Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, we'll take your calls and comments live.
And then Max Steyer with the Partnership for Public Service outlines key steps in the presidential transition process.
And then U.S. Marine veteran Travis Partington discusses his podcast, Oscar Mike Radio, which highlights real-life stories of active duty military and veterans.
Washington Journal starts now.
Join the conversation.
This is Washington Journal for Saturday, November 9th.
Former President Donald Trump will return to the White House after a decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris.
In addition to holding on to his base, the Republican presidential elect also picked up votes in key blocks that have traditionally supported Democrats.
To start today's program, we're asking Republicans only: why did you support Donald Trump?
Here are the lines.
If you're in the Eastern or Central time zone, 202-748-8000.
If you're in the Mountain or Pacific, 202-748-8001.
And if you're a first-time GOP voter, we have a line set aside for you: 202-748-8002.
You can text your comments to 202-748-8003.
Be sure to include your name and city.
You can also post a question or comment on Facebook at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN or on X at C-SPANWJ.
Good morning, and thank you for joining us on Washington Journal.
We'll get to your calls and comments in just a few minutes, but first wanted to show you some headlines.
This from the Washington Post.
It says, Trump coalition marks a transformed Republican Party.
The article says Donald Trump's return to the White House was powered by a historic realignment of the American electorate that upended decades of traditional coalitions as he maintained his majority support among men and white voters without college degrees, but made dramatic inroads with Latinos, first-time voters, and middle- and lower-income households, according to preliminary exit polls.
In key swing states that decided the election, Trump also cut into traditional Democratic strongholds, urban areas and high-income suburbs in Pennsylvania, black voters in Wisconsin, and Arab voters in Michigan.
He dramatically expanded his margins in rural counties in Georgia and Wisconsin, easily overcoming Vice President Kamala Harris's advantage in metro areas, including Atlanta and Milwaukee.
All told, Trump outperformed his 2020 margins in more than nine out of 10 counties, where at least 90% of votes have been counted.
A stunning rebuke of Democratic leadership over the past four years and an embrace of some of Trump's hardline policies, including a crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
Also, looking at a piece from Newsweek, the headline, Trump Flips First Time Voters, was mentioned briefly in the Washington Post article, but the Newsweek piece says President-elect Donald Trump secured more first-time voters than four years ago, according to exit polls taking away the Democratic Party's majority with the group.
Among the voters asked by NBC, 56% of first-time voters chose the Republican, over 43% who selected Vice President Kamala Harris.
Four years ago, 64% of first-time voters picked Joe Biden, while Trump only attracted 32%.
Although the group, although the group made up only around 8% of all voters in 2024, numbers show a shift in appeal for Trump, who also fell behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the demographic in 2016.
Those articles talking about some of the key voting groups that former President Trump and now President-elect Trump picked up during this year's campaign.
Taking a look at the exit polls where he gained 42% of Latino voters backed Trump, up seven points from 2020.
He won Latino men 55 to 43.
16% of black voters supported Trump.
That is up eight points from 2020.
He won white women 53% to 45%.
He won non-college graduates 56 to 42%.
And 64% of rural Americans supported Trump.
That's up from 57% in 2020.
Former President Trump did speak to his supporters after being called the winner on Wednesday night.
Here's a portion of that speech.
Well, I want to thank you all very much.
This is great.
These are our friends.
We have thousands of friends in this incredible movement.
This was a movement like nobody's ever seen before.
And frankly, this was, I believe, the greatest political movement of all time.
There's ever been anything like this in this country and maybe beyond.
And now it's going to reach a new level of importance because we're going to help our country heal.
We're going to help our country heal.
We have a country that needs help and it needs help very badly.
We're going to fix our borders.
We're going to fix everything about our country.
We made history for a reason tonight, and the reason is going to be just that.
We overcame obstacles that nobody thought possible, and it is now clear that we've achieved the most incredible political thing.
Look what happened.
Is this crazy?
But it's a political victory that our country has never seen before.
Nothing like this.
I want to thank the American people for the extraordinary honor of being elected your 47th president and your 45th president.
And to every citizen, I will fight for you, for your family, and your future.
Every single day I will be fighting for you with every breath in my body.
I will not rest until we have delivered the strong, safe, and prosperous America that our children deserve and that you deserve.
This will truly be the golden age of America.
That's what we have to have.
That was a portion of President-elect Trump's speech from earlier this week, looking at where the race currently stands.
He has won 301 votes.
It was 270 was the number needed to win.
He increased his electorate count after Nevada was called recently.
Arizona is currently the only state still outstanding.
He does lead in that state.
We are talking to first or Republican voters only for this first hour asking why did you support former President Trump?
Cindy in Norwalk, Connecticut is up first.
Good morning, Cindy.
Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
I have my children are in their 20s and they're really struggling.
I want them to have the same opportunities the rest of us had.
They just can't get ahead.
Things are too expensive.
Housing's too expensive.
That was a part of it.
They really were losing hope.
And they turned around too and see the difference of how things worked economically for them.
And, you know, it was out there on the table.
And I do not like all the, didn't like all the division, pitting, you know, the way we just pit, the left seems to divide us on race, on gender.
Everything got too extreme with them.
I want our children to remain innocent.
It was just too much, too, too much.
We used to agree on basic moral tenets, and we don't anymore.
And, you know, it didn't matter who was president, who was elected, if it was your guy or not your guy 20 years ago.
We all knew we were going to be okay.
And now we don't.
We need to just have more common sense in this country and realize we love everybody and we want everyone to succeed.
We don't care what you do as adults.
We just, you know, you took God out of the schools, but then replaced it with a different religion.
So I don't buy this.
You know, it's a lot.
I could go on all day, but I just believe we're going to be better off.
Cindy, you were talking about your children.
It sounded like they also supported former President Trump.
I have one that two that did, and one that now is sort of seeing like I would have never, she would have hated his guts four years ago, but now they're all like, I don't like all this.
They just didn't like all the division.
They're very compassionate about migrants, but yet they saw a lot of their friends, people of color, suffering because of the migrant crisis.
I do believe they did not like the switch with Joe Biden and Kamala without her getting any votes.
That raised a lot of eyebrows.
And I do believe that COVID changed a lot for people.
You know, how we couldn't even come together as a country like we did after 9-11, after COVID.
We couldn't come around the president and support him.
Everything he did was, you know, wrong.
And, you know, this was something, COVID was something that I don't think anybody would have handled perfectly.
This was an unknown coming at us that no one knew anything about.
And, you know, you tried to do practical things like try to curtail travel to stop the spread.
And it was just name-calling.
It was just all name-calling.
Got your point, Cindy.
That was Cindy in Connecticut.
John in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
Good morning, John.
Good morning, Roy.
She's Cindy.
You hit it on the nose.
Very nice.
Biden gave us Immigration was so important and that was so central to Trump's back in the other election.
And he walked in and he opened the door to the biggest thing that Trump was for.
And the country was overflowed.
I got to tell you, the man of the year is Governor Abbott, who, by his tactics, spread the problem all over the place and impacted Democratic-run cities.
It was brilliant.
I think that gave us the election.
The other part, the economy is always shaky.
It can go either way.
I'm not sure a president means a lot.
You know, generally in an arrow points one way or the other.
I think Trump would, you know, deregulation, drill, baby, drill, probably has an impact.
We'll see what the tariffs do.
It's an interesting problem that we've had since the founding.
But to me, the biggest issue in terms of maybe minorities, I don't know if this is the right way, the culture war.
The people don't like a lot of things, and including they don't like men and women's sports.
It's obvious.
So I'll tell you what, the Democrats, plus, she wasn't a very good candidate.
Okay, I'll get to that.
She really wasn't.
But they handed it to us on a platter, frankly.
That was John in New Jersey, Lynn in Portland, Oregon.
Good morning, Lynn.
Hi.
I voted on a policy basis, and my most important policy was views on abortion.
And it was evident that Kamala Harris had very, very liberal views on that.
Also on transgendered and putting men in women's sports and not realizing that there are two distinct sexes and we are created different and men have different muscle mass even when they undergo all of these hormone treatments and et cetera, that you cannot change.
Then after that, there was the policy on immigration, which is really just invasion and allowing so many to come in unvetted.
I mean, even back in the early 1900s when they had Ellis Island, if you were sick or anything, you were turned away and they sent you back, which was virtually a death warrant to go back on the ship after you'd been for so many weeks on one.
So even then, they vetted people coming into our country.
And we are with this policy, we have not been doing that.
So there were just so many policies that as a Christian, I voted for policies that more were biblical and least offensive in the eyes of how my faith works.
That was Lynn Dahlia in Miami.
Good morning, Dahlia.
Good morning.
I was born in Cuba.
I came to this country when I was 14 years old.
The Democratic Party has become almost like they wanted to push us into socialism, which I do not agree with.
Miami-Dade County, for the first time, voted Republican.
And we're the biggest county in Miami, in Florida.
And the reason all the people have been before me, those are reasons why I am a Republican and I was proud to vote for Donald Trump.
My entire family voted for him.
I have a 15-year-old granddaughter who plays soccer.
Thank God she goes to Catholic school.
I would never want her to play in a field with men in there.
Thank God our governor does not allow that.
But the Democrats have gone so far to the left that it's unbelievable.
Like I said, I have been here since I was 14 years old.
I'm 78 now.
And I have never seen anything like it.
They wanted to make us like the cars.
You have to buy an EV.
No.
No.
You have to give the people the choice whether they want that or not.
It became all you have to do this.
You have to be this way.
No.
No.
The abortion the same thing.
We here in Florida, we had a proposition or thing for the to pass an abortion that would give it all the way up to the nine months, no parental guidelines or anything.
It did not pass.
People did not vote for it.
And I'm very happy.
That was Dahlia in Miami.
And Dahlia mentioned former President Trump flipped Dade County there.
This headline in this morning's New York Times: an earthquake, Trump flips South Texas.
It says, Nowhere in the United States have historically Democratic counties shifted so far and so fast in the direction of former President Donald J. Trump as they have in the Texas communities along the Rio Grande, where Hispanic residents make up an overwhelming majority.
Says the support for Mr. Trump along the Texas border provided the starkest example of what has been a broad national embrace of the Republican candidate among Hispanic and working class voters.
The shift, that shift has taken place in rural communities as well as in large cities like Miami and in parts of New York and New Jersey.
But Texas stood out.
Eight of the top 10 Democratic counties that most swung toward Mr. Trump on Tuesday were on the Texas border or within a short drive.
One of the biggest swings came in Star County, a rural area of 65,000 people, dotted with small towns where sections of border wall have been rising.
Incomes are low, and many travel long distances to jobs in West Texas oil fields.
The county flipped Republican on Tuesday, backing Mr. Trump by about 16 percentage points.
He lost the county to Hillary Clinton by 60 points in 2016.
Concerns about inflation, the large number of unauthorized border crossings in recent years dominated the campaign in the county.
On a sweltering Thursday in the border city of Roma, voters who supported Donald Trump said they had done so mostly for practical reasons and out of concern over uncontrolled immigration.
Back to your calls, Steve.
And Steve in California.
Good morning, Steve.
Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
Why I voted for Trump.
It was very scary, the lawfare, especially from Judge Mershant.
Things that were done to Trump in court that were never done to a defendant before.
The gaslighting from not only the news media and from the government.
The outright lying.
The gaslighting, inflation was transitory.
The borders were secure.
The twisting and the taking out of context comments that Trump made.
Harris's refusal to answer questions.
The trans issue, where the obvious solution was to have trannies compete against trannies.
And when I found out that the Democrats, if they got into power and if they just happened to control the whole government, they wanted to abolish the Electoral College.
They wanted to stack the Supreme Court.
They wanted to abolish the filibuster.
They wanted to create two more states, Puerto Rico and District of Columbia.
That would solidify their power.
And it became apparent to me they were only after power, flooding the United States with illegal immigrants to change the next census to give them more representation in Congress.
I got very, very scared.
And I would like, real shortly, I would like to make a recommendation so that we can somewhat avoid what took place.
I trust C-SPAN to be fair and balanced, just like a lot of Americans do.
And I would like to see a debate hosted by C-SPAN on a prearranged topic once a week between the news media, liberal news media on one side, conservative news media on the other.
That would give them time to prepare for it.
You could have Rachel Maddow and maybe Laura Ingram.
You could have Joe Scarborough, Maria Bartaromo, the people that are extremely intelligent at representing their points of view and let the people decide for themselves because once the people know the facts, they can make an intelligence decision on what is right and what is wrong.
And if the liberals will not do it, then that will tell you a lot about what their intentions are.
They do not have the facts to support their views.
They do not want to be exposed.
I'm Steve in California Annette in Alabama.
Good morning, Annette.
Good morning, and thank you for C-SPAN.
Well, along with the majority of Americans that spoke forcefully November 5th, it was a landslide.
And what we were against was a Democrat failure to do no harm.
When Harris and Biden continued to say, Bidenomics is working, the border is secure, and crime is down.
And they were smiling as they said it.
We the people knew better that that was a monstrous lie, and we knew it because we were living it.
And apparently, Democrat political leaders didn't care.
And this was not because she was a woman or a woman of color.
This country has come a long way from major discrimination.
Trump wanted a landslide because we knew we were headed the wrong way, and Harris would continue these failures.
And we had to do something different.
But again, thank you so much for this program.
I am a C-SPAN junkie.
That was a net in Alabama last month on Washington Journal.
