived, there was too many Republicans who live in blue districts who are not just afraid of primaries for once, they were afraid of getting beaten in a general election. And the reason they were afraid of getting beaten in a general election. And the reason they were afraid of getting beaten in a general election is because of the town halls and because of the activism and because people showed up and people called and people went to those town halls and they scared the shit out of them. Because Paul Ryan jammed them with a bill that pulled at 17%. I mean, that didn't help either.

But the reason that he jammed them with that bill is for all the reasons we just said, because they tried to take away people's health care, which is not what people voted for. People didn't vote forald trump to get paul ryan's agenda that is the truth and at the root of it right this bill was a a giant tax cut right for the rich that then forced them to cut subsidies for everybody down the line and nobody nobody wanted that first of all but also what's crazy is they created this process where they decided the only way they could do health care was to do it in like a month because they had to get the tax form.

And I was actually thinking back to how everyone was saying, oh, you know, there's been this there was this recrimination, especially when it looked like Obamacare might not survive that. Oh, did Obama make a mistake in pursuing this? Right. Chuck Schumer has said that. And but you go back and look, we passed the stimulus first. We did a big, important piece of legislation that was really important for the economy before we started this very long health care process. Putting health care at the very front of what they were doing and then saying it has to happen incredibly fast, revamping a fifth of the American economy has to happen in a two-week span.

It was crazy. It was madness. Yeah. Can we make one important point, which is the new talking point is that Obamacare is exploding. And that's just factually not true. Once again. The CBO said that Obamacare markets will remain stable over the long run if there are no significant changes. So this was a tough year.

Premiums went up significantly in some areas. Insurers pulled out of some areas. But that is a far cry from what's called a death spiral, where premiums go up to the point that only the sickest people buy them, and the markets just implode. I think that is a key point because we reached this point, the Republicans reached this point of failure because they told lies to their voters about Obamacare. They continue to tell those lies. Paul Ryan is saying that it's in a death spiral. Donald Trump says it's imploding and exploding, which I didn't know that something like that is physically possible. Like a supernova, right? It gets real small and it gets real big.

I watched some Cosmos last night. What people should know is that it's not, exactly like you said, Tommy, it's not in a death spiral. Now, can Donald Trump on his own do damage to Obamacare? Yes. Can I just offer one other little thought experiment? Imagine if Trump said, the Department of Homeland Security is a disaster,

it's in a death spiral, but I'm just going to let it blow up. It's on the Democrats, right? Like, that is insane. It's insane. It's insane that he thinks he can just pass the buck for that. People are going to die. Whatever.

It's not my fault. Democrats. There are problems with Obamacare. Like, there are problems with the pools. There are problems with areas that only have one insurer at best. But those are really solvable. Those are solvable problems. And it's a non sequitur to say.

It's the equivalent of saying, like, the plumbing in my house is broken, so let's burn this house to the ground. Well, so let's talk about a few things that Trump can do to fuck up Obamacare and a few things that can be done to further solidify the program. To fuck it up, they can—the administration has leeway to stop or reduce payments that help lower deductibles for low-income people. These are called cost-sharing payments that they give to insurance companies that the administration has wide latitude to do.

They can stop doing those payments. That would hurt people. Number two, they can stop enforcing the mandate. So if they don't get enough people, enough healthy young people to buy into the mandate, meaning they can, and if they, so if they don't get enough people, enough healthy young people to buy into the program, that starts making the pool sick, or the people who do have insurance sicker, and that costs more money for everyone. So they can stop doing that. And we already saw them try to do this at the beginning of the year. They can hurt enrollment efforts, right?

We need more people to sign up so they can stop advertising and stuff like that. So there are three things they can do to hurt the program themselves. What can be done to help them, help the program? Well, basically the opposite of what I just said. Right. You can guarantee those payments continue, the low deductible ones.

Oh, and also states can decide to expand Medicaid and take that. And a lot of, some states that hadn't expanded Medicaid just announced today they are going to start expanding Medicaid. Well, that's good. But also, I mean, Obama,

the HHS secretary, there were times where they called insurers and coaxed or begged or forced them to stay in markets or do the right thing. Price could do that. Tom Price, the HHS secretary, could do that. Donald Trump brags about doing that every other day, about keeping jobs here. How about yelling at insurers? That polls pretty well. Everyone hates insurers.

How about the great negotiator? How about the art of the deal? I don't think that's right. When Donald Trump says there's nothing you can do to help Obamacare because it's exploding, he is lying. He is fucking lying. And so is Paul Ryan. Again, they should know that. Yeah, it's frustrating demagoguery.

It's just annoying to watch these factual inaccuracies get repeated ad nauseum and once again it just becomes a conventional wisdom. Right, and it becomes like, oh, Democrats and Republicans just can't meet on this well no they're lying they've been lying for eight years so let's just call it out yeah um so what anyone have some fit there's a lot of recrimination stories about this does anyone have any favorite tidbits from all the so i want to leave with all the drama because so often we think like it's all about the personalities and ryan's negotiating skills and trump's negotiating skills and like i think skills. And like, I think we, there's larger forces at play here, but there are still some really fun stories. Yeah. I mean, look, there was this, there was a Politico story that kind of walks through all the different people blaming all the other different people. And, and actually,

if you read that story, like some of the people that are getting blamed, Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, the White House communications team, the White House political team, Donald Trump, maybe Donald Trump Jr. slipped in there at the end. I don't know. But what's funny about that is the answer is yes. You're all responsible. This was an incredibly bungled operation, right? It was a mistake in theory.

