Roger Altman, CEO of Evercore and former Deputy and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, explains why the tax bill was a bust for America. After Christy Harvey's 'Got Your Number', James Carville and Al Hunt analyze the fall of Rudy Giuliani, the artist formerly known as 'America's Mayor'. For show notes, go to PoliticsWarRoom.com.
Al Hunt: 00:05 Hi, welcome to 2020 War Room. This is Al Hunt and my, Al and partner James Carville and we're going to talk a little bit of politics. But before that, every now and then we're going to have special councils or consiglieres, smart people who make us look a lot smarter and a lot better than we are.
And the first is, one of the great experts on economics. Roger Altman, the CEO of Evercore, former Deputy Treasury Secretary. And I think the kindest and most generous billionaire that I have ever known and a dear friend. Roger, welcome to the podcast, I hope this doesn't hurt your reputation?
Roger Altman: 00:43 No, but if I'm a billionaire, it's news to me but thank you anyway.
Al Hunt: 00:47 Well, we won't tell your wife, okay. Roger, let's start with the economy. Every month, it sets a new record for this economic spurt and we've never seen anything quite like it. Trump's numbers are held up by his approval ratings on the economy, he'd be in the high 30s if it weren't for that, can this keep up for another 11 months?
Roger Altman: 01:09 The answer is that, it can, yes. That's not a certainty as you would know but right now, economic conditions just remain solid. We can all see how tight labor markets are, we have a 3.7% unemployment rate, which is the lowest in 50 years. We have consistent job growth, it has slowed some but it's still clicking in at about 150,000 jobs a month, which at this very late stage of this expansion, this is now a nine year expansion.
And of course, there is no sign of inflation or other imbalances that would precede a recession. Now, are there any storm clouds on the horizon? Yes, there are and the biggest one is the rest of the world. If we'd been having this conversation a year ago, we might've been talking about a term, synchronized global growth, which referred to the fact that the world as a whole seem to be recovering, not just the United States.
Today, it's the opposite. The United States continues to be solid, but the rest of the world, at least in terms of the major economic regions is weaker than we are. China is still very strong and growing at a rate that would be handsome for most other countries, but it has slowed down a lot.
Europe is a bit better perhaps in the last two months, but still barely growing. And many other large countries, especially the big emerging markets, Russia, Brazil and so forth are very weak. So one storm cloud is, that the rest of the world is slow and we're rather alone.
And China is bit of a case because it's still growing nicely but way down from where it was. And of course, there are various things that could happen around the world which could undermine our recovery. One obvious one is that, our exports all the way down as the rest of the world slows but in any event, that's one storm cloud.
But you'd have to say that, if you look ahead for the next 12 months, because this is November and a year from now is election month. The prospect that the economy remains number one on a growth track rather than flat or retreating. And number two, that the labor market conditions we're seeing today more or less continue, that prospect is a good one.
Al Hunt: 03:43 So, therefore, and I'll turn it over to John Maynard Carville in just a second, but give me what the odds are, what the people up there say? The odds are up there being Wall Street in New York, the probabilities are for any kind of a recession or downturn next year?
Roger Altman: 03:57 It's probably 25%.
Al Hunt: 04:00 Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Roger Altman: 04:01 And why would it be that high? Because, this is now the longest expansion in the modern history of the United States. The longest recovery period at nine years without a recession. And even though as many economists say, "Recoveries do not die of old age, they suffer from some imbalance or exhaustion and shock that ends them."
But it is long in the tooth, that's number one. And number two, we've had since we began this recovery in 2009, three mini recessions, three times during that nine year period when the economy slowed down a lot. And it looked like we might be on the verge of actually going negative, which would mean recession but we never quite did.
So, there've been moments during this nine year period when it looked like the growth was over, so I would say about 25%. My own view is, that's about right in terms of percentage, because the base case is, the economy will continue to grow. Yes, it may grow in some quarter at one and a half or one and a quarter percent instead of 2%.
And that the labor markets, the unemployment rate, the job growth creation rate and so forth will remain about the same. At any given month, it can always be an outlier and we may see some of those because we often do, but I think on balance the outlook is pretty solid. And if I was in The White House and focused on reelection, I would think that the outlook is going to be helpful to us.
James Carville: 05:32 So when I came in national politics, when president Clinton was elected and even before that, it was all of these deficits. And when we went through, we bled, we had to have a five cent increase in the gas tax because the markets needed reassurance that we are fiscally responsible. Then we ran the surpluses and we were all proud of that.