Former Trump administration official Jeron Smith described what he called a new realignment of the Republican Party.
Here's a clip from that interview.
So what we did at our firm, CGCN, is establish a research report called Class Dismiss.
And we looked at the poorest medium and average income households.
And we found that some of the poorest households come from some of the most polarizing caucuses and members of Congress.
For example, the four poorest medium incomes were white, black, and Hispanic.
And the members that represent those districts are members of the Republican Study Committee and members of the Freedom Caucus.
And then on the left is members of the Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.
And so we also found that in some of the highest medium income average incomes come from some of the wealthiest districts, which are usually some of the bipartisan caucuses like the Problem Solvers Caucus and some of the groups that are pushing for bipartisanship.
And so what we found with that is that some of those poor districts, the reason why you're seeing such polarizing reactions is because people are really trying to push the current establishment to do more for their constituencies because things haven't changed.
And so what we're arguing is that we're seeing a real realignment.
Trump came in and I've been associated with Congress over 20 years.
So I've kind of seen this stuff build out.
You know, I was a part of the Tea Party movement, but people don't know that Jim Jordan started an anti-poverty caucus or the original person who talked about the opportunity economy was Tim Scott and I worked on an opportunity agenda with him.
But it wasn't until we had a president like President Trump who started to kind of work on issues that help working class voters.
And so you see a different Republican Party than the party that I came into is now a party of the working class.
And you're seeing a different Democratic Party that's representing more of the elite individuals.
And we're seeing less trust in institutions like media, big corporations.
Even Jeff Bezos just came out with a news article talking about how people don't trust newspapers anymore, you know, like the Washington Post.
And so what we're seeing right in front of our eyes is a real political realignment where you're seeing more working class voters want to vote Republican.
We are hearing from Republicans this morning on why they voted for Donald Trump in the election.
Taking your calls, but also getting some reaction on social media.
This from Ellerby says he listens to Americans.
His agenda is for the people.
He doesn't use I and me in talking about attacks and lawfare by his opponents, but his choice pronouns when talking policy in America are we and us.
And Becky Skybeck says, because Kamala said there wasn't a single thing she would have changed over the last four years, and said her only weakness was that she liked having a good team around her.
Barbara says the policies he ran on, i.e. the economy and immigration, his courage, and his successful leadership during his first term as president.
Stephanie says common sense, family values, morality, and sick of media censorship and brainwashing.
And Sarah says, because we need a strong leader for our country, someone that would put America first.
And one more, Charlene says, common sense, there's more important things to worry about than abortion and transgender surgeries for children.
Back to your calls.
Patrice in South Carolina.
Good morning, Patrice.
Hi, Green Rising.
Thanks for taking my call.
I love Trump's policies and attitudes toward changing things.
Everything seemed to be shoved in our faces.
He went up against, his machine went up against a seemingly group of people trying to overthrow America.
Kamala never answering questions, telling lies, and not giving policy.
Also speaking in Marxist code.
Liberal propagandized media, woke policies, men and women's sports, Rockefeller school protocol, illegal immigrants crossing the border, and a politicized court case, all the politicized court cases.
That's why you saw a red wave, and you're going to continue to see a red wave because people are finally waking up.
We don't get the news anymore.
We get propaganda, people's opinions, who's supposed to be journalists that elderly people depend on.
But most of us have gone outside the box and we look at YouTube and other news sources that are spreading the news.
And also, we're sick and tired of these celebrities.
We're sick and tired of the celebrities that got a hidden agenda, but people with a spiritual discernment, they see through everything that's going on.
And I'm so glad that 135 million people got out to vote for change.
Go Trump.
Patrice, can I ask you a question?
You mentioned policy in there.
What was the most important issue for you, this campaign?
Oh, everything.
I have a grandson, and the school system is so jacked up.
Trump has done go in there, and he's going to turn this thing around.
Everybody's going to be able to have the type of education that can push America forward.
From now on, it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is.
Everybody, everybody has a chance now.
And I advise everybody to take it.
That was Patrice in South Carolina, Tim in Wisconsin, first-time GOP voter.
Good morning, Tim.
Yes, ma'am.
Boy, the last caller took all of my talking points.
It was just, you know, I don't really consider myself in either party, but I had to vote GOP this time because, you know, the Democrat Party with their child mutilation policies, their radical abortion policies, letting all these illegals into the country without being vetted, people being murdered by illegals, little children, being molested, and 12 are named Lake and Riley, I believe, down in Kentucky or Tennessee,
and then scores of other people that you don't hear about that the mainstream media censors.
And I don't put my faith in the government, but I have to agree with the, I can't remember who said it on YouTube.
I used to vote Democrat quite a bit, and they've just turned into a demonic death cult, and I agree with that man completely.
Abortion at any time, abortion even after.
It's not abortion even before.
Even after the baby's born, they can let it die on the table in Tim Waltz's state.
And I think that the Democrat Party lost this race more than Trump won it because just all their just hopeless, godless policies that they try to pursue.
And I thank you very much.
Tim, you voted GOP for the first time.
What about your down ballot selections?
Were they also Republicans?
Yes, yes, they were.
I had to, I just, like I said, I just couldn't go.
There's just no Democrats I can vote for anymore.
There's also far left radical.
It's just incredible, in my opinion.
That was Tim in Wisconsin.
And this in today's New York Times, an article, control of the House and three Senate seats remain in balance.
It's a little outdated, but wanted to mention the Pennsylvania Senate seat.
Dave McCormick, the Republican candidate, has a lead in that race.
This article's from the New York Times, they have not called it, but the Associated Press has.
However, Bob Casey, the Democratic incumbent senator, has not conceded.
It says the candidates remain about 39,000 votes apart, a difference of just more than half a percentage point.
On Thursday, the state reported that some 100,000 provisional military overseas and election day ballots were still uncounted.
Counting remains, the counting, counting the ballot remains and could stretch into next week.
Local officials said if the margin winds up within half a percentage point, the race could go on to a recount.
The Nevada Senate race has been called.
That has gone to Jackie Rosen, the Democratic incumbent.
And so currently the only Senate seat that is still outstanding is Arizona.
That has yet to be called.
Looking at the list of House races, there are 23 House races that have yet to be called.
And that includes the Alaska at-large race.
Nick Bagich, he's a Republican, is currently ahead in the vote tally for the at-large seat, which flipped, which was flipped by Representative Mary Patola two years ago.
Also in Washington state, Representative Marie Glusenkamp-Perez is ahead of the vote in Washington's third congressional district.
She flipped that seat for Democrats in 2020.
It says her advantage stood out at 11,000 votes.
It was a significant number remaining to be counted, an estimated 40 to 50,000 as of late Thursday, not counting ballots postmarked before election that have yet to arrive.
Back to your calls, Glenn in Potsdown, Pennsylvania.
Good morning, Glenn.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes.
The reason why I vote Democrat for the last 50 years, C-Span, if you can give me a Republican president that ever went in the White House for the last 50 years that never give us financial chaos.
Mayhem, that's why I vote Democrat.
For the last 50 years, every Republican president that goes into the White House, we have financial chaos.
Mayhem.
The country in a recession.
Glenn, who did you, Glenn, who did you vote for?
Republic.
I vote Democrat.
Okay.
And I will not stop.
Okay, Glenn, we'll let you go because we're talking with Republicans this morning.
Rick in Iowa.
Good morning, Rick.
Hey, excuse me.
Good morning.
Sorry about that.
Just saying.
Drink of water there.
I guess for me, it started right off with the Keystone pipeline.
And I recently heard a oh, it was a trader on one of the business channels, and they said this is when we might see gas price spikes.
And they said, look, if this happens, we've got two things we can do.
We can tap the SPR or we can call Saudi.
And I like Trump's idea a lot better about using our own fuel to take care of issues like that.
So there's one.
Excuse me, Afghanistan.
What a debacle.
I'll tell you, I came, I served close to 25 years, and I came in at the tail end of Carter and left during what had been the second bush.
And, you know, it reminded me of Vietnam, that exit.
It was terrible.
I felt so sad for those folks.
You know, the trans issue was a thing for me.
You know, women competing against men.
That's wrong.
Immigration.
You know, legal immigration, that's the way forward for me.
I just don't, I don't understand the illegal portion of this, just letting folks into the U.S. without vetting them.
That was a huge thing for me.
You know, Ukraine, this might be my thought on that was, is, you know, there's an enormous goodwill at the front end of Ukraine.
And I think had we really pushed on Russia said, look, this is not going to happen, and fed them the weapons that they needed up front.
And especially when the American public was behind Ukraine 100%, that would have given him pause.
However, we slowly to that.
So I think we're where we are at right now with Ukraine.
Inflation, you know, that was affecting, that was super affecting the very low end of the economic tier in the U.S., I think.
And I don't think they were spoken to by the Democrats.
I mean, it was, you know, you've seen all these folks on TV that are making millions talking about vote for the Democrats, and nobody's saying anything about these folks down there that are struggling with like 30% increases when they go to the, you know, to the grocery store.
And so I think that was a massive issue for them.
And they walked by that, and all those folks noticed it and voted Trump.
Let me see here.
Rick Rilligo, I'm going to go on to Clarence in Columbia, Tennessee.
Good morning, Clarence.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
Good morning, Amick.
I voted Republican, as I always have.
I was much more comfortable voting this time as a Republican than I have been on some other occasions when the party seemed to represent nobody else other than the Chamber of Commerce.
So at this point, my biggest gripe about the entire election was legacy media, including many of the old-timers that are on C-SPAN so often.
But at this point, all the press is wanting to blame Biden's late withdrawal.
I take it back further than that.
I take it back to the fact that they elected Biden in the first place, who falsely promised all this get-togetherness, yet he kept most of the Obama people in Washington and has been anything but conciliatory or pull-togetherness.
Clarence.
I'm going to bring it back to why you voted for President Trump this time, former President Trump, President-elect Trump.
You mentioned that this election it was easier to vote for the Republican than it has been previously.
What was different this year?
Well, the fact that he was representing someone other than the meaning policies that were often the case in the last time.
I'm sorry you don't like my criticism of the media.
No, I'm not.
I'm trying to get a little bit more out of you when you say those main policies.
Give me examples.
Well, the main policies are the economic policies.
Secondly, it's the entire proverbs of the new Democratic Party that wants to make it all social issues and not the other.
And as far as influencing this election, again, it's all the attacks that they've made for 10 years against Trump, which I thought were mostly made up.
The current race, we thought the Oprah and others were entertaining the audience out of love for the party and the candidate.
But in fact, Oprah Winstrew, a billionaire, was paid $1 million in this appearance she made for the Harris campaign.
And I was shocked to hear that.
And then I find out that most of the other entertainers were not there because of love of the candidate or party, but were also being paid.
So that's how you spend a billion dollars and wound up still in debt.
Okay, that was Clarence in Tennessee.
We have about 15 minutes or so left talking to Republicans about why they supported Donald Trump.
Roderick in Haymarket, Virginia.
Good morning, Roderick.
Good morning.
I'm Polish by birth, and I believe you guys are understanding me because I have an accent.
What happened is I voted on President-elect Donald Trump first time in my life because I became a U.S. citizen just not a long time ago.
And there were several items that basically President Trump presented, contrary to Harris administration, basically.
That one of the items is that it took me many years.
And me and my wife basically waited in a line patiently.
We paid a ton of money, $60,000 plus to get the green card.
And what I see is a boring crowd of people to the United States getting my application basically to the bottom of the stock.
That was one of the items that basically I agreed with the policy of President-elect.
Number two, the economy, okay, that was on the agenda.
Because I'm a civil engineer who basically suffered a lot of problems, financial problems during the big slide 2008, 2010.
We didn't pay for the mortgage for eight months.
We didn't know whether we're going to be living in a house.
And that was basically the item that the economy was the main item for me.
The other item is I came from a communist country.
And this election was basically the Harris administration basically pulled too far to the left.
I came to the land of opportunity, land of the hope.
And I didn't know that there is a homegrown situation like this.
Those three major items made me vote for President Trump first time in my life.
Roderick, how long have you been in the U.S.?
27 years.
And those applications were basically a tedious process.
The employer doesn't want to sign the application, and you have to pay, and you have to beg to stay in the U.S.
And then suddenly somebody comes in front of the line and gets the privilege, and I pay the taxes, and I patiently wait until my turn comes.
That was Roderick in Virginia.
Congratulations on your citizenship.
Roderick Joel in Mountain Home, Arkansas.
Good morning, Joel.
Good morning.
Good morning, ma'am.
You know, I get emotional about this.
And I voted for Trump both times.
Are we there?
Yes, Joel, I'm listening.
I voted for Trump both times.
This man didn't have to take this job.
The man at his age, he outran Harris.
He outran her.
He just has so much energy for his age.
Harris, she never answered a question.
She was lost.
Her brain was scrambled.
It's just mind-boggling that the party picked her and she wasn't selected.
She was given the party.
And if I was a Democrat, that would have kept me from voting her right there.
The first debate, she walked off the stage.
She just couldn't make it.
Trump and his family loves this country and everything.
He took two attempts to try to kill him, and Iran has put a mark on him again and everything.
Most of the people that's called in today, they've hit all my points.
The food prices went up, the open border, and you can't buy a home.
I was about 37, 40 years old when I bought my first home, and I bought three since then.
But I'm in my last home now.
I'm 82 years old.
Harris would not be able to debate these people like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea.
