Bill Kristol: Do Something

Cupcake Vineyards grow their grapes in the finest wine regions on Earth.

That's why they travel to Marlboro, New Zealand,

to craft their delicious, award-winning Cupcake Sauvignon Blanc.

Sorry, am I reading that right?

Cupcake Vineyards?

They make a delicious wine from New Zealand and call it Cupcake?

Okay, then.

This is Cupcake Vineyards.

Serious wine, unserious name.

Oh, well, at least they're aware. Copyright 2024.
Cupcake Vineyards, Serious wine, unserious name. Oh, well, at least they're aware.

Copyright 2024. Cupcake Vineyards, Livermore, California.

Cupcake Vineyards grew their grapes in the finest wine regions on Earth,

like Marlboro, New Zealand, for their Sauvignon Blanc.

It's called Cupcake. Okay.

Cupcake Vineyards. Serious wine, unserious name.

Copyright 2024. Cupcake Vineyards, Livermore, California.
Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller.
It's Monday, August 26th. And if it's Monday, it's Bill Kristol.
What's happening, man? How are you, Tim? I was going to say, you've recovered from the convention, but I think neither of us was in Chicago, so we had less to recover from, right? I guess. I was on the late night shift with Jen Psaki till 2 a.m.
every night with MSNBC, so I needed a little rest this weekend, but I'm feeling good. Those are your normal hours.
That's life in New Orleans, right? This is true. It was Morning Joe that pissed me off.
I'm like, no, please don't make me come in at 6. I can handle the 2 a.m.
shift. Anyway, we're all good.
We can sleep when we're dead, as Tim Wall says. We both have creed accords out this morning.
So we'll talk about our written stuff. And then I want to get into the RFK endorsement of Trump and maybe Trump and Arlington today and some debates about debates that are happening.
But first, your morning shots talked about what you saw as the most important line from Kamala's speech. And I guess I haven't heard your big picture views on Kamala's speech yet since Friday.
So why don't you talk about that? The line was an unserious man and a dangerous moment. Talk about that line and your perceptions of her acceptance speech.
I thought the speech overall was very good. And I reread it a couple of times.
I reread it early Friday morning before I wrote the piece Friday, and noticed it was more subtly and deftly put together, I think, than maybe a normal paint-by-the-numbers political speech is. I mean, I thought we can talk about it if you want, but various aspects of it were just done well, I thought, and both disciplined, but also personal, which is difficult to do, right? She really hit her marks.
She didn't say certain things she didn't want to say, did very much say things she did want to say. I was very impressed by the speech.
One thing that did stand out for me just watching it on TV Thursday night, though, was this two-sentence paragraph early on in the speech, well, but after the first third of the speech, which is the biographical part, and she turns to Trump. In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man, but the consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious.
And I remember thinking it's kind of unusual, right? I mean, why that first sentence? I mean, the second sentence tees up a whole bunch of consequences of Trump's second term, which we've all made those arguments many times, and she made them perfectly, you know, well, I thought. But obviously, they have the sense, and they must have this from focus groups and polls, or just from life, and I have it, you have it, I think too, maybe, that he gets away with a ton because he's unserious.
And it makes it harder to prosecute the case for how dangerous he is, because he's such a buffoon, and reckless, and childish, and self-indulgent, and undisciplined, and all that, and even some of the really horrible things about him that are genuinely pretty horrible in terms of his personal behavior and what he says about Medal of Honor winners and so forth. You know, it's a bit of a distraction from the true danger of a Trump second term.
And I think she wanted to sort of say, you can think he's unserious, but here's really what matters. And so I wrote a little bit about that this morning.
And again, emphasizing the point we've made many times, but I feel like people don't quite still necessarily come to grips with, including some of our friends who are kind of don't like Trump, and he's not real conservative, and he's not a real decent person, and he's a liar, and he's a hypocrite, but they don't quite come to grips with the core issue, which you discussed very eloquently in your piece, which you should talk about, which is how extremely and extraordinarily dangerous Trump's second term is. Trumpism is what's really, really, really dangerous, not simply Donald Trump.
The two halves of that couplet, I mean, the unserious part was a through line throughout the entire convention right they wanted to minimize and mock him right rather than play into his strong man ness that was in both the obama speeches it was in tim wallace's speech it was in a lot of the people's commentary throughout the week they wanted to make him small not big not strong and i think that is kind of why you and you include that in addition to sort of just the acknowledgement that that's a view that people have but on the dangerous side i think the other part of your newsletter this morning that is just worth lingering on for a second is you know something you talked to james carville about a couple months ago which is that trump the unseriousness in some ways gives him some buffer with certain types of voters that makes him more popular than his agenda is right like that's why project 2025 is such a useful cudgel that's why jd vance is so much less popular than him frankly like there's something about the unseriousness that people like and make him feel less extreme than maybe some of the other elements of MAGA.

