The Bulwark Podcast XX
[0] Welcome to the Bullwork podcast.
[1] I'm Charlie Sykes.
[2] Big News Day.
[3] And we are joined on the podcast today by Jake Sherman, founder of Punch Bull News.
[4] Jake has been covering national politics for more than a decade, focused on reporting on Congress, congressional leadership, the politics of legislating.
[5] He is the co -author of the book, The Hill to Die on, the Battle for Congress and the Future of Trump's America, which was published back in 2019.
[6] He is also a contributor to NBC News.
[7] And most importantly, he's a guest on today's podcast.
[8] So, Jake, first of all, good morning.
[9] Thank you, Charlie.
[10] Good morning to you.
[11] Actually, see, that's fake news right there because we're recording this in the afternoon.
[12] And you are talking to us from the Congressional Press Gallery right now.
[13] From the House Periodical Press Gallery in the Capitol, yes, sir.
[14] So we can hear the ink -stained wretches moving around behind you.
[15] The digital stain wretches, Charlie.
[16] We don't even have much ink anymore.
[17] Well, first of all, obviously you've been a very, very busy guy with the launch of Punch Bowl news, and you have had a very, very big week.
[18] Let's just dive right into the scoops that are really shaping the news over the last 24 hours.
[19] Your interview with Kevin McCarthy, who had some rather extraordinary things to say about the debt limit, Ukraine, and immigration.
[20] So where shall we start?
[21] With Kevin McCarthy suggesting that he intends to use the debt limit to force certain spending cuts, changes in entitlement programs.
[22] So tell me about what Kevin McCarthy told you.
[23] Charlie, this is a pretty constant message when a Democratic president is in the White House for Republicans, which is they want to use the statutory borrowing limit, the debt ceiling, lifting it.
[24] they want to extract some sort of policy concessions from the president.
[25] It's unlikely to work because the president's not going to go along with that, but it does portend a fight between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the debt limit.
[26] And as we know, generally speaking, the debt ceiling is like a credit card, right?
[27] I mean, you've got to pay your credit card bills.
[28] But Republicans dating back to John Boehner in 2010 have used this must -packing.
[29] mechanism to extract policy changes.
[30] But in the Trump administration, the debt ceiling was lifted three times on three separate occasions, and there were no corresponding cuts or reforms or anything of that nature.
[31] And Republicans kind of just let it go.
[32] So this is a return to the strategy of old, I would say, for McCarthy.
[33] And we'll have to see if he follows up on it.
[34] He set the bar quite high and it's going to be very difficult for him to follow through on this.
[35] Okay, so what specifically is he talking about holding up the debt ceiling for what kinds of changes in Medicare and Social Security are on the chopping block?
[36] Well, he said to be sure, he said he doesn't want to predetermine whether entitlement spending will be in the mix.
[37] Now, as we all know, or many people who follow public policy know, So that mandatory spending, spending on entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security does tend to be kind of the driver of much spending in the federal government.
[38] There's only so much you could cut around the edges.
[39] I mean, you could cut the military, which Republicans don't want to do.
[40] There's all sorts of things you could cut.
[41] But entitlements is where Republicans have tended to go.
[42] Now, McCarthy is not a policy person.
[43] Back in 2010, 2011, stretching into 20, you know, 15, 16, 17, 18, Republicans had a bunch of really heavyweight policy people, Paul Ryan, who you know obviously know quite well, who authored Republican plans to alter Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, who was very fluent in those programs.
[44] McCarthy is not.
[45] And that doesn't mean that nobody is, but he's just not been driven by the policy end of the political equation.
[46] So I'm not sure that he knows at this point.
[47] That's not to say he doesn't.
[48] I'm just not sure that he does.
[49] But it does, again, this should be a warning signal to the White House.
[50] Just because the White House think, and many people think Republicans are illegitimate political actors does not mean that they might not control that.
[51] They might control the House of Representatives.
[52] And if they control the House of Representatives, they have levers of power that they could try to use to extract policy changes.
[53] So this is what Catherine Rampel in the Washington Post wrote about all of this.
[54] You know, she talks about it as, you know, hostage taking, basically, you know, framing hostage taking as a commitment to fiscal restraint.
[55] But she writes, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with new spending.