She would just not be able to do something like this.
She was not serious.
And for a party to run on abortion, that's just, that's just terrible.
That's God's gift to a family.
And if you would try to search it, there's been so many abortion.
I bet you, I bet our country has aborted more babies, but maybe China.
So that's all I got.
I can't see, and you can see he won as much as Ronald Reagan there.
That's how far I go back.
I'm 82, but I like to tell you a story.
Joe, I'm going to go on.
We only have about 10 minutes left.
I want to get some other voices in here.
Kathleen in Los Angeles.
Good morning, Kathleen.
Oh, good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm so excited to answer this question because as soon as, let's see, I'm a black American woman living in Los Angeles.
Black Americans are 40% of the homeless in Los Angeles.
So as soon as Trump came down the escalator in 2016 and said immigration, he's deporting illegal aliens.
It's like, oh my God, I have to vote for Trump.
This is the issue for black Americans.
It's been the issue for black Americans since the 1800s.
Mass immigration, illegal aliens.
For every 10% increase in immigration, high immigration, black Americans lose one and one-half percent of their wealth.
Cesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, Coretta Scott King, they were all against high immigration and illegal aliens.
So I don't know why black Americans don't support Trump.
They don't know the data.
They don't know the history.
Let's see, when you go back to the 1800s, Frederick Douglass, W.E. DeBois, Marcus Garvey, they all talked about how mass immigration adversely impacts black Americans economically.
So I don't understand why so many black Americans are against Trump.
It makes no sense.
They don't know the data.
So, the other thing, other than immigration, is how the Democratic Party has destroyed black America.
We have been voting for this party for decades, and we are now, we are at the bottom.
Black America is at the bottom economically.
We are now facing zero median wealth by 2053.
How can black Americans support the Democratic Party?
It is absurd.
They don't know the data.
We had 87% two-parent households in the 1930s.
The father is the most important member of the family, the head of household.
Two-parent households are very important.
Since we've been hanging out, rolling with the Democratic Party, we are down to now 25% two-parent households.
And I mentioned this before, and one woman, a black American woman, called in and said, Oh, it's because of white supremacy.
It's not white supremacy because in the 1930s, we had 87%.
We had more two-parent households than white Americans in the 1930s.
Ever since the civil rights movement, black Americans have been going backwards, okay, right after the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Democrats enacted or pushed the Immigration Act of 1965.
So it's like for every step forward, we go two steps back.
Okay, more of my people, my group, needs to learn the accurate history, needs to learn the accurate data.
They don't know.
Got your point, Kathleen.
Edward in Toms River, New Jersey.
Good morning, Edward.
Good morning.
I have a little bit of a unique point of view on this.
I believe that there was some sort of a cabal between Donald Trump and an organization that is based on a fear-based organization known as the Catholic Church.
I think that they're the reason that he was able to accomplish what he was.
Sort of hidden in the background.
They used fear to get their people to go out and vote against the Edward.
Edward, who did you vote for?
Did you vote for former President Trump?
No.
Okay, we'll let you go because, again, we're talking with Republicans.
Tom in Granby, Colorado.
Good morning, Tom.
Good morning.
I won't waste a lot of your time.
I'm not as well-versed as most of your callers.
I did vote for President Trump for the third time.
And I believe that the way they weaponized the judicial system and tried all the underhanded tricks.
Come on, this is America.
Wear a white hat, lead from the front, don't push from the rear.
And then the specifics of the politics here is just down to the schools for me.
It's we've got our children being influenced by less than leaders.
And, you know, they want to feed our children.
They want to indoctrinate our children.
And come on, guys, you're being paid to teach them how to read and write.
Now, look across the table from yourselves and ask them, can they read?
Can they write?
Why are you graduating them if they can't do either one?
You have not done your job.
You know, and beyond that, I don't feel qualified to waste your time anymore.
But thank you for listening.
That was Tom in Colorado.
Kathy in Michigan.
Good morning, Kathy.
Hello.
Everyone has spoken eloquently.
I voted for President-elect Trump three times.
And I would have liked to have heard the 82-year-old man's story.
He should call back another time.
But the Democrats went after President Trump during his first four years with that fake Russia hoax and wasted $30 million with a Hillary Clinton fake dossier.
All of this lawfare in New York, all of these trials he has to go through are fake.
You give the office of the president respect.
No one respects President-elect Trump.
I mean, Democrats don't.
The media is, they still haven't even learned a lesson.
I still listen to MSNBC and CNN, and they're still telling their lies.
I mean, the lies of the blood bath was a lie.
The bleach was a lie.
The fine people on both sides was a lie.
Oh my gosh, there's so many lies they told about him.
And the abortion.
I wish people would Democrats would watch a movie called Unplanned and then watch a movie called Gosnell, which is a true story about, well, they're both true stories.
Gosnell, Dr. Gosnell is in jail because of him doing, having, I guess it's, I don't know what you call it, when it's the child is born and then you just let it die on the shelf, like that other man said.
And Dr. Gosnell was put in jail for that.
And the governor of Virginia even is on tape saying that they would let the child be born and then they would quote unquote decide between the mother and doctor whether it should live or die.
I mean, I mean, they're so extreme.
The Democrat Party has become too extreme.
And I just hope the rest of America or Democrat America wake up and realize that this is wrong.
We were headed in the wrong direction.
That was Kathy in Michigan.
And our last call for this hour is Stephen.
He's in New York.
Good morning, Stephen.
Thank you.
Two things.
Regarding Kamala, I noticed her foggy mind, and I attributed it to perhaps her use of marijuana.
And I didn't want to have a person in the situation room deciding a nuclear decision who was stoned.
That was what I felt strongly about her.
And as far as the Don goes, he's a businessman.
His mind is sharp.
He knows what he's saying.
He concentrates.
He knows how to focus.
He's a superior thinker.
And that's it.
Thank you so much, and have a great day, everybody.
That was Stephen in New York.
And that wraps up our first hour of today's Washington Journal.
Next, we will talk about the presidential transition process with Max Dyer from the Partnership for Public Service.
And later, this Veterans Day weekend, a conversation with U.S. Marine Corps veteran Travis Partington about his podcast, Oscar Mike Radio, and issues facing the nation's veterans.
We'll be right back.
Visit c-span.org slash results for comprehensive coverage of the 2024 campaign results.
Get the final Electoral College breakdown in the presidential race and see which states each candidate carried.
Dive into our interactive maps to explore the outcomes in Senate, House, and governor's races and monitor the final balance of power in Congress.
Plus, watch acceptance and concession speeches on demand anytime.
Stay up to date with C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of politics, at c-span.org slash results.
American History TV, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, the unveiling of the bronze centerpiece of the National World War I Memorial in Washington, D.C. Hear remarks from sculptor Sabin Howard and lead designer Joe Weishar.
On lectures in history, Indiana University history professor Carolina Ortega on the 1929 Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, and the impact the Depression had on various populations, including Mexican Americans.
On the presidency, CBS News Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan led a discussion about what's involved when the president travels abroad.
Speakers included Joseph Hagen, Deputy Chief of Staff to Presidents Trump and George W. Bush, and former White House Chief of Protocol Caprica Marshall.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
Beginning at 2 p.m. Eastern, Book TV presents coverage of this year's Brooklyn Book Festival.
Highlights include author conversations on the workplace, campus free speech, debt, and more.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern, political science professor Lindsay Cormick provides a guide on how to discuss civics with children in her book, How to Raise a Citizen.
Then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton shares his book, Rights and Freedom in Peril, where he argues that the left is attacking American rights and freedoms.
He's interviewed by Washington Times legal affairs reporter Alex Warrior.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
Joining us now is Max Dyer.
He's the president and CEO of Partnership for Public Service.
We're going to talk about the presidential transition process.
Max, welcome to the program.
Thank you very much for having me.
Why don't we start with telling our audience what the Partnership for Public Service is and the role it has in the transition process?
Fabulous.
And it's amazing that people are getting up Saturday morning to hear this, but the partnership is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to a better government and a stronger democracy.
So what that means is we focus on trying to help our government deliver on the myriad of services that it's responsible for.
Our theory of the case is that there's lots of reasonable disagreement over the size of government, what government does, but everybody should agree that we want an effective government that's to the benefit of everyone in our country, makes sure taxpayers are getting good return on their investment and that Americans are kept that are safe and in a world where there's more opportunity and more prosperity.
So we focus on getting good talent in a government, making sure it's well-led, and very importantly, focusing on the relationship between our society and our government.
So that's the run of show.
And one of those topics that you talk about in your, or you cover in your organization is the presidential transition process.
You've called the moment, the transition between one administration to the next, the moment of maximum vulnerability.
Explain what you mean.
For sure.
And as you noted earlier, it is a little bit of the Olympics for us every four years.
It's an extraordinary thing when you think about it.
You know, as a child, I learned in civics class that the peaceful transfer of power was a gift from our country basically to the world.
And it really has been pretty extraordinary.
What has been the focus is the peaceful part, but not as much attention to the effective part.
And the effective peace has become more important as our world has become more dangerous, faster moving, and more complex.
And so the transition is really the moment in which you have an entirely new team in charge fundamentally of keeping us safe and running the 450 plus agencies in our government, the $6 trillion budget, the 3.5 million people when you include the uniformed services and the civilian workforce, and then the 4,000 political appointees that need to be put in place actually to help direct this larger organization.
So we've seen in history the most, I think, a prominent example of this is 9-11, where bluntly, challenges in the transition were significant contributors to risk and real disaster for our country.
So it's not just here in the United States, but you can see many instances abroad.
You know, we have lots of enemies out there.
And when someone new is taking charge, that is a point where there is unfortunately increased risk, more focus by enemies.
And it's a point which I think should be front and center for everybody as we go through that process today.
The election was only a few days ago, but the transition process has already been underway.
When did it begin?
Well, just I'll start by saying it should have begun in the spring of this year, of the election year.
What I just described in terms of the scope and complexity of the federal government, you can't take it over and be ready to run it on January 20th if you haven't started the transition work, the preparation for how you would take it over very, very early.
It obviously intensifies after the election, but the reality is the best administrations are those that have taken the precaution of preparing for the possibility of winning and making sure that they've done everything they can to understand our government, to get the best team in place, and to make sure they're all working together.
There are whatever 70 some odd days left before the inauguration.
I think of this a little bit like the universe pre-Big Bang.
There's an intense amount of work that should be happening in terms of understanding what is happening in each of those agencies.
What are the decisions that are going to need to be made?
Who are the best people to make those decisions?
How do they work effectively together?
And then how is the president going to deliver on the campaign promises, convert what they promised on the campaign trail into action, which comes through government?
And as of Thursday, the Trump transition team has not signed an agreement with the General Services Administration.
What does that do and why is it concerning?
So there are actually multiple agreements that a transition operation should have signed or entered into with the government, the administration today, in order to get access to the critical information and resources that you need to be, again, ready to govern on day one.
So the General Services Administration is sort of the front door.
It's actually the organization that quarterbacks the transition activity across the entire government.
That agreement with the General Services Administration should happen pre-election.
They never did with the Trump team.
And it would have given them access to space, technology resources, and also the protections that the U.S. government can offer against cyber attacks and other important infrastructure.
The probably more fundamental agreement that is still unsigned or not entered into is with the White House itself.
And that agreement is really about how a transition team would access the federal agencies themselves.
You can't simply waltz into the Defense Department or the CIA or any federal agency without an agreement with the existing government about what the terms of engagement are going to be.
Who are the people that are supposed to be enabled to come in?
Have they got the clearances that they need to be able to access non-public or classified information?
So that agreement is actually more fundamental.
It also unlocks sort of the critical national security information that, again, an external team needs in order to get up to speed about the threat environment that we're operating in.
And these jobs are incredibly important and incredibly complex.
And you really need a pretty long runway in order to be prepared to step in and not make a mistake.
I mean, mistakes would cost us a great deal.
So those agreements are the starter's pistol for all that other action that needs to take place.
And I'm hoping that they still happen, but they have not as of yet, and they're very much delayed.
We are talking about the presidential transition process with Max Dyer.
He's the president and CEO of Partnership for Public Service.
If you have a question or comment for him, you can start calling in now.
Alliance, Democrats, 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Max, what does the 2024 Trump team's approach to the transition differ from the 2016?
So, quite a bit different.
In 2016, first and foremost, the Trump team started out, as I mentioned earlier, at the right time in the spring of that election year.
Governor Chris Christie was selected to lead the transition effort.
He did an admirable job.
His executive director was a gentleman by the name of Rich Bagger.
They treated it very seriously and thoroughly.
Unfortunately, two days after the election, not only was Governor Chris Christie fired, but more importantly, the large part of the work product that his robust team had put together was effectively pushed to the side.
And the new Trump team fundamentally was unable to either catch up or really understand key processes that would have enabled them to, again, take charge of our government more effectively and quickly.
And the end result of that was the slowest vetting selection and nomination of an incoming administration in modern history.
And we, thankfully, there was no obvious national security risk that occurred, but it could have happened.
So that's 2016.
Now, fast forward, you asked the comparison to today.
The Trump team did not announce its leadership until much, much later, essentially end of summer, beginning of fall.
This was a little bit of a different situation because you had two competing operations in the nonprofit sector, Heritage, Project 2025 and the American First Policy Institute, that were doing, in addition to the more typical policy development, they were also trying to do things that were more traditional for transition planning.
So there was activity, but it was not owned by the campaign.