It was a mistake in practice. It was poorly executed. Donald Trump did nothing. I love, you know, we keep coming back. Sean Spicer on Friday, like five seconds before the whole thing fell apart, was like, well, the one thing we can say is Donald Trump left it all on the field. Did you? Did you leave it all on the field?

He didn't do anything. It was like, it was two weeks. He didn't even give a single speech about it. He doesn't know what's in the bill. He was in, he golfed 10 times. The amount of cognitive dissonance that the press corps affords Donald Trump is sort of my favorite thing overlaying all of this. For example, Trump says, hey, tune into judge janine pierrot's

show tonight that has never happened in the history of judge janine pierrot if you want a fun judge jean perot moment google uh jean perot and page 10 when she literally doesn't have the page of her announcement speech until it's one of the greater moments but like trump says tune in then she gives a six minute rant saying paul ryan is at fault he screwed donald trump and he must resign and then trump staff is like nah he had he had no idea. Never talked to her. Nobody gave him a heads up. He just happened to tweet that. I mean, I think we learned a few things about Donald Trump from this whole episode. Um, or some of us already knew this, but I think everyone learned it now. Uh, he doesn't care about policy. He doesn't care about healthcare. I've not yet learned anything.

I'll let you know when I've learned something. He doesn't care about keeping any of the promises he made, because he said I want health insurance for everybody, and I don't want to cut Medicaid. He didn't try to do either of those things. He gets bored. He quits easily. He's not willing to take on his own party. Not willing to be bipartisan. Basically, the only thing he cared about this whole time was winning something. Right. I want to go back

to the story Lovett raised, because it's just the amount of infighting in that White House. I mean, there's a quote at the end that's like, you couldn't even believe the amount of infighting. Like, it sounds like a Road Rules Real World Challenge episode or something. But my favorite is like, there's equinox, like, the new Goldman Sachs people, Gary Cohn and Dinah Powell are hated by the old Goldman Sachs people, Steve Bannon, and like, that's one power center. Jared Kushner, who went to Aspen for two days in the midst of the biggest legislative priority being on the floor and caving, is getting a lot of heat. Deservedly so, by the way.

You don't go to skiing in the middle of the... The only person who left... Big fight in the White House between the rich and the racists. The thing I do feel bad for them about is like you have these people in the White House press office getting all this blame. And I've been in that seat where it's like all the policies are a disaster. Everyone is leaking. There's infighting. And everyone is like, well, if the press office could just clean this up.

It's like most of the time the press team is not responsible for bad leaks for the same reason that janitors don't throw shit all over the ground. Right. Your job is to clean it up. I will say this. I am never one to give credit to these people, and I'm never one to defend them. But the idea that the White House Communications Office is the reason the Trump administration is in this mess is ridiculous. Like, what are they supposed to do?

Like, you can't, like, I mean, barring better, like, VR technology that they can put over the heads of all Americans. Like, I'm not really quite sure what the Communications Office could do to stem this tide. They spent a month defending the attack that Obama illegally wiretapped the guy. Like, what else are these people supposed to do? Can't dress up a horse shit. That's what my grandfather

always used to say. I think that they probably should get some kind of intern or assistant for the vein that's popping out of Sean Spicer's head, though, because to manage

that guy's incoming. We're doing this in the middle of his briefing. It's probably going to be a great briefing. You know what, though? They're not great briefings anymore. They're just,

they're pointless because it's just, he just gets up there and goes like, actually, things are great! You know? No, that's wrong, Glenn Thrush. You're being a child. Carl, Carl, Carl, Carl, Carl. Jonathan, Jonathan,

Jonathan. I think that what you're saying is ridiculous. Obviously, when Devin Nunes came here, it was a coincidence. He just hopped the fence and did a briefing. Someone asked him if he was going to, if Trump was going to pull the bill. He goes, ah, you guys are so negative. Obviously, when Devin Nunes came here, it was a coincidence. He just hopped the fence and did a briefing. Someone asked him if Trump was going to pull the bill. He goes, ah, you guys are so negative. Literally five minutes later, Trump pulled the bill. Yeah. I mean, Washington's favorite story is a shakeup

and a staffer getting let go or blamed or whatever. I wonder who the first to go is. Is it going to be Reince? Could it be, I mean, like, Sounds like Reince. Could it be Reince or Reince? Sounds like the same guy. Or Sean.

I mean, it's, Trump is going to have to make a move to reset this narrative. Six of Reince, Reince or Reince. Sounds like the same guy. Or Sean. I mean, it's... Trump is going to have to make a move to reset this narrative, and I don't know what it is. Six of Reince, half dozen of the Prebys. Yeah, I do really... Look, I said this during the campaign, and I still in my heart hope it is true that Reince Prebys will have to leave politics in the middle of the night with what he can carry. I always think about that quote from you every time I read a Reince story. And it's gone on longer than I expected obviously but i still i still have hope i still

have hope that that's what happens let's talk about what's next we're all focused on what's next on the trump agenda here what is next enough of feeling good enough feeling good yeah there's lots to do um we should say that one more time. Victory for all the people who called and showed up again. I just want to emphasize that point because there's I mean, Washington will continue to be focused on the Freedom Caucus and the politics between them and the Trump White House. But these moderate Republicans in these blue districts were scared. Right. They were scared because you called and you showed up. And like, we can't forget that going forward.

