Mike Wagenheim and Nadia Bobasi Charters debate the U.S. military operation in Iran, analyzing mixed messaging from Trump administration figures like Rubio and Hegseth regarding preemptive strikes against militias in Lebanon and Syria. They address concerns over Russian involvement, NATO strain, rising oil prices, and the lack of a clear day-after plan or Kurdish alliance due to Turkish opposition. Keith Edwards expands on national division, criticizing leaders who thrive on conflict while listeners discuss California primaries, Mark Levin's claims, and the removal of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. Ultimately, the discussion highlights universal opposition to deeper war involvement and asserts that citizens must elect better leaders to stop the establishment from keeping the nation divided. [Automatically generated summary]
A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
Democracy in real time.
This is your government at work.
This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
Two journalists who cover Washington, D.C. for international organizations joining us to talk about what's currently going on in Iran.
Joining us from I-24 News, Senior U.S. correspondent Mike Wagenheim, and from the Al-Arabiya News channel, the Washington Bureau, Chief Senior White House correspondent Nadia Bobasi Charters.
To both of you, thanks for giving us your time.
Thank you for having us.
Ms. Charters, I'll ask you both the same question, but I want to start with you.
Over the last week, covering this events in Iran from Washington, D.C., what have you gained from the administration's approach over the last week plus?
Basically, a justification for the war that Iran has been waging 47 years of attacks against U.S. soldiers and against the Arab neighbors by supporting militias in Lebanon, in Yemen, in Iraq, and before they had a foothold in Syria, before the regime changes.
And therefore, Iran posed a threat to them.
Also, there were so many reasons that she was given to why this war was waged.
Others is the negotiations in Geneva, which was a last round of negotiation with the Omani mediators, has failed because Iran was not serious about it, as Mr. Roetkoff, who was one of the lead negotiators, said, despite the fact that the U.S. offered them enriched uraniums, they offered them so many benefits, basically, if they just say we're not going to develop a nuclear weapon.
Secretary Rubio said the reason we went to war, and he recorrected that after, is basically because Netanyahu was going to attack, and we thought we're going to be sitting dark, so we better attack them first as a preemptive strike.
So we heard different stories from administration officials as to why this war was waged.
And of course, you have the military side of the operation, which is briefing by the SINCOM, by the Pentagon, by the chief of staff, General Kane, all telling us that basically the U.S. is doing a fantastic military operation.
They have reached 3,000 or realized 3,000 targets so far.
And they are in complete, almost complete control of the air.
And they destroyed Iran's Navy.
Now, of course, for us, we have seen a different story because we cover also the region.
And we have reporters from Kuwait, from UAE, from Qatar, from Saudi Arabia, from Lebanon.
And Lebanon is a different story.
We'll come to it probably later in the program.
Well, yeah, let me, and I'll ask you about that.
But I want to get the same question from Mr. Wagenheim.
Mr. Wagenheim, the week plus in, your impressions of what you're seeing in reporting from Washington, D.C. You know, there's certainly been mixed messaging in the administration when you're talking to President Trump, Secretary of State Rubio, Defense Secretary Hegseth.
Chairman Kane has been more of a nuts and bolts kind of guy, but there's definitely been political messaging mixed in with, you know, simply the facts.
And that's part and parcel of the Trump administration.
I think what it boils down to when you put it all together is it kind of meshes with the Israeli message of we've simply had enough.
It's enough already.
Enough with the threats, enough with the gains, enough.
And so I think that's been the overall arching message of the Trump administration.
Came to the table in good faith.
The Iranian side didn't.
It's more of the same.
We've seen this with the Trump administration in other sectors, whether it comes to Iran, when it comes to other negotiations that it's had with Maduro, with Greenland, whatever it's been.
If you come, if you give us a potential solution, if you find a potential off-ramp, we're willing to talk.
If you come with nothing, you're going to get something.
And that something is going to be something that you don't particularly like.
And so while certainly the messaging has not always been clear at times, I think the Trump administration has once again made clear for better or worse, agree with them, disagree with them, is we have a goal here.
If you're willing to play long, if you're willing to come to the table, great.
If you're not, you'll feel our wrath essentially.
And that's been what I've taken away from this last week plus here in Washington.
Has the White House or President Trump himself elaborated of where they go from here?
We've seen the president and other administrations talk about the accomplishments in the first week, but where do you go from here?
What are they suggesting?
You know, it's interesting.
The word regime change keeps getting, I I wouldn't say thrown around, but put into the conversation.
It's a natural thing to put into the conversation.
The Trump admin is kind of walking the line, I sense, with: listen, if regime change is what it takes, then we'll go there.
If, again, we can find somebody even within the regime, and it's been the same thing in Venezuela with the vice president there.
If we can find somebody within the regime who can establish continuity, but can turn the country around into a direction that's more favorable to the United States, it's friendlier to the United States and Israel for that matter, and the rest of the Gulf, then we'll go in that direction.
The ball is in the Iranians' court, is essentially the message here.
But the overarching goal remains the same: an Iran without nuclear weapons, and Iran that cannot fire ballistic missiles at its neighbors at will, and Iran that's more open to the outside world and can benefit economically from what the region has to offer if sanctions can get to a point where it's been lifted.
I would say, and this has really gone unmentioned because just the fluidity of the situation and the urgency of the rocket fire and whatnot.
Trump took a lot of flack.
Again, taking the politics out of this, Trump took a lot of flack for building relationships with Gulf monarchies, with what many said dictatorships, human rights abusers, what have you.
He built relationships with them.
They're coming in quite handy now.
Again, whether you agree with whether he should have done it or not, we can talk about that all day.
But those relationships, when you look at it now, those Gulf monarchies, the GCC countries, are not directing their ire toward Washington, having caught all these ballistic missiles now within their countries, all the damage that's been done.
They are directing their fire clearly on Iran.
And I think that's kind of a sub-story that might play out in the medium to long term.
But in the short term, it's had immense benefits for America and for Israel, for that matter, that those Gulf countries are sticking with Trump and not turning their fire back on Washington.
202-748-8,000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and 202-748-8002 for independents.
If you want to ask our guests questions about operations in Iran, Ms. Charter, she you just heard our other guests talk about the region, how they're looking at it, the possibility of regime change, relationships from the president.
What do you draw from that?
And what's the region?
What are regional leaders saying about the possibility of change because of these actions?
Well, let me disagree on what Mike said on a few points.
Number one, regime change.
The United States does not have a good example of regime change.
We've seen that in Iraq.
We've seen that in Afghanistan.
And it's ironic that the president who opposed these wars in the Middle East and he called them, you know, it's like useless wars that benefit nobody basically because they brought nothing but destruction.
And actually, the removal of Saddam Hussein has strengthened the Iranian regime at the time.
And Israel has been an advocate for removing Saddam Hussein and destroying the Iraqi army for so long.
And Netanyahu has been talking about changing regime in Iran for 40 years.
He says that on the record.
And it's ironic as well that Mike talks about the Gulf states who said basically they're not going to be allowing the US to use their bases in the Gulf to attack Iran, hoping that they will be spared from the Iranians.
And of course, what we've seen now is really more attacks on the Gulf states than in Israel, more or less.
And the reason they thought the Iranians, I don't know how I read this, but what I understand is basically they wanted to put pressure on the Americans to stop the war by attacking the Gulf, because the Gulf now is suffering tremendously from economic loss that used to be marketed as a hub for stability in the region, investment.
After all, the president himself held, less than three weeks ago, something called the Board of Peace, and he wanted to generate funds for it.
And the billions of dollars came from the Gulf states because they want to invest in peace, not in war.
And actually, ironically, too, that one of the billionaires in the UEE has wrote a letter to President Trump saying that, are we investing this money in peace or in war?
So there is like, it's a very complicated situation.
It's not straightforward.
Also, the fact that the Gulf monarchies who supported, as Mike said, supported the president, it was a beneficial relationship between both.
They were investing billions of dollars to benefit American middle class.
And it's funny enough that the president going with a partner, they considered a partner in this attack on Iran, which is Prime Minister Netanyahu, who's been accused by committing war crimes by the ICC.
The guy is a war criminal by an international court, has been accused officially of that.
So it's not like Israel, the democratic country who's leading the U.S. to liberate the Iranian people.
Do they really care about the Iranian people?
That's the question.
The question now is, and we are entering the second phase of this war, is they attacking all refineries.
And we have seen pictures this morning from Tehran engulfed in fire, the whole area, the whole street of Tehran.
So this has an impact on the people in Iran, whether it's environmental disasters, future diseases, cancer, etc., let alone feeling attacked by the US and Israel.
So I don't think that will lead to regime change.
And one final point.
The president want to work within the regime, Evanzuela-style.
He want to find Dulcie Rodriguez to deal with her and install him.
So, it's not really the president, never uttered the word democracy when it comes to the people in Iran.
While Netanyahu want to continue this war, regardless, they want to change the regime.
Does the regime change from the air by bombing from the air?
No, they need 120,000 troops in Iraq to change the regime and decades.
And what we have is militias that are pro-Iran now in Iraq.
Iraq is nowhere model of democracy.
Iran is 90 million people, five times the size of Iraq.
It needs 500,000 troops.
Is the president willing to do that?
No.
They think that regime change is easy, but they're going to find out the hard truth that the situation in the Middle East unleashed a monster now that engulfed every country.
And this morning, there was an attack near the U.S. Embassy in Norway.
If you think that Norway is far away and not involved, it's just like 16 countries already involved in this war.
Ms. Charters, we'll let Mr. Wagenheim get his thoughts in on what you just said, and then we'll take calls.
Mr. Wagenheim.
I mean, there was a dispute there about a few points that I didn't really make.
But in the terms of the regime change, it's exactly what I said.
I think Trump realizes regime change is not easy, as Nadi was saying, that it's very difficult, that it will involve troops on the ground, that it'll involve even a larger fire around the Middle East.
And again, he's looking for that potential partner there, if you want to call it that.
At least somebody who can give him an off-ramp so that even a worse route doesn't have to be followed down, which is kind of speaking to my point about what he found there in Venezuela with the vice president there.
So if it can be had, great.
No doubt whatsoever.
This is a complicated situation.
Nothing is ever simple in the Middle East.
There are a lot of dynamics at play.
Whether Trump took that into consideration in terms of a larger regional conflict, I can't really speak to that.
Anybody who tries to get into the mind of Donald Trump is running a fool's errand in trying to figure out his particular thinking on a given matter at a given time because it's proven to be fluid.
It's proven to be dynamic.