And I think that's a very important distinction.
Really importantly, the biggest distinction up until now is that in 2016, the transition effort entered into all the agreements with the governmental entities that were necessary.
And they engaged, certainly at the front end, thoroughly with the government in ways that were important to access information that they needed.
That so far has not taken place.
And that is the issue that right now is most concerning.
I think there are other questions around the use, again, of critical government resources like security clearance from the FBI.
There's been reporting that there's questions from the Trump team about whether they want to continue to do that or move that to contractors.
That would be incredibly problematic and honestly a very bad choice.
But the real issue right now is they need to engage with the governmental entities, enter into the agreements that unlock critical resources for them to be prepared to run our government.
The metaphor for me is we have a new airline pilot.
We're all flying in the exact same airplane.
We all have a very, very strong interest in making sure that airplane does not crash.
We need the pilot and the larger team up to speed and ready about all the risks that are in play and the decisions they need to make.
And they need to be able to work effectively together.
That takes time and engagement with the team that's in place right now.
Max, we have callers waiting to talk with you.
We'll get to them in just a second, but wanted to follow up on the agreements.
Are they a legal requirement for the incoming administration?
So it's a really interesting question because, you know, transition activity is still private activity.
It is not governmental activity, but it's the bridge between the campaign and the ultimate public sector work that has to be done.
And so there are really much of the ethics agreements and other things that the agreements require, they're not actually required by law unless the transition team is going to engage with the federal government.
As I mentioned, I think that should be a no-brainer, that you absolutely have to do that.
But they are not, since this is private conduct still, legally required independent of that.
And it's complicated in terms of what government resources are needed for what agreement.
So as an example, I mentioned the agreement with the General Services Administration.
You may not enter into that and still enter into the White House agreement and get access to agencies, et cetera.
You still are undoubtedly, you could still enter into agreement with the Department of Justice and get security clearances.
They're all interrelated.
You should do them all, but they're separate and somewhat complicated by the fact that no one else has pushed the system like this, to my knowledge, ever before.
We'll hear from Tim in Kentucky online for Democrats.
Good morning, Tim.
Hey, good morning.
I think you answered most of my questions about the legality of it.
I mean, it looks like he's trying to just push in all kinds of people.
Nobody's being vetted as far as security clearances and all that.
So I think you answered my question.
It's not exactly legal, but it's just ethical, but nothing can be done about it.
Is that correct?
So it's pretty largely correct what you just said.
You know, it's still, I'm still hopeful that the transition, the Trump transition will enter into these agreements.
I know that the Biden administration is very serious about trying to do everything they can to encourage and enable the Trump team to get these resources, but there really are, and I think appropriately, legal limits about what in fact is possible.
Just yesterday, the Department of Justice put out a statement saying they are ready and want to do security clearances for the Trump team.
Not that long ago, the General Services Administration reached out again and said post-election that they're still interested in trying to help in every way that they can.
But you're right, you can't force the Trump team to do this.
It's the right thing to do.
I think it is correct, both from the perspective of the responsibility of stewardship of, frankly, our future, but it's also going to help them get their promises executed more effectively.
So I think the interests are aligned here, and I'm hopeful as a result that we'll see movement soon because there's a real risk to all of us.
Angela in Virginia, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Angela.
Good morning.
I'm calling because I was on the part of the Trump administration the last time, and I was beachhead.
So I was sworn in seconds after the president was sworn in.
And I'm very interested in serving the Trump administration again and the American people again.
And I'm trying to find out how do I go about making sure that I'm part of that process.
Will you all be using the plum book, which you will find my name there?
Are you all doing it that way?
How is the process working now to choose people?
And what are my chances being a former appointee for the Trump administration?
Well, first of all, thank you for your service.
Very important.
And at some point, it'd be interesting to hear a little bit more about your experiences as part of the Beachhead team.
Just for other listeners, that means that you came in, as you noted, in day one in the first wave of Trump appointees.
And the answer, though, to your question about what's the process for service going forward, these things are often pretty opaque.
So my advice to you is to communicate to the people that you worked with in the Trump administration the first time out to see whether they have connectivity with people in the transition.
I will say that it's a kind of complicated moment because while the transition operation was started late, Howard Luttnick and Linda McMahon are leading it.
My understanding is for the most senior positions that Mr. Luttnick has been soliciting names from a whole variety of senior Republican figures.
A lot of this is about relationship and therefore certainly people who have served before I think are going to be viewed as a natural place to be pulling more talent back in.
So I would try to network as best you can through all the people you worked with previously to see who might be connected into the process.
The interesting challenge historically, and I think it's going to be true here as well, is that the transition operation that is built pre-election winds up having to merge with the campaign operation and that can be a messy process.
And honestly, the likelihood is that this is the first time that the candidate, President-elect Trump, is engaging in any real way.
So I think it'll be bumpy for a while in terms of their figuring out what their process is going to be now that they've won.
But I would be networking as best as you can.
I mean, there's a lot of incoming, and there, in my view, too many political jobs, but that's another story.
But there's certainly way more people who want them than there are jobs.
So it is a matter of finding your way in in a process that is not clear.
Teresa in Rhode Island, Line for Independence.
Good morning, Teresa.
Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
Tell me two points.
I'm listening to this, and I think my first thought is Trump has a big problem with trust.
And given the transition the first time around, it seems to me that that's not unexpected.
So why would you believe he would be first in line to reach out to all of these bureaucratic departments and give them all the playbook, given there was at the risk of being disrespectful, sweepers in all of these departments trying to undermine him the first time around?
That's reasonable.
So you're asking him to give the playbook away on the first day, given everything this man has gone through.
And I think it's a reasonable assumption.
And from my perspective, as a layman and the outside looking in, trust is a big problem with me and my government.
I would imagine that's also the case for his administration and campaign.
The second part of this is I'm listening to this and I'm trying to be really objective in listening to everybody calling in and the reporting.
This seems disingenuous to the extent that it's following that same narrative that Trump is rogue and that none of the stuff that he's doing is being done with precision and thoughtfulness and an understanding that he's working inside a system that doesn't want him there.
That's my only point.
Yeah, so look, I think you raise a really, really, really important issue in the question of trust and in a couple of different ways because we have, I think, more fundamentally in our society, distrust of institutions and distrust of our government.
Although our research shows that when you ask people, do you trust the government, they are really thinking about bickering politicians in Washington more than the career civil servants.
But leaving that aside for a moment, I think coming back to your point about is this simply a question of the Trump team not trusting the government, so why would they work with them?
It's a fair point and a good observation.
What I would say is that whatever trust or lack of trust there that exists right now, the reality is that Donald Trump and the team that he brings in is ultimately responsible to all of us, to the American people.
And it is not possible to deliver on their responsibilities of keeping us safe and running our government effectively if they do not engage with the existing government.
So there is going to be plenty of opportunity for President Trump-elect and his team to try to make changes.
But in the here and now, they actually need to use the resources that are there to make sure that they are ready.
This is not giving away a playbook.
There's nothing that they actually need to share.
This is all about learning about what's happening in the world, what's happening to the agencies, so that they can make better informed decisions when, bluntly, the shit hits the fan.
So there's, you know, they don't have to set aside their distrust, but they do need to engage if they're going to, frankly, do their jobs effectively.
Deborah in Westchester, Ohio, Line for Republicans.
Good morning, Deborah.
Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
And thank you for this wonderful subject matter.
The previous caller eloquently stated one of my major concerns.
But another major concern that I have is the fact that the general public has lost interest in foreign policy.
My peers died in Vietnam.
My father fought in World War II.
My grandfather fought in World War I. There was a general interest in our nation's positions.
And today, the news media rarely ever covers foreign policy.
And I don't believe it's the fault of the American people because this particular discussion is tedious and very important.
But we had, I'll give you one example of not foreign covering foreign policy in the 90s and 94, the framework for the treaty to North Korea to have two nuclear power plants.
Jimmy Carter, President Carter, and President Clinton put that together, but they didn't go through the full Senate process to actually have that treaty ratified.
And then, then, what happened is North Korea had nuclear power, and all Madeline Albright could say is we've been duped.
So that's an example.
And I could give you 10 examples of how the American people are not paying attention to foreign policy.
So, Max, do you have a response for Deborah?
So, I will admit that the organization I run, the Partnership for Public Service, is sort of policy agnostic, but fundamentally does care about, as I said earlier, the relationship between our society and our government.
And I think as the caller underscores, you know, understanding why this matters, you know, why, you know, an effective government isn't, A, something that's just in Washington, but it's actually something that impacts lives globally and locally in all kinds of different ways is incredibly fundamental.
And on a personal note, I will say that, you know, I started off caring about our world through reading newspapers and reading about foreign policy.
So that speaks to me personally.
So I think that's the best I can do with this one.
Max, this presidential transition is the first one taking place since the Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 was passed.
If we look at some of the provision, it mandates the transition process begin five days after the election, even if more than one candidate hasn't conceded, mandates federal support for both candidates to begin transition, and such support should continue until, quote, a significant legal challenges that could alter electoral outcomes have been substantially resolved.
Remind us why this piece of legislation was put in place and what impact it could have.
I will try to do so.
I will note that I think I heard the prior caller also say that this conversation was a little tedious.
So this may get even more tedious for those who find it so already.
This is a classic example of fighting the last battle.
And it's important.
I mean, obviously, something happens and you hope that Congress is going to respond and try to address it.
But then, you know, the new problems come up and this is what we're seeing in this cycle.
So as you asked, you know, the issue that came up in 2020 is that the incumbent administration, one of their responsibilities, the head of the General Services Administration, we've talked about GSA before.
It's the organization that manages all the stuff of government, the buildings, the acquisition of technology, et cetera.
But the head of that agency had the responsibility of what at that time was called ascertaining.
And all that meant is deciding if in fact somebody had won the election.
And in 2020, the head of that agency did not make that decision, did not determine that Joe Biden had actually won the election.
And as a result of that, there were several weeks in which the Biden team did not actually have access to all the things that we're talking about right now.
And that delay was very problematic for them, as it is, frankly, for the Trump team as well.
And Congress, I think, looked at that and said, hey, we need to solve for this problem because what happens if it happens once again?
And their solution, and I will admit that this was our proposal that was ultimately adopted, was to say, let's not try to figure out how to make sure somebody decides who won the election.
Let's just make sure that whoever ultimately is going to be president is going to get access to all the information they need as quickly as possible.
And if that means that we need to allow two teams to get access to that information as the process winds its way through as to who's actually going to be president, that's better than no one getting the information so that no one is actually ready on day one.
So that was the major change that was made in 2022 to the Presidential Transition Act.
And we don't really know whether that was a good choice because in 2024, that never became the issue.
President Trump won handily.
And as a result, there was no question about who won or who needed access to the information.
Vice President Harris conceded.
So it's a single team now that has access to the information.
Now, what was not addressed was a situation we're in today where that team, again, has not entered into the agreements necessary to access this information.
And we haven't really talked in detail about what is required for that, but one of the core elements is an ethics plan to demonstrate that the participants in the transition team do not have conflicts or apparent conflicts of interest.
And a very important provision that was added in 2020 that actually requires a provision that describes how the president would deal with conflicts of interest as president.
And I think that might actually be one of the core issues at play right now.
But again, happy to talk further about that if you or your listeners want to know more.
We'll go to Sandy and Kent, Ohio Line for Democrats.
Good morning, Sandy.
Oh, good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to know if he knows anything about the Project 25 that Trump is going to put immediately into and what deep cuts I heard to many, many programs that's going to hurt the American people.
Is that true?
Project 25.
So, you know, you asked the question, do I know?
And the answer is no, I do not know.
I said earlier that there were two, and there were more than this, but two primary efforts by nonprofits, the Heritage Foundation, which produced the Project 2025 that you referenced, and the America First Policy Institute, which was chaired by Lyndon McMahon, who is now one of the co-chairs of the Transition Operation.
The Project 2025 effort had received a lot of the attention and certainly a lot of the media attention.
And frankly, that is probably one of the reasons why during the campaign, President Trump and his campaign tried very hard to distance themselves from that work.
We don't know what's going to be adopted from that blueprint.
What we do know is that many of the people who worked with President Trump in his first term were affiliated and created the policy agenda that is outlined in Project 2025.
I mentioned earlier, the Partnership for Public Service is not about policy, it's about the operations of government.
And there is one element in Project 2025, and frankly, something that President-elect Trump has said that he wants to do that is in the wheelhouse of what we work on,
and that is to bluntly upend our current system of government where we have a career professional apolitical civil service and convert that in some significant measure into more of the spoil system and more political appointees.
And our view is that's a huge mistake.
For 140 years, we have operated with a system of government that came out of the spoil system from the 19th century, in which we had a president, President Garfield, assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker.
And the lesson learned from that was that the spoil system was not actually a good way to run our government.
And when I say spoil system, what that simply means is giving jobs to loyalists rather than giving jobs to people who are most expert and capable and who are committed to the broader public good rather than to specifically to the person elected at the day.
So that is an element of Project 2025 that extended beyond Project 2025 that it appears that the Trump team may pursue.
And in our view, that would be enormously detrimental to the capability of our government and to the services that we receive as Americans from our government.
The broader question about what else is picked up, I think, is still an open question.
I think a lot of that will depend upon the people who are picked to lead the different agencies.
You know, a lot of policy is run by the president, but a lot of the activity of government, since it's so broad, is actually defined not just by the president, but by the broader leadership team that he puts together.
