Bill Kristol: Prepping A Closing Message
46:41 Share

Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. It's Monday, September 30th. We are wishing our Canadian friends a meaningful Truth and Reconciliation Day. But the yanks on this podcast, sorry, we're only going to be able to offer you one half of that equation today. I'm here with Bill Kristol. No reconciliation for the Vichy Republicans here at the Bulwark. True.

Truth first. Truth and reconciliation, people have written a lot about this in Eastern Europe, are not, of course, they don't always go together, right? Reconciliation means obscuring certain truths. And then people like Havel were very interested, I mean, interested, very concerned about this and wrote about this in the early 90s. You know, we have to

sacrifice some truth for the sake of reconciliation. I guess maybe we're willing to do that in 2025, but not now, right? Maybe. And I don't want to promise. I don't want to promise. I might need a full year of truth before we get to reconciliation, 2026. You, JVL, and I are going to be on the truth side of this debate in bulwark world, I think, yes. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Well, you have a morning shots out this morning that it has this line. It's going to be hard to ignore foreign policy over the final five weeks of this campaign. It's definitely not. I wouldn't say it's been a foreign policy campaign, but foreign policy has been thrust upon us a little bit.

Over the weekend, Hassan Nasrallah, who was the head of Hezbollah, was taken out by the Israelis. He also got a couple of his necks in command. So unclear leadership situation for Hezbollah right now. The Israelis also engaged in some strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. The U.S. engaged in airstrikes in Syria.

So on the one hand, we've been taking out some truly heinous people in the Middle East that are causing instability. That's good. On the other hand, potentially some expanding conflict and increased risk of full regional war. So we'll obviously have the Europe side of this we'll get to in a second. But any thoughts on what we saw over the weekend and potential impacts here domestically?

I mean, it's great that Nasrallah's gone, in my opinion, and we'll see what happens next, though. These things, wars are unpredictable, and these kinds of situations, very unpredictable. So we're now there in the middle of it, and we're more in the middle of it than Americans realize. I'm sort of struck by that. I don't know that how many Americans knew that we were taking out al-Qaeda and ISIS actors in Syria. I guess we had two strikes. I don't think we announced them exactly at the time. We announced them at the end of the week after both had happened, which was probably prudent and all that, but it's

It's a reminder that we're not quite as far from the, you know, we read about Israel doing X and Ukraine doing Y. We're pretty involved in these things and could get more involved than we were, of course, when Iran tried to attack Israel just a few months ago. So I guess my analysis is simple for why foreign policy will become much more of an issue and should be really in the last five weeks. One, the world is in a very volatile and dangerous place.

and we're involved in that volatility and danger. And two, much more than has been the case in, I don't know, all of recent American history, I think the two candidates have such different foreign policy visions. So you put together...

dangerous world, two different paths of how to deal with it. You'd think that would be something the American public would want to think about when they vote for the commander in chief in November. Yeah. I guess the thing that gives me a little angst about this as it relates to the campaign is we see this clearly the difference, the contrast between what Harris is proposing and what Trump would, we see differently, I guess, the stability of the person in charge and the judgment of the person in charge and the gap between Harris and Trump is

But it does kind of undermine, I mean, Harris was trying to elide the truth a little bit with the talking points around this, you know, talking about how we don't have people in war zones, which isn't exactly true. And, you know, I think their strategy had been to date kind of to minimize the nature of the instability abroad, right? While Trump is trying to say, oh, the world's on fire. You can't trust these guys. You can just trust the strongman to keep things peaceful. Right.

So at some level, even though kind of those of us who are super educated on the nuances of their policy views, it could be a boon for Harris. It's also a risk, I think. Yeah, no, no, I think that's right. And it is a genuine risk. And she's the incumbent part of the incumbent administration. And to the degree the world looks like it's dangerous and chaotic, there's a certain tendency to blame the incumbent administration. On the other hand, it is what it is. It's funny, but

Back when you were in elementary school, in '88, Bush ran for Reagan's third term, so to speak. And there was a big internal debate in the Bush campaign. Did we say, with some measure of truth, incidentally, that the world is much better off than it was when Reagan took over eight years ago, that Gorbachev is making changes, that we can run as the kind of peace and prosperity

and we're on the right path? Or do we also say the world's still dangerous and you need Bush, not Dukakis? And they went a little more in the second direction. And that would have been equally true in a way to say that things were better than they had been four years before and Reagan had done a good job of handling various crises without getting U.S. troops involved much and so forth. So it's a tension that's

in an incumbent campaign and its attention in the truth. I mean, you want to take credit for certain things you've done that have dealt with problems, but I don't know. I think at this point with the Middle East and with the situation in Ukraine, and especially with Trump making it an issue by appearing with Zelensky Friday, as you've, you have a terrific video on this and you have strong thoughts on this as I do, but I think it's better to grasp the nettle. And I guess my, I would say, well,

We've got to make clear to people how risky it is to put Trump in charge. I feel like the risk thing, it's not really my, I think nor yours, maybe inclination to run a campaign against, you know, we want to be, you want to be the candidate of change, but,

It's a little hard to combine that. It's a little tension with saying, and also the other guy's too risky. But I think that's kind of what she has to do. Because I do think you've got to bring home how dangerous it is to make Donald Trump commander-in-chief in 2025. I mean, so I'm sort of foreplaying the risk card, even though it slightly cuts against my normal, and I think a lot of other people's sense that maybe Harris has to be the candidate of change. Yeah. We're very on brand. We've had Havel.