And then Pushkin and Pete Peterson spent a billion dollars and then they had Deficit Commission, they had Erskine Incentive to Simpson and The Tea Party and we were going to all die and the deficit was going to kill us all. And then all of a sudden, no one cares about the deficit. Not the Democrats, certainly not the Republicans, the economists, the deficits scowls, no one even pays any attention to him anymore.
What happened? Why we were worried about something that no one is worried about now?
Roger Altman: 06:27 That's a good question. And the answer is in two parts, at least in my two cents. One is, the world has been stunned by the progress of interest rates. We have interest rates around the world, which are in many places, the lowest ever, ever recorded. And obviously, we have interest rates in the United States that are at rock bottom levels by historical standards also.
Now, going back two years, three years and earlier, nobody forecast this, at least nobody that I know. The general mentality two or three years ago and earlier was, the next move in interest rates is up. As the world recovers, demand for capital increases, inflation begins to pick up with that recovery and so forth.
And so there's been a stunning, unexpected and profound development in terms of the level of interest rates. Why is that an answer to your question? Because, with interest rates this low, the cost of borrowing for the United States and for that matter almost everybody else, is much lower than expected.
And for example, the interest expense share of the budget or the interest expense share of GDP is way below what everyone thought. So, if you were in the U.S treasury today James, you would probably say, "We ought to borrow all the money we can on something like a 50 year basis." Because, we could borrow 50 year money in the vicinity of two and a half percent and we'll never see that again, and we should take advantage of it.
So one argument against, the one reason that people are not concerned about the deficits is because, the cost of those deficits is way lower than anybody thought. And with huge challenges facing this country like climate, where the right kind of climate program would involve a lot of spending, and another other challenges we have from education to healthcare and so forth-
James Carville: 08:43 But Roger, they're spending money on stock buybacks, all right? They're not spending the money on climate.
Roger Altman: 08:49 Well, you're referring to corporations, yes.
James Carville: 08:50 No, but the tax cuts [crosstalk 00:08:52]-
Roger Altman: 08:51 You're referring to corporations.
James Carville: 08:54 ... was what the corporations and according to all the research I've seen, they didn't increase research and development or anything. They used it and they bought stock back and increased the stock price. And of course with unemployment at 3.7% [crosstalk 00:09:07] go ahead, I'm sorry.
Roger Altman: 09:08 Yeah, you're talking to somebody who thinks that tax cut was a big mistake.
James Carville: 09:16 Okay.
Roger Altman: 09:18 We did not need a 21% corporate tax rate. In fact, the business community by and large wasn't even asking for that tax rate. We were earlier at 35, we needed to go... For example, in the eyes of the business round table, pretty centrist. I mean, pretty central business group to 28% and the president and the Congress decided, why not 21?
We didn't need that kind of tax cut for corporations, we didn't need the rest of it, much of which went to high earners and wealthy, wealthy and the wealthy, we didn't need it. So that actually, it was a mistake. Now your point about stock buybacks is correct. Stock buybacks I think, have gotten way out of hand.
And if you asked me, what we ought to do about it? I would say, we should have a requirement that companies that would like to do buy backs have to invest an identical amount to that which they want to buy back into their workforces. So if you want to spend a dollar on buybacks, you have to spend a dollar on your workforce.
That's either wages, or benefits, or both or other strengthening of your workforce.
Al Hunt: 10:25 Well, I think that's a good proposal, I'm waiting to hear that in that campaign show maybe we have. Roger, the other thing, I mean, tax cut didn't work we found that out. The other conventional wisdom, maybe a year or so ago was that, this China trade war could be disastrous for the economy.
I think it's a mistake, I think it's problematic, I think we spent $28 billion already bailing out farmers. That's more than we did in the auto bailout, but the China trade war really hasn't had these great repercussions, has it, at least for America?
Roger Altman: 11:00 But I don't think wise people or a few wise people were saying that the trade war would be disastrous for the economy. I think there were some who thought it would destabilize financial markets and that in turn could have a knock on effect in terms of the economy as a whole. But if you step back and ask yourself a simple question, what's the export share of the U.S economy?
It's 12%, very low. And therefore, even if our exports to China went to zero, what effect would that have on the U.S economy? And the answer is, it would not be catastrophic. So it was never the case that in narrow economic terms, a trade dispute with China, with relatively small amount of our economy dependent on exports to China.