Nicole in New Jersey, Line for Republicans.
Good morning, Nicole.
Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to ask the question.
I appreciate this discussion.
I think the country's kind of poised to see how the transition team will affect this bridge to January.
One of the things that I was kind of hearing from Mr. Steer is the fact that there's this concern or anxiety that the Trump team isn't doing things the way normally an incoming administration would.
And I'm wondering if there's any kind of thought about the fact that Mr. Trump and some of the people on his team, like Elon Musk, are so used to doing things at the speed of for-profit corporations where upper management kind of makes a decision and then the middle management and lower management just kind of execute.
It sounds like from what he was describing about the traditional civil servant bureaucracy that that may be something that's new and different and a culture that they're not necessarily used to.
But I do want to say that since the Trump administration coming in did receive the popular vote, I hope that there will be more flexibility, if you will, to understand that if there's a new pathway that this administration wants to affect, that people who are in those jobs will be more flexible this time around potentially.
Because that was something that we did hear, I think, in the last go-around, that there is like an internal resistance to change.
And I want to hear his thoughts on that.
What a great question.
And lots of different elements that I think are really important.
And I think you earlier call or talking about trust.
I think was really important.
Your proposition that the operating model that President-elect Trump or Elon Musk or folks from the for-profit world, private industry are used to is quite a bit different from what you see in the federal government.
And then what's that interplay with the current organization?
Is this something that's at play right now here?
And there's so much that you raised that I think is really helpful and interesting.
I'm not going to have the time to deal with it all, but I'll try to be quick and hit the high points.
And so, you know, first point is that our government does not run like a business and can't run like a business.
I think you need to apply business principles, but you can't run it like a business because there are all sorts of constraints that exist that aren't around anyplace else.
A good example of this is Congress.
So the last time that Congress passed all of its appropriations, the money that actually funds our government on time, is like in 1996.
So no private sector organization would be able to run with the constraint of not even understanding what money it had available to run.
The way our government pays its workforce was set up in 1949 and has not largely been modernized since.
The list goes on and on and on, you know, in terms of the difficulties, it's not, in my view, the career civil servants of the problem is that leaders have not modernized our government over a long time.
So, there are plenty of business leaders who have parachuted in government and said, I'm going to fix this because I'm going to just treat this like a private business, and they have failed miserably.
The best example I can come up with that's relevant here is, I would say, Rex Tillerson at the State Department, very successful CEO, ExxonMobil, and was a very, in my view, poor leader at the State Department.
And a lot of that was that he couldn't contextualize his significant skills from the private sector into a different context.
Now, this does not mean you have to give up and say, oh, we just have to operate the government exactly as it's done today, because I agree with the proposition that it should change and it should be modernized and it should be more agile.
And the workforce should be held accountable for delivering better results.
So, all that is true.
The question is, how do you get there?
And the proposition that I've started with here on the transition is you can't actually change the government in really any way unless you take it over effectively.
And you can't take it over effectively if you don't use the tools that are out there to do that.
And they come from the government.
Now, I will say that another aspect of what you're asking for about is the nature of the workforce itself.
And there is no doubt that there are some individuals in that career civil service who do not perform at the level that they should, that may not follow the policy directives of their bosses who are the political appointees, but they are a tiny minority.
The vast bulk of the civil service, they are there, they understand they are there to take the lead of the people who are ultimately selected by the American people.
And the smart political appointee who comes in doesn't come in with skepticism about the loyalty and competence of his or her workforce.
They come in understanding that their goal should be to engage that workforce so that they can better achieve the agenda of the president of the United States.
And that's rarely the case that political appointees do that.
And it's to their own failing.
The saddest story that I see again and again and again is that the new political appointee comes in.
They are skeptical about that broader workforce, their loyalty, their competence.
They alienate those people, not because they've chosen policies that they don't like, but because they treated them poorly and they pushed them out.
They soon realized that you actually can't get anything done without that larger workforce rowing with you.
They try to rebuild bridges and then they give a speech on their way out saying, I've never worked with a greater group of people in my life.
That's a real problem.
And it also helps explain the experience of that career workforce and why they're often risk averse because they have these leaders that come in and do this again and again and again.
Anyway, I really appreciate your question.
I hope that was sort of a useful response and thank you for this opportunity.
Charles in Largo, Florida, Line for Democrats.
Good morning, Charles.
Yes.
My question is relating to people coming into the White House, such as he just made a lady that he knew down in Florida or has been with him a long time, his chief of staff.
And she is, if what I read was right, she's involved, not involved, but she has information about the top secret documents that Trump had stored in his bathroom and Mar-a-Largo.
So my question is this, and others that are like this, that is she going to be vetted because of that?
Because it seems like that would be a conflict to have somebody that right away is involved in a possible case.
And then there's others like Steve Bannon's a convicted felon.
Is he going to be allowed to walk in the front door of the White House?
And I'll remind people what he was a convicted felon.
Again, if I'm not wrong, he was taking money out of the fund to build the wall fund and putting it in his pocket.
And so that's my question.
Is there going to be a beeline with felons coming into the White House because birds of a feather flock together?
And if I was a convicted felon, I couldn't get a job as a janitor in the White House.
So that's my question.
Is there anything that's going to slow him down like the vetting process?
So the first point on Susie Wiles, I don't know her personally, but there are a couple of positives here, one of which is that, you know, President-elect Trump announced that a White House chief of staff very quickly.
And I think that's extremely important.
Getting that White House operation up and running is job number one.
And doing it early in the transition enables, you know, that Susie to get the team that she wants, gets them so they can create the right process they want for the White House.
And again, it's using the runway completely and fully, which is what we should be seeing across the board, not just for the White House, but for agencies, et cetera.
On your question about the security clearance, really important question.
By and large, security clearance is an area that is controlled by executive order.
So the president has enormous latitude.
There's not a lot of legislative guardrails around it.
And I think actually that's a problem.
So, you know, right now it's President-elect Trump.
It's not President Trump.
So he can't give clearances to anybody until he's actually present or order that they are given.
Ordinarily, you should have, as you noted, a vetting and security clearance process for everybody being put into positions of trust.
One check on that in terms of the nature of the people that are selected is the Senate confirmation process.
That applies to only the, well, it applies to too many people, but to 1,300 people that are largely the leaders of the agencies, not the White House.
So a president has way more latitude to bring in whomever they want for their White House operation themselves.
This is an area I think of real importance.
I think one of the issues here, these are jobs of public trust.
And we do a lot of leadership training at the Partnership for Public Service, and we have a leadership model about what we think public sector leaders need to do that's special.
And it's all founded on the idea that if you're leading in government, your responsibility is to the public good, not to your own personal interest.
And that distinction, we think, is fundamental and one that we need to keep an eye on here, especially as issues like changing up the civil service and moving towards the spoil system are coming up.
So I think you're raising good questions.
And the reality, though, is that there are going to be very few checks on the ability of a president to ignore concerns around things that would otherwise be raised in the security clearance or security clearance process.
And frankly, that happened in the first Trump administration.
There were, I think, some 25 people who did not meet clearance requirements, but nonetheless were those decisions were pushed aside.
So this is an issue of real importance.
I mentioned earlier there's some conversation about not using the FBI to do this, but to seek private contractors.
I think that would be a profound and big mistake.
Max, you mentioned that the inauguration is 70-odd days away.
If anybody from the Trump transition team is watching this, what advice do you have for them between now and then?
Three things.
The first is, you know, move forward immediately on these MOUs.
Get engaged with the transition process.
And there's so much work to be done and it is so meaningful, again, for us.
It's our safety, but also fundamentally for them to be successful.
Number two, most important thing they're doing is choosing their people.
They're 4,000 political appointees.
I hope very much that they prioritize capability, people who can actually, again, not only have great skills from the private sector, but know how to apply them into a different context.
And people who, again, all of them need to be committed to the public good.
And then number three is work with that career workforce.
Yes, hold them accountable to meet the directions that they're receiving on policy, but the best way they will make our government work better is to have a positive working relationship with an incredible asset.
And frankly, there's a lot of work that can be done to make it better.
But my metaphor here is you want to modernize our government, not blow it up or burn it down.
Our guest, Max Dyer, president and CEO of Partnership for Public Service.
You can find their work online at ourpublicservice.org.
Max, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
I appreciate it.
Hope everyone has a great weekend.
Phil ahead on Washington Journal.
It's Veterans Day weekend, and we will have a conversation with U.S. Marine Corps veteran Travis Partington about his podcast, Oscar Mike Radio, and issues facing the nation's veterans.
But first, more of your calls during open form.
You can start calling in now.
The lines are on your screen.
Democrats, 202-748-8,000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
We'll be right back.
Next week, on the C-SPAN Networks, the House and Senate return for the first time since the election for legislative business and votes as they also prepare for the upcoming 119th Congress in the new year.
House and Senate Republicans are holding leadership elections.
The House GOP will select their nominee for Speaker.
Senate Republicans will elect their new leader to replace Mitch McConnell in the Republican Majority Controlled Senate.
Also, newly elected House members and senators will be in D.C. for orientation.
Watch next week live on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app.
Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
Join Book TV Saturday and Sunday, November 16th and 17th for the Texas Book Festival, live from Austin.
Our coverage begins Saturday at 11 a.m. Eastern and Sunday at noon.
Highlights include PBS's Ray Suarez with his book, We Are Home, on Immigration and the Process of Becoming an American, The Washington Post's Liza Mundy discussing her book, The Sisterhood, on Women in the CIA, former DOD and DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine and his book, Watchdogs, on the Role of an Inspector General, and Elizabeth Diaz discussing her book, The Fall of Roe, on Post-Row America.
Watch the Texas Book Festival live Saturday and Sunday, November 16th and 17th on Book TV on C-SPAN2.
To see the full Texas Book Festival schedule, visit our website BookTV.org.
The house will be in order.
This year, C-SPAN celebrates 45 years of covering Congress like no other.
Since 1979, we've been your primary source for Capitol Hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided, all with the support of America's cable companies.
C-SPAN, 45 years in counting, powered by cable.
Washington Journal continues.
We are in open form for the next 25 minutes.
We'll start with Rip in Fredericksburg, Virginia, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Rip.
Rip, are you there?
We will go to Jim in Missouri, line for independence.
Good morning, Jim.
Good morning.
How are you doing, Tammy?
Doing well.
That was a little bit, that interview there was a little rich.
He kept harping about selecting people based on their qualifications.
And for the last four years, with this current administration, all we've had is DEI hires for the most part.
And I just wonder where he was when all that was going on.
And, you know, was he mentioning that back then?
The other thing I want to mention is, and I think you maybe should have jumped in, he said Steve Bannon was convicted of a felony.
One of the callers did.
That's not true.
Bannon, that case that he talked about has not even been tried yet.
Bannon was convicted of a misdemeanor for contempt of Congress, and that's what he went to prison for.
And I think when you have these guys come in and say things on the caller line that's just not true factually, it's incumbent on you guys to correct that.
I was disappointed that you didn't.
Jim, one of the things that you started the call with was saying that all of the current administration's hires were DEI.
Do you think that that's factual?
I think there was a focus on that.
Maybe all's not factual.
That's probably a little overstatement.
But I do think that obviously there was a great deal of focus on that.
Okay.
Michael in Florida, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Michael.
Good morning.
My comments are somewhat similar to the caller that just spoke.
I caught just the tail end of your interview with the public service guy, and I was kind of struck by his comments about making sure their focus and concern is the public good.
I guess the question I had when he was saying that is, how does he define that?
And he said that his agency, one of the things that they do is they conduct leadership training.
And again, you know, kind of along the lines of the last caller, it just sounded awful wonky, if you will, and all this DEI crap that we've heard from this administration.
If that's the leadership training that they're doing, we're just going to get more and more of that.
And bottom line is, that's not what the election results are telling all of us.
It's time to change direction, and hopefully we can do that in a positive way, working together collaboratively.
Diane in Indiana, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Diane.
Good morning.
I'm concerned about the fact that Trump is transactional and that he's also shown places in his first presidency where he was vindictive.
And I'm also concerned with perception of the common good.
I think there's one thing that runs through a lot of agencies is a commitment to finding the best information on which to make decisions and having a clear understanding of what's good data and what's, you know, not so good data.
And I think that a lot of I'm a former school teacher, I'm retired, but a lot of the students I know who are in AP science could have answered some of the questions that were put to the gentleman that gave up his run for the presidency, Mr. Kennedy, when he was interviewed recently on camera.
He was talking about fluoride and water and quoting a recent study.
I don't know of anyone, I'm 77.
I don't know of anyone that even remembers the fluoride controversies that drove a lot of conversation when they put fluoride in the municipal water supplies where the groundwater was lacking fluoride and how it's significantly reduced rotted teeth in children and early in the formation of their new teeth.
You know, one study does not a change in policy make.
I'm also concerned about just things I hear from interviewees that say things like, well, wait till our scientists get in.
You know, I heard that during COVID.
And having lost my husband in 2020 during the November surge, I lost him to COVID, I was struck by that perception that you can just change scientists and change science.
And I'm just really worried about the link between giving someone a perk for having done something.
Got your point, Diane.
We'll go to Dee Dee in Massachusetts, Line for Independence.
Good morning, Dee Dee.
Good morning.
Thank you.
I just wanted to reply to a couple of things that Mr. Steyer said about the transition into the government.