And again, for better or worse at times.
Oh, sorry.
Go ahead, sir.
Go ahead.
Fisherlock.
And to the larger point, you know, in terms of the Israeli angle, it's not mutually exclusive.
The Israelis can want regime change, and I'm talking about the Israeli government and for some extent the people as well.
You can want regime change, and you can also want what's best for the Iranian people.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
You can want them both at the same time.
Are you able to accomplish that?
Are you setting up the Iranians for a better future or a worse future through this particular war?
That remains to be seen.
But those two things can go together in terms of wanting a different government there and the government being better for the Iranian people.
I think there is tremendous sentiment within Israel, a tremendous affinity for the Iranian people.
They've been under the ground relationships built there for long periods of time.
Anytime an Iranian comes to Israel in any sense, they're welcome with open arms.
It's not Hasburgh, it's not propaganda.
It's a genuine sentiment wanting peace.
But peace, as we see, comes at oftentimes a tremendous cost.
Both guests joining us, and let's take some calls.
John in Michigan, Independent Line.
Thanks for holding on.
Go ahead, please.
Well, thank you for taking my call.
I'm just wondering if anyone is keeping an eye on the eastern side of Russia, because I know that Putin is not happy with this thing, and he can probably get missiles from North Korea, and whether he could potentially strike the Western side of the United States.
And knowing that we're low on interceptors, if anyone has even taken account of that from Washington, D.C., as this being potentially a distraction with what's going on right now over in Iran.
And I don't know if either one of you could potentially answer that, but to me, it looks like potentially something that could be a concern to the United States.
And I thank you for taking my call.
We'll let our guests respond to that.
Mr. Wagenheim.
I'm certainly not an expert in European affairs, but overall, there's without a doubt concern within certain sectors of the military that this is a war that's distracting, that it's depleting U.S. munitions, that it's a loss of focus on China and other areas.
Oil's Gambit00:12:16
There are certain sectors within the Pentagon and elsewhere around the administration that feel that's a concern.
In terms of whether Russia is going to actually get involved or not, listen, we've got to look at history here a little bit.
Look at Syria.
I mean, when Assad fell, the Russians were nowhere to be found.
They bailed out of that place as quickly as they possibly could.
Is it a different situation with the Iranians because of the partnership and the war with Ukraine?
Yeah, there's certainly an added dimension there.
But I don't think Putin is stretched as the Russian army is right now dealing with Ukraine, that they're willing to jump headlong into a conflict with the U.S. and other Gulf countries.
Keep in mind, they have very strong relationships with a lot of those Gulf countries.
I'm not sure they're looking for more enemies at this point in time, seeing the state of their military at the moment.
Ms. Pubalsi charters.
Yeah, I agree, actually.
I don't think that the Russians will do something like this, despite the fact there were some reports, actually, that Putin has been helping the Iranians with intelligence of U.S. positions, but President Trump last night and before denied that.
He said, absolutely, there is no evidence of that.
If anything, I think the destruction that's happening because of the war in Iran will help Russia to even launch a fiercer attack in Ukraine.
So because that's a time when they can do really lots of things without media attention as much as now because everybody is talking about Iran.
From Walter.
Walter, Massachusetts, Republican line.
Hi.
Hi.
I enjoy your program very much.
I'd like to bring up some points about NATO countries spending money for their security and whom are they wanting security from?
It's countries like Iran.
Another point.
If the U.S. government treated their people the way that Iran treats their people and their theater countries, I would treasure help from another country, just as Iranian people are accepting the help that the United States and Israel are giving them.
I guess that's all I wanted to say.
Let me expand that a little bit.
Ms. Belbasi Charters, we saw the UK make its decisions about what's going on.
We saw France do the same.
When it comes regionally to partner countries, where does the U.S. go and how much support do you think they have at the current time?
Well, initially, the relationship between Washington and European allies was strained because of President Trump's continuous attack on them.
Of course, he asked him to increase the defense budget by 5%.
He succeeded in most countries.
But sometimes he almost thought that NATO was redundant and they don't need to continue with this alliance.
Although he reiterated his support again when he was in Davos during his speech.
Now, what happened with Iran is we have seen strained relationship between him and Prime Minister Starmer of the UK because they were very slow or reluctant to allow the US to use their military base to refueling in Dio-Garcia.
And of course, as you know, it started with President Trump.
If he's angry with a leader, then he will hold grudges probably forever.
So now he's calling the UK.
He said, like, we don't need your help.
We don't need anything from you.
It's too late now because now because we are winning, you wanted to join us.
No, thank you.
And Starma, you are not, Churchill.
While the French also has like a love-hate relationship with President Macron, and he always like to mimic him and make fun of him, but the French has always a different foreign policy than the rest of Europe.
The emerging alliance now of the US is Germany, surprisingly.
When the Chancellor came to DC and he met with President Trump, he was the first European leader to visit DC after the war.
He was complete in agreement with President Trump on Iran.
I mean, in fact, all of them consider the Iranian regime a horrible regime that torture its own people, that's been exporting terror, those supporting proxies in the region, causing havoc in Arab countries.
There's no disagreement about it.
But I think the method of going to war while some people, the negotiation, I know from some sources that the negotiation in Geneva was going fine.
Actually, the Omani foreign minister flew to DC overnight on a Friday just to convince JD Vance, who he thought that he's more reluctant to go to war than others in the administration, to tell him there is a chance to continue these negotiations with Iran.
And the same night or the same afternoon, the president took the decision to go to strike Iran, to take military options.
So with the Europeans, I think in the end they will come around because now the adjoining Gulf states are protecting their assets in the Gulf as they come under attack by ballistic and drones from Iran.
But I think the president needs to build the problem with, I think, I'll come back to the messaging that we talked about.
The problem with this war is the president never prepared the American people or built an alliance before he goes to war, except repeating the same lines that Iran has been for 47 years, attacking the West, etc.
And I think everybody was expecting President Trump to speak during the State of the Union, to use it as an opportunity to prepare more the public opinion, because I think 72% of Americans oppose it.
I'm following all the latest polls that involve the president and his decision.
But I think in the end, the Europeans, if they have to choose between the Iranians and the US, for sure they're going to be on the side of the United States.
Mr. Wagenheim, the president has criticized NATO countries, Europe over practices, now the possibility of needing them in the end.
Put some context to that.
You know, NATO wasn't meant for Iran.
NATO was meant for the Cold War.
It was meant for Russia.
And so Iran has always been kind of a side thought when it comes to NATO.
But the European countries right now are stretched in.
Again, they've had to increase their defense budgets at Trump's demands.
And I think rightfully so, they've been focused on the war with Russia and Ukraine.
And so Iran, again, suddenly being thrown at them in this fashion, they're not dictatorships.
They're democracies.
They take time to work things through.
They have debates.
And it's not always as simple as just snapping your fingers and sending aircraft carriers around the world.
And Kier Starmer got caught taking too long.
And he'll, you know, he's going to have to kind of pay the price politically for that.
Macron in France is not, he's simply not relevant.
He talks a lot.
He's not relevant, not relevant to American foreign policy, not really relevant to the Middle East in any real sense.
Nadia is correct in stating that Germany is kind of a reason here to be the political, at least in terms of foreign policy leader within the EU.
And I think Trump realizes that and leans more on Frederick Mertz than he does on any other European leader at this point in time.
It's interesting to note with NATO and Iran, when Iran fired a missile at a U.S. base in Turkey, some were calling for whether Article 5 of NATO should be invoked.
The article that says that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all its mutual self-defense.
And now Turkey will have to get involved and the U.S. will have to come to Turkey's defense.
Now, that was put to rest fairly quickly on a lot of different technical and philosophical matters, but it just goes to show what was designed to combat Russia now is being thought of in a much different sphere.
And when you talk about all the things you don't really know about where war will actually lead, it's a prime example of whether NATO might actually become an Iranian issue in addition to a Russian and Cold War issue.
From California, Democrats line, we'll hear from Margaret for our guest.
Margaret, hello.
Hello.
Good morning.
I think it's all about oil.
Iraq was about oil.
Venezuela was about oil.
And now Iran is about oil.
That's why Trump keeps changing his goal for this war.
And to say that the unarmed Iranian people should fight the military is stupid.
And now we're involved in World War III.
Thank you.
That's Margaret there in California, Mr. Wagenheim.
Are there other we the administration said the nuclear program was the initial thing.
We've seen other things come to that portfolio.
Our guest, or at least the caller, says there's oil.
Are there a lot of different fronts on the current actions in Iran in your mind, or at least what the administration is saying?
Of course, it's not any one thing per se, but listen, this is a gamble.
If we're talking about the reason being the war for oil, it's a huge gamble for President Trump.
Why?
Because oil prices here in the U.S. are fairly stable.
When people are talking about pocketbook issues, it's talking mainly about food and housing.
Fuel has not been on that list for quite some time now.
And now we're seeing the short-term effects.
I mean, oil's the price per barrel is skyrocketing.
Trump feels it's going to be a short-term effect, but you can't really predict that.
And heading into the midterms, the last thing he needs is one more pocketbook issue to be put on the tables of the American electorate.
So if it really is about oil and the primary reason for going to war with Iran, that is a tremendous gamble that the President's taking.
I'm not so sure was really at the top of his list.
Could it be a benefit in the end?
Sure.
But the primary reason, questionable in my mind.
Ms. Charter, same question to you.
Well, it's funny you were talking about oil because President Trump said when Bush invaded Iraq, he said, like, I don't understand.
They invaded Iraq.
We lost 4,000 plus troops.
Paid trillions of dollars and they didn't take the oil.
So, the oil is one of the reasons for sure.
I don't know if it's the main reason, but if I go back to the history of Iran, which is really interesting to what the correlation said just now, is basically there was an elected prime minister by the name of Prime Minister Mussaddak.
The CIA at the time plotted against him, they overthrew him because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry and they installed the Shah of Iran, whose son now wants to take over.
And even President Trump didn't think he's a good candidate.
But the Shah ruled with an iron fist.
His security service tortured people under the SAVAC, and that led to a revolution that now the whole region paid the price for it, which is controlled by the moles.
They were also secularists, it was all students, they were everybody.
But then, when Khomeini, the original father of the revolution, came back from exile from Paris to Tehran, he executed most of these people, and then they rule supreme till now, basically.
So, the root causes of it is just like you have to think of where the strategic interests of certain countries, including the United States, that lead, because I always say America has short-sighted foreign policy because they don't have a colonial history, they don't have the schools that produce this elite in Britain and France who conquered the world and they learned from their mistakes.