[56] Rather, it's a somewhat arbitrary statutory cap on how much the government can borrow to pay off bills that has already incurred through tax and spending decisions that Congress has already made.
[57] Refusing to raise the debt limit is like going to the hospital, ordering the lobster in a $500 bottle of wine and then declaring yourself financially responsible because you skipped out of the check.
[58] Actually, it's worse than that.
[59] And she says, look, if lawmakers do this, they tarnish the creditworthiness of the United States, can make it more expensive for the federal government to borrow in the future.
[60] Worse, they might actually blow up every other financial market on earth, too.
[61] So what McCarthy is signaling is that Basically, they are prepared to play a game of political and financial chicken next year.
[62] That's right.
[63] And given the nature of the caucus, that strikes me as even more dangerous than when John Boehner played with that, say, back in 2011, which resulted in U .S. credit downgraded for the first time ever.
[64] Yes, that's right.
[65] This conference, this House Republican conference, is going to be much more absolute.
[66] than it was in 2010 and 2011 when we had some of these major inflection points over the debt limit.
[67] And the thing is, again, McCarthy is setting the bar quite high.
[68] He is suggesting that he is going to do this.
[69] And he has, again, limited chance for success.
[70] I have a very, and quite honestly, if we're reading the political tea leaves a little bit more here, Biden and the Democrats have an argument to make that, you know, and they will make this argument.
[71] You could be sure as sure as you could be that they'll make the argument that Republicans are playing games with the nation's fiscal health.
[72] And McCarthy even said to me that he needs, Republicans need to raise the debt limit.
[73] I mean, he said that.
[74] I mean, he does concede that, I mean, Bainer in 2011, when I interviewed him, I remember in Ohio, he kind of even said, maybe we won't raise the debt limit.
[75] And that's, that's, uh, that was quite alarming to people in the Obaba administration at the time, but you're absolutely right.
[76] This is, this should be of concern, of tremendous concern to the White House, which will need to find a way forward with McCarthy.
[77] So if the Biden White House reading your report, knowing what may be coming, understanding the consequences, and maybe this is just purely speculative, well, it is purely speculative.
[78] Is there any way that Democrats can avoid this or the White House avoid this?
[79] Is there anything you can do in the lame duck session to make this cup pass because the whole statutory debt limit thing is a completely artificial construct?
[80] Or are we just stuck with having to play, you know, go through this kabuki dance, you know, car crash every couple of years?
[81] If they were smart, they would lift the debt limit through the 2024 election in the lame duck.
[82] And they can do that.
[83] Regardless, well, yeah, of course, they can do that regardless of the outcome.
[84] What Republicans did in the Trump era, I can't remember which time it was, is they didn't lift the debt limit by a number certain.
[85] They suspended the debt limit until a date.
[86] That is one mechanism you could use statutorily.
[87] You could say the national debt limit is suspended until January 1st, 2025 or January 30th, 20, you know, you could push it.
[88] out a long way and then avoid this fight completely, which by the way, if you put McCarthy on truth serum, he would probably say that's a good idea.
[89] Now, they could try to eliminate the debt ceiling.
[90] There's been talk of that in the past.
[91] That's not going to work.
[92] I don't think there are 60 votes for that.
[93] Maybe they could, they couldn't do it in a reconciliation package, I don't think.
[94] But they do have mechanisms in the lame duck to do this.
[95] And a lot of people think it would be quite wise if they avail themselves of those opportunities.
[96] Well, a little bit later, because you make an interesting point that maybe in his heart of hearts, Kevin McCarthy wouldn't mind, you know, having this taken off his agenda, because in a lot of ways, he will also, as speaker, would be held hostage by his own caucus.
[97] We can talk about his relationship with that caucus and the role of Marjorie Taylor Green in a moment.
[98] But let's get to the other big story that came out of your report.
[99] I guess I would argue even bigger than the one we're talking about.
[100] The suggestion that getting additional aid from a Republican House for Ukraine would be very, very difficult.
[101] He told you, I think people are going to be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine.
[102] They just won't do it.
[103] It's not a free blank check.
[104] And then there's the things the Biden administration is not doing domestically, not doing the border.
[105] And people begin to weigh that.
[106] Ukraine is important, but, but at the same time, it can't be the only thing they do and it can't be a blank check.