And it's important to kind of tease out both of those things to make the strongest case to swing voters. And the unseriousness, I very much agree with that.
Nancy R. also gives an excuse to, let's say, Trump excusers and Trump adjacent types, Wall Street Journal, National Review et al., to deflect other people's dislike of Trump and hostility and opposition to Trump into, well, you don't like the tweets.
You don't like his personal character. I don't love it either, frankly, Bill.
But, you know, we've got to get back to... I mean, it's a way of minimizing what's at stake.
That's not why Trump does it. Presumably he is who he is and he just is being himself.
But the effect of it, I think, is to give people a slight permission structure to get back on board with Trump while pretending to find the whole thing distasteful. I think it's certainly true.
And we can, well, if he loses this fall, God willing, we can have many more conversations about this into 2025. But it does, in some ways, creates, I think your Friday newsletter was about the optimistic feeling.
And I think that there's a bit of an optimistic feeling about the election, obviously, you know, given the total turnaround over the last two months. But in addition to that, like, for me, it creates just a hint of optimism about the future, not that the Republican Party is like going to come back to you and me really but that like the worst most pernicious aspects of it are actually less popular than trump right like that the imitators are less popular than him and if he can be you know if you can chop off the head of a snake then the rest of it is actually weaker than him which i don't think a lot of people have really embraced right in some ways some ways, they see him as the clownish one.
And like the other Republicans is more normal and more electorally powerful. And like, that's not really true, at least with the MAGA Republicans.
Right. I mean, he's more popular than DeSantis, as we learned.
He's more popular than Vance, the numbers suggest. People don't like the harsh, more people don't like, some some people do like but a bigger majority don't like the true heart of trumpism mega ism and the authoritarianism and cruelty etc of that movement trump is in a way its best salesman he was the original salesman you might say not the original one i mean buchanan and other people were the original ones and they didn't do that well either right so trump had a certain ability that that enabled him to take it to a different place and i kind of agree a post i mean greg sergeant has a good piece about this in the new republic i mean that post and harris kind of points towards this that post mega uh politics could be a little healthier than we think though it could also be in terms of the republican party just an even greater consolidation into the core hatreds, you know, and grievance mongering of megaism, but probably with less ability to get, it looks a little more like Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2022, right? West Mastrodo and what's your name, the Michigan governor's candidate, they lose by 10 or 15 points, not by one or two points.
Now to my piece this morning, as teased on Friday's podcast, Jeff Duncan was so good. Adam Kinzinger writes for the board today about what it was like to speak at the Democratic National Convention.
We'll put that in the show notes, and I highly recommend you read his article as well. He'll be on with us later this week.
So I say this with no love lost for Jeff and Adam, who are great, or Olivia Troy, who I was texting with this morning, who I love, and the others that spoke at the convention.

But there are a lot of bigger fish that were absent from that convention.

And there are a lot of people that, given their past comments about Trump, you would think might have had something to say about who to support this November on the stage where the audience will be the biggest for their argument throughout the rest of the year. That did not happen.
That included all of the people that worked for Trump, Kelly, McMaster, who we'll get to, Mattis, Tillerson can go down the list. It includes Friends of the Pod, Mitt and Liz.
It includes the people that ran against

them, my former boss, Chris Christie, Kasich. You could kind of go on and on.
None of them were there. None of the old Bush administration official, cabinet officials, Condi, Bob Gates.
Not to say that any of these people are like a magic bullet, but you would think that given the mistakes and given what Kamala has laid out as a pretty friendly policy, at least when it comes to foreign affairs and the commitment to the constitution and the rule of law, that these people would be more willing to come forward, and they haven't. So I laid out the reasons why I thought that was, some of them more generous than others, and I'm curious, after you read that, where you come down on why you think all these folks were absent.
I thought it was an excellent piece, as I told you. And incidentally, I mean, it is striking.
Mike Ludig, the former judge, in his career in 30 years plus in public office, was more conservative, I think you could say, more of a really hard line kind of philosophical and ideological conservative than most of the names you just mentioned who were, you know, pretty conservative, some of them, but, you know, had tinges of moderation or whatever, some bipartisanship. There were some compassionate conservatives in there.
There's some people that weren't particularly ideological in some of the foreign policy folks. Right, exactly.
And Ludwig, I mean, so much to his credit. And I'd say the same about Liz Cheney, incidentally.
She hasn't quite said yet that she'll vote for Harris, but she will, I believe. They looked at it unblinkingly and crossed the bridge, you know? And I give them just a ton of credit for that.
And they both say, and Kinzinger says this in his speech too, Adam, that he wishes he had come to this view earlier. I mean, Adam voted against impeachment in 2019 and I guess said he voted for Trump in 2020, as did Liz Cheney.
I don't know about looting. So yeah, I think a lot of these people for various reasons have sort of stopped short, and they have their reasons.
And let's just assume some of it's a lot of it's good faith or whatever. But I think underlying, this is now like a psychoanalyse, you're underlying your piece, I would say it was the same thing that I am thinking about.
Please put me on the couch. Underlying my own piece, which I only sort of realized it's kind of like, you know, how it is after you wrote, I wrote it and I was like, why am I running with it? Is a little bit of worry.
I mean, I am optimistic. I think the convention was good, but I think you have the sense in your piece that, you know, not everyone is stepping up with the urgency and the straightforwardness, clarity that the moment requires and deserves.

And I make the point in my piece that people aren't quite coming to grips with what's really the real dangers as opposed to sort of deflecting a little bit into, I don't like Trump much.

I just sit it out.

I don't like Kamala's left winger.

So, I mean, I just kind of, you know, take a pass.

I mean, I think it's of a piece.