So, it's a new power.
And now, the new power is the most advanced when it comes to military.
And they think just by using the military is a way to solve the world's problem.
And they will discover, sadly, that's not the case because you need to have a strategy.
You need to have things to think how you can change a regime, how to help people, without obviously affecting the whole region.
And I think, unfortunately, now what we've seen, the attack on desalination plants in Bahrain today, which is the Gulf dependent on it for like 40 to 90 percent, is gonna change things for the worse.
Fiercely Independent Reporting00:02:37
Like every day, there is something happening.
So, is all one of the reasons?
Yes, is it the main reason?
I'm not so sure.
We have two guests joining us this morning: Nadia Babalsi, Charters of our Arabian News Channel.
Charters, a little bit about your news organization, what's its editorial point of view?
Well, we are trying to be neutral in covering what's happening.
We cover things as they are.
We say the Iranis are attacking the Gulf states.
We have reporters all over the place.
We basically carry on TV statements from President Trump, from Prime Minister Netanyahu, from Larjani, from whoever he has something to say in this war.
So, we broadcast in equal time to everybody who is involved.
We try not to make any editorial decision, even on our own reporting from the Gulf states, actually.
Is your organization tied to the Saudi government in any way?
We are funded partially by the Saudi government, but we privately owned.
Okay.
And then this is Mike Wagenheim of I-24 News.
Same question to you, your organization and its editorial point of view.
Well, you know, we've been accused of being everything from Benjamin Netanyahu's mouthpiece to another Al Jazeera with an Israeli flag.
And so we kind of get attacked from the left and the right, which I think means we're doing a pretty good job of trying to keep things balanced in the terms of the point of view.
We have our main bureau there in Tel Aviv at the Jaffa port.
We have offices throughout the world.
We broadcast in English, French, Arabic, and Hebrew.
So a lot of different perspectives from around the world that we're able to bring within our headquarters there in Tel Aviv.
You know, we really do try to bring together all points of view.
And in the end, hopefully we get it right a lot more often than we get it wrong.
And we're, you know, still a fairly young channel, 10 plus years now, and certainly learning as we go.
But there's no greater teacher than wartime.
And we're really, you know, taking into account so many different factors, so many different changes that have taken place within the Gulf, within the Middle East since we were born those 10 plus years ago.
We are privately owned.
We receive no state funding.
We receive no direction from the government in terms of our editorial line.
And we fiercely attempt to maintain that independence.
Let's hear from Jaden.
Jaden's in South Carolina, Independent Line.
Hi.
Good morning.
Negotiating Public Perception00:14:49
You know, you don't go war divided.
That's what makes this thing so bad.
We are more divided than we've ever been.
And that's a big gamble.
And it's the worst bet you could make.
The odds are against us.
Now, I want to let y'all know something.
Trump negotiated two countries, the one in South America, and he negotiating Israel.
And during the time these guys were in the negotiating room, he attacked them then.
So that tells you he was interested in negotiating that.
And he did that twice.
How did that make America look?
How could you guys sit up here and not condemn that and see our great country go down?
Who's going to trust us?
And this is so terrible because we, right here in America, we got Haiti, we got people right in our own backyard being completely used and killed and worse than any situation you can think of.
And we got to go way over here, 10,000 miles away to save a country where the people don't even like us, they say.
And I agree with the lady that called.
You said Netanyahu and Trump, they both have been indicted criminals, and they got to stay in power.
And they are going to keep this stuff up so they can stay in power.
Okay.
And I can't believe.
Hello?
Come on, sir.
Okay, let me finish it up.
Go ahead and finish, please.
Okay, it's very important that you guys hear this.
And C-SPAN, I thought you were for American people, and you guys know better than this.
I'm saying you guys ask questions and stuff, but you let this stuff kind of come out.
The other media is a lot worse than y'all.
But it seems like y'all are kind of going toward that way, too.
Carla, we make no point.
Caller, I'll stop you there.
We take no point as far as the activities.
We let people talk and let people express yourself like yourself, which makes us unique amongst a lot of broadcast networks.
Mr. Wagha and Hein, let me take his point, though.
Public perception: what is the White House prepared to do to keep going on despite if public perception about this operation drops?
You know, President Trump, he doesn't really seem to care about the polls as much as he used to.
This was a very whole-focused administration in the first term.
They constantly threw up trial balloons to see what would work.
I think Trump was more about seeking adulation and praise from the American public, maybe because it's a lame duck status this time around, maybe because he's more comfortable with the people he has around him, which are certainly more conducive to his line of thinking than I think he had in the first administration.
And maybe he's just getting that kind of appraise or whatever he needs from that inner circle.
Again, I don't seek to go into the mind of Donald Trump.
I don't think he's much concerned about the short-term polling at this point.
If it carries on, if it begins to weigh, if Republicans within Congress chime in and say, hey, this is one more issue that's going to harm us in the midterms that we don't need to be dealing with, and it's going to make him even more of a lame duck without a Republican majority, then yeah, I think he'll listen at that point.
At this point in time, I don't think he's paying any attention whatsoever to those polls because he simply has no reason to.
Ms. Charters, do you get the same vibe, so to speak, from the administration when it comes to public perception?
Yes, I agree.
I think the president is determined to carry on with this military operation.
Maybe not for long.
I mean, he told us it's between four to six weeks.
It could be less.
So for him, he can declare victory.
He can identify what victory is, basically, saying that Iran is no longer pose a threat to the region and to our allies.
And then in week four, maybe a week three, he can say that's it, end of the war.
But also, this war has a cost.
And I think it will add up like physically, I mean, financially, rather, this $1 billion a day this war costs.
That's going to be affecting voters in midterm for sure.
American middle class.
The price of gas that was the president always said it was the most successful cards for him to play in election now is going something can go up to $4 a gallon.
Also, the physical casualties in terms of American soldiers coming in bodies, in body bags.
Yesterday, he was at Dover receiving the dead soldiers, six of them, who were killed in Kuwait.
So, if the war continues and there is a higher price for the president to pay, I think he will start paying attention to this course and for negotiation and for polls, etc., to try to find a way out.
But I want to say on the record that I only said that Prime Minister Netanyahu was indicted as a war criminal by the International Criminal Court.
I did not say President Trump was, just to correct the previous caller.
Also, on the negotiations, yes, twice actually.
Last June, the Iranians were negotiating and then it was a ploy that everything was going fine.
And the president went to his golfing that weekend, and then they declared war and they started attacking, or rather, attacking without declaring war.
And on this one, too, it was the same.
On a Friday, there was negotiation.
We thought we're going to Vienna the next week.
And they so it doesn't look good for the reputation of the United States.
Of course, the administration justified all the time, said like the Iranians were never serious.
We're wasting our time.
And now we have to tell them they have to stop all their activities in the region.
And the only way they can stop is by military attack.
In California, this is on our line for Republicans.
Cash, hello, you're on with our guest.
Hello.
You're on.
Go ahead, please.
So sometimes I think about what's happening in Iran right now.
Carler, go ahead, please.
You're still on.
So sometimes I get scared about what's happening in Iran, and then I get really scared that they're going to deploy Roger Washington.
Democrats lying.
Good morning.
You're next.
Yes, good morning, C-SPAN.
I just want to say that Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu, was convicted with his wife based on fraud, and he's looking at facing war crimes.
He's up for re-election in April of this year.
This is why it was necessary for him to start this war in Iran.
And we were looking at the Ayatollah was facing serious medical problems.
Would have been some type of regime change at that point.
You know, and and you're looking at, we was forced into this, I believe Marco Rubia when he said that Iran Israel, Netanyahu was going to start this war.
Now you have.
We're weakening the United States with all these regime changes throughout the these various countries Iraq Afghanistan.
Now we're into Iran now.
And our adversaries, other countries, China, Russia, they're looking at we're weakening our own existence in the United States financially because they're already talking about we have to rebuild in Gaza with $39 trillion in debt.
We have to rebuild what Netanyahu is bombing in other countries.
Once you weaken the United States, then any world leader can take over.
Okay, that's Mary there in Pennsylvania.
Let me take a thought that she had.
Ms. Charters, one of the things that we're waiting for is who's the next leadership going to be in Iran.
What's the administration doing to prepare for that, especially as they talk to the larger issues of regime change?
Nothing that we know of publicly, except what the president said.
He says, like, I have to choose the next leader.
And sometimes he will say, well, I don't mind if he's a religious leader.
And other occasions he will say, well, we choose two or three to replace Khamenahi, but they were all killed in the first attack that the Israelis carried on on the compound that killed the Murshid, the spiritual leader.
So I don't think they know really who is going to replace Iran.
They think that maybe if they can copy the example in Venezuela, then things will be fine.
But Iran and Venezuela, completely different cases, and there's no way that Iran will capitulate in a way that will say, okay, well, that's fine.
Let the president of the United States choose our own leader.
The problem now is some people say, remember when President Trump said to the demonstrators who were, you know, bravely going in the streets of Tehran and other cities, and the regime was gunning them down?
He said to them, help on the way.
Go ahead and take over the country.
Take the institution.
But this died out.
And his red line to them at the time was, if you kill more demonstrators, I'm going to interfere.
And it died out completely.
And we didn't hear anything.
And time lapsed.
And then suddenly, when they were negotiating, he came back and said, well, that's it.
They're playing games and we're going to attack.
So the strategy was not coherent.
And the reason was not convincing.
And we don't know who's going to lead Iran for the next stage.
Obviously, Iran is very complicated in comparison, even to Iraq, because they have different ethnic groups.
They have the Shias, they have the Kurds, they have the Balush, they have the Azerbaijanis, they have the Jews, they have the Christians, they have Sunni Muslims, they have everybody there.
So to try and, and the opposition, just typically in any country, just like in Syria, when you have dictatorship controlling you for so long, there's no opposition, no opposition that's organized.
So it's really individual citizens who are fed up with the prices, the standard of living, the money that Iran, such a rich country, because of the oil revenues, spent overseas on proxies, on Hezbollah and on the Houthis instead of the Iranian people.
They talk to the streets bare chested, basically, facing the siege and the revolutionary guards.
And now they are really stuck in the middle.
And today I was reading feedback from Tehran, people saying, is the United States really helping the people in Tehran?
So let alone choosing who's going to rule, but also the ordinary people.
They're going to live with the effect of this war for decades to come.
And Mr. Wagenheim, the same question to you, how the administration prepares as the vacuum waits to be filled in Iran.
One quick thing first, respectfully to your caller, Mary, two quick things on that.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has been in interminable trial for a breach of fraud, but hasn't been convicted, as she stated.