[107] So let's talk about that because that seems to be channeling a lot of the rhetoric that we are hearing in right -wing media among activists, what I would call the anti -anti -Pooten kind of rhetoric.
[108] So how worried should Ukraine and the supporters of Ukraine be about a Republican House that will, in fact, have the power of the purse trance?
[109] Very concerned for a few reasons.
[110] Number one, McCarthy is reflecting a growing sentiment inside of his conference that sending money to Ukraine is not something they should be doing as frequently as they are.
[111] That's number one.
[112] Number two, McCarthy is part of the, you know, gang of aid, it's called, which is the top lawmakers in each of the House Republicans, House Democrats, Senate, Republican, Senate Democrats, plus the chairs and top minority members of the Intelligence Committee.
[113] So McCarthy understands what's going on in Ukraine better than probably that group understands better than anybody.
[114] I'm not saying McCarthy does, but Pelosi and McConnell and Schumer and McCarthy.
[115] They all understand, you know, they all understand this.
[116] So that all being said, he and he might have in his leadership team, Jim Banks, who is somebody who's generally seen as a some version of a defense hawk.
[117] Now, we've been basically spending $5 billion a month on Ukraine.
[118] And if the administration wanted to, and I have gotten signals that they may do this, they could just say we need $60 billion in the lame duck.
[119] And we need this before Republicans take control.
[120] If Republicans do indeed win the House, we need this money now because we can't be certain Republicans are going to do it if they're in power.
[121] that would be wise if I were advising the Biden administration or Senate and House Democrats or anybody who cares about the aid that we're giving to Ukraine because I think internally it's going to be very difficult for McCarthy to get Ukraine a pass.
[122] And remember, Congress is going to fund the government likely.
[123] They're likely going to fund the government through September 30th of 2023 during the lame duck.
[124] So there isn't going to be that kind of hinge moment.
[125] where they're going to have the ability to give more money to Ukraine, it would have to come as a standalone piece of legislation.
[126] That becomes very complicated for McCarthy.
[127] So they can take this issue off the table if they wanted to in the lame duck.
[128] And that would be wise.
[129] If I'm sitting in the White House today, that would be wise.
[130] Again, an avoidable problem that the Biden administration could kind of take off the table.
[131] Okay.
[132] This is encouraging because, you know, you have these two very dangerous potential crises, but you've also then explain how, in fact, they could be avoided during the lame duck.
[133] The third major line of your reporting today is McCarthy promising a hard line on immigration.
[134] This seems to be pretty unsurprising.
[135] The Republicans would be opposed to a pathway to citizenship or DACA in exchange for increased border security.
[136] So how would that actually play out, though, legislatively?
[137] Is this just going to be gridlock?
[138] Is there a potential compromise between the Biden administration, which has obviously been, well, I think they've been kind of flailing on the border, but do they have the ability politically to negotiate with a hardline Republican caucus?
[139] A few thoughts here.
[140] Before I talked to McCarthy for this interview, which was last week during a trip through the Midwest, which, by the way, included someone from your home state, who you probably know, Scott Fitzgerald, who was involved involved in.
[141] I believe the Senate president for a period of time in Wisconsin, a long period of time.
[142] I thought that, listen, Republicans clearly want to secure the border.
[143] They want the wall.
[144] Trump screwed that up so much during his administration.
[145] He made it all about himself.
[146] We can get it.
[147] We could do an entire podcast on that.
[148] And it was never able to get done, even though Democrats had voted for it in some way, shape, or form for, you know, nearly 20 years beforehand, right?
[149] So we can concede all of that.
[150] So if Republicans are going to start using that as a we need the border secured, we need a wall, we need this, we need that, I thought there would be room for some immigration deal.
[151] I thought it was a very narrow space and I thought it would have to be a lot narrower than what Democrats had wanted in the past.
[152] Now that McCarthy has taken this position, I'm a lot more bearish on the prospect of anything big happening or anything small happening.
[153] McCarthy is essentially saying that trade that we all know.
[154] We all are aware of the very obvious trade on immigration, which is some form of DACA slash pathway slash legalization, documentation, in exchange for some level of border security, not wall everywhere, obviously, but wall, drones, all those things.
[155] That is the obvious trade.