I know of course there are important sectors like, the agriculture sector where it's important but overall, it never had the potential all by itself to destabilize our economy. Now, I think it's the wrong thing to have done from both China's point of view and our point of view. I mean, tariffs have never particularly been effective, they hurt consumers because in a real-
James Carville: 12:19 Taxes?
Roger Altman: 12:19 Yeah, their taxes and they're passed on to consumers and they hurt consumers. And nobody who shops at Walmart is going to benefit from tariffs on Chinese products. In fact, it's the opposite, they're going to pay more. But I'm not surprised myself that it hasn't destabilized the economy because the share of our economy that's dependent on China is so small.
James Carville: 12:39 So you have not endorsed anybody in the presidential race, am I correct?
Roger Altman: 12:45 Yes, that's right.
James Carville: 12:47 So has Senator Warren come up with the unrealized capital gains tax, do you not have that's one [crosstalk 00:12:54]?
Roger Altman: 12:54 Well, she has proposed, a mark-to-market capital gains tax or some people call it, an accrual approach. What it means is that, each year, whether you sold the investment or you held it, you would market to market. Meaning, you would value it and if you had a gain in it, whether you intended to sell it or not, you have to pay tax on the implicit gain.
Now, by the way, I happen to think that's a pretty good idea, but that's one of the things she has proposed. She's also proposed much higher capital gains tax rates. I think she's proposed... I might have to check this, but I believe she's proposed the capital gains tax rates should be the same as ordinary income tax rates and that both should be higher than they are today, a lot higher.
And I'm not certain about homes but they would apply to all forms of investment. I suspect that homes would eventually get carved out even if she hasn't done that because, they're not really investments in the normal sense of the term. And I don't think they would end up being included and I'm not sure what she's said on it.
But I think for practical purposes, that would not be part of it but everything else, would be. A second home, a piece of art, a classic car, whatever your favorite thing is, they would all be subject to this.
James Carville: 14:25 So maybe I don't understand it, but let's say I have $10,000 in stock, in general motors and that's what it's worth on January 1st. On December 31st it's worth 15,000, I didn't sell it, but I do I have to pay the capital gains on the 5,000?
Roger Altman: 14:45 Yes.
James Carville: 14:46 So every year, in an investment, you don't have to just beat the market. You're going to have to, if you [inaudible 00:14:55] capital gains tax the same as ordinary income under Warren or even me would say it ought to be in the high 40s or 50. So every year, you're going to be paying 50% on your gain even though you didn't sell it.
That seems a little burdensome to me but I don't know, pretty aggressive?
Roger Altman: 15:14 Well, I think it would be very burdensome when it came to stuff that isn't liquid. With a stock, you can all see what it's worth and there's no complexity as to what you bought it at and where it's trading now. But if you're talking about-
Al Hunt: 15:30 What are you doing [inaudible 00:15:31]
Roger Altman: 15:31 Well, or take a small business, let's say the three of us decided to start a small business and now it's a year after we started it, what does that business worth? Well, that's really... I mean, I'm somewhat in the business of valuations and transactions. Because, I didn't want a one-year-old business is worth, is often next to impossible.
I think it'd be very, very difficult issues like that. However, when it comes to securities, liquid trading securities, I don't have a problem with her idea. And what she's really trying to get at is, we have a system in this country where, James, if you take your General Motors and you bought it, let's say 30 years ago.
And then it ends up in the hands of your children, and nobody has paid any tax on it and you have a huge gain, there's something ultimately wrong with that because the people who have the resources to make investments like that in the first place end up avoiding taxes. And the people who have all W-2 income don't.
Al Hunt: 16:37 Of course my children would only pay from what it was when I died. So if I held it, if it went from $1 to $50-
Roger Altman: 16:48 Yeah, but the estate tax is so gutted, is so toothless that you'd have to have a heck of a large estate, for that not to [crosstalk 00:16:57] be examined.
James Carville: 16:57 But that's the larger point [crosstalk 00:16:58]
Al Hunt: 16:59 Well also, if you adopt Warren's mark-to-market capital gains on assets, Roger, it would really vitiate or eliminate the need for capital gains to death, wouldn't it, because you'd be taxing him all along?
Roger Altman: 17:12 Yes, as a theoretical matter it would.