Don't you think, though, those – and I think both of us probably are worried that if not everyone steps up, but if people minimize the danger, it's not a laid out, even though Harris is at a fantastic first five weeks. Absolutely.
That is underlying my thoughts. You've correctly psychoanalyzed me.
I think that there's a hint of complacency. Even at the convention, when there's some elements of it that I, I felt like we're a little short, like overall, It was, I think that there's a hint of complacency.
Even at the convention, when there was some elements of it that I felt like were a little short, like overall, I think it was very strong. I thought the Obama was very strong and Kamala was very strong in particular, as well as Adam and Jeff Duncan.
You know, there were some parts that it felt like, gosh, could this rhetoric have been used against Mitt Romney? you know like there were some of the politician speeches i just i i didn't felt carried the urgency

the rhetoric have been used against Mitt Romney. Some of the politician speeches, I didn't felt carried the urgency, the fierce urgency of now, if you will, that is required by this moment.
I thought that Kamala's speech was a clear exception to that. Just the section that she, in particular, that you referenced, but then she goes on to talk about, imagine what this guy will do now that the Supreme Court has given him carte blanche, essentially, now that he, you

know, or that you referenced but then she goes on to talk about like imagine what this guy will do now that the supreme court has given him carte blanche essentially now that he you know will be able to have an entire staff of of you know people that will advance his most pernicious whims frankly and not even desires but whims and act on them like who are the people that are best suited to like remind, remind folks of that? And, like, the answer is the people that worked for Trump, right? Like, they're the people that are the best suited to emphasize the danger and the scale of the threat with credibility. And the fact that not a single one of his jilted cabinet members were there, I just thought was a big mess.
I think this is, you know, subtext in the piece. But as you mentioned, like, I do think there are a couple things at play for if we're going to be fair.
One is, like you said, this is not reporting, but this is tea leaf reading and informed understanding that like Liz is going to endorse Kabla this fall at some point, there's some strategy going on. I'm not privy to those conversations.
But I think that's going happen. I think there also was, which was my second point, like there were some strategy going on I'm not privy to those conversations but I think that's going to happen I think there also was which was my second point like there were some logistical elements to this that there was a very short sprint for the Harris team to get this convention going there's been plenty of reporting I think by you and others my friend Jonathan Martin about how lackadaisical the Biden team was before the debate on like reaching out to these people and like creating the relationships and the trust to like you know have them actually campaign i think that the biden harris team was a little late to the ball on this if we're being honest that said you know their phone numbers are gettable it's like if mark esper or whatever or John Kelly, or, Chris Christie, like wanted to get Jen O'Malley Dillon on the phone, I'm happy to share the phone number.
It's not that hard to find these people. So it's a little bit of a two-way street here.
But I think those two things were happening. And that is the one green shoot that hopefully now we can get these folks off their ass.
I don't know. What do you think? Yeah, no, I think so.
And I think some of them might have thought they were comfortable doing it in a different setting or they thought they had more effect in September or whatever. And the convention planners may have thought that too because obviously their phone numbers are getable, but so are the numbers of the people you mentioned by Stephanie Cutter or David Fluff or Vice President Harris.
So they may have sort of had a tacit agreement to sort of, let's save some stuff for later. So I think that that is true, but only in a deep minority of these cases.
As you sort of suggested, probably a miscalculation. This is the one moment everyone's focused on.
I think the cabinet officials or the people who serve in Trump's White House, the Trump administration officials have a special responsibility. They can stand up in a way that others can't, including even Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and people who were in Congress when Trump was president, or people who ran against Trump like Christie and others.
We saw him in the Oval Office. They can say if they wish to say, I'm not going to discuss confidential conversations that I had about defense matters or Secretary of State matters or any other matter, treasury matters.
But I'm just going to tell you, this man should not be president again.

This man cannot have this man as president, which means we do need to support Vice President

Harris.

That is not a very difficult thing to say, in my opinion.

They believe it.

They've said the first part of it, a lot of them, that he's terrible, he's irresponsible,

he's dangerous, he shouldn't be president again.