[156] Now, Republicans have basically taken that off the table.
[157] I don't see where they go.
[158] McCarthy is saying the border needs to be secure before we talk about any of this.
[159] And again, I've been covering Kevin McCarthy for his entire federal career, pretty much, save a couple years.
[160] He has not always been this hard line on immigration.
[161] This is a new look for him in the last five or six, seven years.
[162] So this is where the Republican Party is now, Charlie.
[163] And the big problem for them is I, and you do too, I know that.
[164] but I talked to a lot of people in business, and we just did an event yesterday in Miami with Francis Juarez, the mayor of Miami, and he's very pro -immigration reform.
[165] We had some business owners at the event.
[166] They're very pro -immigration reform.
[167] Businesses big and small want immigration reform in some ways, shape, or form.
[168] McCarthy is signaling that's not in the cards if the Republicans take the house.
[169] So we could play horse race of who's going to take the house.
[170] Let's continue to work under the assumption that Republicans are going to take the House.
[171] take the House.
[172] And Kevin McCarthy obviously wants to be the speaker.
[173] It matters tremendously how big the majority is, clearly.
[174] I guess my question, do you guys be, and I know you've been studying this and thinking about this, being speaker of the House of Representatives is actually one of the shittiest jobs in Washington, isn't it?
[175] I mean, it really is the hurting cats, and it has destroyed, you know, so many careers.
[176] It's not really a stepping stone.
[177] You think about what happened with John Boehner, What happened to Paul Ryan?
[178] I asked somebody last week, can you name the last successful speaker of the house?
[179] And they said, well, I don't know, maybe Denny Hastert, which is like, really?
[180] I mean, kind of big asterisk there.
[181] You know, how much power would a speaker Kevin McCarthy have as opposed to being held hostage to a caucus dominated by people like Marjorie Taylor Green and bomb throwers like Lauren Boebert?
[182] There's a lot to unpack there.
[183] Yeah.
[184] I would argue the most powerful, most effective best.
[185] speaker we've had as Nancy Pelosi.
[186] She's been speaker for a long time.
[187] Whether you like her policy or hate her policy, if you're a student of legislating, you have to say Nancy Pelosi's incredibly successful.
[188] There's no way around that.
[189] But what you said is absolutely right.
[190] Destroyed Paul Ryan, it destroyed John Boehner, both men who I've seen at various events around the country in the last couple years, I ran into Paul Ryan in an airport the other day.
[191] Both men are much happier now that they are not speaker of the house and that they have moved on to greener, both fiscally greener and emotionally greener pastors.
[192] Now, McCarthy in his interview with me even said, he acknowledged that it's a shitty job and he acknowledged that it's a very tough circumstance and people want to just knock you off and take credit for all the hard work.
[193] And something that struck me recently and I just spoke to Nancy Pelosi a couple hours ago is that the leaders of these parties, do so much Pelosi, McCarthy, McConnell Schumer to raise the money, to organize, to have all these organizations in their constellation kind of working in unison, rowing in the same direction.
[194] And then somebody says, well, you shouldn't be the leader.
[195] It's a difficult thing to imagine for a leader.
[196] And I think McCarthy spends a lot of time thinking about that.
[197] I do think McCarthy will be Speaker if Republicans win the majority.
[198] Now, will it be difficult if there's a five -seat majority?
[199] Yes, it will be very difficult.
[200] The larger question is, how long does it last?
[201] I mean, Boehner was speaker from 10 to 15.
[202] Ryan was speaker from 15 to the beginning of 19.
[203] It's not a long -term proposition.
[204] McCarthy's 57.
[205] He's been in Congress since 2006, I think one of two Republicans elected in 2006 to the House.
[206] So the other Republican, if my memory serves me well, was Peter Roscombe, who was in leadership and is no longer in Congress.
[207] So it's not a job with much longevity.
[208] It's really not.
[209] And shifting to both people like Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Green, it seems inevitable.
[210] I don't know what he could give them.
[211] We actually have some news that we'll be that we'll be reporting shortly about McCarthy's view on investigations and things of that nature.
[212] But it is, it is fair to say that he's going to have to play footsy with them in some way, shape, or form if both of them return to Congress.
[213] Bobert's got a little bit of a race.
[214] Marjorie Taylor Green does not.