James Carville: 17:15 I want to go back to the other example because I thought this is... So I bought a stock at one, I died the stock is at 50, all right? My children sell the stock at 60, they only pay capital gains on it going from 50 to 60. The whole-
Roger Altman: 17:32 That's right.
James Carville: 17:32 ... acceleration from $1 to $50 is completely untaxed, is that correct?
Roger Altman: 17:37 Right, which is unsound.
James Carville: 17:38 Right, okay. I just-
Roger Altman: 17:41 That's not a good system.
Al Hunt: 17:42 Except I think Roger, that's actually right except on residences or property. I mean, you only, you've got 500,000 exemption?
Roger Altman: 17:51 Primary residences, yes. But James, you put your finger right on it. Senator Warren and a lot of other people would say and I happen to agree with them, that a system where you buy General Motors shares 50 years ago and you could buy them 50 years ago. And they've gone up a great deal and your children only pay tax on the difference between the stepped up basis they got at your death and whatever the price is when they sell it, that's a screwed up system, I think it is screwed up.
Al Hunt: 18:26 Conservative economist one time said that state tax or lack of the estate tax is affirmative action for the rich and it really is.
Roger Altman: 18:26 Yeah.
Al Hunt: 18:35 Roger, before we go, let me just ask you this. We talked about Warren a little bit, Michael Bloomberg threw his hat into the ring. This week he threw his hat into the ring with an awful lot of cash in it. He is the former mayor of New York, he has been I think, considered... At least, he is held in high regard by many people in Wall Street and the financial community.
What was the reaction to Bloomberg's entry?
Roger Altman: 19:02 Well, I think there are reactions from two very different communities. There's the community of politically active people including donors on the one hand, and there's a reaction from everybody else on the other. I think you're asking me about the first community? And the answer is that, most people in that community that I know don't believe there's a pathway for Mike to get from here to the nomination and therefore they're very, very skeptical, including that he's starting so late, including that he's skipping the first four states.
And so, I think the main reaction was tremendous skepticism. Having said that, I want to speak for myself. I'm happy he's in the race and I'm happy he's in the race because I believe based on press accounts, that he's going to spend a lot of money on what I would call, party building and election building.
I mean, he's already announced they're going to do a major voter registration effort in five states, and that's going to help Democrats in those states apart from him. And I think he's going to do a lot more work like that in addition to his own candidacy. And that is to the good because that increases the chances of defeating president Trump and it increases the chances of electing Democrats.
So I'm glad he's in the race and all these theories about, well, he hurts Biden and he helps Warren and Bernie. Most of that conventional wisdom is usually wrong, and so I don't pay a lot of attention to that. I mean, and the other point is, now, I agree that the pathway from Mike to get from here to the nomination is really, really steep.
But give him credit, he would be a good president. In fact, he'd be a very good president. Now, if you said to me, Roger, I bet $10,000 even money on Mike, one way or the other, I think I'd have to bet against it because, the probabilities are low, everybody knows that, Mike knows that.
But I think he'd be a very good president, I think he's going to do a lot of what I call, party and election building and I'm glad he's in the race.
James Carville: 21:09 Well, I mean, look, everybody has one assumption and that is, Biden will collapse. There's only about 10 people waiting for him to collapse and catch what they can and certainly mayor Bloomberg is one of them. He's always been cautious about this and he's going in and, I just think this leans to my idea that it's going to be a very volatile year and things are going to happen that we can't predict and we can't expect.
And sometimes you just got to sit back and let them come to you but I think this process is very early. And I think it has a really long way to go and nothing is certain right now. Even the fact that Mike Bloomberg can't win. I agree, it's a highly unlikely, but I [crosstalk 00:21:57]
Roger Altman: 21:58 Well, listen, both of you guys know better than me, that on this date, on this precise date in 2008, Barack Obama was not in the lead for the democratic nomination. And on this precise date in 2004, John Kerry wasn't in the lead for the nomination, and on this precise date, God knows, James knows in 1991, Bill Clinton was not in the lead for the democratic nomination.
So what does that tell you? It tells you what James just said. This is going to go through a series of phases that aren't evident to us now. And the candidates don't know and I don't think God knows how it's going to turn out.
James Carville: 22:37 I would point out to the levels of engagement in this cycle are so much higher than they were even in 08, or 92 or in 04.
Roger Altman: 22:47 James, let me ask you a question?
James Carville: 22:48 Sure.