There was no way for the White House to buy off the Freedom Caucus because they knew they would lose too many of the scared moderate members who were getting peppered with questions at these town halls. That is a dynamic we can repeat in the fights to come, except possibly the Gorsuch fight, which we will start with. Gorsuch fight, man. That's a tough one. Yeah. What have we learned about this guy from the hearings? It seems like not much.

He's really good. I mean, right. Good at saying nothing. He's good at not answering questions. But that is the coin of the realm. I mean, ever since the Bork nomination, you have been trained to say absolutely nothing, but to say it in the most affable way possible, which means essentially just offering a basic compliment to whatever senator is barking at you at that moment. And then they feel great. And that's what we've learned. He's very good at that. Have you guys heard about the frozen trucker case? I saw that Al Franken got Gorsuch. Gorsuch or Gorsuch? Gorsuch. I guess we're going to have to learn it. He's going to be around for 40 fucking years.

This story is pretty incredible to show that he's, this guy, this is someone who's going to side with corporations at just about most of his decisions. So this truck driver's brakes freeze. He pulls over, waits three hours for help, keeps calling his employer, keeps calling everyone, I need help, I need help, it's really cold, the brakes are frozen, everything else. He starts losing feelings in his arms and legs.

He then starts getting these early symptoms of hypothermia, right? he then starts getting this early symptoms of hypothermia. Right. And so he starts, now he's calling like emergency, like I need help. I'm stuck here, but I can't,

I don't want to abandon my truck. It's my job, but like, I can't feel, you know, and then finally he's finally, someone tells him like, you've got to go,

you've got to run. So he unhitches the cab from the trailer and he drives away. He gets fired by his employer for unhitching the thing. So the majority in the court called the dismissal unjustified. All the different courts did. One person thought it was justified. Neil Gorsuch. I did read that story.

It's an awful story. It's just like... It's also just like going out of your way to write that dissent. Like, this is not the country I live in. Can't fire a guy for refusing to freeze to death. What is America if not a place where we put the property inside of a truck

above the life of a truck driver? That's the America I grew up in. I don't think Neil Gorsuch did that because he hates truck drivers, but he's like, well, look, the law is, this is what the text of the law says, and so we must just call balls and strikes and look at the text, and you don't think about context, even though Supreme Court justices have thought about the context around cases forever. So forgetting about that context is exactly why Obama voted against Roberts.

That's right. That's exactly right. That was his express concern about that nomination. Which you can read. We might have been wrong about that one. That guy kind of did us a solid on the Obama campaign. And also, again, though, like, okay, we can say that that was the reason, but it was a super political vote.

So let's all stop pretending. If you read his Daily Coast blog from 2005... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Just the politics of all this, like, I've decided that Neil Gorsuch is just not in the mainstream. It's like, there's this whole... Would you vote for him?

No, I'd vote against, because I'm a political animal. Because I'm running for president. I feel... I feel personally torn on this. Obviously, the good politics is to do what McConnell did, just, like, rinse and repeat that approach of just obstinance about everything. But something about it feels wrong to me because I'm a weak-kneed Democrat, and that's just how I am.

I started there, Tommy, and the more everything has played out. You know what? Schumer's whole strategy that we should not have a lifetime appointment given to someone who's under federal investigation right now. He's right. I buy that logic. I'm there. And I was thinking, we were talking about this over the past couple days, that these Supreme Court fights are all so rote.

It's like the Democrats say he's out of the mainstream. A few of the more moderate Democrats get picked off and vote with the Republicans to put him on the court. Same would happen if it was a Democratic nomination. But this is a stolen Supreme Court seat. This is Merrick Garland's seat. Merrick Garland's seat. It is. He was not afforded a hearing.

And it's deeply unfair and it's unsolvable. But the one thing we shouldn't do is capitulate to Mitch McConnell's strategy. And we should just say no. But we also should not do what Republicans do to their voters all the time, which is promise a victory here. Because Democrats can filibuster this. McConnell runs the Senate. They make the rules and he will get rid of the filibuster for this nomination. And Neil Gorsuch will probably sit on the Supreme Court. Everyone should just be aware of this.

And that's why I do think that we have a bad hand, but the best way to play it is to tie it back to the investigation because it reminds everybody about this insane situation we are where Donald Trump is not Donald Trump, who should not be present is nominating someone for a seat that should not be open yeah schumer strategy is very smart you have to give him credit i think uh i think they came up to a pretty good rationale for why this should be slowed down yeah look the idea that we're going to preserve the filibuster for the next supreme court justice like mr mcconnell's going to agree to that he doesn't care something Something is maybe even more immediate than Gorsuch, which is the government will run out of money

on April 28th or 29th. I can't remember the exact date. 34 days. So, you would think, since we have a president of one party and a Congress ruled by the same party, they would just be able to pass what's known as a continuing resolution, which means same amount of money is spent everywhere and we just keep

going until we have a bigger debate. Okay. But here's the catch. The Freedom Caucus will probably want to defund Planned Parenthood in this continuing resolution. There are not 60 votes in the Senate to pass a continuing resolution that defunds Planned Parenthood because Democrats will not abide by that. Probably Susan Collins wouldn't go for that or Lisa Murkowski. They've already said that.