He's the most flawed person I've ever met in my life, in the case of John Kelly. But then they can't quite cross the bridge to the logical conclusion that I find, not just bewildering, but off-putting and wrong.
I mean, it's just not right. You know, these are serious people.
They've had very senior positions in the U.S. government.
Many of them have been four-star generals or other very prestigious posts, and they need to kind of do the right thing here. What was the quote you used in your piece a couple of times? Really a wonderful quote from Kinzinger.
No, it's from Jeff Duncan. No, Jeff Duncan.
Yeah, it was from Jeff Duncan's son to Jeff Duncan. It was really nice.
Doing the right thing is never the wrong thing. Yeah, yeah, that was good.
That's sort of on the cabinet side. On the convention side, I will say that I thought Harris' speech itself showed a much deeper understanding in a sense of the campaign than a lot of the Democratic polls who look the Democratic politicians, they gave Democratic speeches, they, that's okay, someone has to do that, you know, not just her speech, though, I would say the convention organizers, which is the campaign, which is means who's only the people who were in charge for the next 10 weeks, also had as an understanding that was very much, I think, like the vice president's personal understanding.
Who spoke in that last hour? Kinzinger, they didn't have to have him in that prime time one hour before Harris. They could have had him the day before or something.
Leon Panetta, not a Democratic governor or senator, someone who's last in office in 2012, but Secretary of Defense, sort of a bipartisan figure, you might say, been in every senior position in the government and Congress and then Chief of Staff and then SecDef, and gave a very strong, not partisan speech, quoted Ronald Reagan, made my little heart go pity pat, you know, 25 minutes before the Democratic nominee for president was about to get up. So I thought the fact that they gave Kinzinger and Panetta such prominent roles was a sign that the campaign is thinking about this race in a strategic way that I think is right.
I agree with that. And we honor Leon Panetta here at the Bulwark.
He's always welcome on the podcast or to write for us. But couldn't that have been Bob Gates or Condi Rice or Mark Asper? Again, this is my point.
I just wouldn't have had a little bit more oomph, but I agree with you. Or a letter from three of them released that morning, or the day after, even, because he was saying, you know what, we agree with Leon Panetta.
Just to be clear, I think you're making a point the convention's a unique forum, but you're making a broader point about speaking up. I mean, Ludwig didn't show up at the convention, but I think his statement on the Monday of the convention was important.
Cupcake vineyards grow their grapes in the finest wine regions on earth. That's why they travel to Marlborough, New Zealand, to craft their delicious, award-winning Cupcake Sauvignon Blanc.
Sorry, am I reading that right? Cupcake vineyards? They make a delicious wine from New Zealand and call call it cupcake okay then this is cupcake vineyards serious wine unserious name oh well at least they're aware copyright 2024 cupcake vineyards livermore california just to stick on this for one second because i think that this is also important kamala's speech again if you're being as generous as possible to these people that really don't deserve our generosity like maybe it's like you know it's this whirlwind and it biden was kind of this you sort of knew what you're going to get with him and kamala's coming in and i don't know a lot about her foreign policy i don't know a lot about her i don't want to get out over my skis and endorse somebody and then have it turn out that she wants to have an arms embargo on Israel or something, something that I couldn't support. She gives a convention speech that demonstrates just an unceasing and passionate loyalty to the NATO alliance, a commitment to defeating China in the competition for the 21st century, a commitment to take whatever action is necessary, that was her quote, to counter Iran and its proxies.
She pledged to make certain that America was the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, which caused some lefties on my social media to keep clutching their pearls a little bit. She paid tribute to American exceptionalism and vowed to defend our democratic ideals against autocrats around the world who are rooting for Trump.
At this point today, August 26, what more do these people want? Like the foreign policy conservatives, all right? Like if you're Mike Pence and you're like, oh, she's pro-choice, whatever. I don't agree with that, but okay.
But if you're Condi Rice, if you're Jim Mattis, H.R. McMaster, like what more do you want than what she gave what she gave i mean that was that was a mccainian convention speech on the topics of immigration and foreign policy and if i can go like one step over from that if you're a anti-trump but sort of anti-anti us you know anti-trump conservative know, person who's very worried about the Democratic Party.
Oh, man, they just, they're never going to walk away from the wokeness. They're never going to abandon grievance politics.
It's all identity politics there. Tim, don't you know that? I mean, that's clear there.
It's also crazed redistributionism and hatred of entrepreneurship and also kind of anti-American, frankly, no pride in the American history. We've heard this a million times, and there were elements of truth of this about aspects of the Democratic Party.
Has any Democratic, and almost Republican, honestly, convention speech been further away from this? I mean, I had thought of the contrast with Hillary's speech even in 2016. Hillary's not exactly a raving left winger in the party.
She ran against the left, obviously, with Sanders. But still, if you look at that speech, there's stuff in there that made people's skin crawl a little bit.
Huge amount of glass ceiling talk, big emphasis on the first, last, finally, centuries of injustice overcome, first woman president. I don't mean to mock that, but that was the tone.
None of that from Harris. She alluded to the fact that she would be the first woman president, but didn't even, didn't make that a part of her pitch.
Never, glass ceiling, never heard it, right? Race mentioned once in the, in the speech, in a context where she sort of says we shouldn't, I think she's telling a story about her mother, you need to do the best you can and forget about race, color, and all this other stuff. So, I mean, what more could one want if one were an anti-left, anti-w anti-identity culture type of moderate or even conservative even conservative yeah national security american greatness conservative if you will literally what more could she have done i guess is a point i she just she sent every signal that she will continue the bipartisan american tradition of supporting American strength at home and abroad.
And to a point that it made some people on the left uncomfortable. And yet still, I'll continue down the list.
You know, Chris Christie, the Bushes, Dick Cheney. They're just on the sidelines.
Like, I just, I don't understand. She's giving you everything you want to accept it.
On the woke thing, just because you mentioned it, Nate Silver had like a really good article on this on friday that i've been noodling on he talked about how she kind of invoked her racial identity in ways that were much more aligned with kind of like the pride in the american immigrant experience sense rather than what he calls the nails on the chalkboard tones of social justice leftism where you're talking talking about the negativity of the challenges facing marginalized groups. He writes, there was an optimism, equality that is sometimes in short supply among Democrats and completely absent from the matrix of intersectional oppression.
In fact, Harris turned some woke tropes around 180 degrees. It's Republicans who are pessimists, who are weird, who are unpatriotic.
I just noticed that too, right? Like there was no even hint of oppression Olympics there. The absolute opposite.
Right. And as you say, the diversity side of it, if you want to put it that way, was much more in the traditional American appreciation for diversity.
I'd be Joe Lieberman in 2000 talking about his parents and grandparents and how proud they weren't all alive. They would have been the ones who had passed away of him, of a Jewish American having this chance, this opportunity in this great country.
It was much more like that than, you know, I'd also got some grievances here because my father's in Jamaica and my mom's in India, and there's been discrimination against both in American history. And I'd like to recount some of that.
And again, wouldn't it even necessarily be wrong to do that But yeah, no, that would have been a totally appropriate thing to do. She chose not to.
She chose not to very much. Yeah.
To single out one last person here, HR McMaster's doing the rounds this weekend. He's still in a book.
He's welcome on this podcast. We're inviting him on this podcast, actually.
And I'd love to talk this through with him. He's in the Atlantic this morning.
I don't even know what to say about it, Bill. I'm like almost speechless about his article in the Atlantic this morning.
It is called What Trump Got Right About National Security. So doing exactly the opposite of what I was calling for in the bulwark.
There are two things just to highlight the absurdity of this article. Here's a quote.
He, being Trump, found it difficult to even utter the phrase human rights okay that's good but became impassioned when he witnessed cruelty such as the serial episodes of mass murder in syria are you fucking kidding me hr mcmaster he became impassioned when he witnessed cruelty Donald Trump like what are we doing

