 This is Think Tech Hawaii and today's Thursday, October 7th, 2021. You are watching a weekly discussion show, and that is Politics for the People. And I am your show host, Stephanie Stoldalton. In this show, we're discussing a political paradox, is one way to describe it. That is, Democrats having won elections in the House, Senate presidency are unable to enact their agenda or to make and pass laws, most of which the entire nation approves or supports. At the same time, the national election losing Republicans threaten and cheat to move their agenda forward, preach deadly misinformation to believing citizens, push dirty tricks leading to debt ceiling breakmanship and other proposals and obstruct any traction Democrats gain. Sadly enough, this tyrannical minority position they have is winning one way. And that certainly we can see immediately in tanking the president's polls. So if we look at the picture, you see the photo of the recent polls showing in three categories that Biden is down. So I mean, we can see this, I think, but as far as coronavirus and the economy are concerned, he's down. And especially for the economy, which is very interesting as to why this is happening. So let's talk about how the sources of power are playing in these risky as well as as we've described it, unruly times of governing in our nation. So our show guests are here today to discuss and analyze these topics. And I want to welcome Jay Fidel and Tim Apachello. So welcome, guys, here we go. So what I think these recent polls tell us about our leader, that his use of power. What is that telling us to see those numbers, especially for the first two, we know the immigration is very difficult and is a whole another time its own. But for the first two, what does that say, Jay, to you? Well, it makes me question polls. Sorry. You know, first of all, you don't know who they're talking to, how they're developing the sample, how they're framing the question. You know, you don't know whether the poll is really worthy. And the second is polls in general, you know, reflect maybe a naive day in the part of the public or a worse yet, a mindset by the media that that creates public opinion that is unwarranted. And I think all of that is in play here. But but I think to the extent in general that the Biden doesn't look so good to the pollsters on these issues and on his management in general, it's because of a, he's not a forceful personality. I'm sorry. And b, he's as any president, especially in these troubled times, he's going to run into snafus every now and then, maybe more often these days, it seems like. And c, he's got the republicans whose only, his only mission it is, is to discredit him. And they waste no moment. Okay, they discredit him on everything justified or not justified. And they got it going. They're creating, you know, a whole community of criticism. And I think that's having an effect. You know, Tim, Jay used the descriptor of not a forceful personality for for the president's approach. What do you think about that? Is that something that is? Well, he is pretty mellow when his approach to conflict. You know, you can see the gears grinding internally. You know, he got a lot done when he was in Congress in the Senate. He has a certain style of working with his fellow politicians. He has a certain negotiation styles, not my style. I'm a little more direct. And I don't think he is all that direct. He likes to work behind the scenes. I think these polls reflect also a moment in time. I'm sure the coronavirus poll numbers are reflective of those who are not happy with a mandate for vaccination that he took the baton with and moved it forward. That was a fairly bold thing to do. So for presidents not known for his boldness, that that was an action that he did. And, you know, that's reflecting the poll numbers. A lot of people don't like that. Well, my answer to them is too bad. And then if you look at the economy, well, that's a moment in time picture snapshot. And I suspect when the infrastructure deals get done, that snapshot will look quite different when polls are taken about how they feel about the economy. Immigration. Yeah, that's a nightmare. And he is directly responsible for that. He did a lot of mixed messaging when he first came in as president, giving an indication, come on in. And now that's not the message. And whereas Vice President Harris on immigration and the border issues know where to be found. So he deserves the things that he's getting in the immigration numbers. I think the other two numbers will will change around and they'll be more favorable to Joe Biden in the near future. Yeah, don't forget Afghanistan. Afghanistan heard him bad. Yeah, well, that's a separate poll number. And I think it was separate. It was it was justified in that. I mean, it's still unraveling or unfolding. I'm not sure which applies. But, you know, he could have done a better job. And that goes to exactly what his relationship is, his command relationship with the military and the Joint Chiefs. Yeah, somebody somebody made a few mistakes in there. And of course, he's the guy that has to take the heat for it. And you know, Jay, I agree with that because, you know, when you have an overall feeling for somebody that spills over into the direct questions and polling. It takes it takes the the response you're going to get because you have a general feeling about the individual and and the job they're doing. And it just you can't help but paint the response to specific questions in a poll. The unfair aspect of this is that people do not when they make these judgments of him, they do not have in mind what would have happened what would