Two Republicans. They also are both, what do you call it, women. Women. They are also both women. If they can't settle this, then that means that Ryan, in order to pass something in the House, will need Democratic votes. This is just an unconscionable, shamelessly partisan, base-pleasing thing they're doing, right? They know full well that most funds for Planned Parenthood have nothing to do with abortions. There's a very principled pro-life position out there that one can take and that I fully respect. This is not that. This is unconscionable. It's sexist. It should not happen. Well, actually a point that I've heard Cory Booker make, which is a good one. We talk about it as defunding Planned Parenthood,

but actually we're falling into their trap. It's as defunding Planned Parenthood, but actually we're falling into their trap. It's not defunding Planned Parenthood or funding Planned Parenthood. It's allowing Planned Parenthood to be reimbursed like any other healthcare organization. So I think that's the important thing to come back to, that it's just treating them like any other provider and they are just an important healthcare provider.

It's not that complicated. That's it. That's the point I wanted to make about that. So what does Donald Trump do here? He makes the deal, you know? He brings people together and he negotiates. And then he says, hey, man. He comes up to the table and he goes, here's how you do it.

You walk in the room and you say, I'm not for this. And you walk out of the room and that's how you start it. And then you come back in. And Steve Bannon makes a list. I mean, there's something that makes me feel a little bit, Back to the petty grievances part of the talk. It is nice to see all these lazy criticisms of Obama not playing golf with people or inviting them to barbecues or coming on Air Force One are proven to be as silly as we all knew they were at the time, which is just that Congress doesn't work that way. They have real reasons that they vote for or against things that have a lot to do with politics and not a lot to do with how nice Barack Obama was to you. But it makes me fearful for Trump's options.

Donald Trump is president for one month, and the last thing he said before this bill is, I'm not talking to another fucking member of Congress. That's why they're in Congress. If they were the kind of people people wanted to talk to, they wouldn't have to fill the hole in their hearts with campaigns. Well, and let's give the Trump—I mean, because it was silly when they said this about Obama, and it's silly now. All the things it says, Donald Trump needs to take them out on the golf course more, and like hang out with Mark Meadows more, and be buddy-buddy with Paul Ryan. This is all, this is bullshit Washington report.

This is like the same crap that we went through. Obama and John Boehner liked each other. Actually a lot. Here's our advice. Think about the bigger problem. Maybe too much. Maybe too much. Love that dare not speak its name, you know? Think about the larger policy dynamics. Think about the bigger. Maybe too much. Love that dare not speak its name. You know, think about the larger policy dynamics. Think about the larger political dynamics. That's what that's what does things, not these little stupid stories about people playing golf together.

Now, that being said, I do think that there has been damage done when we went from a time in which members of Congress were in D.C. for most of the year to they're here for three days and then they race home. Like, I do think that there's consequences to that. But that didn't happen between 2008 and today. That happened in, like, the 80s. No, I know. Everything's not about Obama, Tommy. Look, David. Well, for me, it is.

Look, David Gergen, you have a great point. I'm just pushing back on your silly straw man. No, I just think... Look, in fact, I... No, but...

Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan used to go get a beer. It was super good. Bonfornia over here. Quoting Pundit Levin. A pox on both their asses. Okay, so, the government should, I don't know what, I mean,

I think Ryan has to get, will either have to tell the Freedom Caucus, live to fight another day on this, or get Democratic votes for a continuing resolution, which, I don't know if the Democrats will go for that. I don't think, I mean, you have Pelosi in the New York Times today saying that essentially we're emboldened, we see no reason to work with this president. And like back back to the basics of being president in terms of relationship building and management of Congress.

Trump has certainly done the bare minimum amount of work with Republicans. He has done nothing to try to reach out to Democrats. Not one thing. You don't think calling Chuck Schumer fake to your Schumer is reaching out to Democrats? You know, calling Nancy Pelosi a loser on Friday isumer is reaching out to Democrats? You don't think calling Nancy Pelosi a loser on Friday is the way to reach out to Democrats? Blaming them for a bill that his own party openly tanked. Do you don't think that calling their

favorite president an imposter president because he was born in Kenya and then accusing him of wiretapping your phones, you don't think that's reaching out to Democrats? Not the olive branch we were hoping for. That was funny. We moved past this pretty fast, but it's actually worth remembering that Donald Trump in his Twitter has already blamed everyone. He blamed Democrats, the Freedom Caucus, Paul Ryan.

He's just running down his list. Now it's like, olive branch, he's going to reach out to Democrats. The whole thing about Donald Trump's going to reach out to Democrats is said as a threat to the Freedom Caucus. It's not said as a genuine, you know, it's like, hey, Freedom hey freedom caucus if you keep fucking with us we're gonna ask some democrats for help okay good luck doing that and by the way who wants to be that backup prom date yeah the insane person i asked to the prom said no and so you the person i obviously don't like and made fun of in homeroom all year will you go to the prom with me you know no we will not go to the prom with you donald trump to your point about

how Donald Trump has blamed everyone on Twitter, it's also funny. Every time you pick up the New York Times and you read a story by Maggie Haberman

that has sources quoted Trump in the story, it's Donald Trump who's the source close to Trump just destroying his entire team, his staff,

his son-in-law, the Freedom Caucus, everybody. I mean, it is a blitzkrieg of blame. A blitzkrieg of blame. We got a title. That's like of blame. We got a title.