Gorbachev already brought up in the first five minutes this Monday morning to the Trump-Zelensky meeting. It was just sick. For anyone who blessedly didn't hear it, I just want to play one clip from it. I also have a very good relationship, as you know, with President Putin. And I think if we win, I think we're going to get it resolved very quickly. Very work. I really think we're going to get it. I hope we have more good relations. Oh, I see. But, you know, it takes two to tango, you know, and

If you couldn't hear that, Zelensky is saying, I hope you have more good relations with us after Trump is standing there next to him talking about how great his friendship is with Vladimir Putin, who is, you know, kidnapping children, you know, and bombing buildings all across Zelensky's country. He's awful, obviously. But I was wondering what your kind of impressions were overall on the Zelensky-Trump meetup. I don't think people...

commented enough on how awful it is to have one of the two major party candidates showing no solidarity with a country that we have stood with to our credit for two and a half years, that almost the entire free world and Europe has stood with to their credit. And as you say, is 100% the victim of the aggression. This is not a close call. This is not a complicated border dispute.

and a vaginicidal aggression by Putin, a horrible dictator in so many other ways in addition. And Trump's kind of at best even-handed, and I would say slightly pro-Putin, wouldn't you say, in the way that he presents himself? I mean, leaving aside what he even thinks, but just to have that publicly be the image

of one of the two major party candidates is bad it's danger i mean sadly anyone in europe watching it and thinking that trump could win just confirms their view that we're not going out on any limbs for ukraine in the next five weeks you know yeah and the other clip that i didn't play from this press conference but is trump you might imagine if you're having a joint press conference with zelensky and you want to praise him

as you're trying to build this relationship with an ally that we're supporting. There are a million things that you could talk to about, you know, the bravery that he's shown, willingness to stay in Kiev when people wanted him to run, the bravery of the Ukrainian fighters, the strategic military acumen of pushing back a bigger country. Trump did not do any of that. Trump did praise him for one thing, being nice to him during impeachment one.

He does like a four minute ramble about how impeachment one was so unfair and it was the perfect phone call. And Zelensky was strong as steel standing with me. And it's like the megalomania and the narcissism, in addition to like not even seeming to be aware of,

that it would not be like well taken in this press conference to talk about how great of a friendship he has with Putin. And the whole thing is just an absolute outrageous farce. This is where we'll get to this a little bit next on Trump's other rallies. But like, it is hard for a straight news mainstream outlet to explain like how bad it is without seeming like you're being hyperbolic because it's just so gross.

It is. And we say it often. And then we say people should recognize how gross it is. And I guess some people do, but a lot of people don't want to. And it is hard for the media, in a sense, to capture that fully. They sort of report it straight forward, you might say. And then it's sort of in a horse race context, too. I mean, you had that terrific video over the weekend on Twitter.

But I just want to ask you one question. You're sure about these things. I mean, what about the risk versus change issue, if I can put it that way? What should Harris's closing message be? I mean, Carville said on the economy that he thought Harris should emphasize now that things are getting a little better and Trump puts it all at risk with tariffs and other crazy policies. Could she sustain a risk message against Trump or does that run the race?

on the risk of being too much, you know, defending the status quo and so, et cetera. I think that her trying to maintain the change message as a candidate is important as far as her speeches and her presentations. But like, especially if we don't have another debate, kind of like the big moments for that are past, right? Like where you're reaching, where people are, who are not,

super engaged in politics or like seeing like exactly what the nuance of her messages and, and the change message is a little bit just sort of embodied in her identity, right? First woman president, biracial. And so like the change thing is already implicit. And so I agree with you. And I think if you're thinking about the, the remaining, uh,

People that are that are either gettable to vote for her or gettable to be persuaded to not vote for Donald Trump, which is, I think, an important underrated part of this so-called swing voter that we're thinking of.

You know, just like somebody that either doesn't bother to vote or just leaves the top of the ticket blank because they can't get that on him. Like, I think the risk is an important part of that. I think that it's underappreciated right now, like just the downside disaster possibility of Trump. And you can do it. What I don't think is good.

which Biden was doing a little bit, is democracy is definitely a threat. I'm with everybody on that. I concur with the nature of that type of threat. But I don't think people have really, it has sunk in the other potential threats, right? Like how the tariffs could lead to mass economic disruption, like the foreign policy unpredictability, just like the general instability of Trump, I think is a good message for the remaining people that they're trying to speak to.