And there are no Israeli elections coming up next month.
Elections have not been called for yet.
Her general point of Netanyahu going to war because of political considerations has obviously been discussed ad nauseum within the Israeli society.
But just want to make sure we have the facts right.
In terms of the power vacuum in Iran, you know, there seems to be more of a movement now to try to peel off potential defectors and advocators, whether it be in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, whether it be in the government as it stands right now, what have you, to try to feel out who might be willing to turn, who might be willing to stand with the U.S. or at least against what's left of the Iranian government at this point.
I think that that's a tactic now that the Trump administration is using to try to get a sense of who A might be left in the end and who B might be willing to play ball.
So there's certainly a level of work that's going into that at this current moment.
I think when you talk about the vacuum, there's also another kind of route that's being taken by the administration right now.
Just decapitate everything, do business with whatever's left.
And so there's a process being played out right now, I think, on two different avenues.
And they're again not mutually exclusive.
If you can find people that are willing to turn against the Iranian government, turn against the IRGC, you kind of push them off to the side, you protect them in any way you can, hope they're left standing in the end.
And then when it's all done, at least you have people that you know might be more friendly and might be willing to see the American line going forward.
And I think those two avenues are playing out right now at the same time.
Yeah, if you're willing, we'll talk, we'll protect you.
But again, we're going to keep carrying forward with this operation until it sees some sort of viable end, whatever that is.
But also, Israel said publicly, Prime Minister Nathaniel said publicly, that we can assassinate every leader the Iranians elect.
And actually, yesterday, they met what they call the Assemble of Elders, or similar to that, the council, the experts of councils, I think, was something like this, which is basically the highest establishment of the religious echelon of power in Iran to elect a replacement for Khaminai.
And they kept the name secret because they thought Israel is going to assassinate them.
And the fact that Trump himself said, I chose, identified one or two, but they all killed in the assassination attack, which is carried by Israel.
It shows also the difference of what the Americans want, what the Israelis want.
So the Americans want to work within the regime to find somebody.
And hence, the president keeps saying to the Revolutionary Guard, if you lay down your arms, you have an amnesty.
So come and join us.
So they're hoping for maybe defection within the army, but that's a different story because the whole reason of this revolution of 1979 is basically its essence.
And its reason that is to stand it up against what they call the imperial power led by the United States.
So I find it very hard to find somebody from the regime that were willing to cooperate.
Isis And The Next Man Up00:05:46
Mr. Wagham, you want to follow up on that real quick?
Listen, I think in the end, however much sway people think Prime Minister Netanyahu has over President Trump, if Trump says, we're keeping this guy alive, make sure he's not touched.
Netanyahu's not going to go in and assassinate somebody.
So we've seen this kind of play out with Hamas, with Hezbollah.
Whoever is next up in the chain of command, whoever wants to step forward, is also going to get put down.
They're going to get killed as well.
It's a way that Israel has been able to, you know, kind of eliminate the chain of command and the infrastructure of Hamas.
Same with Hezbollah, next man up, next man down, essentially.
It's kind of the same thing, if not kind of, it is the same thinking in terms of Iran.
But if Trump says this guy's untouchable, Netanyahu's not going to go against him.
I mean, it would be political suicide for Netanyahu now to peeve off Trump in that way.
As we finish up to both of you, Mr. Wagenheim, let me start with you.
What questions do you have in your mind?
What would you ask the president today about current operations?
For everything you've seen so far, what would you ask them today about what you're seeing and where we go from here?
Wow, I don't know if we have enough time left to go through all that.
What would I ask him?
I think, number one, need to ask: have any of these efforts been effective so far in terms of peeling off any defectors, any turncoats, what have you?
So that would be number one.
Number two, I'd asked about the decision not to have the Kurds get involved.
The president was talking to Kurdish leaders in Iran, in Iraq, what have you, possibly to get them involved.
They know the lay of the land.
They know the population well.
They understand the dynamics there on the ground.
And suddenly Trump woke up and said, I don't want the Kurds involved because it's complicated enough as it is.
I think that was a really interesting decision by the president and an impactful one in a lot of ways that I would certainly ask him about.
I think the third thing I would ask him about in terms of where it goes from here is how much pressure he might be getting from the Gulf countries.
You know, that letter that Nadia mentioned from UAE leadership, notwithstanding, the Gulf countries have held the line so far in terms of not maybe not outwardly backing the American operation, but at least not criticizing it.
Sort of the same dynamic we're seeing with Republicans in Congress.
A lot of them aren't outwardly criticizing it, but they're not exactly enthusiastic about it either.
I think that it would be a very telling answer from the president in terms of the relationships with the Gulf countries and how much strain they might be under or not under at this point in time and how those relationships will move forward as this war drags along.
Ms. Charters, same question to you.
Sure.
Let me just answer my question about the Kurds to start off.
The Kurds is just supporting arming a separatist group that represents only like 3% of the population.
It's never been a successful model.
Just like we have seen with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, we've seen with certain organizations in Syria that turn out to be the offshoot of ISIS or ISIS itself, etc.
So I'm not saying that the Kurds are, but I'm just saying that basically when you arm people who also have an inspiration for independence, you are creating chaos in the country.
And also, I don't know how, I mean, they are experienced fighters for sure, and they are allies of the United States.
And they always pay the highest price because they always stand up with the US and then they over thrown under the bus.
Basically, they were never given what they needed and also it's compromising.
The reason that I think he retracted, according to my sources, is Turkey.
Turkey, who is a close ally of the United States and NATO member, does not want to see Kurds being armed and playing a role in Iran, let alone in Syria, let alone in Iraq and anywhere else.
So I think that was the reason of why it wasn't done.
Apart from many military experts, believe it's really a bad decision.
And hence, the president always say, maybe I have the right to send, or I keep my right to keep all options on the table, including sending grand troops, which is very unlikely that he will do that.
Maybe special forces.
There were talks about special forces going to secure the enriched uranium in Khorj.
And they might do that.
That is today.
There is some news about it.
I wanted to ask about the day after strategy.
I mean, nobody doubts America's superiority when it comes to military powers.
But what did you really study all the options?
I'm sure the CIA and all the experts have given the president all the scenarios.
What if?
You know, how long this war can drag?
What did he miscalculate it here?
And how he did not sell it to the American people, the Americans who are wary of these Middle Eastern endless wars.
And they have fatigued and discard by the wars.
Now, a president who presents himself as president of peace, now we're talking about military operation.
Of course, he doesn't call it a war, call it like a military operation.
So I needed to know what is the strategy for the day after.
And again, I think is this a daylight between him and between the Israelis?
Because despite the fact they are fighting together, I think that motivations are still different.
It's not as cohesion, coherent as it sounds sometimes when you hear from both Washington and Tel Aviv.
C-SPAN's Role in American Dialogue00:04:35
Nadia Bilbasi Charters of Al-Arabea News Channel serves as senior White House correspondent, Washington Bureau, Chief Al-Arabea.net, and Mike Wagenheim of I-24 News.
He's their senior U.S. correspondent, I-24news.tv.
To both of you, thanks for giving us your time this morning for the conversation.
Thank you for having us.
We'll continue on with two opinionists who do their work primarily online to not only talk about events in Iran, but domestic politics too.
Later on in the program, we'll be joined by YouTube host Keith Edwards as he talks about politics from a progressive point of view.
But up next, Blaze TV Steve Dace will join us to talk about the events we've talked about and other things you can ask him questions to.
And all this, when Washington Journal continues.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold, original series.
Today, with our guests, married writers Peter Baker, New York Times chief White House correspondent, and Susan Glasser, who served as top editor for Politico, Foreign Policy, and others.
Both prolific authors and together have written several books, including Kremlin Rising, The Man Who Ran Washington, The Life and Times of James A. Baker III, and The Divider, Trump in the White House 2017 to 2021.
They join our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubenstein.
I don't want to cause any marital problems, but let's suppose you're working on a book and you get a scoop.
Who gets the scoop to go, say, something that's current and you want to take to the New York Times or New Yorker?
Who gets the chance to give it first to somebody?
Oh, you're a troublemaker.
You must have thought of it.
I'd like to hear Peter's answer to that question.
Well, she brought the Iran's scoop to our reporting, and then she reported it in the New Yorker.
Watch America's Book Club with Peter Baker and Susan Glasser today at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
We bring you into the chamber, onto the Senate floor, inside the hearing room, up to the mic, and to the desk in the Oval Office.
C-SPAN takes you where decisions are made.
No spin, no commentary, no agenda.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered connection to American democracy.
Advance the mission.
Donate today at c-SPAN.org forward slash donate.
Together, we keep democracy in view.
Tonight, on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A, a conversation with California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom on his memoir, Young Man in a Hurry, chronicling moments in his life that influenced his political career.
From mayor of San Francisco in 2004 to becoming governor in 2019, Governor Newsom also talks about his personal life, living with dyslexia, and his relationship with billionaire Gordon Getty.
Tonight at 8 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 or wherever you get your podcasts.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered.
Every day on the C-SPAN networks.
C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
You are so fair.
I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched every morning and it is unbiased.
And you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
Coalition Checks and Balances00:15:35
This is probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
Thank you, C-SPAN, for being a light in the dark.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us now, Steve Dace of Blaze TV's The Steve Dace Show, joining us to talk about issues in the news domestically and internationally.
Mr. Dace, thanks for giving us time on the program today.
You bet.
Thank you guys for asking.
Honor to do it.
Your audience, to what degree do they care about what's going on in Iran?
They care quite a bit.
I think they care on multiple levels, Pedro.
I think they care about what it means in terms of focus on domestic policy and how much we can simultaneous or multitask there, I should say.
I think they care greatly about victory and how it projects strength across American strength across the globe.
And then I think they care about how long it's going to take because of those other two matters as well.
And I think everybody still has a little PTSD on our side over what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I think you're seeing some of that in terms of the discourse on our side online.
And last year, the president proved that it was possible to project American strength in the Middle East without getting bogged down in regime change.
And now he's got to prove that we can do regime change without getting bogged down into a quagmire.
And so that's kind of where we are right now.
When you see efforts that you saw on Capitol Hill with the Iran War Powers Resolution from Thomas Massey and other Republicans questioning why we're there and what are the long-term effects, what's the sympathy amongst those you talk to for those kind of viewpoints?
Well, I think that's kind of built into our overall coalition.
You know, Congressman Massey is a great congressman, but he also is native to the Ron Paul wing, the libertarian wing of the party, the more econoclastic wing of the party.