That's like a column. We got a title. I don't like the idea that we're going to start doing the titles during and be really proud of ourselves. Yeah, well, because you didn't say it. Yeah, it's the way it's got to be. 100%. All right, let's go to the next thing on the agenda, because we haven't solved the shutdown, and we haven't solved the Gorsuch thing. But the other big one that they're all saying is, okay, we couldn't get healthcare done. We're moving on to tax reform. We've all wanted tax reform anyway.

Even during the healthcare fight, Trump was like, I just got to get this healthcare thing out of the way so I can go to tax reform. Well, I mean, it's funny. The healthcare part of the healthcare bill was the part that they couldn't agree upon. The part they love is the tax cuts for the rich. So now they're like, what if we just did a bill that's all that? So here's, I'm just going to set up a quick context and we can talk about it. Here's the issue with tax reform now. They want to pass tax reform through a reconciliation bill.

That was the same device they wanted to use for Obamacare repeal, which means they would only need 50 votes in the Senate, 51 votes in the Senate instead of the 60, right? In order to do that, the tax reform cannot increase the deficit. And so that means that they would have to get, find spending cuts or tax increases other place. Obamacare, cutting Obamacare was going to be their spending cuts, right? They were going to try to lower some of the deficit. They can't do that now.

So now they want to have a trillion dollars in tax cuts that they have to come up with money to pay for, which means that they have to increase taxes on some other people, or they have to find even more spending cuts, which I don't think that they can do. So they are going to have a real problem doing tax reform. And we should actually step back and say, what is tax reform generally, and what is tax reform to them?

So the tax code is super complicated. It's filled with a bunch of junk. It means that you could ostensibly, without increasing the deficit, lower all the rates while getting rid of a bunch of deductions and things that kind of distort the market and distort the economy. Very popular deductions. Like your mortgage deduction. Well, right. So there are deductions.

There's health care deductions. There's mortgage deductions. Then there's also the fund private jet deductions and all those things that are in there as well. And then also the way that we kind of a version of bipartisan tax reform that would be popular and like a good thing to do, which would be without increasing the deficit, lowering tax rates while getting rid of getting rid of a bunch of tax policies that kind of spend money through giving people tax breaks. But that's not what they want to do. What they want to do is cut taxes for rich people, kind of give people a little taste of a tax cut for the middle class and the poor while drastically reducing spending to pay for it. It's just these guys are so outwardly ideologically inconsistent. The whole idea behind the Tea Party rallies initially was that debt was a huge deal, that we weren't paying enough attention, that we needed to stop this runaway spending.

But then you have Mark Meadows, who is the chair of the Freedom Caucus, said he's cool if tax cuts are not offset by spending or new revenue streams, which will absolutely lead to the deficit being increased unless you still believe in supply side economics and the laugh recurrent and all the things that have been discarded by history. So the one idea they have to raise tax revenue with this tax cut, so they want to have a giant tax cut for corporations. They want to bring the corporate tax rate down 20%.

Donald Trump says 15%, which is sort of crazy. But in order to make up the money, they want the Bannon and Paul Ryan have an idea for a border tax, which is a tax on imports. Right. Which means that and then they would lower taxes on exports. Ideally, this would, you know, make companies sort of hire people and make goods in America. Right. sort of hire people and make goods in America, right? The problem with that is if you start taxing imports in this country, it is going to raise prices for consumers who are buying goods at places like Walmart and everywhere else. And by the way, other countries will see this and be like,

okay, now we'll text your stuff and that's how you get a trade war. And then World War I's back. We all love that. Who doesn't want to go back to that? Not this guy. That's another thing that Paul Ryan has seemingly dreamed about since he was hanging out by the keg with Rich Riley. I just don't get

the things that he is passionate about. Why are you passionate about a border adjustment tax? How is that your thing? Because it's a way to give rich people more money. That's what it goes back to. A border adjustment tax? It's a Trojan horse for that because it

allows you to cut the corporate rate and cut individual rates for wealthy people, which is what he wants to do. But also, you know, there's this long Robert Draper piece, and it was one of the

little fun conversations between Ben and Ryan. It's like they bonded over the fact that they both want to get rid of the estate tax. Yes. That story, man.

Oh, my God. That sounds like the worst dinner ever. That's your point, Tommy. That's what he really wants, and the border tax is just one way to raise the money to do the other stuff. I guess. I don't know that. But it's just another thing he's seemingly been dreaming about for a decade. And it's just a very strange perspective. Well, it's a place where there is this over, right? Like this is this. It is there is a theory that Bannon has that like this economic nationalism, which is you create a bunch of incentives to create jobs in the U.S. And one of the ways you do that is by taxing things that come in. I mean, it's a

dangerous game to play, but there is a theory behind it. Getting rid of the estate taxes is lunacy. It's unconscionable. So tax firms are going to be tricky. They might, I mean, they could end up with just a smaller tax cut for, you know, the wealthy, maybe some middle class and some companies and maybe not pay for ... I don't know. They can't increase the deficit, so they close some loopholes. They do something smaller. Yeah, that's the key.

It has to be a scaled down cut. Significantly scaled down. Seems to me that's where we're headed. Anything they do on trade is going to be tough because you need two-thirds of both houses to redo a trade agreement. That's going to be tough for them. Infrastructure, they want the big infrastructure bill. If the only way to get Democratic votes

is to do real spending, which the Freedom Caucus and the Republicans are not going to want, it's tough. Yeah, it turns out a rhetorical president wasn't the right fit for these times. These are very complicated matters. Also, let's just enjoy our, you know, bicameral legislature and three branches of government in the Constitution protecting us from a demagogue in the White House.

