35 Comments

How do we match the song from the episode to the playlist ? I am looking for the 4/18 closing song

Expand full comment
author

Playlist is in chronological order. The 4/18 song was Bethlehem/SC Freestyle by Vic Mensa.

Expand full comment

I’m reading Liz Cheney’s book now, and McCarthy’s machinations are infuriating. Of all the bad guys in the book, he’s the worst. Lying, hypocritical jerk.

Expand full comment

As someone who has fled MTG district after coming in contact with her many times locally and during her anti-vax, anti-mask rants (healthcare worker who suffered her attacks for wearing mask) I can help you Tim, she absolutely believes the space lasers, she has some mental deficits. She is angry, obstinate defiant, and craves attention. She is very attracted to and believes in conspiracies. She is easily identified as low IQ in person. I do not mean this in a mean spirited way, but as a clinical observation.

Expand full comment
Apr 19·edited Apr 19

The Chris Murphy/Ian Corbin piece on immigration in today's Bulwark that Tim calls out IS great.

As usual, I'm with Will and Tim and Mona and Linda Chavez: we must get the border under control, we must stop the massive abuses of the asylum system, we must get hundreds, if not thousands more Immigration Judges and Border Patrol members on the job and get all the open cases cleared. And then, we must do something for the Dreamers, and reform the legal immigration system to welcome a LOT more immigrants in who have or can easily acquire the skills that we'll need for the future.

Matt Yglesias has been pushing the idea of "One Billion Americans" for a couple of years now. A billion is probably a bigger number than we need, but it's not as outrageous as it seems at first sight. Since 1950, the population of the United States has doubled. If it doubles again in the next 50 or 70 years, that's 670 million. That doesn't seem so daunting, and the level of economic growth it would bring if done the right way is very inviting -- and it's already 2/3 of the way to a billion. We need to recover the American talent for thinking BIG.

Expand full comment

Hey y'all, Netanyahu is starting WIII just so he can stay in power. You heard it here first, but nobody wants to know the truth, so we ignore it and make excuses. Cheers!

Expand full comment

On the positive amendment trolling side, Rep Jared Moskowitz (Dem-Florida) offered up an amendment to rename Marjorie Taylor Greene's office after Neville Chamberlain:

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1780959848676339739

Expand full comment

Somewhere in the ether, the spirit of Vidkun Quisling is feeling slighted…

Expand full comment

I love me some obscure reference!

Expand full comment

Love the podcast and love the Bulwark. Two small comments on today’s show:

Ali Vitali referred multiple times to ‘Freedom’ Caucus members as “hardline conservatives.” She might be the last journalist still referring to Maga right-wingers as “conservatives.” They share no political traits with conservatives. There are plenty of political adjectives that describe them more accurately: right-wing, far right, maga, christian nationalists, America firsters, etc.

Also, I love Will S’s commentary, but the number of times he referred to right wingers as “isolationists” was painful. It’s nice of him to give the far right the benefit of the doubt on that—and a few of them might be isolationists—but a lot more of them are authoritarian Christian Nationalists who follow Tucker and revere Putin. He says “isolationists;” I say 5th column Putinists. History will say which of us was correct.

Expand full comment

This comment is so right on that I wish I could "like" it many times.

Expand full comment

Give wil his own podcast

He’s earned it

Everyone else gets one Why not him? You even got Conway On a podcast now

Expand full comment

I definitely would like more regular Will. And Ben Wittes.

Expand full comment

Tim and Will - regarding China steel tariffs, you should read Noah Smith (economist) on China’s predatory industrial policies. If you understood China’s strategy, you would likely have a different reaction to Biden’s China steel tariffs.

Or have Noah on your podcast so he can explain! Or ask Tim Ryan. He’ll give you a blue collar perspective from rust-belt Ohio.

Expand full comment

There’s an appropriate level of tarriff.

Expand full comment
Apr 18Liked by Will Saletan

Good podcast today! I like Ali & Will. Also the for Will's podcast link does not work.

Expand full comment
Apr 18·edited Apr 18

While she’s made her fair share of political missteps, I’ve always felt that Harris has been in a no win situation.

There’s a significant portion of the population that’s always going to hate her or carry preconceived notions about her because of her race and/or gender. The unprecedented political tribalism does not help. Because of all this, she had a hard ceiling on her favorability and a high baseline on her unfavorably.

On top of that, she’s in a tough spot with Biden. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all in on Biden. But his age, energy, and perceived strength are HUGE issues for voters. If Harris were to go around in a flurry of activity and upstage him publicly, that’d reinforce negative perception about Biden. She has to stay in his shadow, which severely limits what she can do publicly. Abortion is the exception to this, and I hope Harris continues to push in this area.

Side note to Tim and others: it bothers me that people more often than not use her first name when talking about her than her last name. We do not do this for VPs Pence, Biden, Cheney, Gore, etc. But we do this for Kamala. Whether this is intended or not, it comes off as not respecting her in terms of the weight of the office she holds nor recognizing her as equal to others who’ve held this position. While there’s no way this one thing is what’s dragging down public perception of her, I do not think it helps and have always wondered how much this reinforces people’s views of her as doing nothing, unqualified, etc.

Expand full comment

1. Kamala is still paying the price for her poor showing in the 2020 primary. As VP, she is a full-time proxy for the president, and therefore she has zero opportunity to repair her own political identity. That's why she is in a no-win situation.