Yeah, I think so. I mean, I was talking to someone today last week, got a little depressed because I think he's going to end up voting for Trump. But he was, you know, Trump's tougher on foreign policy, Bill. And at the end of the day, that's what, you know, he can be a little erratic. Of course, in some sense, Trump is or plays the tough guy role.

And what can make a complicated or somewhat complicated argument in response? And should, you know, America first isn't really tough because it really is retreating from all these challenges. But in a way, it's simpler just to say, look, he's just too erratic and too risky. And you might, if Mr. Pro-Israel voter even think that.

For now, he's sort of vaguely pro-Israel because of various almost biographical and historical accidents. But you can't count on him. And who knows where we are a year from now when Gantz is prime minister, not Netanyahu, and they're doing something that annoys some of Trump's friends somewhere else in the world or business interests. And I think the kind of unpredictability, riskiness of Trump, not just on Israel, but as a leader, could be brought home. And God knows it's true, right? Yeah.

This does take us to the ads because I do think some of this stuff is missing, like the added information about Trump. I mean, again, you don't want your core message in the final five weeks here to be like Trump was on the take from Egypt and Saudi. But he was. And so, you know, again, does that increase some doubt in thinking about, OK, well, what does this guy who you know is a huckster and a grifter say?

Like, what would he do in a second term when, you know, there's not the prospect of another election coming up, right? Like, might his behavior be differently? Might he be more willing to sell out additional allies to people that are paying him, forces that are paying him? I think that that's a fair thing to remind people of. So I was in Texas over the weekend, so we were getting a bunch of ads.

on national football, but also, uh, cruise and all right. And the Kamala ads, I don't know. I kind of get what they're doing, but I want to just play, uh, this is one of the super pack ads that her super pack was airing that I saw a bunch. And I don't know. She worked her way up. I had a summer job at McDonald's. He was born there. I'm very rich. She fights for you. When our middle class is strong, America is strong. He is.

doesn't. She has a reason for running. We are helping dig families out of debt by telling billionaires to pay their fair share. And so does he. They want to put me in jail. Kamala Harris, for you. FF Pack is responsible for the content of this ad.

So, she's had a bunch of ads that are kind of in that vein. There's some that are just more gauzy and positive. They're just this kind of this Kamloops for the middle class, Kamloops for you. I get it. I get what they're trying to do there. But I do wonder, like, how much more there is to be gained by that, you know, having such a generic populist message. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. What do you think about that?

And sort of a bio middle-class message, biographical middle-class message, which is good. I think it was reasonable to do that. It was important to do that. And it did help Harris separate from Biden, be a forward-looking younger candidate, get to a slight lead over Trump. I don't think it's enough for the final five weeks. And they may not think so either. I mean, I was talking with Ron Brownstein about this the other day, and I don't know if this is based on reporting of his or just his thoughts. I stipulate that. But he said he wondered if they were planning to pivot now to the more

The tougher message now, you can't risk Trump.

for many reasons, you know, 15 million people being deported and a crazy far, you know, craziness and petulance and volatility in the Oval Office and, you know, tariffs and whatever, right? And that wouldn't be a bad one-two theory of the campaign, you know, build up Harris and then close by really clobbering Trump, both on the sort of ideological stuff, you know, he'll cut taxes for the rich, but I would say also on the kind of almost personal issues

unfitness to be president stuff. And that allows you to bring in some of the Republican voices and people who serve for them. Is that in their mind? I hope so. And I totally agree with that. I just want to say, and I think that the strategy has worked with the vice president, right? Like her favorables are way up.

You're introducing people to her. They needed to know basic bio stuff. They wanted to kind of hear what the top level priorities would be for administration. And I think that there's maybe some more that could still, you know, be done there as far as just reassuring people that didn't know enough about her. But at this point,

I think that like most of that has been accomplished and like Chuck, which great job, but it was striking to me the contrast between that ad and what Trump is doing. Here's the ad that Trump was running during, during college football over the weekend. Kamala supports taxpayer funded sex changes for prisoners, surgery for prisoners, for prisoners, every transgender person.

inmate in the prison system would have access it's hard to believe but it's true even the liberal media was shocked kamala supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners and illegal aliens every transgender inmate would have access kamala's for they them president trump is for you i'm donald j trump and i approve this message

So, I mean, it goes without saying, but it needs to be said that that is disgusting. And the images, if you're looking at the images, it's just really gross the way that they're demonizing and being cruel to trans and non-binary people. I also don't know, like, it's a little bit, I think...

in the mega bubble. Like, I actually don't know how great it is at speaking to swing voters like the liberal media and comments for they, them. Like, I don't know. Like, that's like kind of stuff that sounds more like it appeals to Daily Wire listeners than it does to like a median voter. That said, like the contrast of like

like Trump's campaign, giving people a new piece of information about her and why she's extreme and very harsh language versus kind of the gauzy ads that she was running.