Thank you, founders. You were a bunch of slave owners, but you got a couple things right. I mean, moral of the story here is that Donald Trump's election did not fix or even begin to fix the deep, deep problems within the Republican Party, right? Which is that they have a large wing of their party that has been fueled by Steve Bannon's Breitbart and Fox and all the rest with a bunch of lies about how government's evil and all this kind of stuff. And so these people are,

there's a big part of that party that is very extreme that is not going to be happy unless there is no government spending, all tax cuts, no social programs whatsoever. And Paul Ryan cannot govern the House unless he pleases those people. And the only other way to do that is to go with Democratic votes and to go with Democratic votes. That is a much more liberal agenda that Paul Ryan is comfortable with. He's stuck. We're still stuck in that dynamic.

It's interesting, right, that Donald Trump's election was a culmination of a lot of forces with the Republican Party, but he is different than what's governing the kind of extremism you see in the House. The House Freedom Caucus and Donald Trump are different kinds of extremes. And where they don't overlap is where you have this kind of a problem because Donald Trump doesn't care as much. I mean, Donald Trump isn't an ideologue on government spending and taxes and regulation. He's an ideologue on immigration and some of the more nationalist issues. The House Freedom Caucus has a different set of beliefs. What's interesting to me, though, is there is a world in which Donald Trump could break this logjam that we have. But for some strange reason, he's governing according to Paul Ryan's plan. And Paul Ryan's plan doesn't work. It's deeply

unpopular. There isn't a coalition behind it. And so he's kind of stuck. Yeah. I mean, a couple of thoughts. Like, one, getting your arms around what the Freedom Caucus types want is very difficult from afar, and apparently even for him, because in that Draper piece, I think it was Raul Labrador, Mark Meadows, who was like, boy, then you see Ivanka come out for paid family leave. And you think, that's not what my party stands for. Dude, what does your party stand for? You don't want families to be able to be together and have time off? I mean, it's bizarre. And so, yes, you're right that he's governing by Paul Ryan, but he's also governing by Steve Bannon. But that's a great example, though, Tommy.

You shouldn't move on past that. That's a great example. I don't think he was good at it. You just interrupted him. No, no, no, no. What do you think? But, like, the paid family leave, like, they don't believe in paid family leave because they don't believe that that's the role of government to kind of enforce this kind of a president. The Trump White House does. That's a sincere belief on the part of the House Freedom Caucus that the government has no business dictating to companies

when people have to have time off. That's a reasonable position to take. I don't think it's the right one, but it's a reasonable, consistent position with what they believe. It just doesn't work with what this White House wants, right? Like, that's the divide. Like, Donald Trump is not a free marketeer. It's just not who he is.

It doesn't work with what the White House wants, and it doesn't work with what people want, especially the people who voted for Trump. This was the case on health care. This is the case on that. Or any of the social platforms they put forward that put government very much into your life at all times. This Ryan agenda that government has no place in people's lives, you're right, is a completely legitimate argument to have. It's just not what they've run on. It's not what Donald

Trump ran on. And it's not what most of the coalition of the republican party wants or the part of the coalition the democratic party this is the fundamental challenge that they're all facing and we are lucky we are lucky as democrats that donald trump is not governing according to this sort of the the the nationalist economically populist agenda that he promised because i think that would he would have the votes even if he wanted to that's the question well it's a funny thing it It's actually... He would need Democratic votes for that. It reminds me of George W. Bush a little bit because, in this sense, which is George W. Bush was constantly shocked by his inability to kind of bring people together once he was governing because he never accepted how harshly and how

viciously he ran as a candidate. And over and over again, you know, Donald Trump is going to bump into this, which is Donald Trump isn't going to get a chance to bring Democrats together because, as we've talked about, he's a birther. He campaigned as a racist demagogue. There's no room for him to bring people together to govern because the actual agenda that Steve Bannon wants could peel Democrats off. It absolutely could. But it's just not possible because of the kind of person he is and the kind of campaign he ran. of person he is and the kind of campaign he ran. On the pod today, we have with us, friend of the pod, Johannes Abraham.

You were the director of the Office of Public Engagement in the Obama White House, deputy national political director in 2012, and just a longtime organizer. How's it going, man? Things are good. Things are good. Is it weird that I got dressed up for this? No, not at all. Everyone does. You didn't even love it, didn't you? I'm wearing a greasy suit in my room right now.