why do we have to make him into the other person that he is Bill he goes on here's towards the end

Epictetus Epictetus he cites the great stoics Epictetus defined the discipline of perception

as the quality of clear judgment in the present moment Trump could see the contours of complex

situations and was in the habit of challenging assumptions and conventional wisdom but his

Thank you. judgment in the present moment.
Trump could see the contours of complex situations and was in the habit of challenging assumptions and conventional wisdom, but his conflicted vision of the world and America's role in it clouded his judgment at times. Epictetus, he has some traits that are similar too.
What is this? It's a real stoic type Trump. Look, I defended it.
I've known HR, some not very well, but some for a long time. I was a tiny player in the agitation for the surge in 2005 and 2006.
And McMaster was key in that, having successfully done counterinsurgency earlier in the war. I taught his book at the Kennedy School when I was a guest lecturer there for a couple of terms in the 2000s.
Really excellent book on Johnson and the incredible failures of Johnson and the Pentagon, both Johnson and the Pentagon in Vietnam. So I have a high regard for HR.
I saw him when he left the White House, actually, and it was totally off the record dinner and all this. But I mean, he does not have a high opinion of Donald Trump and does not think he should be back in the Oval Office.
But for some reason, he writes this piece, as you say, that's, I mean, I guess he wants to defend his own record. But the truth is, I mean, I defended his going in, because I thought he could stop a lot of bad things from happening.
And maybe he did. And that's an adequate, he doesn't need to defend Trump.
He can just say, I was there for over a year. I believe I kept certain guardrails in place, kept certain things from going off track.
And also, we accomplished a few things. Fine.
But yes, you say, why the general statements about Trump, manifestly false statements about Trump's character, about Trump's judgment, and so forth? I don't even understand it. He doesn't need that to defend his decision to go in, I guess is what I'm saying.
I think that's defensible as a matter of national security. And maybe it was right, maybe it was wrong.
I remember arguing with friends about it at the time. But I think it's defensible.
But yeah, it is disappointing. One of the funniest parts of the piece, I guess the piece is sort of an excerpt from his book, so maybe this is a little harsh for me to criticize it, but since he probably wrote it months ago, but one paragraph begins something like, whoever is to become president in 2025, he or she will have these challenges.
It's in that elevated foreign policy. I'm above politics.
I'm just talking about the world out there, China and AI and all this. He chose to have it reprinted in the Atlantic.
He could have edited it a bit. There's only two people who could become president at this point, basically, in 2025.
I mean, absent medical disasters or whatever. And, you know, there's something insane about writing a piece about American foreign policy today with a kind of whoever becomes president.
I think it's important that it captures your point, though. Totally.
Yeah. I wouldn't do this, but whatever.
If you felt like you had to defend the record, you can imagine writing an article about how, you know, Donald Trump had a bunch of people around him that served honorably, like occasional points, like we channeled his instincts for good. I don't fucking know you know what i mean like we you could imagine a way to write it that doesn't shine trump's turds and like puff him up as if he has some of these like stoic values of seneca it's ridiculous to describe him this way that's like doing like a fanzine it's like a comic book where you're like taking somebody in public life and like life and like giving them superhero traits that they don't really have and like it's just it's preposterous and i just think doing this now tory's on face the nation yesterday if you're gonna put out a book right now and you had eight years to do it so if you're gonna put out a book right now it's incumbent on you to actually render a judgment on what is best here going forward and what is in the at Atlantic today is preposterous.
And, you know, his successor is National Security Advisor, John Bolton, whatever one thinks of him. And he had his own punch pulling, if that's the right word, in 2020 and not coming forth early enough in the impeachment and so forth.
And then writing in Reagan or whatever he did. But still, he's actually much clearer, I'd say, in his judgment on Trump.
You know, his judgment is that the guy was, well, he says it, right? He's totally unfit to serve again.

Now, John still wants to somehow not vote for a Democrat, I guess.

I don't think we've, I haven't heard from him recently on this.

And that's another quarrel we can have with him and should have with him.

But it's sort of surprising.

If you'd asked me 15 years ago, or five years ago, eight years ago, who's going to sort

of step up more, if I can put it this way, HR McMaster or John Bolton?

I probably would have said, oh, John's a Washington creature and a Republican.

It would be less of a hack.

Yeah, yeah.

HR is, you know, impressive kind of intellectual general.

It is disappointing.