Roger Altman: 22:49 I went to a conference a week ago today and I heard our old friend Rahm Emanuel predict that the total vote cast in the 2020 presidential election would be between 20 million and 30 million votes higher than in 2016 and it would be the highest turnout in the United States since 1908.
And I wonder if you will, broadly speaking [crosstalk 00:23:14] agree with that?
James Carville: 23:15 I do agree with it and the reason he said it is because I told him. Albert and I [crosstalk 00:23:22] there's actually a guy at the University of Florida and Rahm and I have talked to this, by the name of Mike McDonald. We interviewed him when we had our [inaudible 00:23:30] periscope thing. And I think I'm right here, there's 136 million that voted in 2016.
McDonald's thinks it's going to be between 155 and 160 million. I mean, Rahm's a little bit on outside, he's saying it'll be somewhere between 19 and 24 million increase, which is also pretty staggering. Now, that's the last time I'll looked [crosstalk 00:23:58]
Roger Altman: 23:58 Okay, now I have another question for you since I'm now doing the podcast, I've now captured the podcast. My question is, let's just pick a number, let's say 25 million more people vote in 2020 than 2016 that would be a good thing for the United States by the way.
James Carville: 24:14 Maybe.
Roger Altman: 24:14 My question is, does that giant turnout benefit Mr. Trump or does it benefit the likely Democratic nominee, whoever she is? The answer is both.
James Carville: 24:28 That answer is, we're not sure but I would take the crapshoot. He does get out whites who won't come out for other people and he does... And there are people that he gets that love him that don't much care about the Republicans, don't much care about voting. However, if we saw it in Louisiana, which was instructive, we only got 20, probably 27% African American share in the first round.
And then, we'd learned to use trumps visits, we learned to do different things and we got it up to over 30% share in the second round. If you look at what happened with Doug Jones in Alabama, you had a [inaudible 00:25:13], Trump got people out that didn't normally vote but you had an unbelievably high African American turnout.
What you have to counter this with is like, hard work and getting your boat out in the right places. And that's places like North Carolina, that's places like Florida, that's places like, that we know where... Pennsylvania, Michigan, we know where they are. And you just can't let things take their own course because he will go out and he'll get them out.
But I think what we learned in Louisiana, I'd known it before is if, you let his visits go unattended, he will get a spike in rural whites. But what we saw in the run off is, we had an equal spike with people in Orleans Parish. And also, you had a spike of these college educated, particularly college educated women.
I mean, the patterns that were taking place nationwide were even reflected in a place like Louisiana and Kentucky also. So we did learn something, in leading up to 2020 [crosstalk 00:26:17] we did.
Al Hunt: 26:17 And Roger, I think, I mean, going along with what James said, if there's that surge and it takes place in North Carolina and Florida and some other places, it's going to likely help the Democrats. If it takes place in Wisconsin, it could help Trump because there may be a number of non-college educated whites who didn't vote last time.
So it kind of depends on where it is but I agree with James on balance, I'd take the chances and it'll help Democrats. Our economic consigliere, Roger Altman has elevated us considerably, James.
James Carville: 26:49 Thank you Roger, [inaudible 00:26:50].
Roger Altman: 26:50 Thank you guys.
Al Hunt: 26:57 James, anything on your mind?
James Carville: 27:00 Well, Rudy Giuliani did a story in The Post. When he went to Spain, he stayed at the state of a Venezuelan energy magnate facing money laundering and bribery probe in the U.S. So if we add that to Lev and Al Gore, we're get in a real, real good picture of who America's mayor is, aren't we Albert, a real good picture?
Al Hunt: 27:22 Yeah, we are, that's Rudy. Rudy, we hardly knew you, I think Rudy as the saying goes, better lawyer up a lot now James, I don't mean a little bit, he better lawyer up a lot.
James Carville: 27:35 I completely agree and I don't know of anybody in this whole saga that's fallen further than him. I mean, people in jail but Paul Manafort was... At one time, Rudy Giuliani was a really big deal in the United States, I mean, a really big deal.
Al Hunt: 27:55 He was America's mayor, he was the hero of 9/11. At one point he was considered the front runner for the Republican nomination even though I think that was false, but he was considered that.
James Carville: 28:05 He was discredited with causation and correlation. When he U.S attorney, a lot of mobsters went down.
Al Hunt: 28:10 Right.
James Carville: 28:10 And there something... Something happen, I think the guy's just a drunk, I don't know what happened to him.