Most of our guests wear a suit and tie. Johannes, it's Tommy. Good to hear your voice, man. We started working together in 2007 in Iowa. Back then, nobody thought Obama had a chance in hell of winning the state. It was improbable as it gets. No one thought an African American could come out of a state

that was almost majority, vast majority white. But we won because of his message, because of some grassroots organizing by field organizers like you and our volunteers. What are the lessons about what a good organization looks like and how you harness grassroots energy from that experience? Other than it's always good to run against Hillary

Clinton. You know, I think there's a couple things. You know, one of the things that doesn't get talked about enough, I think, is actually what we saw after Iowa. When we started going, you know, state to state and, you know, the primary became protracted the way we weren't really anticipating we'd show up in these states where we didn't have staff at all. And, you know, oftentimes, you know, staff would show up for the Fed Fifth or other primaries. And there was these amazing, truly grassroots, independently organized, independently operated sort of, you know groups of of really committed activist many of whom were not

uh... longtime democratic volunteers but uh... who were inspired by what the president had to say and most importantly and this is this is a big takeaway i've taken from watching that you know they just were showed up and it sounds simple but i remember showing up in virginia for the the primary which is every twelve and

you know the guy had been canvassed before we had a single staffer on the ground to provide any sort of direction they've been canvassing for a month that's gone to a good registration for months they've been you know it that flea markets in it uh... you know uh... other community gatherings for months uh... in support of president obama and i think months uh... in support of president obama and i think what

uh... you we did something to the campaign to provide tools for them like my brock obama dot com cetera but uh... the truth of the matter is uh... they didn't wait for instruction the uh... rallied in organized locally and uh... you know sort of put their shoulder behind the wheel and you know didn't wait for the sort of policy of a lotacy of a lot of, our campaign at the end and certainly in states

where we had a lot of time to organize did have a top-down element, but the overall movement around the country was truly bottom-up and not in sort of a corny way, in a really substantive and real way. And I think one of the lessons for this moment moment both for folks who want to get involved in for people who want to understand what's going on is uh... in the best way to get involved is to show up in you know there's there's a million different in what's going to for a way to

uh... uh... if there's something you care about to do so but there's no there's not really a adjust that water solution to grassroots movement that would be the cool thing about the primary effort. I mean, what we did in Iowa was phenomenal and one of the best teams I've ever been a part of, but to show up in a place where there was no paid staff, but they had really committed and organized

and meticulously run organizations, that's what a movement's about. Do you think that just stopping Trump is enough to get people to show up in 2018 and 2020? Do you think, you know, how much of a positive agenda do Democrats need? How important is it to have candidates that are really inspiring? Or do you think in a situation like this, maybe the antipathy to Trump and his agenda is enough to sort of build that movement? this, maybe the antipathy to Trump and his agenda is enough to sort of build that movement?

You know, I think there's definitely, you know, I think that, you know, there's a simplicity to opposition that makes it easier for disparate parts of, you know, a broader movement to kind of be on the same song sheet. And I think we saw this with the recent ACA fight, which isn't over by any stretch, but the recent chapter in the ACA fight. You know, I think from talking to friends who were on the ground in states where there was a lot of activity, you didn't see, you know, any of the establishment versus newcomer, left versus center, you know, Bernie versus Hillary dynamic play itself out. There was sort of unity in purpose. So there's definitely a simplicity

that comes with opposition. You know, I think what, this is my bet, I think what we're going to see is, you know, we saw, I think we've already seen this in the context of the immigration debate. We've seen it in the context of the healthcare debate, is that I think opposition to Trump in the first instance is going to breed a new generation of people who understand the importance of specific policies and or sort of broad policy buckets in a way that is more sustainable than, and I would argue more is healthier for the progressive movement than waiting for a charismatic candidate or two or three to take the handoff from our last president. So I'm really excited because I think that one of the things to come out of, I bet is going to come out of this ACA fight, is an entire generation of folks who've become active, not only in opposition to Trump, but maybe that was the entry point.

in opposition to Trump, but maybe that was the entry point. But, you know, as they look back on Friday's moment, I think that they're more invested in the actual underlying policy, and that is sustainable because it's not specific to, you know, personality on either side of the debate. So we've seen this kind of surge in activism, especially around things like ACA, and then, you know, in L.A., you know, you know, LA had hundreds of thousands of people come out to vote, and then hundreds of thousands of people to come out to march, and then one of the lowest election turnouts we've ever had. How do you

make that kind of energy sustainable when there isn't? Look, I mean, the ACA fight is pretty incredible in that it was a specific battle to save something really positive for lots of people that they were afraid to lose. What do you do when it's not as clear, when it's not as stark? Yeah. Well, the first thing is, and, you know, this is hard to pull off logistically, not to go into, to dive into tactics, but... Go into it. We like tactics here.

We like tactics. We're not afraid of tactics. We're also trying to keep it loose, you know? Sorry, let me just take off my tie. Yeah, you really sound like you're wearing a suit, and we're really going for more of a laid back, maybe a robe. Do you have a robe?

I'm sweating through my vest, guys. It's a three-piece suit. It's also one I've owned since college, so it's a little snug. It's been great to see the sort of numbers and the sheer mass. And there's going to be some natural attrition there over time that I don't think is going to be illustrative of a concerning waning of enthusiasm. There's just going to be natural attrition, I think, as his presidency continues and there's every week something new to organize around. I think if groups are, and every indication is that they have been and they're going to continue to be smart about this,

you've got one of the best ways, and it sounds simple, but one of the best ways to try to capture that enthusiasm is to actually be smart about your data and be smart about trying to capture as much of, you know, as many of the people that show up to one of those things. And it's hard when it's, you know, tens of thousands at a given march. But try to capture as much data as you can as possible because ultimately, you know, a good organization or a good organizer would look at that data as invaluable because as possible because ultimately you know a good organization or good uh... organizer would look at that data as invaluable because of the folks you can follow up with you can tell your

you know you're after them over time but uh... you know with the time you could be bring up iowa and one of the things that was drilled into us and uh... from day one in the actual in any good organizers that that didn't happen if you could capture people's names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails.