It is disappointing.

Well, we're just going to keep looking for the ways in which Trump is somewhere to epictetus over the coming weeks I'm sure there'll be a lot of opportunities to highlight those Cupcake vineyards grow their grapes in the finest wine regions on earth That's why they travel to Marlboro, New Zealand to craft their delicious, award-winning Cupcake Sauvignon Blanc Sorry, am I reading that right? Cupcake vineyards? They make a delicious wine from New Zealand and call it Cupcake? Okay, then. This is Cupcake Vineyards.
Serious wine, unserious name. Oh, well, at least they're aware.
Copyright 2024, Cupcake Vineyards, Livermore, California. RFK Jr.
has rendered a judgment, though, on the election. He made an endorsement over the weekend let's take a listen in my heart i no longer believe that i have a realistic path to electoral victory in the face of this relentless systematic censorship and media control so i cannot in good conscience ask my staff and volunteers to keep working their long hours or ask my donors to keep giving when I cannot honestly tell them that I have a real path to the White House.

Furthermore, our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats with whom I disagree on the

most existential issues, censorship, war, and chronic disease. I'm sorry to make people listen to his voice, but we had to get to that end part because that is critical.
He gives three reasons for why he has to endorse Trump. He cannot let Kamala Harris win

because of the issues

that are the most important face in the country.

Censorship, the war in Ukraine,

and vaccinating children.

That's why he endorsed Trump.

He thinks Trump is more on his side

when it comes to abandoning Zelensky,

not vaccinating our children,

and ensuring, I guess,

I don't even know what the censorship thing is related to.

Yeah, it's amazing that Elon Musk

Thank you. abandoning Zelensky, not vaccinating our children, and ensuring, I guess, I don't even know what the censorship thing is related to.
Yeah, it's amazing that Elon Musk bought Twitter and is running Twitter and is actually putting a big thumb in the scale on what's promoted on Twitter and also all kinds of bad, you know, disinformation stuff. Under the Biden administration, there's such horrible censorship, you know, and Robert Kennedy was incapable of raising money for his campaign campaign.
Donald Trump was incapable of getting the Republican nomination. I mean, it's so farcical.
Where does one begin? But it does tell you a lot, right? I mean, he's right that Trump's closer to one of those issues. I think this could be used against Trump, sort of our earlier conversation, that the more MAGA-ish the Trump campaign becomes, and also the more conspiracy theorist-ish it becomes, the more people look up and say, I kind of find Trump's something kind of interesting about him, but these people are crazy.
I mean, I do feel like there's a chance here to exploit this, and maybe it hurts Trump. I don't know.
What do you think? Painting Trump as anti-vax and pro-Russia and in bed with the weirdest people in politics, I think is helpful. I do think that if you just look at the straight math that RFK is probably right, that he was hurting Trump more than Kamala at this point.
I think that he was hurting Biden more than Trump for various reasons back had Biden stayed in. But I think Kamala has sort of gobbled up already, not all, but most of the RFK junior voters that were gettable for her.
And so it might help Trump a little bit on the margins. I don't think the endorsement does, but just him being off the ticket might help him on the margins.
That's a little bit concerning, but I do think that the Democrats and my friend Liz Smith, who they've deputized to do this, are going to be able to have a heyday making Trump own RFK's craziest views and anti-vax views. And I don't think that that's particularly helpful.
I just think it's worth going back to the censorship thing for one more second. It is kind of a mystery to me why this continues to have such purchase in this country like this idea that like free speech is a threat this is the golden age if you're a person that has insane and weird and conspiratorial views and you want an audience or a platform for it there's no time in world history where you could have a bigger platform for your freakishness than right now in america i mean like what would rfk jr have done if he was running in 19 you know if somebody tried to run in 1976 on a quack platform like you wouldn't have been able to learn about them right like they wouldn't have been on the network news they wouldn't have he has these huge platforms on youtube on twitter you can communicate directly with millions and millions of people Who's being censored what is it what are they even talking about like it is totally nonsensical there's a certain type of person that that line is resonating with i guess yeah i guess and the anti-vax stuff is interesting i was struck i think i'm right about this at the convention maybe the first night i can remember the first two nights there was what seemed me at the time, and I think to other people, a surprising emphasis on how bad a job Trump had done in fighting COVID, which, believe me, I think is true.
But I think the conventional view in a certain kind of sophisticated circles, not even pro-Trump circles, is, well, the COVID things are mixed bag, the schools, the Biden administration didn't do a very good job on, or Democratic governors didn't do a very good job on, and better to leave that thing kind of aside. I think the Harris people must have discovered in focus groups and through polling that, you know what, people are pro-vaccine, and people are grateful to have the vaccine.
And even on COVID, people do not want the kind of leadership, if you want to call it that, that Trump showed. And you don't have to get into the weeds of defending every, you know, liberal school,

every school district that didn't open, you know, put off opening under pressure from

the teachers' union as longer than they should have, maybe.

I wonder if the vax thing is more of a potent issue than people think, because people have

been a little spooked by it, you know?

It's just, it's not fashionable these days to be straightforwardly pro-vax in a funny

way, you know?