Al Hunt: 28:16 Well, he certainly, maybe it's that, maybe just craves attention and maybe he couldn't stand being a husband. But the fact that he's being investigated and potentially actions brought against him by the office that he used to head, is more than a little bit of irony. You know James, you focus on the big picture.
I got another question.
James Carville: 28:37 All right.
Al Hunt: 28:38 Earlier this week, Trump and Mike Pence trotted out Conan. Conan was the dog that supposedly went after and captured and helped kill the terrorist, the ISIS terrorist. Do you really think that was Conan, how do we find out? I have my suspicions if that was a [inaudible 00:28:57].
James Carville: 28:57 Well, but you got to acknowledge something, a broken clock is right twice a day. Then maybe by default they're telling the truth, that's the only way it would happen. It was the time and you just happened to walk in right where the clock was there. But I can't think of anything that they tell the truth about, so I don't know why this would be one of them.
Al Hunt: 29:18 Well, that's right. The broken clock theory is probably the best defense. And I mean, I really don't like this but it shows you what he's like. Melania Trump, who probably is the most appealing member of that whole group, you can't blame a woman for a bad marriage, but she booed in Baltimore.
If you're not a Trump person, you're a Trump hater in this country.
James Carville: 29:49 Yeah, you know how much this thing has permeated into society. This is a story that I never thought I'd see. In Gainesville, Georgia, the police raided a young person and found all of these weapons and she was going to shoot all these people off and everything. And it was a 16 year old female, a 16 year old female.
I mean, that's how this stuff has just permeated the country everywhere. I mean, it's one thing, it's horrible and get started on these males that do this but you wouldn't have thought that a female would be into this and end up... What's happening in United States is just tragic beyond belief, it really is.
Al Hunt: 30:43 Yeah, it is. And James as you know, we had hate before, we had violence before, we had terrible people, terrible things. But what Trump has done is, he's emboldened those elements, he has given them license.
James Carville: 30:56 Yeah, we've had hate before but the people would speak out against it. I mean, we were a power when a Charles Whitman and the University of Texas tower. You had that kind of stuff but the president would come out, everybody would come out. With Trump, he's not particularly, [inaudible 00:31:15] met nice people on both sides.
What's the big deal here? I mean, we've never had a president who gives aid and comfort to people like this. I mean, we've had them before, not as many, but now half the people in world might agree with them for all I know. I mean, it's that crazy.
Al Hunt: 31:36 And a course I'm teaching, I did a course the other day on, great political speeches and political rhetoric's and tried to pick different types. And one of the types that I picked for a president, was the consoler-in-chief, it was Obama and Charleston, it was Reagan and the challenger, Bill Clinton at Oklahoma city, George Bush with a bullhorn.
I can't imagine Donald Trump being a consoler-in-chief doing any kind of tragedy because he doesn't have any empathy for anyone but himself.
James Carville: 32:09 Okay, you think Trump can't be any dumber or more narcissistic or egomaniacal than he is, right? Well, I'm going to read something because it is from our friend Jonathan Shade. He said, yesterday president Trump signed a woman's suffrage Centennial commemorative coin act effective which is self-explanatory. It creates a coin to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the 19th amendment, ratified women suffrage.
Or at least it's self-explanatory to everybody except Donald Trump who was mystified as to why the hundredth anniversary was not recognized earlier. After working his way through the prepared remarks, [crosstalk 00:32:46]
Al Hunt: 32:47 You're making this up.
James Carville: 32:49 They've been working on this for years and years he said, suddenly wondering. And I'm curious, why wasn't it done a long time ago and also, well I guess the answer to that is because, now I'm president and we get things done. We get a lot of things done that no one else got done. I mean, everybody stop, chew and think about that.
Before he was president, we didn't acknowledge the centennial of the 19th amendment. I mean, I wouldn't wait [crosstalk 00:33:22]
Al Hunt: 33:25 The contributions that we have failed to appreciate [crosstalk 00:33:25].
James Carville: 33:25 That's a man that cares about women too. I mean, he got Marsha Blackman the task of explaining to Trump that Centennial means a hundredth anniversary, it fell to Republican Senator Marsha Blackman. Blackman generally, [inaudible 00:33:38] with kind of the bill worked its way through both Chambers of Commerce.
Congress is yearly with blah, blah, blah, that pass. But he'd solved it and he now understands what a centennial is I think, I don't know that.