And this is probably something worthwhile for the listeners. If you show up to an event or a rally that a local organization or even a national one puts on, and they're not badgering you to sign a sign-in sheet, it's probably a sign that it's not a particularly well-run grassroots effort because that's the lifeblood of keeping folks engaged is being able to communicate with them on either individual or mass basis. So not to give a, again, sorry, I'm going to overuse the word tactic,

not to give a tactical answer to I think what's a big-picture problem, but if I was helping to organize a rally at any point, that would be the very first thing I would make sure to do. I'd rather have half the people there and every single one of them captured. Yeah, the happiest I ever saw you guys was the day after the Oprah event where you were just counting supporter cards. It was like Scrooge McDuck swimming in money. You did a lot of OP work. You did a lot of engagement to business groups and others. I read a whole bunch of stories about Jared Kushner's new SWAT team today where he's bringing in fresh new business thinking to Washington with people like Tim Cook and Mark Benioff. Did that sound

particularly new to you? Is that an idea you guys might have tried at one time? Well, look, I think a couple of things. One, we tried and tried successfully a bunch of times to bring in private sector voices. If you look at the makeup of the President's Jobs Council when we first came in and were facing an economic meltdown, by and large were big private sector names who offered a lot of expertise and a lot of guidance as we were putting together our strategies for dealing with that mess. Plus pictures. Plus pictures. Don't forget the pictures we took of the jobs council, which was very real.

Very real council. We don't... Sorry, go on. Jobs council. The short answer is that this is... I think it is an admirable endeavor to try to... Anytime you try to bring in outside thinking to government, I think it's an admirable endeavor to try to, you know, anytime you try to bring an outside thinking to government, I think it's an admirable endeavor.

It's something that we did a lot. It's something we did, you know, to some good effect. We did a regulatory review with a lot of private sector folks at the table. But, you know, I suspect this is a little bit more about a headline than a substantive reimagining of how government works. I think if we're seeing anything, well, there's a lot of lessons to take out of the past few weeks and months, but a lot of those perspectives are not interchangeable. I loved when the president used to say at the end of his term,

pointing to the difference between being president and being CEO, imagine if you had a board, half of which wanted you to fail. You had an employee base of which 10% were actually at-will employees. It's a totally different endeavor. So I imagine it's more about a one-time headline than it's not going to, I doubt it. Well, I'd be highly surprised if it led to any sort of substantive change in the functioning of their administration. Probably good, because Jared's probably got to get back to finishing up Middle East peace.

That's kind of two big tickets. Imperfecting the mogul course. Right, plus he's got a scheme to get in. The most intractable foreign policy problem of multiple lifetimes and restructuring the entirety of the U.S. government is a pretty big problem. Pretty easy. Well, he did briefly work in real estate, so I think that that's an experience he can use and bring to bear. So we get asked a lot by people, you know, what can I do to get involved? You know, I'm not in a red state. I'm not in a swing district.

And pretty much our answer is, like, show up at a rally or go to a town hall. What other things can people, concrete steps can people take to be involved who maybe haven't been in politics before, but they're interested now and they want to help? What would you suggest? So let me, this kind of ties back to my observation that I mentioned earlier about when we were going state to state on the Obama campaign during the primary, what we saw in terms of folks just showing up. You know, there's a lot of talk, good talk, and I think accurate introspection in the

party right now about, you know, the importance of winning at the state and local level down ballot. And there's a lot of, you know, there's sort of this, what I think is going to be a really healthy natural selection of, that's a really conservative thing to say, but really healthy natural selection of groups that are emerging to, to get people plugged into running for office, etc. But the truth is, it's as simple as showing up to almost, anybody listening has a, probably 95% has a functioning or semi-functioning county Democratic Party, the core goal of which is to win at the state and local level and to field candidates

for office at the local level primarily. And you might not be in a swing congressional district, but it's almost, you know, there's almost nowhere in the country that has, you know, at the county level, you know, across the board, blue elected officials. And I would say, look, if you're looking for a hyper-specific, tangible thing to do, I'd show up to your county Democratic Party. I'd Google it. I'd show up, and there's almost invariably an appetite for committed, free volunteer labor in terms of helping to identify candidates, supporting those candidates, providing whatever your talents or expertise are in service of the candidates that are running locally.

And look, if you find, and this is what some of our volunteers found in 08, if you find that your county Democratic Party is not run by a group or somebody that you see eye to eye with or you find that they're not a great entry point, then you can try to find another inlet. You can run for a seat on that county party and shape it in the way that you want it to do. But from a hyper-specific political perspective, it has nothing to do with the DNC and all the debates around the DNC. It has nothing to do with even state parties. I would literally Google your county or city party and show up to their next meeting.

They'll put you to work. The very first thing I ever did in politics was intern at the county Democratic office in Nassau County. And the other thing that happens when you show up at a local county office is you realize, like, you know, show up sober. They make you foreman. You know, you can do a lot of good there. Love it. Took over in no time. Yeah, I was running that.

Johannes, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate you. And we'll talk to you soon. Thanks, guys. Take care. Thanks, buddy. Thanks. That's our show for today.

Thank you to Johannes Abraham for joining us. And we'll see you again soon. What a week. Thanks, buddy. Thanks. That's our show for today. Thank you to Johannes Abraham for joining us, and we'll see you again soon. What a week. What a week. It's only Monday. Bye, guys. Bye.