The other endorsement from this world that Trump is getting today reportedly is from tulsi gabbard it's not a surprise endorsement supposedly he's also been helped she's also been helping with debate prep going to mark caputo's reporting for the bulwark i just mentioned this because it is also striking this imbalance like the inverse of the people we were talking about before it's like the pro-putin isolationists like tulsi see very clearly which side they're on they are lining up behind trump rfk and tulsi and david balsex and all these people that like want us to want us to concede to putin and ukraine they're all lining up behind trump they're not sitting on the sidelines being like well i don't know he's got a couple neocons around him i don't know what he's going to do. But Putin and Ukraine, they're all lining up behind Trump.
They're not sitting on the sidelines being like, well, I don't know. He's got a couple of neocons around him.
I don't know what he's going to do. But for some reason, their counterparties and other people were talking about the HRs, the Condis, etc.
Why don't they see the choice as clearly as Tulsi sees the choice, I guess. And Ukraine is one of the issues that really divides the two campaigns.
Some of these others are a little complex tax tax policy, who the heck knows, right? Congress. With the pick of Vance, Trump has put himself clearly on the anti-Ukraine side of the Republican Party.
The Democrats have been pro-Ukraine, a couple of things I wish Biden would do that he hasn't done. And half the Republicans are pro-Ukraine.
It's a political matter. This is where I thought Panetta's speech and Kinzinger's speech and Kamala's own speech was actually very important.
She spent a fair amount of time on Ukraine, but she knows that this is an issue that unites her supporters and divides Republicans and gives her a chance to win over some of the good Republicans. Almost every name you've mentioned, I think literally every name you've mentioned is pro-Ukraine.
But you'd think that, okay, they're foreign policy experts. The most important issue in the world in foreign policy today is Ukraine.
I think it's pretty indisputable. There's a clear division between the two parties on it.
Do you need to know anything more, really? I mean, you'd like a defense budget that's 0.3% higher, and you'd like a slightly different tweak on the China policy, and Israel, maybe one sentence less about humanitarian suffering in Gaza. I mean, really? Are any of those things, I mean, it really is unbelievable when you think about it, that people are kind of wavering or holding back or doing a lot of chin pulling about a tough choice for me, you know? Yeah, to me, it's just like if Tulsi and RFK are on one side, I don't even know how much more I need to know than that about the fact that I'm on the other side of whatever choice they're on when it comes to who should be the next president.
Trump at arlington it's the three-year anniversary of the afghanistan withdrawal it's interesting like this is the one issue that cuts both ways for him or his policy was indistinguishable from biden's on this but it is almost like the fig leaf for these people right because he is a legitimate criticism of the way that the biden administration handled the withdrawal horribly and dishonorably frankly his actual policy wasn't any different was maybe worse but the fact that he's there today shows that he's trying to have it both ways like he wants to have tulsi and rfk and also keep these other people on the sidelines by attacking biden on afghan Maybe that's working. I don't know if there's any efficacy to that, but I think it's notable.
Yeah, it's not stupid politically for them. It's dishonest, but not stupid.
And incidentally, on the Afghanistan thing, if I can just go on another 30-second rant, some people we know have been criticizing some of us, I guess, though never quite by name. You know, we're just pro-Harris and pro-Biden, and we've giveniden, and we've given up, and we pull our punches.
We don't criticize them. I do believe on Afghanistan, the bulwark is probably published.
50 pieces critical of Biden, including in real time at the time. I mean, people, I was very upset.
We were very upset. And then subsequently for three years, Will Selber has been on this in a really deep and powerful way, I'd say.
And fine. So we don't agree with what Biden did.
And to the degree Harris defends it, who knows how much she was involved, honestly, but we don't agree with that. So we're capable of saying that, you know, I mean, this notion that I don't want to be defensive about it, I think I just point out that you have said it, and Will Selber said it, and J.V.
Ellis said it, and Sarah said it, and we've all said it. And that's just a fact.
Indeed. Let's do some debate talk.

There is some gamesmanship afoot from both teams.

I think it's worth kind of just looking at it.

Trump was on Truth Social last night, bleeding late into the night about how he doesn't like

John Carl.

He misspelled his name intentionally about George Slopadopoulos, about how ABC is the most unfair of all the networks that he was. He's been watching their shows lately.
Apparently he's included into his TiVo rotation and he does not like how unfairly he's been treated. And maybe he shouldn't do this debate.
He should do all the other days. So Trump is soft peddling.
Maybe he doesn't do the September 10th debate with ABC. Harris then, meanwhile, Brian Fallon, I think, sent a pretty funny line, one of her advisors talking about how Trump's advisors are attempting to muzzle him through the muted microphone.
The Harris team, I think, is very smartly trying to renegotiate the, frankly, idiotic negotiation that the Biden team did with Trump where they demanded that his microphone be muted, which like helped him, which is something that we all said beforehand. I still can't possibly understand what their rationale is for that.
So the Harris team is trying to troll Trump into unmuting his microphone so that we can see real, authentic, unmitigated Donald Trump, unmuzzled Donald Trump. So anyway, I'm curious what your thoughts are on what's happening on both sides.
In my day, I did the 92 negotiations for Vice President Quayle against Al Gore in coordination, obviously, with the Bush and Clinton folks. And we all knew there was going to be the debate.
And we went through the, you know, there was genuine jockeying for who, you know, could

we bring in a prop?

We wanted to bring in Gore's book to prove that he hated automobiles, you know, and no,

you can't bring in a book.

I mean, it was like, but we knew there was going to be a debate.

We knew it was basically what the rules were going to be.