I don't know. I mean, maybe like the theory of the case is just like we're going to try to keep a positive sheen on this and let them obsess over these niche issues. But I do just worry a little bit about the imbalance there. Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I assume both these are both very wealthy campaigns and wealthy super facts, a lot of money. I assume they're testing all these ads and they at least superficially test. Well, we've seen this over the years. An ad can test well in some focus group and, you know, even a dial group.

Doesn't mean it necessarily really has an effect on the campaign ultimately or changes voters' minds. And so, yeah, the trans thing strikes was a little niche on the other hand. I don't know. Maybe they think it just stands in for just general cultural left wing rights and stuff. She's a far left liberal. And I assume they'll come back to the more core issues.

immigration, crime, border, you know, debagagery here for the last three weeks. They're running just a totally negative campaign. I mean, and I don't know, I'm a little worried that it could be having an effect and a little worried that

I think she's trying to answer. She went to the border Friday and all that, but crime's down and they touted those statistics a little bit. But yeah, I guess I have as a vague sense that they need to take the gloves off and go after Trump and not spend a huge amount of time answering necessarily what Trump's doing. They have to do a little of that, of course, but more just really say, okay, you know what? Let some of these voters think Harris isn't quite where they are on immigration or even on surgery for Trump.

transgender prisoners. What is the being on it for? I guess that they don't want the very important issue of sex changes for prisoners. Right, exactly. But let them be a little unhappy about that. But let them be more unhappy about the idea that Donald Trump's going to be in the Oval Office with his finger on the nuclear button and making big, big decisions about us at home and abroad over the next four years. I do think you probably need at the end of the day to

I myself bought it a little bit into over the last couple months. You can't impart new information on Trump. They know everything already, but I now think they need to alarm people about Trump a little more. I got to tell you, if you are listening and you have a friend or family member who lives in a swing state, who's been seeing this ad and has expressed to you that they're concerned about the sex changes for inmates issue, I'll give you my personal phone number. I'd be happy to speak to somebody one-on-one about and assuage their concerns about the

about the rampant problem, I guess, in 2025, about too many inmates getting sex changes. But we've seen before, like the trans panic campaigns have not been very effective, right? So I don't like overstate the power of this ad. And anyway, we've seen it backfire for Republicans before. But I just do think that your point about

using it as a stand in for her is extreme while the other ad that they see in the same break is like I'm for the middle class you know there's just like the valence the emotional valence is just a little bit off I think so one issue that she does have that she's of course talked a lot about and I think using a lot in their paid advertising but maybe not quite ironically not quite as much as they could

If you're going to let's get tough and say, OK, what is Trump going to do to hurt you? There is this very obvious issue of abortion. Right. I mean, if you want an issue that's emotionally valent, that has real terrible stories associated with Trump, as she put it well in the debate, Trump laws and states like Texas where you were October 7th, which is the anniversary, obviously, of the.

Hamas attack and massacre, but also I think the court's new term begins Monday, a week from today, October 7th, the Supreme Court's new term. Pretty good occasion for her to just bring Dobbs and Roe v. Wade and abortion rights and what Trump has unleashed back to the forefront. So maybe that's their theory. They'll do that and they'll do the little, I hope they do a little foreign policy. And really, what would a Trump, the other four years of Trump appointments, some more Supreme Court appointments, a Trump

presidency with a Republican Congress, which would probably happen if Trump wins the presidency. You know, what does that produce? So, but yeah, I think it's time to pivot to those kinds of attacks. They did have one really good abortion ad. It doesn't seem like it's been airing as much as the more kind of middle class positive ads, but let's just actually put that in just so people can hear it. I've never slept a full night in my entire life. I was five years old when my stepfather abused me for the first time.

I just felt like I was alone on a planet with a monster. I was 12 when he impregnated me. I just remember thinking I have to get out of my skin. I can't be me right now. Like this can't be it. I didn't know what to do. I was a child. I didn't know what it meant to be pregnant at all, but I had options.

Because Donald Trump overturned Roe v. Wade, girls and women all over the country have lost the right to choose, even for rape or incest. Donald Trump did this. He took away our freedom. I'm Kamala Harris, and I approve this message.

So that's powerful. And I agree with you. I think that just as a political matter, there's a lot more potency there. And it maybe would have, I don't know, eased my agita if during the commercial breaks of Georgia, Alabama, I was seeing that out instead to bring some balance to the trans panic. The one other thing I was seeing about trans panic that may also adds to the just maybe emphasis on it or the degree to which they're trying to make it on the top of people's mind in Texas, the Cruz campaign.