[215] It'll be difficult to see what he gives them.
[216] Does he impeach somebody?
[217] My, my guess is, I don't know, at this point, to be honest with you.
[218] And McCarthy is elevated Green.
[219] He had her at their big policy rollout in Pennsylvania a few weeks ago.
[220] So, I mean, it's hurting cats is the best way to think of it.
[221] And you have people who are serious lawmakers all the way to the showmen and show women, I guess, all of whom need to be coddled in some way, for lack of a better term, they need to be coddled.
[222] And it's very difficult.
[223] Well, and it's compounded by the fact that not only might he be held hostage by members of his own party, you know, by the, by the Kuuk Caucus and by backbenchers, but also he has to worry about the former president in exile down in Mara Lago because he's always one, you know, truth social slash tweet away from having the right turn against him.
[224] So he really, you know, has to be looking over both shoulders, doesn't he?
[225] And I guess this, this is well, where his speakership is different, will be different than Nancy Pelosi's, because the nature of Republican politics is quite frankly quite different than the nature of Democratic Party politics, isn't it?
[226] I mean, those caucuses really are not mirror images of one another.
[227] Not at all.
[228] I mean, people fear Nancy Pelosi.
[229] No one really fears Kevin McCarthy in the same way.
[230] And it was put to me by a Republican.
[231] I mean, it's difficult to govern when many of the people in your conference don't believe in government.
[232] Don't believe in the functions of a government.
[233] Don't believe in the traditional strictures and structures and all of those things.
[234] government.
[235] So I agree with that.
[236] And I think I'm curious, obviously, how Trump will play in to this whole situation.
[237] I don't know whether Trump will endorse McCarthy.
[238] I've asked Trump before.
[239] I'm due to ask him again at some point soon, I imagine.
[240] We don't really cover Trump at Punch Bowl News because he's not in government.
[241] And he doesn't have a huge impact on legislating, which is our focus.
[242] But he might have an impact on the Speaker's race.
[243] but I've gotten signals from that world that he will be with McCarthy.
[244] We'll have to see about that, but those are the signals I've gotten.
[245] And that could be completely wrong because, as you know, Charlie, no one in that world has any idea what Trump is going to do besides Trump himself.
[246] And I'm not even sure he knows what he's going to do.
[247] Yeah, we ought to deploy the word mercurial more often.
[248] But you make an interesting point there about, you know, the number of members of the caucus that have no interest in government, no interest in legislation whatsoever.
[249] I suppose the poster child for that up until now would have been somebody like a Madison Cawthorn.
[250] And also all of the incentives now in politics have changed.
[251] I keep thinking about that scene from John Boehner's book where he sort of realized that power had shifted when, you know, Michelle Bachman asked for a committee assignment that was absolutely absurd.
[252] And of course he was going to say no to her.
[253] And she says, well, I'm just going to go to the, you know, host and Fox.
[254] And they're going to put pressure on you.
[255] and really that was one of those moments where you realize that that the locus of power had shifted from say the legislative establishment to the entertainment wing and if anything will you tell me that's accelerated i mean there are marjorie taylor green being a perfect example it doesn't matter whether she serves on any committee or passes any legislation that's not her ticket to becoming a rock star is it and they all know that that they don't have to play the game in order to become rich powerful and famous That's right.
[256] And that committee was the intelligence committee that Bachman wanted on and Baker eventually did put her on the intelligence committee.
[257] Yeah, that's right.
[258] I mean, the difference I would argue is that McCarthy has done a lot more to keep those people, it depends how you look at it, either at bay or in line.
[259] He has done more to kind of toss them bones, much to the chagrin of a lot of people who don't believe they should be tossed any bones.
[260] And that, That's been a difficult thing for people to watch, but he has a much closer relationship with the right wing of his conference than did Boehner and Paul Ryan and has a much more open -door policy.
[261] And we'll have to see if Republicans win the House, whether that means anything, whether that gets him anywhere, and whether that's a plus for him or a negative.
[262] Okay.
[263] So we've gone through the debt ceiling, Ukraine, immigration.
[264] you know, if I was making a list of pretty solid predictions for Republican Congress next year, I would also say multiple impeachments and wall -to -wall investigations of starting with Hunter Biden and filling out.