It's astonishing to me that people or that he would say, I shouldn't say people, but that he would say that President Trump should come in and look at the FBI as if they're all here working for the people when, you know, it's been discovered over this past administration that there's a lot of corruption within the FBI, whistleblowers, not just people that are from the other side pointing fingers, but actual whistleblowers who have pointed these things out.
And yet he sits there and says, well, you should come into it not as a businessman, but as somebody that respects the tools that he's going to be given and use them.
I worked for HUD when I lived in New York.
Believe me, the tools that you're given are broken tools in many cases.
You can't build a decent house with broken tools.
They are so ingrained in the system.
I mean, where I worked, you know, people would come in in the morning, they would go to the file cabinet, they would open up a big file, put it on their desk, leave it open, and walk away, and you wouldn't see them until it was time to clock out.
That wasn't everybody, of course.
But there needs to be a culling system.
And the fact that it's impossible to fire people in government makes it there.
In other words, the people working there seem to be in charge more than the actual people that are being put in charge by the citizenry to fix things.
And with the amount of deception and things that have been thrown about Donald Trump, I mean, as a last point, I'll just say that the Democrats really did a great job in poisoning the well when it comes to that 2025.
I mean, people say that more people knew the term 2025 than they knew who Kamala Harris was when they did polling after the complete attack job that was done.
So I just wanted to say that.
That was Dee Dee Robert in Shawano, Wisconsin, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Robert.
Good morning.
Thank you for the line.
Didi, on the independent line, she absolutely crushed it.
She's right on the money with that.
The guest that you had, I don't understand.
I understand it from the standpoint of he wants to make this all sound like this is a rite of passage, when in reality it's another layer of bureaucracy that he says is so important that the Trump administration has to jump through that hoop.
And when he talks about security clearances in the White House to the point where callers call in and think there's going to be this lineup of criminals waiting to get into the White House and makes the reference that in the last go-around there were 20, 25 or so people without clearances in the White House, you're out of your depths, sir.
When you come to talking about security clearances, leave that to the professionals.
You don't just sit there and say, well, you know, there were 20 or 25.
John John and Caroline didn't have security clearances either.
So you can't just go and blanket it like it like it was some kind of free-for-all in the White House, which it was not.
There is an order to things.
When it comes to some of his other references, you know, while there's a minimal amount of people, you know, career government workers that, you know, might have self-ambitions that may say, I'm not going to do the boss, what the boss says.
Those same people were the ones that were ratting out to the media on Trump's last go-around.
So as far as I'm concerned, he's got nothing to say to this administration whatsoever.
They won the election, let them call the shots.
Thank you.
That was Robert in Wisconsin.
This headline in the Minnesota Star Tribune: Governor Tim Walz back in Minnesota gives a conciliatory speech, pledges to listen more, defends state way of life.
He spoke to supporters yesterday.
Here is a clip from that speech.
I know there's a lot of folks that are worried about the next four years and what they're going to look like.
I'm one of them.
The agenda we heard from the other side in this campaign was very different from the one we know is right for our state and our country.
We've already seen the damage a president can cause when he's in it for himself, not the American people.
Look, we know what's coming down the pike.
We know it because they told us.
And we're going to have to be ready to defend the progress that we've made here in Minnesota.
The other side spent a lot of time campaigning and talking about and promising that they would leave things up to the states.
Well, I'm willing to take them at their word for that.
But the moment they try and bring a hateful agenda in this state, I'm going to stand ready to stand up and fight for the way we do things here.
Edna in Chicago, line for Democrats is next.
Good morning, Edna.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
I watched a show for so long.
It's very educational.
Anybody who wants to really learn something about politics should watch you.
You're good at what you do.
But I want to say something about the economy.
These people realize that these floods and all of these storms are destroying our farms, our produce, everything.
That's why grocery prices are high.
That is the only excuse that we can give.
They bring in food from other countries, but we raise most of our food in this country.
But the floods and the storms have destroyed everything.
That is why our economy is the way it is.
Every Democratic president that we have had left the economy.
That was Edna in Chicago.
Susan in Fort Wayne, Indiana, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Susan.
Good morning, Tammy.
Hi, Susan.
Go ahead.
Yeah, well, so many things to say.
I guess my first comment was on your speaker you had about the federal bureaucracy and employees.
I don't know if he's aware.
It's just become available that memos have been leaked from FEMA where their workers were instructed not to give aid to homes that had Trump flags flying.
And that was from the director.
So there are legitimate questions of our federal bureaucracy of how they've been working against the American people.
And I do believe that's why President Trump was won by the electoral vote and by the popular vote.
And I think it's a good thing we're going to have Elon Musk in there re-looking at a lot of these agencies.
Then going back to the question of science with the fluoride, I didn't see any Democrats questioning the new science of what is a man or woman or other genders.
So I guess they're open to new science when that applies for their issues they want to promote, I guess I would say.
And then for Tim Walz and the other governors speaking about state agencies or state regulations that are going to be going after, I guess we'd have to question maybe that's why we need to bring back the dismantle the Department of Education and bring back education to the states where it could be handled locally.
And they would have to answer to the funding and also the test scores, as well as Sanctuary City, which is unlawful.
That's my question.
Thank you.
That was Susan in Tennessee.
Greg, Coral Springs, Florida, line for independents.
Good morning, Greg.
Yes.
Hi.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I unfortunately didn't get to see the entire segment with Max Steyer, but I wanted to at least speak about another issue.
As an independent, I have voted in the past for both Democrats and Republicans, so I have no axe to grind.
I try to see what fits my policies and how I feel and decide which way I feel I should go in terms of voting.
One thing that is very concerning that should be concerning to both Democrats, Republicans, and Independents is a conversation that Donald Trump had about the Federal Reserve, that he would like to have a say on the Federal Reserve.
And I want to remind them, everybody, that when he was president, at one point, the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates.
It was before the election.
It was early in 2020 or late 2019.
And at one point, he was upset that the rates were being increased.
And he had made a comment that by raising those rates, he felt it was wrong and it was ruining his chances of being reelected again.
So he was thinking of himself at that point and not the good of the country.
And then, more recently, when the rates were being reduced by the Federal Reserve, he made a comment that the Federal Reserve should not be doing it at this time, that it's wrong.
So it seems to me that he doesn't want to do what's right regarding Federal Reserve policy on the economy.
And that's a very dangerous thing.
And when he starts talking about wanting to be involved in the decision-making, I do question that because we're already $36 trillion in debt.
And I believe it was $7.6 trillion were added during his administration.
So I'm concerned, and everybody should be, what he will do in the next four years because we cannot afford to let the federal deficit continue to increase.
And I will admit that both Democrats and Republicans have let everybody down regarding running the economy efficiently.
And that's all I have to say.
Greg, you're calling on the independent line.
Did you vote in the 2024 election?
I did, but I will say I voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
I did not vote for Donald Trump in this past one after seeing things that he had done.
And I feel that at this point, you know, you need to have somebody in there who's going to be financially ready to run the country.
And he's getting involved by wanting to be involved in the decision-making at the Federal Reserve level.
He's getting involved in policy that has never been in, has never allowed either party to move or decide any kind of matter regarding the policy.
So that seems to me something that people should think about: that the people or the person in charge can actually say something to the Federal Reserve and force them to do it.
That was Greg in Florida Louise and Massachusetts line for Democrats.
Good morning, Louise.
Good morning.
Hello.
Hi, Louise.
You're on.
Hello.
I had an idea that I wanted to suggest about gun safety, and especially in schools with children afraid to go to school because they're afraid they'll be shot.
We should, or they, even the local government could do this.
They could have metal detectors at the entrance of every school, and that way you could not get a gun into the school.
I know that that system is in place in Washington, D.C.
And knock on wood.
We haven't heard any shootings in Washington, D.C. inside the school because You cannot take a gun into the building, and you can't take one into the library either.
And if you can't get a gun in, you can't shoot it.
And now with the gun lobby in charge of the government, you can't ask them to pay for these bags, you know, these metal detectors.
But the local governments, the state governments could do this.
They could require that all the schools have these metal detectors, and I don't know how they pay for it, but I know it will cost something.
But how much does the death toll cost?
That was Louise Leslie in New Jersey, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Leslie.
Yes, hi.
Yes, I'm just calling to say that our country is in very, very bad shape, and there is just too much hate in this country.
And until the hate is resolved, and maybe from both sides, we will never have peace in our country.
I respect the voters, the Democrat voters, and I'm a Republican, and there's no respect.
And we, the people, have spoken.
This is what we want, not what the Democrats want.
It's what we want.
And they've hated this man from the day he came down the escalator.
And it continues, and it's rotting out our country.
And it has to end.
That was Leslie Michelle in Maryland, line for independence.
Good morning, Michelle.
Good morning.
I want to talk about two things today.
Number one, and I'm hearing it on your callers clearly, there's a disinformation campaign against federal workers.
And we see that happening with the Chevron decision that our Supreme Court is owned by big business.
And let me tell your callers here that the federal government, these bureaucrats that you say, that are standing in the way that don't do anything, which is a lie.
Because since the 9-11, increasingly budgets have federal budgets and spending has gone to the Defense Department.
Domestic programs have been cut.
Federal staff, the attrition through retirement and resignations, we have not been backfilled.
So the career people who are there now are not lazy bureaucrats who are doing nothing.
We are overworked and understaffed to support the domestic side of things.
And clearly with the Chevron decision, there's a push on big business to weaken the federal government in oversight.
And that is going to affect the American people.
So I just want to guard people against this disinformation campaign that I clearly hear in your callers that's out there with this, I think, this new administration, with this wave, with the big business taking over.
And what's going to happen is that they'll try to do it.
And if we allow them to do it, the American people will be hurt.
Elderly in hospitals, disabled, just our education, just our domestic programs that actually serve people are going to be cut and weakened.
And then it's going to hurt people.
And then people will wake up and see.
And then there'll be a push to strengthen the government again and regulation.
So let's get ahead of that and see what's happening and guard against the disinformation campaign against federal staff.
Are you a federal employee?
I am.
I'm not going to say where I work, but I've been there for over 30 years, and I have seen it with the reinvention of government and the money and the spending that has shifted to domestic programs.
No president wants to be responsible for cutting defense, particularly in the Middle East and the situation there ever since 9-11.
So we haven't, increasingly, that money is flowing to defense.
When Obama tried to look at the defense program and cut it and to say, you know, what are we spending?
Let's make sure we're getting the bang for our buck.
He was criticized.
No administration wants to do that.
So the domestic side is cut.
The other thing I want to mention is that, again, the pollsters forgot about the Christian vote.
And same thing that they did with the Bush election and reelection.
Pollsters do not account for Christians.
And so, you know, Trump won in a landslide of the Electoral College, but he only won by 4 million votes.
And I think, you know, the Republican Party won for the same reason that I left the Democratic Party years ago because of what we're calling now cultural issues.
But what we will say is, you know, in the Christian view, it's ungodliness.
And so, but what I will say in this go-round, I voted for Harris because I could, what also is ungodly is that meanness and that division.
And I made the mistake, well, I think that what happens is you have Democrats who will vote for ungodliness, but you have Republicans who will vote for ungodliness because they prop up the government as the answer to their solutions and they call it God.
But it's idolatry.
And I think that God spoke with the election to we need to get back to the center right.
This is a center right country.
We've gotten too far left.
But I think he's not finished speaking.
We'll see that, you know, a lot of things that these Republicans are looking to Trump to do, he's not going to be able to do it.
And things are not going to change.
You can't change the heart of man with government policies.
That was Michelle and Marilyn.
Patricia in Minneapolis, Minnesota, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Patricia.
Yeah, good morning.
I'm hoping that this go-around with President Trump, C-SPAN doesn't put on every day two or three segments of pure negative disinformation, hulk stories like the Russia collusion.
You guys read a source from the mainstream media that has covered Trump over 80% negatively.
So there's no way you could be biased.
And the lack of criticism of Biden for the last four years, you guys avoided anything about him having dementia, which was clear to all the rest of us, normal Americans.
We could see he was bumbling and couldn't get off a stage.
But you didn't have a drumbeat every day about it like you would do with the lies that the mainstream media put out about Trump.
So there's a challenge here.
If you folks really want to represent us cable viewers and cable payers, be fair this time around with President Trump.
You had Jonathan Adler on spewing nothing but negative.
He filibustered right before Greta was the host.
And he went on and on and on about negative stories about Trump.
I never once saw anything like that in comparison about Harris.
So you guys really need to check.
You know, you got a lot of people pulled that you're unbiased, but I know you're not.
Every one of you folks is a Democrat.
And, you know, I want you to be fair this time.
If you really care about healing America, quit demonizing Trump every single day like you did in his first term.
Thank you.
That does it for our open forum forum.
Up next, it's Veterans Day weekend, and we will be joined by U.S. Marine Corps veteran Travis Partington to talk about his podcast, Oscar Mike Radio, and the issues facing the nation's veterans.
We'll be right back.
Sunday on Q&A, Stuart Eisenstadt, former domestic policy advisor to President Carter and U.S. ambassador to the European Union under President Clinton.
He shares his book, The Art of Diplomacy, in which he discusses his career and the impact the civil rights movement had on him.
We go to Eat, and black students from North Carolina Central are sitting in.
You can look at the, you can Google this.
That's when the sit-in started in Queensboro and Durham.
And I said naively to my fraternity brother for New York, why are they doing this?
And he said, what universe do you live in?