So, you know, they're naturally skeptical of any military action to begin with.
And frankly, I think that when you are as pro-military as we tend to be on the right, and as I tend to be, I'm a child of the 80s after all.
I think it's good to have contrarians like that in there to ask you the questions maybe you don't want to answer and to make sure you don't become that which you hate, that you don't step on the rakes that we did in Iraq and Afghanistan in the previous era.
But I think overall that's kind of baked into the cake of our coalition that whenever we talk about a pronounced American military action, that you're going to see the libertarian wing, which is small but is significant and has some substantive things to say.
I think that they're going to speak up and kind of put a check and balance on that.
And I think that's just part of the overall healthy debate.
And I think that's kind of the difference in whether you're kind of doing groupthink or you're a movement.
If you're willing to at least listen to your contrarians, doesn't mean you have to do what they say, but you should at least be willing to listen to them.
You talk to people all the time.
What are your own personal observations over what you've seen over the last week when it comes to Iran?
I think that, you know, we just live in such a society where people move on so fast.
And there are so many things that we would have thought, boy, this is just going to fixate people forever.
I think a lot of our audience now has kind of moved on in a way that, all right, this is happening.
I want us to win.
It appears to be managed capably by the fact that we're not seeing the kinds of headlines and the daily quagmire things we saw in Iraq.
And towards the end in Afghanistan, we had the casualties right away.
Two of them in my own backyard, by the way.
I'm here in Des Moines or in West Des Moines.
And one of the, you know, Deaclund went to high school right down the street from where I lived.
Indianola is about 20, 30 minutes.
That's one of the other two of the six that have perished so far.
And so obviously, you know, thoughts and prayers to their families.
And we thank them for their sacrifice.
And thankfully, there have not been more a list of names added to that here in this first week.
And so I think that, you know, it's the old JFK line.
Victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan, right?
Americans like winning.
On the right, we really like winning.
Okay.
And so as long as the perception is that we are winning, I think people will stick with this and support that.
And that's what you're seeing in the public polling anyway amongst Republicans.
You talked about that PTSD kind of thing, and you talk about winning.
What do you think winning looks like to you and your audience?
What do they need to see as far as that's concerned?
Well, I think this is the great challenge here on our side is the administration has defined winning as degrading Iran's military capabilities to the point that it can no longer be a danger to Americans.
And it has been.
Iran has killed hundreds of Americans or been involved in numerous terrorist plots going back to the hostage crisis of 1979 when I was a little kid.
Now, here's the thing, though.
What exactly does that mean?
We've already seen a lessening of Iran's missile launch capability at Israel as the first week of this conflict has worn on.
All right.
Is that because they're hiding?
Some is anticipating a ground invasion.
Is that because they've been degraded to that point?
Is that because their military leadership has been so degraded, their chain of command is disrupted?
It's probably a little bit of all of those things, right?
You know, and so I think that's the big thing.
What does that actually look like?
Because at the same time, the president has called for regime change, but called for it amongst the Iranian people.
About a month ago, we had consistent night-by-night, tens of thousands of Iranians, brave Iranians, in the street, willing to take on with protests the Revolutionary Guard there in Iran, right?
And the president has urged them for now to kind of shelter in place and hunker down until the brunt of this operation is over.
Is there a point where he will then call them out into the streets?
I think those are questions that still have to remain answered.
And what I would say is that the president's foreign policy chops and capabilities have been the best part of his two terms.
He's brought unprecedented peace and stability to the Middle East.
We have over 2,000 Jews working full-time in the nation of Saudi Arabia right now.
That was unthinkable even a decade ago.
You had the Abrahamic Accords last year when Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for Midnight Hammer.
You saw several Arab states like Saudi Arabia, like Jordan, launch countermeasures against Iran as part of that effort.
So I think what the president understands is that there's a large coalition of Arab states, maybe for different reasons than Israel, Pedro, but there's a large coalition of Arab states that would love the Iranian regime to be at least severely muted, if not outright displaced.
And so I think that the president has parlayed that into unprecedented diversity of coalition here and has a broad mandate to successfully execute this operation.
And so far, he has.
Steve Dace joining us of the Steve Dace show.
And if you want to ask him questions, 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can text us at 202-748-8003.
Mr. Dace, how do you describe your show to other people?
I would say principled conservatism with a snarky twist.
I'm a big faith guy.
And so as much as we can, we try to use the filter of that perspective, pardon me, into how we analyze daily events.
So I think that that maybe gives our show maybe a bit of a unique flavor.
And we're in a period of time now, Pedro, as you know, that there is a great yearning for that kind of content across the spectrum.
That people are wondering, hey, what do some of those timeless truths and old traditions have to say about the era in which we live?
And so we try to hearken back to those things consistently on our show.
And when it comes to, you talked about your audience moving on and other things helping him do that.
One of the things that occurs now that Mark Wayne Mullen, the senator, is about, could become the next Department of Homeland Security.
Talk about those events.
What was your reaction when you saw those happening?
Well, I think that the first warning shot across Christine Ohm's bow was fired in Minneapolis when essentially the president sent Tom Holman in and said, all right, we have to have an adult actually running this thing.
This has gone on for too long.
And I think that in the first term, the president struggled at times as an outsider to assemble a cabinet of people that were both people he could trust and not swamp rats, but also capable at the same time.
And we saw some of that revolving door.
And I think the president came in way more prepared from a personnel standpoint this time.
But if in his first term, the president at times, I think, was too quick to let people go.
So Anthony Scaramucci was there for a week, for example.
Amarasa, we hardly knew ye.
I think in this case, the president maybe has hung on too much, being sensitive to that narrow.
Christine Ohm probably should have been let go a long time ago.
A lot of conservatives like myself think that Pam Bondi should have been let go a long time ago.
And so I think a confluence of events, what happened in the messaging issues and the lack of leadership projected in Minneapolis was one.
I think her testimony was another.
The stories that have come out about the use of funds and whatever the nature of her relationship with Corey Lewandowski is another.
And I just think at that point, you know, the one thing that you can't ever do, you know, and I've been on presidential campaigns and made this mistake, all right?
You can't ever be bigger than the candidate or the leader.
You can't make yourself more of a story than they are.
And Christine Ohm was doing that, and the president was right to remove her.
Was it the, when it comes to Minneapolis, was it the two the two shooting deaths that really was a key factor?
Was it reaction to that?
How would you paint that picture?
I would say the answer to your question is yes.
And that she did, you know, on the right, we don't have really high regard for the messaging capabilities of Tim Walz.
Okay.
So I think when you're getting outflanked in the public sphere by Tim Walz, you're probably doing something wrong.
All right.
And so I think the president recognized that.
That's why he made a call to the bullpen, called in as Mariana Rivera there, Tom Holman, who's a great American, called him in.
And notice, Pedro, how a lot of that stuff just kind of went away overnight.
Did you notice that?
Because an adult was actually in charge.
And now with Mark Wayne Mullen being tapped as potential Homeland Security, what do you think he faces should he take that position?
I think the number one thing he faces is he has to project consistency and strength.
And this goes back to your other point about the Iran War.
And this is why I said these things are connected from a domestic policy standpoint.
The one thing that will erode support faster on our side than anything else, because of how big of an issue immigration has become in the last decade.
And the president has ridden that issue all the way to the White House now.
That was the issue.
I was here in Iowa as he was scuffling to establish his first presidential campaign bona fides early in that 2016 cycle.
And he was struggling to come up with an issue that captured people's imaginations.
And it was that spring and summer of 2015 when he realized what a hot burner issue immigration was.
And so that is the president's signature issue of his entire political relevancy and ascendancy.
And so if it turns out we have a whole bunch of sleeper cells here they could not contain, and there are casualties here at home because of what we've allowed to be imported and not removed, that has way more potential to divide the president's base than what you're seeing from a handful of largely anti-Israel podcasters online who are kind of using and almost hoping and wishing that Operation Epic Fury goes poorly so they can say, see, I told you so.
There's way more danger in what happens on the domestic front with sleeper cells and domestic terrorism here if not adequately contained and dealt with than that in terms of eroding his support.
And so it was paramount now to put an adult in charge of DHS during this particular point of time right now.
We have calls lined up for you.
Our first will be from New York.
This is Scott, Democrats Line.
You're on with Steve Dace of the Steve Dace Show.
Scott, go ahead.
Yes, Steve, I'm technically still registered as a Democrat, but I'm definitely a conservative at this point.
I would agree with you on Christy Noam and Pam Bondi as far as like bad choices.
They were bad choices from the beginning.
But I differ with you on the other generalized aspects of what you're on there for today, because most Americans, working class Americans, are really, they are concerned with what's going on, of course, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time with Iran and all the other stuff that's going on worldwide.
But their biggest concerns right now are how are they going to pay for the health care premiums and how are they going to pay for their energy costs, which have skyrocketed.
And most people, when you ask them, when you actually ask them on the street and in private, I'm a healthcare provider and I've had conversations with my patients, sometimes just casual conversations.
They don't understand that it's all state controlled.
It's state commission controlled.
And so I actually wrote an amendment, which I was trying to get my congressman to look at, which they just have ignored it.
But that needs to be taken away from the states and it needs to be federalized.
And we need to actually have Congress for people that are elected to office be able to raise health care premiums or raise energy costs.
I think they should be dialed back to 2018 levels.
And then in order to raise them, you have to have a supermajority in Congress to do that.
That's what most people are concerned with.
Their health care premiums that have gotten out of control because of state-run commissions, like in New York State, the Department of Financial Services.
Got it.
Yep.
Yep.
Thank you, Caller.
Thank you.
Well, first of all, I think his political assessment is correct.
I mean, one of the biggest mistakes that the Republican Party has made, maybe, in its modern history, are the infamous 50-plus show votes to abolish Obamacare in order to gain majorities.
And then when they had the power to do so, not doing so.
And then they ended up owning.
And then, if you remember the Pedro, the very first attempt, I guess, to repeal Obamacare under Speaker Paul Ryan was essentially a fulfillment of every Democrat campaign commercial that's ever existed.
They were going to get rid of the corporate mandate and then make sure the individuals still had theirs.
All right.
And that was one of the biggest issues in the 2018 midterms.
You go back and look at the exit polling of the 2018 midterms when we lost 40 House seats.
Healthcare was the number one issue.
And so what ended up happening now is the Republican Party, by its failure to live up to its own campaign rhetoric on Obamacare, has ended up owning the liability of this issue.
They've taken it on themselves.