All red ads, the Cruz ads are also about trans issues. And the Cruz case is about children and schools, et cetera. And so on the one hand, it's like, well, how much do people really care about this? But on the other hand, there is kind of this intense, like they're bombarding people with it, making it kind of try to other the Democratic candidates. One other thing, because you've been on this, there was a poll over the weekend that does show all red only down one to Cruz. And given that,

what we're seeing in the Montana polls, where it's looking really rough for Jon Tester right now. If the Democrats are going to have any chance to hold the Senate,

It feels like the All Red cruise race is the most likely one, and it still just hasn't gotten a ton of attention. I don't know if you have any updated thoughts on that. I think objectively, you just have to say All Red probably has a better chance right now than Tester, and neither would be favored. Now, it's a lot more expensive to contest Texas than Montana, so that's a calculation people have to make. But I think one advantage of having a lot of money is that you can do something like that. So, no, I think it's worth trying. Florida's also not quite as close, but...

Scott has never been a popular senator. He won by one point in 2018. I mean, both Scott and Cruz won by, what, one point, one and a half points in 2018. So 2018 is a different electorate. It wasn't a presidential. I understand all that. But still, almost by definition, if that's the case, it's foolish to rule that out, I think. It's not like Scott and Cruz have spent the last six years making themselves fantastically popular senators. I don't have that impression in Texas or Florida. So why not at least be open-minded about taking a real –

Shout out at it. You know, just on the trans thing, which now I'm more upset about it now that you sort of made me think about it, which I hadn't really. Okay, good. That's what I'm here to do. Rile people up and make them more upset about things. It's so disgustingly demagogic and, you know, Patrick to various bigotries and so forth.

I am a little worried, though. I mean, it says that these are well-funded and sophisticated campaigns, Trump and Cruz, for all the unpleasantness of Cruz as a person and the craziness of Trump as a person. They've tested these. They've got polling and focus group data. They must think, they could be wrong, but they must think this is effective. They don't think they're just doing an intra-mega, you know, online bubble thing, right? So it makes me a little nervous just that they're doing it.

But I still think having said that, that, I mean, people look at it and say, yes, I agree they shouldn't pay for these operations. But do they really vote on that for president or even for senator? It seems a little implausible, but I don't know.

They are sophisticated campaigns. That said, Ted Cruz's advisor, Jeff Rowe, did spend like $150 million to lose like half of the vote share for Ron DeSantis in the primary. So sometimes having sophisticated campaigns and money doesn't actually yield results. And sometimes the tested ads don't turn out as they should. Just one final point on the Cruz thing, because

Why not be happy and positive on a Monday morning? You know, we spend a lot of time thinking about worrying, thinking about what happens if there's a poll error in Trump's favor, as there has been of a couple of points and what that means if it moves to what the tipping point state is. There could be a poll error in the Democratic direction by two to three points. Like, that's not totally implausible. It's very challenging. I was talking to a pollster over the weekend.

The polling of 18 to 30 year olds is so bad. It's so challenging to figure out how to do it. And the Harvard poll was over the weekend that Sarah did the focus group on with Peter Hamby is super interesting. And they do they do the best job. But even still, there's not a zero percent chance that there's a polar the other way. And if it is true that all red is only down by one or two points and a polar works in the Democrats favor this time.

I just want to reemphasize your point that I concur that it's worth playing there. And people that are interested in getting involved in races that maybe are a little outside where most of the money is being spent in, it's not a bad one to look at. Conventionally, back in the day, an incumbent below 50 is supposed to be vulnerable. And Cruz is an incumbent and he's below 50. I mean, you can overthink these things. Will the undecided voters, if it's really 47, 46, let's just say,

I go to Cruz at the end. I don't know. Don't they know Cruz already? Aren't they learning more about already and deciding he's a pretty moderate Democrat? I mean, you know, I think it's I mean, if that's real, that's an even race, obviously, you know.

Let's go back to the Trump rallies, which I wanted to get to, as you mentioned earlier. He had a rally in Wisconsin and one in Pennsylvania, and they were just abominable. And the rhetoric that he's using is just increasingly extreme, erratic, agitating people, racist, conspiratorial, all of them. I'm not going to make people suffer through all of these clips, but I do just want to play the clip where he's talking about his opponent, the vice president.

Joe Biden became mentally impaired. Kamala was born that way. She was born that way. And if you think about it, only a mentally disabled person could have allowed this to happen to our country. Anybody would know this. Wolf, Bill. I mean, what about the cheers and applause and laughing at this? Yeah. That comment. I mean, it's cruel. It's dark. If you have a kid with disabilities, you're watching that. You're like, why is the leader of the party...

Using that as a slur. And also, it's become so tiring to say this over and over again, but you have to say it. I had a candidate in 2010 or six or 1986, like leveled that type of attack on their opponent.