It's because they can't be served.
And it was like somebody lifted a veil from me and I saw the world in a very different world.
I had gotten so used to the segregated world, I didn't question it.
I became very active in the civil rights movement in UNC.
And when I was with President Carter, we supported affirmative action and minority set-asides for black contractors.
So these kinds of transformative events when you're young can sometimes carry over into your career, and they certainly did for me.
Stuart Eisenstadt with his book, The Art of Diplomacy, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
For the past 10 years, Tess Owen has covered extremism, disinformation, and politics for several nationally known publications.
In the October 8th, 2024 issue of New York Magazine, Ms. Owen wrote an article with the title, Inside the Patriot Wing.
She talked with several of the over 1,400 January 6th defendants who have been spending time in the District of Columbia jail about two miles from the U.S. Capitol.
This is her story of how she got to know several men who have been convicted of, in her words, violent crimes.
We asked Tess Owen, how did she get access to these folks behind bars and what are they saying?
Tess Owen with her New York magazine article inside the Patriot Wing on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
It is Veterans Day weekend and joining us now to discuss issues facing the nation's veterans is Travis Partington.
He is the host of Oscar Mike Radio podcast and also a U.S. Marine Corps veteran.
Travis, welcome back to the program.
Tami, thank you for having me back.
This is great.
Thank you.
We always enjoy having you on the program.
Why don't you remind our viewers about your military background and also your podcast?
Sure.
I served in the Marine Corps from 95 to 99.
I was a radar operator for the Hawk missile system.
So I did air defense in the Marine Corps and then got out and got on with my civilian life.
In 2016, I started Oscar Mike Radio to be on the mission on move for our veterans, people who support our military and Americans who are doing great things.
And your podcast focuses on veterans issues, the name Oscar Mike.
How did that come about and what's the mission of your podcast?
So Oscar Mike is military speak for, you know, we're on the move or we're on mission.
So we'll be in a certain place and the lieutenant, the staff NCA will say, hey, we're Oscar Mike.
It's time to go.
It's time to be, you know, moving to purpose, moving to contact.
And so that was kind of the basis of my show and what I wanted to do.
And then the purpose of this show is to tell the stories of people who've served our country, people who are serving right now.
And then, you know, in a real nice twist, there are so many people in our country who are civilians who support military and veterans with offering jobs, having nonprofits, making sure that there's advocacy for veterans.
So it's been an amazing mix of great Americans who support us.
When you're talking with veterans and hearing their stories, what kind of topics are you getting into?
I'm getting into their service history, what they did, how their transition was, because no veteran will have the same transition story.
And so there's a lot of interest around that.
What was that like going from being in a high demanding, high-tempo environment to becoming a civilian?
What was that like?
And then how did you find purpose after you served?
Whether it's starting your own business, going back to school, creating a new company or a new product.
There's so many amazing stories.
And the common theme is what the veteran learns from being in the military.
And we are coming out of the presidential election this past Tuesday.
What have you heard from your listeners about the election?
Have they been engaged?
Well, they've been most certainly engaged, as I have been.
It's been very interesting.
We don't know what to think in terms of is one side better than the other.
I think what we as veterans want to see is are American lives being used properly to defend our country?
Are we purchasing defense systems to serve our country that are going to work?
Are we going to take care of those veterans if they get hurt serving our country in a way that unequivocally says, okay, you served our country.
We're going to take care of you.
We're going to make sure you have what you need.
So a lot of us don't really care who's in office.
We want to make sure those three things are being done for our veterans and those who are serving.
An exit poll data is showing that former President Trump won the veteran vote by 31 points.
Trump had 65% compared to Harris at 31 points.
Does that surprise you?
It does not.
It does not.
I think for a lot of us, the Afghanistan withdrawal and how that all played out and was executed really soured a lot of veterans as to what that leadership did for those people serving in Afghanistan.
And Americans were left behind.
Things were not done properly.
And so a lot of veterans had a lot of resentment for how that was executed.
We are talking with Travis Partington.
He is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and also the host of Oscar Mike Radio, a podcast about veterans and their real life stories after their service career.
If you have a question or comment for him, you can start calling in now.
Wanted to let you know our lines are a little bit different for this segment.
If you are a veteran or family member of a veteran, you can call 202-748-8000.
If you're a current military member, you can call 202-748-8001.
And all others, the line for you, 202-748-8002.
Travis, you mentioned that one of the issues that you are talking about is the transition from active military to civilian life.
What are you hearing from veterans is the biggest challenge they face when that transition comes?
For a lot of us, it's the Maslow's hierarchy, right?
It's having shelter, having a way to take care of your family or yourself, and being able to have purpose in the community.
So that is to say, you get out and you have to find a place to live, you have to find a job, and then you've got to be able to thrive where you are.
And I'm pleased to say that there are many companies.
I spoke with one yesterday who are working to make sure their company can provide a pathway to a veteran to thrive.
There's a flatter landscape to where a veteran does not feel so isolated and alone when they get out like I did.
You know, I moved from Arizona to the Boston area not knowing anybody, and so there were some adjustments I had to make, right?
And so the great thing is more people are aware of what the veteran experience is, and more people are working to meet those needs.
And talk about the different needs for veterans who have just left the service and those who are longtime veterans.
Well, someone who just left the service will have to fit in.
Things are different.
The terminology is different.
Business works differently than the military, and so there's adjustment there.
If they've gone back to their community, their community has changed.
The average veteran is two to three years behind their peers in terms of things they have going on in their life.
And so there's change there.
For the veteran like one like myself or a Vietnam-era veteran or Korean War veteran, the benefits have changed.
The pathways have changed.
The VA has the mobile app, which allows you almost instant access to your care provider, your benefits, and that wasn't there before.
So the veterans who are older have to kind of retool themselves to plug into what is out there for them and take advantage of those programs.
And when we talk about this transition, what resources are available to veterans?
Where can they go, both with the government and private sector when it comes to getting what they need?
This is the great thing.
You know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, it was really hit or miss.
Now, companies, I'll start with companies, almost every company has some kind of veterans affinity group that they can use and lean on to help a veteran coming in that company to get a job, to understand how the corporate culture works, and get some mentorship and peer support to have a successful career.
So, you know, companies that are doing that right now, great job, keep it up.
We need you.
States, towns, and municipalities are making sure that there's a veteran service officer that is there to serve that veteran where they are.
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, every city has a veteran service officer and the Executive Office of Veterans Services to make sure that the veterans getting what they need at the state and town level.
Other states do at the county level, but there's a go to that resource if you're a veteran and get plugged in.
And then there's veteran services organizations like the VFW, the American Legion, AMVETS, hundreds of others that are there in the community to help you succeed.
And so we have to, as veterans, reach out and understand what's out there and pursue these opportunities, but they're there and they're there for you and people are waiting to help you out to succeed.
And Travis, you've been, you've had your podcast for a while now.
What episode are you up to?
I'm up with episode number 420.
Congratulations.
And your podcast has also been a resource for veterans.
Tell us about some of the people who have been impacted as a maybe non-traditional way to find resources.
Oh, great.
I love this.
So one of the things that's happened this year is I've gotten to talk to people who aren't veterans, but have created ways to advocate and serve veterans.
And two examples, Tammy, are Susan Clelland with Mission Vigilant for the 22 and Dr. Pam Arnell with 220.
The commonality theme here is both women did not serve in the military.
Both women are civilians.
But both women have experienced loss from PTSD.
And they took this sense of loss they carry with them every day and created organizations to serve veterans where they are, how they are.
And it's really interesting understanding this perspective from women, from a mother, from a wife who went through this to help that veteran right now.
And it's one of the best things about doing Oscar Microsoft to be able to tell their stories, understand where they're coming from, and connect veterans in need right now to a person that has felt that pain of loss very, very personally every day.
We have callers waiting to talk with you.
We'll start with Bill in Florida Keys.
He's on the line for veterans.
Good morning, Bill.
Oh, hi.
Good morning.
Here's my question.
I know the military's been having some difficulties recruiting.
Do you think it would be a positive or a negative for our country as a whole if we had two years of mandatory military service for both men and women?
Do you think it might change our views of getting engaged all over the world?
Or do you think it'd be good?
Do you think it would be bad?
And what would you think would be the political derivative of doing such a thing?
Me personally, I like the concept and aspect of an all-volunteer force.
Several countries are not like that.
There's other countries that have the conscription and they make their populace all-serve whether they want to or not.
But there's something about the American military where you volunteer, you volunteer, you raise your hand, and you swear to defend our country from enemies, foreign domestic.
And that's very unique to our country.
And I think recruiting-wise this year, the Army's hit their numbers, the Navy's hit their numbers, the Marine Corps sacrifice.
We've hit our numbers.
I don't know about the Air Force, but that is to say that I'd rather us work on being a better unit as a military than getting conscripts in because it just historically hasn't worked out that well.
That's just my personal opinion, sir.
Steve in Painesville, Ohio, line for vets and families.
Good morning, Steve.
Good morning.
Good morning, sir.
Just want to ask you if you would say on air about the President-elect Donald Trump, his comments about John McCain being a loser because he was captured.
He spent five and a half years in a cage in Vietnam.
What about President Trump at Arlington?
What about John Kelly, four-star Marine General, saying that Donald Trump is a fascist?
What about the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley saying Donald Trump is a fascist?
He disrespects us.
I took the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I'm still here, and I'm still fighting, and I'm not going to let this country go down.
I cannot respect a commander-in-chief or an elected commander-in-chief who behaves this way.
So can you please comment and just say it on C-SPAN for all of us?
Thank you.
Well, whether he said it or not, whether he did or not, I look at like this.
I served during the Bill Clinton years, and I didn't necessarily like everything that President Clinton did during that time with Somalia and personal conduct.
And I look at it like this.
Whether it was said or not, I salute and serve the title, the rank, not the person.
I served the American people, not the person.
And again, I have to look at the actions for our military.
President Trump opened up VA care for all veterans to use their private care along with VA care, which revolutionized how the VA is done.
He stood up the PACT Act, which President Biden implemented.
So I'm not going to agree with everything that everybody says or does.
But again, I serve the American people.
When I serve, I continue to advocate for my veterans, regardless of who's in the office.
Let's hear from Donna in Louisiana, line for others.
Good morning, Donna.
Good morning.
I was wondering if the gentleman knew anything about what Trump wants to bring back all the service members that Biden kicked out of the service because of COVID.
And he's talking about bringing them back in, I guess if they want to come back in, with back pay.
And also, my brother-in-law came in the country.
He was from Honduras.
He wasn't a citizen when he came in.
And this is way back in Vietnam.
And that the government told him, you either go back to your country or you join the service.
He joined the Marines.
He was on the front lines in Vietnam as a non-citizen.
He is now a citizen of the United States.
But maybe that's a way of bringing some of the recruiting up of some of these young men that's coming over the border.
So I just want to see what your thoughts are on that.
Thank you.
I've heard talks about the service members who got kicked out during COVID being let back in.
I think there's a question of do they want to come back in?
One, would they be able to meet the same standards that they met when they got out?
I don't know how that would look.
I wish it hadn't happened, but it did.
So I don't know enough to really answer that in an authoritative way.
As to your brother, first of all, Semper Fidelis, as a Marine to Marine.
And when I went to boot camp myself, there was a person who was not a citizen, and he was serving the Marine Corps, and he was very proud of the fact that when he became a United States Marine, that he would become a citizen.
So to me, personally, if you are not a citizen of this country and you want a pathway or a fast track to citizenship, I would certainly support that.
The French Foreign Legion doesn't in a way.
I don't see why we can't either.
Travis, it is Veterans Day weekend, and there are a couple different holidays that honor and celebrate veterans.
Remind us what the difference is between Veterans Day and Memorial Day, and then also how you would like to see people either celebrate or remember the holiday come Monday.
Sure.
So, Veterans Day, what we're in right now is simply that.
It's to honor people who have served in the military.
It goes back to World War I, O'Brien Remembrance Day.
And again, it's there to celebrate those who have served.
Memorial Day is to honor those who die in service to their country.
And then there's a third one called Armed Forces Day in June that is there to honor those who are currently serving.
And for all three of them, I want the American people to enjoy the freedoms they have.
All I ask is that you take a minute or two on each one of those days, whether it's by yourself or with a few people, and just raise your glass, have a moment of silence for those who have served.
And then I want you to live life.
A lot of us serve because we want our communities to be safe.
We want our families to enjoy the life they have.
So live that life.
You know, be engaged with the government process.
Vote.
It's a right that all of us have worked very hard to defend.
Please vote when you have a chance to and make that change locally.
But more importantly, be independent, be American, and be proud of the great country we have.
Mike in Oak Grove, Missouri, line for Veterans and Family.
Good morning, Mike.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
My dad died with carrying metal from the World War II.
My uncle had a hole in his thigh for the rest of his life after the Korean War you could put your fist in.
My brother James had Agent Orange poisoning for most of his life that the government wouldn't even admit to for 30 years.
My son was in the Marine Corps.
My youngest grandson just graduated from boot camp.
And Donald Trump calls them suckers and fools.
And all the things that the man from Ohio said, on top of he stood at Arlington Cemetery and asked, what did they get out of it?
You know, I mean, I don't understand the veterans, how they could go for this guy.
He is a disgrace to our country.
No one in his family ever served in the military, ever will, because they're too good.
I think you're a disgrace to our country, sir, and this country is swirling the drain, getting ready to go down January 20th.