[265] You know, you said you have some more reporting coming on that.
[266] I don't want you to scoop yourself here, but that seems inevitable and it seems like irresistible that they will demand these investigations, these impeachment votes.
[267] I think they will demand investigations.
[268] I'm not entirely sure on the impeachment front.
[269] I wouldn't be surprised.
[270] But I think the investigations will be very, very quick and very intense on all the topics you mentioned.
[271] And some topics, to be honest with you, that even Democrats want answers on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, origins of COVID.
[272] I think there's some Democrats who would say privately that they think those are legitimate.
[273] That doesn't mean that Republican investigations are going to be legitimate.
[274] that just means those topics are not as crazy as some of the other topics they're envisioning.
[275] So I, and some of this, Charlie, as you know, is standard fair for a minority party when there's a president of another party.
[276] We watch John Boehner's House go after the stimulus package, go after Fannie and Freddie, go after, I mean, all sorts of things.
[277] Benghazi.
[278] Benghazi is one of the more extreme ones.
[279] Not extreme and the topic was extreme, but just many elements of it, which we're not.
[280] we don't have to get into now we're extreme.
[281] So, yes, I think that will be a hallmark of this Congress.
[282] And that's why I think that it would be smart for them to do the debt ceiling early, because it's not as if spending is the animating issue of this majority or this majority that may or may not happen.
[283] The centerpiece is quite honestly some of these investigations and the idea that they will be a check, so to speak, on the Biden administration.
[284] Will there be payback retaliation against the January 6th committee investigations?
[285] So I don't think so.
[286] I don't feel terribly confident about that.
[287] But I think that the committee will sunset and then that's that.
[288] And it sunsets at the end of this Congress.
[289] Remember, several people on that committee are not going to be around.
[290] Stephanie Murphy's not going to be around.
[291] Adam Kinziger's not going to be around.
[292] Liz Cheney's not going to be around.
[293] It's unclear if Alain Luria is going to be coming back.
[294] So a lot of people are going to be gone.
[295] So I don't think so, but I don't feel confident that there won't be some pressure to strip somebody like a Benny Thompson of a prime committee slot because of his involvement in the committee.
[296] Well, then there's also been some talk about, you know, going after Eric Swalwell or Adam Schiff.
[297] I mean, it depends how jinned up they are about the issue of pay.
[298] back.
[299] Is there any, you know, regret internally on Kevin McCarthy's part about the way he handled that committee, that the fact that he essentially, you know, went without any representation on the committee, that that did seem like a blunder.
[300] What do they see of it that way?
[301] Well, I think it was a blunder, and I've made that clear to McCarthy, and I've had him respond to that on various occasions.
[302] I mean, even if you're McCarthy, you lost your ability to have visibility into the committee right even if you think it's being conducted in a sham manner which i i don't concede that point i don't think it is i think you could have problems with if you i mean there are certain things that they can have legitimate gripes with not many but they could have some legitimate crimes or some things that all said he would have had visibility the original construct charlie you'll remember on this committee is that republicans actually had veto power over the subpoenas.
[303] He said no thanks to that and then pulled his members off when Pelosi didn't allow Jim Jordan and Jim Banks in the committee.
[304] I think that was silly.
[305] I think that was a silly decision for him to make.
[306] I've been pretty public with that.
[307] I think it's not been smart.
[308] And Trump doesn't think it's been smart to the extent that matters to McCarthy.
[309] I don't know.
[310] But they lost all ability to have any sort of eye on this committee and participation in this committee.
[311] And so they've been on the sidelines, which has been really silly.
[312] So I have been thinking a lot about 1995 after the Republicans swept into power in the election of 1994 with the contract with America.
[313] Newt Gingrich riding high.
[314] It's really looked like the Clinton administration.
[315] You know, it suffered devastating defeats.
[316] And yet what happened was that the Republicans found out very quickly, that you cannot govern from Congress.
[317] The presidency is not irrelevant, no matter what happens in the midterm elections, and they overplayed their cards.
[318] And in fact, the Clintons used this as a way to boomerang back to success two years later in the election.
[319] Obama's, you know, the Obama administration beaten very badly in 2010.
[320] Republican overreach infighting contributed, I would say, materially to Obama's re -election.
[321] Is there any?