Now, in terms of the solution, though, to what he is saying, I mean, I don't know.
I'm having a hard time.
Forgive me, it's Sunday morning, brother.
Pedro, I want to be, listen, it's the Lord's Day, so I want to be as graceful and winsome as I can be.
Okay.
I'm just not sure anybody is really eager to hand more power to Congress at the moment, regardless of what line they're calling into.
Okay, so I'm not sure that's the most adequate solution in the world, but I do agree with his political lament that the Republican Party has mismanaged this issue really now for almost going on the last decade.
From Mark, Mark is on our line for independence.
He's in Massachusetts.
Mark, hello.
Morning, thank you.
Steve, I was wondering, I was at a party last night, a St. Patrick's Day party outside of Boston.
It was pretty, you know, mixed, all sorts of, you know, kind of folks, white-collar, blue-collar, middle, whatever, upper class.
And I didn't hear anybody saying anything talking about winning.
You know, I didn't hear anybody say, you know, America's winning and Trump's foreign policy, like you said, is his greatest asset.
I think he's doing a terrible job.
Do you look at the ratings?
This guy's a 30% approval rating.
Barack's Approval Rating00:02:15
I mean, the elections are coming up midterms.
They're going to get smoked.
Well, first of all, let me just say the fact that you are still running with a group of people of various persuasions that are willing to hang out with one another, props to you, because there's not a lot of that anymore in our balkanized country.
So that's good that you still have a group of people that can come together and have honest conversations with one another and, you know, not essentially build moats around each other the minute that somebody airs a dissenting opinion.
The president's approval rating heading into Iran, according to the RCP average, was 43.3.
That's roughly around where Barack Obama was at this point in his second term as well.
But you're not wrong about the realities of what he is facing in a midterm.
And you look at this historically, Pedro.
I mean, the only time I can think of in modern history, Reagan lost over 30 House seats, several governorships in 1982 because the economy did not turn around as fast as people thought coming out of the Carter years.
You look at George H.W. Bush, Democrats won the generic ballot in the 1990 midterm elections by, I think, eight points nationwide.
If you look in 1994, that was the first Republican majority in 50 years, the contract with America and Bill Clinton's midterm.
You look at George W. Bush was able to win a midterm coming off of 9-11 in 2002.
But then he got annihilated in the 2006 midterms.
We destroyed Barack Obama in not one, but two midterm elections.
And the Tea Party wave of 2010, and then the 2014 wave was even bigger than that.
And then the aforementioned wave I had that the president lost 40 house seats in 2018.
So there's a historic reality here, no matter who wins, of what you are facing in a midterm for sure.
It's emboldened by the fact we have such a slim majority, and some of the people that are more corporatized, more globalist in our party, still that the old Bush wing that kind of hasn't been run out yet is still able to bog things down on Capitol Hill in ways that maybe you can't in some states like my home state of Iowa, where you have Kim Reynolds or Florida, where you have Ron DeSantis and a strong Republican governor.
And so your deducement here of the political realities are not wrong.
But here's the reality.
Proving Democratic Success00:15:59
And this goes back to the previous caller's question.
If the American people, you know, what's affordability, Pedro, is a little subjective, like what's the degrading of Iran's military, right?
Okay.
If the American people do not feel that affordability at their kitchen tables coming out of Labor Day and heading into the meat of this campaign season, we're going to lose, regardless of how successful this operation was.
And if they do, we're going to win, regardless of how upset about this operation people are right now in early March.
Is there enough time to change those minds or at least change that perception?
There's six months.
I would say you've got about six months, and then most of the economic environment that people are going to be feeling when they go to the polls will be in place coming out of Labor Day, which is about six months.
In fact, it's exactly six months from today, I believe.
And so that's how long we have, I think, on our side.
Let's go to New York State again.
Dan, Republican line.
Go ahead.
Yeah, good morning.
I'm a result of the I signed up for the military because of the bombing of Beirut and served with a lot of guys from middle class, lower middle class.
And it just seems like the same old thing.
And after, say, we do great here in Ireland, I'm all about against Iran.
But after this is all done, said and done, you see Michael Lockerbie bombing airlines, killing military guys.
And also, I'm not giving credit to Heg Seth or Trump because, I mean, I don't believe they should get their credit for our military.
I don't give the credit to Clinton or any of them guys.
They just serve with a bunch of amazing guys and serve the guys in NATO.
And I think it's sad.
I think the people who are going to benefit are the wealthy.
And obviously, Israel, who I always been an ally of Israel, it just, I don't know.
It seems like the same old story.
Okay, Dan in New York.
Mr. Dace, a lot said there.
What do you take from that?
Well, I think I'm trying to figure out what his question was because I want to be respectful to his service.
And I would love to answer directly what his question was.
I will say there is a pocket of people.
And a lot of them are on our side, that share a lot of his laments.
And, you know, in many respects, Pedro, I thought, pardon me, I thought Midnight Hammer last year was kind of Trump's, pardon me, I thought it was his Grenada.
And coming into the Reagan years, there was a lot of thought coming out of Vietnam that we just could not exert and project power anymore as a military, particularly after the failed botched attempt to rescue the hostages under Jimmy Carter, et cetera.
And so Grenada was kind of Reagan's the first salvo that, no, no, we could do this again.
We're not permanently emasculated here.
And I thought Midnight Hammer did that in terms of the morale for the military for the president.
But we're now undergoing a second proof of concept here.
And I don't lament to anybody that's our age, that has lived through all these years, any of the millennials who feel like maybe they fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing given the way that things turned out.
I don't lament that on anybody.
And I don't think the president does.
I mean, remember, the president got elected, Pedro, running on many of these kinds and itemizing and elevating these kinds of complaints and being kind of a construct for people that he represented something different.
And so he's proven that with his success in foreign policy.
He proved that with the success of Midnight Hammer a year ago.
But now we're at another stage of this.
Can we have a prolonged engagement?
And what's prolonged?
Well, it's already been a week.
And in our 15, you know, in our 280 characters or less society, that's a long time.
Okay.
We're pronouncing movies bombs based on their one week of box office nowadays.
Okay.
So can he prove that he can sustain this and success for a prolonged engagement?
And I just want to say about Secretary Hegseth, his messaging has been phenomenal.
I mean, he has put on an absolute messaging and morale clinic thus far.
But ultimately, and that's buying them time.
But ultimately, the proof will be in the results.
And so we're undergoing a proof of concept as a people right now.
So the first one was last year.
Can we do quick strike events and not get bogged down in prolonged engagements?
And now we're proving whether or not it is capable with different leadership to be involved in a prolonged engagement without getting bogged down in a quagmire.
And that proof of concept still has to be proven.
And I don't begrudge anybody who is skeptical until it is.
Mr. Dace, you talked about midterms.
A lot of attention was paid last week to the first round of primaries, particularly what happened in the Texas Senate race.
What's your assessment of what finally broke out after everything was said and done?
Well, John Cornyn may have spent more money in the history of politics to get 42% in a statewide primary.
I don't know that, I mean, that's got to be one of the worst return on investments in the entire history of modern American politics, number one.
And so there is, as you know, a lot of drama about this on our side right now because the president put out a message the day after the primary saying, in short, I'm going to be issuing an endorsement.
And it began getting leaked, I think, first to the Atlantic and to some other media, that the president was going to endorse John Cornyn.
And then what we saw is maybe this was the largest consolidated, unified block of opposition to a choice by the leader of our party since Harriet Myers under Bush for Supreme Court.
And our base ended up stopping that nomination because of it.
And so I don't think it's any coincidence.
The president is very sensitive to his base, as he should be.
That's a good thing from our side's perspective.
He's very sensitive to any kind of consolidated opposition.
And so the narrative on this has now changed.
And you've seen now the president go along with what Ken Paxton said.
Ken Paxton, the attorney general in Texas who ran against John Cornyn, he put forth, I think, one of the most deft political moves I have ever seen.
And he said, listen, you know, if you guys want me to step aside, cool.
All you need to do is suspend the filibuster and pass the SAVE Act.
It's the most important piece of legislation on the table right now.
It's the most important piece of legislation to our base.
You guys do that, and hey, we're good.
I'll step aside.
And that then put a lot of the pressure back on the more establishment leadership that's not necessarily pro-Trump either and guys like John Thune.
And now you're seeing the president's messaging is now coattailing and coinciding with what Ken Paxton said, which is, you know what, send me that bill, put it on my desk, and then we'll talk about that Senate primary.
And so you're watching, you know, Harriet Myers, if people remember that from about 20 years ago, you're watching Harriet Myers on steroids right now happen over the Texas Senate race on our side.
We don't have enough time to delve into it, but in talking about the Democratic primary side, you wrote this for the Blaze TV.
And I'll just read the headline: Democrats swapped Crockett's preening for Tallarico's pulpit, and it worked.
Give us the minute analysis of that.
Well, the one thing that Jasmine Crockett tried to play in to the racial identity politic angle that has always been prevalent in the modern Democratic Party, even though she's a private school kid and has run in elite circles her entire time, but it didn't work out for her because there's another angle that I think Democrats care even more about, and that is redefining Christianity.
Because Christianity, when it's biblically based, has been kind of the check and power on many of their goals for American culture.
And so along comes James Tallarico with forked tongue, thinking I'm going to be, and it worked for him.
And this is, you don't see a lot of straight white males, beat minorities in Democratic primaries anymore.
He pulled it off because ultimately his message is maybe the number one goal of the Democratic Party, which is to defeat the traditional view of Christianity that's been influential in America since its founding.
Let's go to Tara.
Tara in Wisconsin Democrats line, you're on with Steve Dace.
Go ahead.
Hey, thank you for having me on.
First, I just wanted to point out that when our soldiers were being carried in their caskets, if you look at President Trump, he couldn't even keep his eyes open.
He was falling asleep while standing with his baseball cap on.
But what I want to talk about is I don't see how the United States is any better than what Iran is.
If you look at, we have killed United States citizens on the streets.
We are bombing boats.
Okay.
We don't even know if they have drugs on them.
We have Mexican people that are in prisons in the United States.
And you're telling me we're better than Iran?
Okay, you're breaking up there, but we'll end it there and Mr. Dace can comment.
I just don't know if she ever looked at real estate in Iran, looked at relocating there.
I mean, if this place is so terrible, move to Iran.
In the next couple, we talked about a lot over the short amount of time we have, but what's, in your mind, something we haven't talked about.
What are you paying attention to politically, of things we haven't talked about?
I think the ultimate outcome of the SAVE Act is going to go a long way, along with the economy, in determining the outcome of this midterm election.