Well, you're entitled to feel that way.
And certainly, President Trump is not a perfect person.
He's not a perfect president.
I look at things he did and shook my head.
I look at things that other presidents have done.
There were certainly mistakes from all of them.
A lot of the reasons that we're in, some of the problems we were with the 22-a-day is missteps by former presidents.
I'm not going to excuse what a president does.
I'm not there.
But also, I go back to my original thing.
We can focus on that, or we can focus on as Americans coming together and building the kind of country we want.
We can make sure that your family service is never forgotten and that the ones coming after this have a country return to.
Jacqueline in Maryland, line for veterans and family.
Good morning, Jacqueline.
Good morning.
My question is, because I'm concerned, when we say, are we also including not just those that are active duty, but those that are reservist?
I was a reserve and took my oath September of 81.
I was in a field hospital, which is in New York City.
And then I went into the IRR, which is the Individual Ready Reserve, March of 85 and got an honorable discharge in January of 89.
I have tried relentlessly to obtain an ID card so that I can continue to use the commissary, et cetera.
I went to Atacosta, and the only thing they said to me was, I'm sorry, we've had a lot of veterans.
They didn't use the word veterans because a lot of people don't even consider us veterans.
Even though when there's unrest, we call out the reserve.
I couldn't get a card.
They couldn't do this, that, and the other for me.
I'm trying to see what am I entitled to.
I gave my time also as a reservist.
I went in as a second lieutenant, and I came out as a captain.
I attend every year the PG County's celebration for veterans.
Just went to the one yesterday in Greenbelt.
I'm looking for somebody to give me a helping hand to tell me what do you, how do you explain the difference?
I gave my time every weekend and two years, two weeks per year, and nothing did I receive.
Travis?
Yeah, I'm here.
I would simply say that the requirements for a reservist to be considered a veteran are in the National Guard are different than active duty.
For a lot of reservists, did you serve in a combat setting for, and don't quote me on this, I think it's 180 days in a combat setting to be considered full veteran status.
If you served as a reservist and never deployed anywhere or never went anywhere, you're treated differently.
I do know that for a fact.
I would tell anybody who has a question about that, you can simply call the VA, they'll look up your records and tell you what your status actually is.
Mark in Florida, line for veterans and family.
Good morning, Mark.
Good morning, Travis and Simpra Fidelis.
Simply.
Simper 5, brother.
Your composure remains intact, brother.
I was raised by an infantryman from the Korean War.
So I think I was a Marine before I realized it.
And by the time I got to boot camp in 1977, Travis, they made me a guide immediately until a 26-year-old OCS dropout then recycled and took my position.
But I got my job back by the end of boot camp and got that PFC stripe.
Any case, Travis, I just wanted to let the Ohio color and the Missouri color know that this Marine also agrees with their perspective.
I didn't appreciate the way President Trump talks.
Nobody in the Marine Corps ever in my life would ever talk like he does.
No one would ever say, I'm smarter than a general.
Now, I'm not calling to bash the elected the next president.
What I'm calling Travis to understand is we have a program that incorporates 17 million current workers, Travis.
It's called Organized Labor.
And the trades, which is what I came from, Travis, I was a combat engineer and stuck with it.
I also guarded the U.S. Embassy, so I kind of walked to talk.
I'm also an ex-cop.
But we have a program for organized labor people that want to work with their hands and their backs called Helmets to Hard Hats.
And Travis, you would do your country a tremendous favor to push that.
And I can tell in your heart and soul and the quickness that you responded that you're aware of the program.
It is a serious program.
Most apprenticeship programs are four to five years.
That includes the IBEW, the Pipe Fitters.
I'm a carpenter with laborers.
And what it does, and Travis, it gives people credit for serving.
Now, it doesn't wipe out your apprenticeship, but it'll move you up much faster.
It shows respect.
And it's just merely an opportunity to work hard.
And I'm lucky.
In 1999, Travis, I went from $10 an hour in Central Florida to $38 an hour in New Jersey as a foreman.
And we worked 84 hours a week on that job.
And I've never made so much money.
That was 20 years ago.
So everybody does better when they have somebody to fight for Travis.
And I thank you for fighting for people.
And to the caller from Ohio, General Sherman's not gone, brother.
All right, take care.
Have a good morning, Travis.
Fine.
Silverfive, just to follow up, that is a challenge, right?
You served as an electrician or avionics repair or something in the military that's technical, hands-on, and you get out, and none of your military time counts toward any of the apprenticeships or getting into these unions or other trades.
And it's a real disconnect, I think, that's there.
And so, yeah, my promise is I'll reach out to somebody and find out more about that program and promote it.
Absolutely.
And, Travis, I wanted to ask you about one of your recent episodes.
You spoke with a Marine Corps vet, Garrett Bliss, about a program that he has called the Warrior Reset Program.
What can you tell us about that?
It's a really interesting program.
Garrett has a very intriguing story as a pilot of a C-130.
You know, he fought with some challenges when he got out and then created this pathway, this foundation to say, hey, you know, if you're having similar problems that I have, I have these steps you can take to reboot your life, retool your life.
And here's how it works.
And the interesting aspect of Garrett's offering is he's actually lived this.
I have all the respect for civilian clinical practitioners and psychology, so on and so forth.
But it does come differently from a veteran who's actually lived it.
And Garrett was very forthcoming about what he encountered, how he dealt with it, and then what he has to offer other people who are going through the same thing.
Lonnie and Sturgis, South Dakota, Line for Veterans and Family.
Good morning, Lonnie.
Good morning.
I say I'm a Vietnam vet, and I'm 100%er.
Back in 96, I put my claim in back to 1970 of April.
And two employees had shredded our files, and I was on their caseload.
And I'm back to 1980 now.
So my wife passed away from cancer, and I just quit fighting them.
So I'd just like to say that when I was in and I was a grunt, I was with the Amerikal Division.
And there wasn't a color line back then, you know.
We all stuck together, you know.
And I was a tunnel rat in Iraq Point.
And there was a black brother that was behind me all the time with the M79.
But I'm just glad that we've got the young people that we have now.
And I appreciate you guys what you do for his vets.
I appreciate it.
I'm getting choked up.
Well, absolutely.
Absolutely.
You know, those bonds of brotherhood are for real.
And it doesn't matter what color you are or where your background is.
Once you're in the fight, you know, we all believe the same color, sir.
So thank you for sharing with us.
Robert in Cincinnati, Ohio, line for veterans and family.
Good morning, Robert.
Good morning.
I would like to ask the panelists, what do you think about the president-elect Mr. Trump and the relationship that he had with Putin?
What's going to happen with the Ukraine?
I had to say, Marine, served from 61 to 66.
I had a son to serve.
I have two grandsons now that's in the Air Force.
One is enlisted and the other one is an officer.
I'm very concerned about what the direction that the United States is going to do under President-elect Trump.
And he thinks that he's going to use the military to control the people in the United States.
That sounds very alarming to me.
Well, I haven't heard that.
I haven't heard or read that he's going to use the military to control people.
You know, I can sit there and tell you from looking at his first term, he wasn't in a rush to get America back into combat.
In fact, compared to other presidents, Republican or Democrat, he was trying to get us out of major conflicts.
And certainly there's concern around Ukraine.
How could there not be?
We have given a lot of money.
That's an understatement to Ukraine.
There is a lot going on there.
And so I am counting on the fact that he's going to get good advisors around him to figure out a way that we can mitigate that situation without spending one drop of American blood or one footprint of American people on foreign soil.
I don't think the American people are in a rush to go back to war right now, unless, of course, absolutely necessary.
Abby in Decatur, Alabama, line for veterans and family.
Good morning, Abby.
Good morning.
Go ahead, Abby.
You're on.
Okay.
I'm calling in regards to my father that fought in World War II.
Okay.
He served in Germany.
Okay.
Came home to West Virginia, Bluefield, West Virginia, when he was discarded, when he was discharged to West Virginia, White Suffer Springs, West Virginia.
And he never drew anything.
When he started trying to get something for the time, I don't know how, well, he was shell-shocked that was called in.
He picked metal out of the back of his neck for as long as I can remember.
He was not able to work.
My mother had to go to work to try to feed the family.
They claimed they never had any records of him ever being in the service and claimed that there was a fire in White Suffer Springs, West Virginia, and the records were all burnt.
I have such grievance with our way our veterans are treated, the way our men that go off to fight for this country, and yet ones like Donald Trump that had a spur and was never went to serve anything, and none of his sons either.
My mother never got anything until 1972.
She finally got a loan to build a little Jim Walters home.
And then I found out when I paid the house off, she was paying 14% interest on that loan in 1972.
So you're saying they never had any proof your father served?
Yes, she's no longer in the line, but yes, that is what she said.
So records do, in my case, I can tell you personally that records do go missing.
It happened to me, but there is the National Archive system.
There are several organizations.
And you can go to your senator and representative and make a petition on your behalf to peruse every National Archive record out there for information about your family member.
My elected officials here in the Commonwealth did it for me.
It was very quick to get that resolved.
And there is a very keen interest to make sure World War II veterans, especially, are taken care of.
All veterans, but World War II veterans for certain.
So if you contact your local elected representative, you can get the ball rolling on that.
Howard in Minnesota, Line for Veterans and Family.
Good morning, Howard.
Good morning.
I want to thank everyone who served our country.
And I'm a U.S. Army veteran, First CAV 4580A.
Nice.
What I wanted to lift up was the invisible scars of war, that we lose 22 vets a day to suicide, more than combat, and celebrate our VA PTSD center in Palo Alto.
Every vet should download the PTSD Coach app on their phones.
We got that translated into Ukrainian, and now we're trying to get that in Arabic so that anyone surviving from the trauma and war can benefit from some of our resources in our VA.
Thank you.
I'll check it out for the PTSD Center.
I'll check it out.
Thank you.
Lynn in North Carolina, Line for Veterans and Family.
Good morning, Lynn.
Good morning to all.
I was listening to the session, and my heart is always just filled with even meeting people that have on hats that acknowledge us they're with the Army, maybe whatever.
I always try to make it a point to go out of my way to speak to them and thank them for their service.
So for all the people of our military that is listening this morning, thank you so very much for your sacrifice.
And I appreciate it so very much.
What I would like to express my concern is with some of the callers that are calling in, blaming Trump.
You know, this is America.
It's America of the three because of our veterans.
It really does disturb me to see some of the administrations that come in that pass on so much negative about someone else instead of standing up and, you know, you do it and say it and owning it themselves that it puts a it makes the it makes Trump look bad.
He doesn't deserve that.
He said from day one that he is for the veterans.
I don't like to know that the country at one point in time was supporting illegal immigrants coming in the country and giving them the money when we have our veterans that need medical care, that live underneath bridges.
That's where our money should be going.
Well, I would just start by saying thank you for being a great American.
You know, people like you is why all of us join to protect our way of life.
And, you know, it's going to take all of us in America to continue to advocate for veterans and make sure that they're taken care of.
And we need people like yourself to do that.
Thank you.
And Travis, to the caller's point, she was saying that she goes out of her way to say hello and talk with people when she sees somebody maybe wearing a hat or a shirt.
But what can other people do to help and support veterans?
Well, it's just simple as that, as acknowledging that we're out there and that we exist.
You know, again, if you have a business, have a nonprofit, and you want to help out veterans, there are ways you can make your business a place where veterans can thrive post-service.
If a veteran needs to go to the VA for a health care appointment, I would ask businesses to consider not making them take sick time to do that.
And then there are ways you can interact with organizations in the community who are supporting veterans to support them, whether it's a walk or run or building a house, building a wheelchair ramp.
There are limitless opportunities to help out.
Find out what works for you and do that.
Our guest is Travis Partington, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and also host of Oscar Mike Radio Podcast.
You can find his work and podcast episodes at oscarmicradio.com.
Travis, thank you again for taking time to be with us this weekend.
Thank you very much.
And wanted to let you know that on Monday, it's Veterans Day and we will be having additional discussions about veterans' issues.
We'll be joined by Patricia Keim with the Military Times, as well as Jim Whaley.
He's the CEO of Mission Roll Call.
We'll discuss his organization.
Also, a programming note for you on Monday.
Arlene National Cemetery will host its 71st annual National Veterans Day observance.
Performances include the U.S. Marine Corps Band and the U.S. Navy Band, as well as a wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
You can watch that live at 10 a.m. on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and also online at c-span.org.
That does it for today's Washington Journal.
Thank you for being with us, and we'll be back tomorrow morning with another show.
Enjoy the rest of your Saturday.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up Sunday morning, we'll talk about the 2024 election results, including former President Trump winning re-election with Rich Lowry, editor-in-chief of the National Review, and Katrina Vandenhoe, editorial director and publisher of The Nation.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Sunday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Next week, on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate return for the first time since the election for legislative business and votes as they also prepare for the upcoming 119th Congress in the new year.
House and Senate Republicans are holding leadership elections.
The House GOP will select their nominee for Speaker.
Senate Republicans will elect their new leader to replace Mitch McConnell in the Republican Majority Controlled Senate.
Also, newly elected House members and senators will be in D.C. for orientation.
Watch next week, live on the C-SPAN networks, or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app.
Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
C-SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington, live and on-demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
You can also stay current with the latest episodes of Washington Journal and find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV networks and C-SPAN radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org slash c-span now.
C-SPAN now, your front row seat to Washington, anytime, anywhere.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.