[322] sense among congressional Republicans that they could screw the pooch on this, that their majority could, in fact, be very much a Pyrrhic victory?
[323] Yes.
[324] Yes and no. I think, I think if you talk to them, honestly, they understand that some of these investigations don't poll well.
[325] And when I was on the trail last week with McCarthy, I mean, he even said on several occasions, remember, if we win the majority, we will still have Joe Biden in the White House.
[326] It's not as if we're going to be able to get everything done that you want us to get done and you have to stick with us, which is a message that is not surprising to hear, but it's interesting to hear.
[327] I mean, to the extent they do stupid things like potentially default on the debt, shut down the government, overreach on investigations, of course, that has the potential of helping Joe Biden in 2024.
[328] But I mean, if you look at the kind of the basics of the economy right now, yes, unemployment's low.
[329] Yes, there are positive indicators in the in the economy, but there is a global inflation crisis, which is really hurting, hurting people all over the world.
[330] And that has to rebound combined, I would say, it doesn't have to.
[331] What would be helpful for Democrats is if that rebounds, in addition to the fact that Republicans screw up or do some stupid stuff, which they're inevitably going to do.
[332] There's no question about it.
[333] I mean, parties that come in in elections like this always mess up in some way, shape, or form.
[334] Yeah, they always mess up unless they had this almost preternet.
[335] natural sense of restraint.
[336] Don't overpromise.
[337] Don't go too far.
[338] But back to this question of what sort of latitude Kevin McCarthy has to resist those pressures because, you know, again, you have the, you know, the bomb throwers who are thinking that they're going to be in the driver's seat.
[339] I mean, you know, Marjorie Taylor Green, you know, saying, you know, today that if Kevin McCarthy wants to be successful, he's going to have to, you know, give me a lot of stuff, a lot of power.
[340] Well, that's going to make it hard then to tamp that down if, in fact, they are making constant demands, you know, be angrier, go further.
[341] If you have these missives raining down from Marlago, go after this guy or pass this crazy -ass bill.
[342] You know, the other thing I would say, Charlie, is there's one important thing to think about.
[343] The pressure that kicked John Boehner out of the speakership, the lever that Mark Meadows at the time used, was the motion to vacate the chair, which initiated an immediate referendum on the Speaker of the House.
[344] That vote never happened.
[345] But at that point, any member of Congress could initiate that referendum.
[346] That has been taken away.
[347] That can only be called up by a party leader at this point.
[348] So that kind of pressure of losing your job is not the same as it was then.
[349] So McCarthy has a little bit larger of a leash.
[350] And the argument he's made is let's not screw this stuff up.
[351] Let's not do stupid things because then we can't get the things done that we were put into power to do.
[352] What those things are are not entirely clear.
[353] I mean, they don't have a plan to curb inflation.
[354] I don't think even if they had a plan, it would work.
[355] Democrats' plan hasn't worked as of yet.
[356] So listen, that he's definitely going to be pushed around by them.
[357] I think he's cognizant of that.
[358] I know he's cognizant of that from what he's told me. But he's hoping that he has the ability given his relationship with the right, he's hoping that it could be a little bit easier than it was for his predecessors.
[359] So let's talk a little bit about the next Congress.
[360] It will be, in many ways, potentially quite different than the current Congress.
[361] The Democratic conference is likely to be even further to the left if many of the moderates and swing districts are defeated.
[362] The Republican conference will be decidedly trumpier because, all of the member, virtually every, you know, Republican member of Congress that Buck Donald Trump has been, has been purged.
[363] So both of these, these conferences will be different and will be further apart than, then even in, we talk about how bitterly divided this Congress is, the next one will be worse in that respect, won't it?
[364] Absolutely.
[365] And there's not much that can be done there.
[366] I mean, this is a product of what I think, Charlie, is the ills of the redistricting process.
[367] I think that if I have no opinions in politics on policy or anything like that, besides that the way that we draw maps is just is dangerous.
[368] It's crazy.
[369] And it promotes people to run to their polls, their political polls, and to be as extreme as possible.
[370] And that's not healthy.
[371] It's just not healthy.
[372] It's exacerbated by a million other factors in American politics.
[373] But it's a big, dynamic that's worth taking under consideration.
[374] Now, that being said, yeah, this is how it's been for a while.