That would be just a total mad rush to follow up, just get the campaign to put out statements on it. Are they going to apologize? Are they going to back down? You know, it was just the type of rhetoric that was totally verboten and unacceptable.

and campaigns before Trump. And he ducks it in over the weekend between saying we need mass deportations or we won't have a culture anymore. It's a racist bullhorn if I've ever heard one. He said that we need to prosecute people that were stealing the 2020 election. He said we need to have one really violent day

One rough hour, and I mean real rough, where the police take out, I guess, extrajudicially people that are suspected of crimes to try to stop the crimes. And it's like calling convalescent mentally disabled just gets tucked underneath all of that. And, you know, the only people talking about it are us. Yeah, God forbid any Republican should say anything or anything.

Mitt Romney or someone who's, as you put it out, he's staying out of the presidential race because he wants to keep his credibility for later on to help save the Republican Party. I mean, really, is that just farcical, you know? And God forbid he should stand up and say, you know what, I just can't stand this. I'm not going to stomach this.

I'm voting for Harris. You should too. That would be it. Four sentences or whatever that was. And I don't know if it would have an effect or not. I guess Romney's convinced himself he wouldn't have any effect. He'd get, you know, like, didn't he get 50 or 60 million votes for president? I mean, some people liked him. I don't know. Maybe 1% of those people still like him. That's a pretty key amount. 5 million? 6 million? I don't know.

I'm really still in a state about the Republicans' silence and equivocation. And again, but you'd think that something like this would be, it's a good excuse in a way to say, well, I was going to stay out of it if it's policy debates that are a little complicated, but this is beyond the pale. But there is no pale anymore, I guess. Yeah.

Yeah, I wasn't where I was going with this. But now that you got me riled up, I'll follow up. I mean, it has just become so accepted in these circles. It's just like, I'm just not even gonna listen to it, right? Tune it out. We hang out with these people. Like I don't anymore really as much, but like the ones that will still talk to me. It's like to bring it up.

almost yields an eye roll in these Republican circles. It's like, well, what are you going to do at this point? It's just a total acceptance of this type of degradation of the rhetoric. And it's not just like the rhetoric. It's not just like, oh, he's a little tougher in his attacks on his opponents than other candidates were. It's like saying that we need mass deportations to protect the culture.

I mean, what is that? If not like blood and soil nativism, like just total racist nativism that is fundamentally un-American. Like what is it to say that we need one really rough hour except to kind of like lay the groundwork for, you know, having a DOJ or, you know, Trump, whatever police force or Trump sheriffs, constitutional sheriffs in these cities, like acting like,

you know, outside of the rule of law to go after foes. I mean, like that is what he's doing here. It's not just like, Oh, mean tweets, you know, it is more than that. And, and,

You would think that it would shake somebody, but no. Yeah. And Richelante is really, don't you think that's what he's laying the groundwork for whom we all then pardon. So that'll, you know, and find friendly law enforcement types to sort of, you know, support them. I mean, this is the, what 2025 could look like, right? And you think the implications of all that. He's such a piece of shit. That's just, it's kind of, it's, it's just hard to, hard to stomach sometimes. I was going to save this for the end, but we need a little dessert instead of dessert.

Are there any traditions around the world where you have like a little treat in the middle of a meal? Isn't that what palate cleanser actually is? That's what the palate cleanser is? I mean, we use it as a term now online to mean whatever it means. Or what do we use it for? But really, that's literally what it is and was, right? Okay.

You don't have that at home? A little sorbet between the second and third course to kind of clean the palate before you get from the fish course to the meat course or something like that? I believe that's what its origin was. Yeah, let's have a little raspberry sorbet before we get to the debate and Hurricane Helene. Let's listen to Trump talking about his body. I could have been sunbathing on the beach. You have never seen a body so beautiful. Much better than... Much better than...

Sleepy Joe. It's a pretty low bar, I guess, to have a much better body than Sleepy Joe. And I don't think that he actually crosses it. Have we seen Trump shirtless? Could you imagine what that would look like? Yeah, I can't unsee now. Now I have to spend the rest of the next couple hours not being able to unsee that image. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That was a real pal. That was a real pal. It was. It was. Maybe not a raspberry sorbet, I guess. Maybe a little less appetizing.

But it's just something to kind of think about. His like moobs and just like that jiggly body. It's not good underneath there. Even when you ever see him without the

without that kind of pine tar on his face, it looks really bad. So I just, I can't even imagine what the nipples look like. Let's talk about the final debate, I guess. Maybe Trump will change his mind and debate again, but otherwise our final debate might be JD Vance and Tim Walsh tomorrow night. I'm flying up to New York after we tape this to be able to hang out. Am I going to be able to gloat in the spin room again, Bill, do you think, or are you concerned about this one? Like I am a little concerned. I'm also a little of the view that the VB debates are,

almost never matter. I say this is someone who worked for a vice president. We're going to need our download numbers to still be good tomorrow and Wednesday. Yeah, no, no, I'm pro-VPs and pro-VP debates. I mean, so the one piece of advice I'd have for people to say look ahead to it is

each person will be coached, should be coached, not to attack the person across the stage from him, but to attack the presidential candidate. I mean, so this is all about Harrison Trump. And that was what I remember. You know, we were told, advised, I worked for Vice President Quayle in 92, and it was correct. And we did attack, we attacked Clinton and,