Midterms are more turnout your base than presidential elections because the turnout is smaller.
And I'm just going to tell you right now, if they do not pass that SAVE Act, that will do way more to demoralize our base than what is happening with what you're seeing at this kind of meta-level with a handful of podcasters up against the president on whether the tail is wagging the dog with our relationship with Israel.
That thing, Pedro, must get passed.
If the Republican Party cannot do that, a lot of Republican voters around the country are going to say, what is the point of even voting Republican if you guys cannot even do that one basic function?
I think people that aren't a part of our base are underestimating how radioactive that particular piece of legislation is and how vital it is to making sure our base is mobilized for November.
The Blaze.com is the website, Blaze TV's the Steve Dace shows where you can find Steve Dace as he talks about various issues.
Mr. Dace, thanks for your time.
You bet.
God bless everybody.
Thanks, Pedro.
perspective on those topics from a progressive point of view youtube host and progressive political commentator keith edwards joining us next when washington journal continues best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere We have to listen so we can govern better.
Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
You can fight and still be friendly.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
You know, you may not agree with a Democrat on everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
He's a pretty likable guy as well.
Chris Coons and I are actually friends.
He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
We all don't hate each other.
You two actually kind of like each other.
These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
You guys did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bed for a year.
He is never paid.
Fork it over.
That's fighting words right now.
I'm glad I'm not in charge of it.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
There are not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire, Friday nights on C-SPAN.
Who's your representative?
Who sits on which committee?
Where do you even start?
C-SPAN's official congressional directory.
Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
The congressional directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's nonprofit operations.
Get your congressional directory by scanning the QR code or at c-spanshop.org.
Stay informed.
Stay engaged.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us now is Keith Edwards.
He is the host of the Keith Edwards Show, which you can find on YouTube.
Mr. Edwards, thanks for your time.
Mr. Edwards, this is Keith Edwards of the Keith Edwards Show.
Mr. Can you hear me?
Oh, okay.
We'll continue on.
Again, he'll join us in just a couple of minutes.
And if you have questions for Keith Edwards, you can call the lines and we'll get those lined up so that you can talk to him.
202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can text us questions for Keith Edwards, 202-748-8003.
As promised, Mr. Edwards, join us.
Thanks for giving us your time.
Thanks for having me.
How do you describe yourself politically and how do you describe your show to other people?
Well, I'm definitely on the left.
I think my affiliation with the Democrats is tepid at best.
I feel like we do not have a lot of fighters right now in this country.
I think Democrats are failing us.
They're failing being the opposition party.
I definitely believe in progressive values.
I believe that government should work for all people, not a select few.
But I'm also, I just think we need better leaders on both sides of our government right now.
When you say that, are there examples you look at as far as Democrats, how they respond to things, which leads you to your conclusion?
Well, I mean, I think we can see it as it stands even with this war in Iran.
Like, you can tell that there was, they had the War Powers Act that tried voting on, and it was very choreographed.
And just, it was so funny, just the right amount of people, just right amount of Democrats, voted for it, and the rest voted against it.
It's stuff like that that I know the American people are sick of.
They're sick of our representatives not actually representing us.
And this war in Iran, I believe, has like an 80% disapproval rating of Americans who are saying we don't want another forever war.
When it comes to then the audience that you talk to, why do you think our Democrats are responding in the way that they are, according to you?
Well, that's a great question.
I truly do not understand why Democrats are so disconnected from the base, but that's why I'm really grateful that it's primary season.
Because my hope is that they're going to wake up because we're going to start voting them out if they don't actually start representing what we believe in, which is protecting Americans at home, making sure that we tax billionaires, that we actually put protections in place for consumers against corporations, and that, I don't know, we spend money on helping our citizens rather than bombing citizens in other countries.
You talked about primary season.
We talked with our just guests that we had on about the Texas primary, particularly on the Democratic side.
Jasmine Crockett, the representative versus James Tallarico.
Is that a test case in your mind of where progressives are as far as the results of that primary was concerned?
Yeah, I mean, it was definitely, I think it was an interesting test case of some different factions in the party.
Two Messages, One Love00:03:18
There are two different messages that happen there.
Now, politically speaking and policy-wise, I think James and Jasmine are very similar, but it's about style.
And I think James Tallarico is saying that there could be a different way of doing politics here in the country.
Instead of being divisive and against Trump, we can be for something.
And Jasmine Crockett, who has been a firebrand in the Democratic Party, mainly from attacking Trump and Republicans, ran on that message.
Democrats said, well, actually, what if we tried a message of love rather than a message of divisiveness?
And that one in the primary, I'm interested to see how that does in a state like Texas.
When it comes to the two styles, so to speak, which do you favor, or is there a melding of both?
Or how would you describe that?
I love, well, listen, listen.
First off, love, love, love is not a soft thing.
Love can be a very dangerous, potent weapon if used correctly.
So I don't think just because someone's having a message of love doesn't mean that they can't also push back.
No, no, is a very strong and can be a very loving thing to say to someone.
And I think what we need is a very loving no to what is happening in this country.
And I personally am sick of being divided.
I'm sick of our politicians telling us it's the other side who's the problem.
I think Americans actually have so much more in common than we do have in our differences.
We all want a better country.
We all want, now we have different ways of maybe going about it, but that used to be the thing we would debate about.
Now we're debating about whether or not someone is truly an American, whether or not someone actually believes in the ideals of this country.
I think most people do, but we have leaders who thrive on our division.
So I do favor a message of love, a message of togetherness.
And that is something that the oligarchs, the billionaires, the corporations, and the politicians who have created this divisiveness are terrified of.
What if we all realize we're more powerful together than we are separate?
Keith Edwards joining us.
He's the host of the Keith Edwards Show, which you can find on YouTube.
And if you want to ask him questions, again, 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Let's start with Lisa.
Lisa joins us from California, Democrats line.
Lisa, you're on with our guest, Keith Edwards.
Go ahead.
Hello, Keith Edwards.
Hi.
Hello?
You're on with him.
Go ahead.
Keith Wards.
Yeah, he can hear you going.
Keith Edwards, my question is: what do you think of the potential candidates for California?
As you know, we're going to be looking for a new governor, and there are many, many candidates in line.
And I was just thinking, I was just wondering what were your thoughts on so many candidates out there.
Many Candidates, Few Choices00:13:55
I think they're going to have to cut the list down.
Thank you, Lisa.
Well, thank you.
That's a great question.
And one that has not been asked.
I'm interested in what folks think, but I'm not particularly feeling strongly about any candidate in that race.
I was hoping that Kamala Harris was going to maybe jump in there, but I do know that Democrats got to shape up, and I think a few got to drop out because the way the primaries work there, it could very well be that there's a Republican versus a Democrat in the general election, and it's a jungle primary.
So whoever gets the most votes, the two most votes in that primary are going to come out as the general election candidates.
And we got to hope that it's going to be two Democrats.
But that's only going to happen if we kind of whittle down the options.
Indiana is next.
Independent line.
Gary, hello.
Yeah, this is Gary Seabruck from Powdersville, Indiana.
I'm the voice of the common man, and I'm here to take a stand.
Mr. Edwards, two points real quick.
Number one, love.
There's nothing wrong with love in and of itself, but I saw a t-shirt once at a time that said love is weakness.
The only weakness is in that person's brain.
But on my main point, you know, Mark Levin says the Democrat Party hates America.
Well, Donald Trump circumvents the Constitution, man.
He acts like he wants to just tear that thing up and trash it.
And he bypasses Congress with every order and everything like that.
You know, he don't respect the process.
And we hate America.
Okay.
Capital BS on that, and I'll take my answer off.
Okay, that's Gary.
Well, I mean, yeah, we don't hate America.
I think most people in this country don't hate our country.
Now, I don't know what's in Donald Trump's heart.
I don't pretend to know.
Quite frankly, I don't want to know.
But I will tell you that someone who loves this country would strive to achieve its ideals, would follow its rules and laws, and would defend it.
We have a president who has done the complete opposite.
And I do agree that Donald Trump definitely doesn't, it doesn't look like he acts like someone who wants to actually do the things that our Constitution says he should, unless he takes it to the Supreme Court and they say, actually, you have to do this.
But I do agree that I don't love this, that we do this to each other.
Like, we do all love our country and we do all want the best for it.
And maybe we have different ways of getting there, but it doesn't mean that you hate it or I hate it or Republicans hate it just because we vote differently.
From California, another Californian, Sarah, Democrats line.
Hello.
Sarah in Orange, California.
Hello, go ahead.
Hi.
Okay.
So my comment is just that California, I mean, that the United States of America should really look into their history and consider that we went through our civil war.
Therefore, I think it's only fair that we allow other countries to also develop on their own time, not force them into war or anything like that.
But yeah, that's my comment from California.
Thank you.
That's Sarah in California.
Keith Edwards, when you talk to your audience about Iran, what kind of response are you getting?
Is it universal against?
Are there some that understand what's going on?
What's the mix?
And since you talk about nuances within your own party, I mean, I think for this one, it's universal.
We just don't want to be involved.
I feel like this is Israel's war.
Donald Trump ran on no new wars.
Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, that whole cast of characters all said that Kamala Harris is going to send our children into war.
They said we were going to be heading into World War III if Kamala Harris were to be elected.
And that turns out, who would have guessed?
Donald Trump is projecting yet again.
But we don't want this.
We don't want to do this.
I don't think many people do.
I don't see how this benefits us at all.
In fact, I think it probably made it more dangerous for us.
I've read that the government is actually trying to stop a report from coming out that says that Americans should be on higher alert of terrorist activity in the country now after this whole thing has started.
So we're not safer.
Prices are going up.
Gas is higher.
And for what?
Your reaction, you've probably seen reaction to Iran, but I'm curious about your reaction, particularly coming from Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, consistently backing the administration on its actions.
Yeah, I don't pretend to understand what happened to that man.
He's a completely different person than the guy who ran in 2022.
It's very sad to see.
He's not going to win re-election.
So, I mean, I hope he enjoys being a thorn in our side for however much longer he's going to be in office.
But Democrats are not going to be voting for him in the primary.
This is CJ.
CJ joins us from Virginia, Independent Line.
Hello.
Hey, yes.
A quick question.
I appreciate your views, and I'm just really curious, just simply, what changes do you think could happen with whether it's policy or how our government sort of enacts this policy that can bring us back together as a country?
I think we're all very frustrated being divided, and I'm really curious with your view in terms of what changes could be made to bring us back together.
Well, that's a great question.