2. We tend naturally to use the shortest name that will uniquely identify a person. It has nothing to do with sexism or any identity issue. Take the Bushes, for example. We have to call the 43rd president George W. Bush to distinguish him from his father, George H. W. Bush. But we just refer to his brother as Jeb because there are no other prominent Jebs in US politics these days. Harris is a common name, but the only other Kamala I am aware of is a Marvel superheroine.

Expand full comment

Truman was also considered a wince-inducing mediocrity, he is highly regarded now, even with the Hiroshima revisionism. Different times, but worth remembering.

I do think, however, leaning too far into the abortion issue has some peril for her and the campaign. Pro-lifers will never be swayed by Harris' speeches, and pro-choicers are already in the bag. If you roll Dobbs up as an example of Republicans' attack on freedoms writ large (book-banning, IVF, even divorce or same sex marriage), you make (I think) a much more compelling message.

Expand full comment

You've hit on it. Kamala...no guy is named that, but Harris could be any man. Kamala, Hilary...it's a way to point out their sex and in Kamala, a way to point out that she is not white. Remember the dudes who mangled the name intentionally...some furrin (sic) name, not a legitimate American.

Expand full comment

Tim's comment about Trump not liking the Japanese brought back memories. When I was a federal law clerk in 1992-94, my first jury trial requested the Judge to ask during voir dire about the jurors attitudes towards the Japanese (Toyota was one of the defendants). I asked why and my Judge, whose older brother died during D-day and he received the telegram, was because of the residual hatred by older people (who find their ways on juries) of the Japanese because of WWII. I asked him whether there were similar questions asked about Germans and he looked at me and hesitated and said he had never heard of that.

Expand full comment

Maybe because Germans were a bigger chunk of our population going way back. They certainly were victims of prejudice around the time of the WWII, but I don't think it lasted very long after. Japan also challenged us in manufacturing soon enough after the war to revive all the bad feelings.

Expand full comment

I think there was always more hatred of the Japanese because of Pearl Harbor and might explain why this was largely a generational hatred. You would be hard pressed finding anyone (other than just a stone cold racist) who was born after 1960 that hated the Japanese for WWII or otherwise.

Expand full comment

RE: the Mayorkas impeachment. I wonder, and this is horrible of me, if it was a good idea for Schumer to dismiss the impeachment. The way I see it, he has no actual chance of being convicted of anything, and everyone had to have known that coming in. Allowing the 'trial' to proceed in the Senate advertises how nakedly partisan and shambolic this whole thing is. I have the feeling it would have rallied the Democratic base and probably not provided much energy to the R voters, maybe even sapped them.

I realize this is blatantly unfair to Mayorkas himself, but I wonder about what is the course of action that gives Biden bedder odds come November.

Expand full comment

The House Republicans conducting the prosecution of Mayorkas would have used the impeachment trial to promote their hysteria over "the out-of-control border". I think it was a good strategic choice to deny them that opportunity.

Expand full comment

It's not horrible of you, but you're kindly trying to be fair in a situation where fairness is not appropriate. I think that what Schumer did was right: we should never, EVER treat The Lie as if it were equal to the truth. We must never give it equal prestige with the truth or risk giving it credibility, whatever the reaction we may fear. To do otherwise only confuses and discourages people of honesty and goodwill, and elevates, encourages, and validates the worst people in the country who are trying to destroy the Republic.

Expand full comment

Oh, no, I'm not trying to be fair at all. I'm trying to be blatantly partisan and underhanded. I'm thinking that it might put Mayorkas through the emotional wringer, and perhaps lend a small patina to dignity to the Republican impeachment flailing, but at what I consider a considerable likelihood of electoral payoff when it shines more light on how incompetent and petty they are for trying this at all.

Expand full comment

I have a minor, pedantic thing to say. There is a prohibition on mixing specifically wool and linen fabrics. (Deuteronomy, 22:11 if anyone cares). It is not a capital offense, and it's lumped in with a number of other religious laws which are pretty much all 'you get a fine if you break this'. And while the reason behind it isn't explicitly spelled out, the High Priest had an outfit with a mixed wool and linen outer coat; it's pretty clear that this is a "Don't wear something even related to the High Priest outfit you plebs".

Expand full comment
founding

On Representative Green asking Columbia President about bible courses, he should be careful what he asks (prays?) for. I took a course about the Bible in college. It's where the two contradictory stories of creation in Genesis was pointed out to me. And the Professor was a man of faith, but simply willing to recognize that the Bible is a creation of man.

Besides, and I bet we will hear about this, I bet there are plenty of similar courses being taught at Columbia today.

Expand full comment

I don't know about Columbia, but my alma mater, a Methodist-affiliated liberal arts college, chose not to replace its professors of Old and New Testament when they retired. Instead, it has chosen to emphasize comparative religion. Except in colleges with departments focused on Judeo-Christian religion, I suspect many other colleges have moved in similar directions.

Expand full comment

Loved the first part.

I’m with you guys that tariffs suck and we shouldn’t have them but let’s be serious: if your for the electoral college than your for tariffs. If only 6 states matter and 3 of them are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan this is the type of policy you should will get.

Free trade is popular like democrats are popular. Sure it is more than 50% but not enough to win the presidency

Expand full comment