Gore attacked Bush, and they both did pretty well, actually. Then three or four days later, Bush looked at his watch in the town hall, Clinton, and it sort of overwhelmed, you might say, the effect of the VP debate. You can understand why that was so critical. I mean, when you compare it to poisoning the blood of Americans and making fun of people for their mental health. Isn't that crazy? Like being mentally disabled. A glance at the watch, you could see why that was such a big deal. I know, it is unbelievable. But

We haven't, I guess, done the experiment of having the VP debate be the last debate, if it is the last. And maybe, therefore, it leaves a little more of a lasting impression. I don't know. What do you think? I think conceivably. I worry a little bit about... Like, J.D. Vance is unappealing in every imaginable sense, like, as a human, because you can just tell that he's, like, being dishonest in his own skin and that people can sense that. And so, in that sense, like, I'm not so worried about tomorrow. But he is...

He's one of us. He's a podcaster. He's a blogger. He's a pundit. So he's good at this, right? Like Tim Walsh is not, right? Like he was a teacher and like he has his own,

You know, and he's in Congress. He's a governor. He didn't have any high level debates. Like J.D.'s been in a lot of high level debates, right? In the Ohio Senate primary, but also just in his life as like a, you know, Yale Law Debate Club person and being a pundit and being on TV. I just J.D. has a lot more reps. He's been fighting with the media, you know, fake news. So he has a lot of reps.

he's going to know the vice president's vulnerabilities way better than Trump did, you know, and be able to deliver a coherent attack on her record and in a way that will be much more cogent than the rambling nonsense that Trump was spewing. And so I do just worry a little bit that he might be able to land some punches on her, uh,

And not maybe not win the debate per se. And like, who would you rather, you know, be president J.D. Vance or Tim Walz, but win the debate in the sense that he's able to kind of get some stuff into the bloodstream that Trump has not been able to. That's what I worry about.

No, I think that's exactly right. The guy said so and so on the other day that I'm worried that Wallace will, quote, win the debate. He'll be a more attractive person and people will sort of like him more. But Vance, in the many blows Vance throws, a couple will stick. And three days later, the effect of the debate, even if Vance hasn't won it,

will be that there are one or two or three things people are talking about, about Harris that Vance has brought to light. I mean, we'll see. Will he do the trans thing? Will he do, I guess he'll do crime and immigration, certainly. I assume he'll do the trans thing. Tampon Tim with the tampons and the men's bathroom and all that nonsense. I assume that you'll get that. It's not going to be like the Cheney-Lieberman debate. Is that what you're telling me from 2000? People should watch the Cheney-Lieberman debate. If you have not watched it,

And you're just sitting around between now and Tuesday looking for something to kill time. You should watch the Cheney Lieberman debate, and it will really depress you about how far we have fallen. It's also, it's just, it's a very interesting time capsule. I rewatched it. I forget who brought it. Somebody brought it up on the Bullwark Slack a couple of months ago, and I watched like 20 minutes of it. Oh, God. A different time. All right. Final topic here. The scene's coming from Hurricane Helene.

are horrific, particularly in, as it matters politically, in Western North Carolina. Both campaigns are now adjusting on it. Trump's going to Georgia, where I guess he's going to, I don't know, throw some paper towels at people or something. And Harris is going to the FEMA headquarters for a briefing. I mean, A, the prime concern obviously is for everybody's safety. And clearly there's been a ton of damage and loss of life and loss of property. And if we have

If they're bulwark people or your friends and family who have been affected, those are the prime worry for everybody right now.

There's also the political side of this, which is this stuff has impacted campaigns before. I mean, the Sandy fallout in 2012 comes to mind. And I think by all accounts helped Obama a little bit on the margins. I don't think maybe as much as some people like to say in retrospect, but Obama was well on his way to winning that campaign before Sandy. But these things do have impact. And so I don't know. I'm just wondering if you have any deep thoughts on the fallout.

It's awful. And so I hope I really don't know enough to could the federal government have done more and done better. And should they be doing more now? I worry. I mean, it does have Katrina for me is the example where, you know, it really did damage to the Bush second term people. And that was not a middle of campaigners 2005. But the degree to which he'd gotten reelected and things weren't great in Iraq. So other things were also a problem. But the Social Security privatization plan and the Harriet Myers pick were also not great.

many mistakes there at the beginning of the second term. But Katrina was terrible. And I remember, I remember what was, I was on Fox News Sunday, those every week, those days. And the consensus on Fox was very much downplaying any damage it would do to Bush. It was the mayor of New Orleans fault. And,

Bush was doing, you know, all you could do. FEMA has limited power. There was a lot of rationalizing of why Bush was doing okay, which I don't think. I remember saying, look, A, I don't even agree with that. I think he was not stepping up to the magnitude of the occasion. He didn't send troops in and so forth. But B, even so politically, you're just, I remember saying this, I think the people there, you're underestimating how much this image of him saying, and he said what, good job, Browning, wasn't that his famous? Yeah, heck of a job.