And I think we suffer from this fallacy that there's going to be some sort of white knight, that there's going to be some sort of figure that appears out of the sky that is going to save us and make us come together.
That's just not the case.
We are the ones who are going to save ourselves from this mess.
And it starts with our elections.
So if you are upset by what is happening in this country, if you're upset by either a Democrat or Republican who you feel like isn't actually doing anything to help you, is just creating more division, then the responsibility is on us.
It's on us to elect better leaders.
And let's not forget, this is a representative democracy.
They represent us and we're the bosses.
So if we don't like their job they're doing, then it is incumbent on us to make sure that either they start doing a better job or we fire them and we put better people in place.
But I think a lot of us feel so powerless right now when we actually are the ones with the power.
That is why they try to as much as they can keep us distracted, keep us divided, because the second we realize that not only do we have power, but in that power is hope, that's quite a very dangerous thing for the establishment.
So I'm glad you asked that question, but there's not much that they will do until we tell them that it's their time to do it.
Keith Edwards, I want to ask you, we talked a little bit when you were asked that question about California and its election coming up.
When it comes to 2028, since you're looking at these things already, I imagine, is there a frontrunner within the Democratic Party currently?
Well, let me say this, is that, do you remember in 2022, everyone was like, DeSantis, DeSantis is going to be the president.
He's going to be the president of the United States.
And then DeSantis, I don't even, I don't remember how far he made it, but he barely, I think, made it out of Iowa.
So these things have a way of kind of changing very quickly.
And so I would say that most anyone we're talking about right now, let's see, let's see what happens in 2028.
I'm very interested in what happens if James Tallarico were to win that Senate race.
That would be a very interesting thought.
Could that person then run for president?
Perhaps.
John Osoff is a very vulnerable Democratic senator out of Georgia.
And he, I think, will become an instant frontrunner if he were to win his reelection this fall.
So I think this stuff is like, we will see.
I am not a psychic.
You don't want to know, you don't want to, you don't want my opinion on what's going to happen in the future because quite often it's going to be the opposite for me.
But I will say that anyone that's making predictions right now, there's just too much unknowns about either what's going on with this war, with pricing, with Donald Trump's unconstitutional actions that I think the American people are just upset with and over.
But Democrats, I do know, are going to have a huge, huge set of options.
And I hope so, because we have got to throw everything we can at this.
We went through 2024 with no primary.
We were handed a nominee.
And how'd that work out?
So I would like to do the opposite, please.
Can we please have 30 people run for president?
I would like to have as many options as possible.
This is Keith Edwards joining us.
Our next call is from Christy.
She's in Virginia Republican line.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Edwards.
My name is Christy Keenan, and I'm from Virginia.
I am a Republican.
I am a Republican voter.
I'm 60 years old, and I've lived in Virginia all my life, rural Virginia.
We were decimated by NAFTA.
We have been, we just, my question to you is: we let, you know, we have Governor Stanberger, which I'm very proud of Virginia for electing a female governor.
I wish her the best.
I am, I want to understand that when your party runs on affordability, does that mean that when they get into office, they tax us to oblivion?
That is my, I don't understand.
She ran a campaign.
She said, let your rage fuel you.
And then she killed us.
She's killing us with taxes.
And as far as our electric bill has doubled.
And we can blame that on Trump.
We can blame that on anything.
But she is the captain at the stern right now.
And explain to me what you as a Democrat will be to hold your party or what we can do to hold your party to their message that they give us before.
And then we elect them and it's totally different.
That's Christy in Virginia.
Well, I can completely empathize with you because Donald Trump ran on a message of affordability and things have gotten much more expensive.
And we're realizing now that the federal government has a lot of responsibility and a lot of ability to impact prices, whether that be through tariffs, whether that be through wars that start to raise prices for gas.
And I completely understand what you're saying about taxing, but I would be interested to hear, I don't know how much she's raised taxes in Virginia, but electric prices do are impacted very much so federally and what's happening with the federal government.
But I would say if you are able to, I would be loud about this.
And I will certainly look into it myself because the governor does have a lot of ability to help assuage prices.
Now, again, like a lot of that is from the federal government.
And your governor is not going to be able to, you know, wave a magic wand to be able to make prices go down.
But she will have some flexibility.
And so I hear you.
And I think we're all feeling this, that prices are out of control, that things are not working as they should be.
And thank God we have someone in Virginia who is not going to be completely subservient to Trump.
But it is really Trump and Republicans who are making things much worse than they need to be.
Keith Edwards, I want to get your reaction to the removal of Christy Noam as Homeland Security Secretary, the potential of Senator Mark Wayne Mulling becoming the next Homeland Securities Secretary and the Democratic reaction to it.
Well, I got to say my reaction to this is, first off, great, good.
Vote Blue Mystery00:05:16
She had no business being in there.
There were multiple different times when she could have resigned or been fired.
And isn't it just interesting that Renee Good being murdered by her own government wasn't enough.
Alex Predty being murdered by her own government, Donald Trump was fine with that.
It was when Christy Noam blamed $200 million worth of ads on Donald Trump, which she says he's approved, and he said he didn't, but then she said he did in subsequent reporting.
I don't frankly know.
I don't care.
But it's ads that got her out.
Ads.
So I don't, I think that is just so telling of this administration that the only thing you can do wrong is put blame on Donald Trump.
And as long as you defend him and defend the immorality and no matter what crime, no matter who dies, you're totally fine.
But the second Donald Trump isn't defended, you're out.
We can't run a government like that.
That's just not sustainable.
And I'm glad she's gone, but whoever puts it next is not going to be good either.
Let's hear from Ashley.
Ashley's in Pennsylvania Democrats.
Lynn Ashley, we've got about five minutes left till the end of the program.
So jump in.
Hi.
Hi, Pedro.
I'll keep it real quick.
Hi, Keith.
Love your show.
I think it's a much needed perspective in the media sphere right now, for sure.
Yeah, so I guess for context, I live in a little sundow town just outside of Gettysburg.
It's like night and day, 10-mile radius, basically.
There's a heavy Christofascist presence here, unfortunately.
And while that is the case, there's definitely a little bit of pushback here, which I haven't really seen in recent years, which is really nice to see.
With that, messaging is super important right now, as I'm sure you would agree.
And I love all the points you've made so far.
I guess just to like streamline that for the party and for effectivity and all of that, what do you think of just keeping it simple to vote blue, but it still matters who?
Yeah, I mean, vote blue no matter who.
How's that worked out?
Not great, in my opinion.
So I hope that Democrats and anyone else is waking up that a rubber stamp on whoever's up for election doesn't help anyone or anything but the establishment.
So vote blue no matter who was kind of a lie.
And by the way, Zoran Mondani won our primary.
This is what kind of like really got me off.
Zoran Mandani won our primary.
Now, was I backing him?
No, there were some other candidates I liked and I preferred.
But the second he became the nominee, I was like, there's our nominee.
Okay, let's back the guy.
And then Cuomo decided to run as an independent.
So vote no matter who, vote blue no matter who has to cut both ways, whether it's a progressive, someone who's center left or a moderate.
And until it works both ways, I think we got to stop even pretending like the establishment in this party really sees it as vote blue no matter who.
So it's a great question.
Mr. Edwards, we're running short on time, but I want you to get this from a viewer.
This is someone texted us saying, I'm a big fan of your work, so impressed and inspired by your career.
I never went to college myself, and I'm hoping you could say more about how you built your path as a political strategist without formal education.
Was that something you found challenging to navigate in the field?
Well, that's a long, that is a question that requires more than two minutes.
Sadly, yes, I apologize.
But I will say that if you, my experience is take the jobs wherever you can.
So I was, I literally would take any job as long as it gave me a notch in my resume, some experience.
I could learn something, I could prove myself.
That to me is better than any sort of college degree.
A college degree can maybe be a step inside, but working hard and showing people that you actually can do the job is what's important.
And so that's why, like, on my resume, you might see things that maybe don't make sense considering what I believe.
But I just worked for whoever would take me so I could learn and go up the ladder.
And so work hard, take whatever job you can, and just try to learn while you're there.
You worked for the Lincoln Project at one time.
What did you learn from that?
I got to tell you, I learned a lot.
I learned Republicans.
So here's the thing about the Lincoln Project: that was mission-based.
That was all about just getting Donald Trump out.
Working Together As Americans00:04:10
It was not policy-driven.
It was not about trying to change policy.
It was about just working together as Americans.
And one of the most American projects I've ever undertaken because it truly was Republicans and Democrats working together to help fight and defeat Donald Trump.
And what I learned from Republicans is the way that they fight is totally different than Democrats.
And you'll see that even in the way that I kind of message on X or Threads or on my own YouTube channel.
That is, you can find at keithedwards.substack.com is way you can find it.
He can't YouTube.
At Keith Edwards is how you find him on X.
And he's the host of the Keith Edwards Show.
Mr. Edwards, thanks for your time this morning.
Thank you.
That's it for our program today.
Another edition of Washington Journal comes your way at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up Monday morning.
Middle East Institute senior fellow Alex Vitenka on the latest in the U.S. and Israel's war with Iran, as well as the future of the Iranian regime.
And then Naomi Lim, Washington Examiner White House reporter, previews the week ahead at the White House and the latest on the Trump administration's actions in Iran.
And a little bit later, Chris Steyerwalt, host of The Hill Sunday, will talk about the political fallout from the ongoing conflict in Iran and how it might impact campaign 2026.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal joined the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Congress returns as the Homeland Security Department remains partially shut down for a fourth week.
The Senate's back on Monday at 3 p.m. Eastern and will vote later in the day to advance the nomination of U.S. Army Lieutenant General Joshua Rudd to lead the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command.
Senators will continue work later in the week on affordable housing legislation to increase housing supply and make it less expensive.
This week, the House is in a district work period, allowing Republican lawmakers to attend their annual three-day policy retreat at the Trump National Dural Resort in Miami, beginning on Monday when they're scheduled to hear from President Trump.
Members next return for votes on March 16th.
Watch live coverage of the House on C-SPAN, see the Senate on C-SPAN 2 and all of our congressional coverage on our free video app, C-SPAN Now, and our website, c-span.org.
On Monday, government officials and tech leaders meet for a cybersecurity summit to discuss President Trump's new national cyber strategy, artificial intelligence, critical infrastructure, and supply chains.
Watch it live at 3.45 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
You are so fair.
I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased.
And you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
It's probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
Thank you, C-SPAN, for being a light in the dark.
This week, members of the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi on a vote of 24 to 19 for testimony in regard to her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.