Al Hunt: 33:49 Well, listen, I don't know that either but the one thing he does understand, he understands the importance of veterans and the importance of heroes, the importance of the chain of command, and the importance of ignoring all of the above and overriding everyone and giving a presidential pardon and then refusing the Navy to go and act on its own against this Navy seal who committed some bad acts.
That is such an insult to the military and everybody who has served [crosstalk 00:34:19].
James Carville: 34:19 He's wrecked everything else why not the military? He's wrecked the State Department, he's wrecked the CIA, he's wrecked the FBI, he's wrecked the EPA, he's wrecked the Justice Department [crosstalk 00:34:29] and he's trying to wreck the Federal Reserve, he's wrecked Interior Department.
I mean, what else do you need? I mean, anything that's there that he sees, he's just got to destroy it and the military is next in line.
Al Hunt: 34:46 Well, I'd like to think of something nice to say about him for Thanksgiving, but I can't even operate under the theorem of a broken clock is right twice a day and think of something nice to say about him or much less to. So you know what we're going to do James, we're going to turn over to that younger woman who loves to make or loves to challenge, let's put it this way, septuagenarians.
She's our own Jimmy the Greek, she throws numbers at us. Christy the numbers Harvey, what do you have for us today?
Christy Harvey: 35:14 Hey fellows, you've got Christy here, so my first number this week is 25%. This is the number that Donald Trump is claiming that public support for impeachment has fallen to, down from 75% but the problem is nobody can find the poll. The polling's remained pretty steady through CNN, through Gallup, through NBC at about 43% disapproving of impeachment, not 25% approving of it.
So James, this is my question to you as all of your experience as a pollster, should we just throw polling out the window and just start making these numbers up, it seems to work for the president?
James Carville: 35:56 Well, he just says whatever he wants the truth to be. He says it, even though it's not the truth and 40% of the country will probably believe him. And when 60% are told it's a lie, they will shrug and say, "Well, what's new about that? That's the number 14,000 I think it is." I mean, it's stunning that we've reached a point where he just stands up, boldface he says it, of course somebody like you calls it out.
We discuss it and yeah, he lied again. And everybody with an IQ above the temperature of ditch water knows that he's lying and everyone with an IQ below the temperature of ditch water thinks he's telling the truth.
Al Hunt: 36:45 Yeah, I agree. I would point out that he's not the only one that fabricates numbers. Remember that old Clinton aide, Dicky Maurice, he was infamous for making up numbers.
Christy Harvey: 36:53 He was infamous for a lot of things Al.
Al Hunt: 36:55 You know actually the polling news, the real polling news is actually depressing to me. CNN in the morning console surveys suggest there's still a plurality for impeachment, unlike what Trump said, it hasn't changed. But these very compelling hearings really didn't move the needle, the Trump party is sticking with Trump.
And don't confuse me with the facts or the evidence. What else do you have, Christy?
Christy Harvey: 37:20 Maybe his role is the chosen one, we'll save him on this. And that's the number of biblical figures that Rick Perry trotted out while telling Trump that he does believe that he's God's chosen one. He pointed out that, not all people chosen by God to be great leaders have been perfect and cited in a recent interview with Fox & Friends, biblical characters like, King David, Saul and King Solomon as other biblical figures who were chosen but not always perfect.
Albert, what do you think about that one?
Al Hunt: 37:51 Well, I don't know, who were the other chosen two Christy. I mean, Harvey Weinstein maybe Hannibal Lecter, I don't know. But now let me give Secretary Perry a little credit, he's getting better, he really is. He remembered King David, Saul and Solomon, but back in 2011 when he was running for president, he proposed to eliminate three federal agencies but when asked, he could only remember two.
And the one he forgot was the Department of Energy, which he now supposedly heads.
James Carville: 38:25 Well, I'm sure that he got his information from, 2 Corinthians. One of the things that his really been illuminating here, I love these guys that the William Barr and particularly you find a lot of these conservative Catholic people demeaning the role that the Church doesn't play in the community.
And that government should boast the role of religion. Well, do you have any idea why, if a young person looks at Jerry Falwell, or looks at Franklin Graham, or looks at Jesse Duplantis, or looks at Joel Osteen, or looks at the Catholic Church and looks at Bernard Law. Could they be any reason, maybe that we're not seeing that is causing young people to not be so enameled with religion, like attorney general Barr would like them to be?