Heck of a job, Brownie. So hopefully Harris and Biden will not do the equivalent of that. But honestly, we can make fun of what Trump will do in Georgia, and God knows what he'll, as you say, throw paper towels around, but he'll be there. It'll look like he cares. Harris going to FEMA headquarters at 5 o'clock at night is a vague idea.

Bush going to FEMA headquarters, you know, praising the bureaucrats. I mean, it's unfair to FEMA and all this. I'm just feeling to me in terms of what it could look like. So, A, I hope, obviously, that the damage is limited at this point and they're doing a very good job. And I have a high regard for the professionals at FEMA. But I, yeah, it's just another thing to be nervous about, right? Politically, I mean, politically, yeah.

The governor of Louisiana gets off the hook in the Katrina throwback. She was awful. Blanco was awful. And the actual hurricane response. It's just a little peccadillo. If we get to bring this stuff up. If we're going to go Havel, Gorbachev, now we're moving into my era. And while we're doing it, the Harriet Meyers, I mean,

We probably would have been better off with Harriet Myers, clearly, at this point. I was one of those, oh, that would be, we need a much more distinguished appointment. Samuel Alito. Oh, my God. I don't know exactly how Harriet Myers would have shaken out, but she couldn't have been that much worse than where we ended up.

With Mrs. Alito. It is horror. I mean, it's awful, those photos. And the amount of damage. And again, everyone focuses. I mean, I myself know very little about this whole area of science. You focus on the ocean and, you know, like Katrina, I guess Sandy, mostly those were the damage was done in that way. And this is totally different. West and North Carolina is not anywhere close to the ocean, right? It's just the rain, I guess. Yeah.

There's some tech bro asshole that was like, why aren't people in the hurricane zones more prepared posting on social media that everyone needs to have their foodstuffs ready? And it's like, Asheville is Asheville is now in a hurricane zone. I mean, that takes us to a whole nother climate conversation and everything else. But it's horrible what is happening in Nashville. So we'll keep an eye on it. And hopefully the Biden Harris administration steps up to the plate. And they're obviously sending in resources.

Bill, any other final thoughts before I lose you next Monday? One thing, I just learned this this morning. The Tennessee top Republican in one of the houses of the state legislature put out a statement saying, late Friday night, I think, saying, thank God Biden has finally committed emergency resources to the parts of Tennessee that...

been hit. It turns out that the governor of Tennessee, being a Republican, had resisted for a day or two declaring the emergency. FEMA can't get involved, as I understand it, until the governor has said it's a state of emergency. The moment the governor did it, I got the times off by a little here, but it's basically like at 6:00 PM Friday. At 7:00 PM Friday, Biden said, "Yep, emergency resources coming." The federal government was totally responsive

and responsible. And nonetheless, the Republican head of one of the houses in Tennessee is busy attacking Biden. There's going to be a lot of that, I suspect. And unless it's countered effectively, they really need to have someone good, maybe your friend Mitch Landrieu, you could call him up and tell him this. They need someone who's maybe not in the government, not so defensive, just totally on the countering Republican disinformation about

FEMA, about the Biden administration not doing what it should be doing in this crisis. And for many of them who voted against

giving the federal government the power to engage in these sorts of relations. And Project 2025 is for cutting back the authority to give loans to people to rebuild their houses and to businesses to rebuild their businesses. So there's actually, if you want to have a debate about emergency preparedness, I'm like, yeah, I think the Democrats might be in good shape. But anyway, they need to be ready to defend against totally dishonest attacks by Republicans. Okay.

I'm glad I gave you the last word there because Bill Lee, the governor of Tennessee, is sneaky awful. He kind of flies below the radar of the most awful Republican politicians in America. So it's nice to give him a shout out. All right, Bill Kristol, we'll see you back here next Monday. Tomorrow, we'll be here with a good friend of mine who knows a little something about debate prep, discussing the walls and advanced debate. Then we'll be live on YouTube Tuesday night. Make sure to subscribe to our feed over there if you haven't. And we've got a great lineup for the rest of the week as well. So we'll see you all then. Peace.

All we got to do is drink each other right. All we got to do. All we got to do is drink each other right. I promise you I will do.

When you call on me, I'll never let you down All we got to do is drink each other up Oh, we love, we love, we love, oh, oh, we love, oh, oh

All we got to do is take it for the ride All we got to do All we got to do All we got to do All we got to do

The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brough.