And it was all kind of pointless jockeying, which people on the outside would be well

justified in ignoring.

I don't know.

I'm not so 100% certain there's going to be this debate.

And I can see people on both sides sort of wondering whether it's in their interest. I mean, Trump has skipped debates, you know, certainly a little bit in 2016, obviously, with Hillary and certainly the primary debates this last time.
Harris, I guess, hasn't really skipped debates. But on the other hand, she's not been in a general election debate.
So I'm not actually sure what I would even advise people to do at this point. Do you think Harris has to really, has to debate basically? I don't think she has to debate as much as Biden did.
Biden absolutely had to debate. We kind of saw why.
Harris, I think, should debate, but doesn't have to in the same way that he did, that Biden did. She has to debate as long as Trump is going to, I guess I will say, right? Like she can't be seen as duckinging it you know and playing into this idea that she you know is hiding behind a teleprompter and it's not there has to be some level of demonstration that she is kind of up for the task of engaging on the issues if trump pulls out though i i don't know that she should be the one that's like absolutely forcing the issue right in the way that b had to be Trump I think has to debate which is why we'll have debates is really what it comes down to I just I don't think that you can be the machismo candidate who's losing altitude losing momentum and who's afraid to debate the black woman I just don't see how that works for him so I think in the end Trump has to debate I think they they have to debate.
And I think that they're trying to work the refs. It's possible that Trump is so fucking wrapped around the axle about ABC that they end up canceling that one and just do one debate.
Because I think that they've also tentatively agreed to the NBC debate, both sides for later in September. So I think that's interesting.
The mute button thing I find to be the most interesting, which is like, can the Trump campaign really get away with saying we want a mute button? I don't know. That's kind of an interesting back and forth.
I hope that we end up without the mute button, but it'll be interesting to monitor. The Trump campaign will take the position that they agreed to the rules back then.
The rules included the mute button, so they should stick with the rules. And I guess that's the obvious compromise is stick with the rules, which the Harris campaign doesn't want to do.
They want to, quote, change the rules and stick with ABC, which the Trump campaign allegedly doesn't want to do and stick with the schedule. I guess it's the most likely outcome.
But I could see it sliding and this debate disappears because there's continued disagreement and there's only one debate in October. If Trump thinks he's gaining a little bit by Labor Day and doesn't need to have a debate on September 10th.
I mean, who knows, right? I think that the polls will show. And there's been one poll since the convention, which had tear us up seven nationally, which I just, we need to see.
I want to see how things shake out. It's going to take a few days to let the actual convention settle in and you need kind of a battery of polls to be able to look at an average.
So we'll see. But if that one turns out to be representative of the polls we see,

then Donald Trump absolutely will have to debate. I wanted to leave us here on this.
You kind of

alluded to it at the top, but I want to circle back to the Harris speech. There was one element

of it that I thought was really well done and you highlighted it and me and AB did not mention it on

Friday. And that was how she weaved through the story of her late mother throughout her bio and kind of what it said about her campaign message and um anyway i just thought i thought it'd be nice for you to leave us with your observations on that yeah what it said about america i mean you know it's always it's hard having a few not having written many convention speeches at this level obviously not at the presidential level, but having written speeches, it's hard not to be formulaic.
And especially on the bio part, it's hard not to either be kind of boring, honestly, or self-important and self-aggrandizing. I prosecuted all these cases, and I got an award in 2013 as best prosecutor or whatever.
I thought she really, the device, if I can call it that, though I think it's a sincere device, but let's say the rhetorical device of doing a lot of this through the prism of her mother, parents, that it really becomes her mother, her mother's experience in America, what her mother counseled her, how much she admired and admires her mother, her mother's memory now, the family and the sister. I mean, I think it was a very human humanized that it was it seemed true and again it was a real american story in a sense it wasn't just about her maybe that's a way of putting it she talked about herself without seeming to talk totally about herself right and that's a very difficult thing to do and is usually this to talk about yourself part is not i think nate silver makes his point in the just comparing parts of harris's speech to clinton's speech i mean hillary is you know you may not know that i as secretary of state i travel to 112 countries yeah that is not really the kind of sense people are like oh that's great you know and she avoided that pretty thoroughly and what as i say with with the mother was actually quite an interesting and story and a kind of recognizable story to americans of all sorts, I think.
Yeah, for sure. And I think that Michelle Obama hit it as well, right? And so it ties like through, it's a through line through the convention, because it's her mother imploring people to do something, just as we're imploring some of our former friends to do something.
So with that, with the wisdom of Kamala Harris's mother, we'll leave it there there i think me and bill are going to do a short episode next labor day so you guys will have

something so we'll see all then thanks to bill crystal tomorrow it'll be friend of the pod

mark lepovich we'll see y'all then peace If I want it, I think I'll regret this

You're a mother when the cruel

Oh, my mother rings me

But I do, I finally do

I'm not a cruel of how my mother raised me But I do, I finally do You're an old American boy I do I think I do The Bulldog Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown. Cupcake vineyards grow their grapes in the finest wine regions on earth.
That's why they travel to Marlborough, New Zealand to craft their delicious, award-winning Cupcake Sauvignon Blanc. Sorry, am I reading that right?

Cupcake Vineyards?

They make a delicious wine from New Zealand and call it Cupcake?

Okay, then.

This is Cupcake Vineyards.

Serious wine, unserious name.

Oh, well, at least they're aware.