[375] I mean, it started in 2010.
[376] Many argue it started in 2009, 2008.
[377] It's been this way for a while.
[378] There are rare blips in which the two parties get together, but, you know, they're blips, and the two parties are quite far apart, and will remain so.
[379] And you're right, the Democratic caucus is farther left, the Republican Conference is farther right, they're leaders.
[380] And we don't know what Nancy Pelosi is going to do if she's going to leave or she's going to stay or what she's going to do.
[381] We have no idea.
[382] So all that being said, it's it's a pretty uncertain time, I would say, one of the most uncertain times I've covered on Capitol Hill.
[383] So what do you think happens to Nancy Pelosi?
[384] I don't know.
[385] I don't know.
[386] I mean, I've been predicting for 12 years that she would go.
[387] I think she's more likely to go this time than any other time that I've thought that.
[388] there is a real big desire for generational change.
[389] I mean, Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, Joe Biden are all in their 80s.
[390] You know, I mean, they're not spring chickens.
[391] I mean, compare that just, I'm not comparing the stature of these leaders or anything but their age.
[392] But Kevin McCarthy is 57.
[393] Steve Scalise is somewhere near there.
[394] Elise DeFonick is in her late 30s or early 40s.
[395] It's just a big difference in the two parties right now, but their leadership is just of two different, not only generations, but there's almost a generation between them in many respects.
[396] Well, it's literally unsustainable to continue of leadership in the 80s.
[397] I mean, at some point, I mean, that's got in.
[398] And nature will intervene at some point.
[399] But, you know, what Pelosi always says is, you want me gone, run against me and beat me. And she keeps winning.
[400] Okay, so we've been talking about the House a lot.
[401] One last question.
[402] So what is the relationship going to be between, and let's say that, let's say that the Republicans eke out, you know, a majority in the Senate.
[403] I'm not making a prediction here.
[404] But what is the balance of power and the relationship between Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy?
[405] They have very different relationships with Donald Trump.
[406] So how does that play out, legislative?
[407] I don't think the Trump thing matters as much when it comes to them, too.
[408] I think McConnell doesn't respect how McCarthy's handled Trump.
[409] McCarthy doesn't respect how McConnell's handled Trump.
[410] So that is kind of a baseline fact.
[411] Now, that all being said, the interesting dynamic will be that if Republicans do take the majority in the Senate, which I, again, I have no idea whether they will or they won't, McConnell is going to become the White House's contact point on Capitol Hill.
[412] And you'll just see the White House try to work around McCarthy and, go to McConnell and pass things with McConnell and then tell the house to eat it.
[413] And that will be an interesting dynamic.
[414] MacArthur and McConnell are not particularly close.
[415] They both have a love of politics and a love of the legislative game and all those things.
[416] They're not particularly close.
[417] They have weekly meetings.
[418] They're fine, but they're not particularly close.
[419] There's nothing really to say there besides that.
[420] There will be more ink spilled on that in the future.
[421] I mean, probably, I'll be honest with you, I was thinking a lot about this today after seeing Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter on MSNBC say he thinks 50 -50 is the most likely outcome in the Senate.
[422] Imagine, Charlie, for a second, a 50 -50 Senate broken by Kamala Harris, tie broken, not broken in other ways, but ties broken by Kamala Harris and a Republican House.
[423] I mean, we'd be in probably the most complex governing time of our life, perhaps, one of the craziest times from 23 to 25 to 2023 to 2025.
[424] And it's just going to be, fascinating to watch.
[425] Just when you think it cannot get any crazier.
[426] Jake Sherman, thank you so much for joining me and spending so much time on a very, very busy day.
[427] I appreciate it.
[428] Thanks, Charlie.
[429] Thank you so much.
[430] And by the way, if you do not subscribe to Punch Bowl, it is very much worth your time and worth your subscription if you want to know what is going on on Capitol Hill.
[431] Congratulations with everything you and your partners have done with Punch Bowl.
[432] It's really quite extraordinary.
[433] Thank you.
[434] I really appreciate that.
[435] The Bullwark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio production by Jonathan Siri.
[436] I'm Charlie Sykes.
[437] Thank you for listening to today's Bowlerk podcast, and we'll be back tomorrow and do this all over again.