Is something gone awry in the space of religion because it sure seems to me like it. And then they come back after producing, after Cardinal Law being a hero of all heroes and then taking all of these, right-wing people supporting him. And they blame the public for what happens and not the hierarchy of this inherently corrupt institutions.
It drives me crazy, it's like none of this ever happened. It's just a country of selfish people that don't understand the importance and role of, the organized religion in their lives. I mean, these people have no... I don't know if they really believed that or they just say it because this is something they have always said.
Al Hunt: 40:17 Well, maybe William Barr ought to just stick with being the president's attorney general rather than the countries and stay off all this other stuff. Christy, do you have anything a little bit lighter for us?
Christy Harvey: 40:27 Yeah, not much though. This week is Thanksgiving and I read a study that showed that most people over the course of their Thanksgiving day, whether it's turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, pie, what have you, we'll ingest about 4,500 calories. That's the equivalent of sitting down and making your way through eight Big Macs.
So I just wanted to say, happy Thanksgiving and see what you guys had in store for both your calorie consumption and working those calories off.
James Carville: 40:58 I'm not a big thanks... I love Thanksgiving, I love the games, I love the friendship and everything, I don't much like turkey. And I [inaudible 00:41:07] like giblet gravy and that kind of stuff but I'm going to make some Hoppin' John, I'm bringing up three sacks of Louisiana oranges.
It's probably the best citrus in the world, it's very limited. So eat a lot of oranges, a lot of orange juice, a lot of [inaudible 00:41:21] bucket load of bourbon. I got some really nice red wine, I went and picked me out some nice Margo's and I'm really looking forward to it. And what I usually have is, I don't like to check out, maybe I'll get a little [inaudible 00:41:33], and some Hoppin' John, and some green beans and a nice salad and I'm ready to go.
Al Hunt: 41:39 Well, if 4,500 is the over under, I'll take the over and that doesn't count the booze. But I like Thanksgiving, we spend it this year with family and friends. My son, Benjamin's best friend Daniel Van Hook and Molly Van Hooks, coming from Columbus where he does God's work for the Democratic Party out there, bringing their three month old little boy and our two year old grandson's.
I'm going to show this kid the ropes, nothing like an older man to tell you what's going to happen. So I'm really looking forward to Thanksgiving. Christy Harvey, you have a great Thanksgiving and we'll talk to you next week.
Christy Harvey: 42:09 Thanks guys.
James Carville: 42:11 As always, fascinating stuff Miss Harvey, you're a great mathematician and get, Walter Isaacson to do your biography.
Christy Harvey: 42:17 I appreciate it, thanks James.
Al Hunt: 42:31 Okay, James, quickly let's just do the back page. I'll repeat a little bit but, as a Watergate watcher reporter back in the 70s, I thought back and I worry that this scandal, even with all the awful stuff, the Trump hotel meetings and over in Ukraine. It didn't have the same nefarious characters as back then. But then you think about Rudy Giuliani and his two indicted associates, Joe diGenova once.
Like Rudy, a respected attorney, he's always angry wife Victoria Tunsing the discredited former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunez and his hitman Derek Harvey. You know, they're starting to make Gordon Liddy look good.
James Carville: 43:07 Yeah, I mean and all of the other ancillary characters around here, there is not one shred of doubt about the basic charge, that he tried to use his power to leverage a foreign government to announce an investigation of a [inaudible 00:43:25] opponent. From what I understand, they never really cared if they investigated Joe Biden or anything, they just wanted to announce it so they'd have something to go repeat on Fox.
So if you want to argue, yeah, he did it but we're not going to overturn an election, with an election coming up in 10 months. But the answer to that is, is the reason you impeach him with an election coming up 10 months because he is trying to rig the election.
Al Hunt: 43:53 He's trying to rig that one, right.
James Carville: 43:54 Yes, he's trying to, the one going forward. He didn't learn his lesson from having people rig it for him in 2016, at a minimal, he wants to rig it himself. It's so stunning when you see that and again, there is no doubt as to what the facts are. That the main... No one can even argue the facts.
Al Hunt: 44:20 Well, I certainly agree, and I hope all of you will be listening as you're enjoying those 4,500 plus calories. Thank you for listening to 2020 Politics War Room with James Carville and me, Al Hunt. Please subscribe, rate and review, be generous, the podcast on Apple podcast. This has been terrific, everybody have a happy Thanksgiving, we'll talk to you all soon.
This is Al Hunt saying, goodbye.