be happening now if our friend Donald were around because it would be incredibly worse. Yes, exactly my point. The other being that no matter what way you did that thing, no matter what info you had and what decisions judgments you made, it was never going to go through nicely. Okay. And the one thing we were spared, which I didn't expect to be spared, was I don't think they really gave a darn about that gate and only that creep that got out of prison the other day did he could get out at fast. It was a target he could make. They wanted one of those planes down. They wanted one of those planes with 800 people on them to go down and they didn't do that. So I think that there may be a backstory to talk about with that about what whether how they did try to protect for that because it could have been so much worse. And anyway, so what do you think Jay finished your point there about it because I just don't think there was a perfect way to do it. It just would not have ever gone off as a smoother. No, I mean, we live in very difficult times. And I don't think people really incorporate what kind of a mess Trump left behind. We've talked about that before. I mean, he left time bombs all over the highway here, all over the world. He screwed up our relationship with our allies. And Biden has to repair that. But it leaves a bad taste, doesn't it? Look what happened to Macron and withdrawing the French consul, rather ambassador from Washington over the Australian deal, which was not handled all that well. Sorry. It's like Biden is missing but he's working on a hostile environment. And Trump set a lot of that up. This is not like an ordinary transition. We're not really finished with the transition because Trump A, left him these time bombs and problems to deal with and B, you know, things happen. Things happen now. And Biden is in many ways, he's not forceful enough to do the job that has to be done. He should be more forceful. I was telling you before the show, Eugene Robinson, a commentator from the Wall Street Journal, was going on on cable last night. I never heard him speak so strongly, saying that Biden really had to be forceful. And whether he does it right or wrong, he has to speak to us. He has to take positions. He can't be missed a nice guy all the time. And we've talked about that so often here. It really is increasingly the case. And it's probably a big part of these polls. Well, you know, Tim, I think Jay's got a point we can pick up again. But I'd like to shift over to the legislative process now to talk about that. Because as I've been looking at it, it means samples to me. The Spartacus chariot races, remember in the movie where you had 10 horses as a charioteer to manage. So thinking about that legislative process, who are the strong horses in that process? And who's handling them the best? Can you give that a crack to see it? Yeah, I can give you a crack at it. If you're a GOP side, it's Mitch McConnell. He's been her. On the Democratic side, you've got someone with a harp in the chariot. Plucky notes as the horses are wildly going, running in the wrong direction. I'm sorry. But if it's Mitch McConnell, then what was the blank today? Okay. Well, he blanked. Yeah. I mean, he saw that it wasn't going to go in his direction. And ultimately his strategy would make the GOP party look bad. But here's the thing about Mitch McConnell. He realizes a screw up and he can he can tack very quickly to adjust to it. And no one will remember it. That's that's again, I'm sorry, but the Democrats, they don't know how to fight like Republicans. And I've said this 100 times, you know, that's the greatest thing that Democrats ever did was bring the Lincoln project on board and have them do their ads because only a Republican knows how to fight like a Republican. And they're all Republicans or ex Republicans. And the bottom line is the Democrats, when it comes to the legislative abilities. On last show, I said, I conjured up the name of Tip O'Neill. And I'll give his quote again. And that is, you know, when freshman congressman would come in from the house, he'd come in a room and say, if you want to get along, you're going to go along. And it was, you know, it was really with an iron fist, not checking in with your emotions and your feelings and, you know, what would make you feel better? It's I got business to get done. I have an agenda to accomplish. And you're going to be part of the process or else I'm going to put you on the back 40 for your term or to your term. Excuse me. Okay, well, in that blink, does McConnell show away for Dems to take out today to make some major moves? Not in their DNA. I'm sorry. It's not in their DNA. But let's go back to the blink itself. Yeah, what what blink, you know, that's a that's a media term. It's catchy. To me, it's this is inconsequential blink. He didn't really blink at all. He did one of his McConnell look over the horizon strategies is what he did. So that won't be now it'll be in December. We'll have the same thing back again. He'll do it all over again. He's just reserving a little time. He gave us a thrill for a few weeks. And this blink is only a delay. That's all it is. We're going to be back in the same soup soon. Well, the blink, the blink was for political ads in the 2022 election. That's what the blank was for. It's actually I think he drew us in. He drew the Democrats in. Bottom line is if the Democrats don't get the infrastructure bills done before December, they're in a world of hurt. But does it not show that there are reasons McConnell will move? And the reason is if he's gonna, if the Dems are getting too close to actually taking that at taking the filibuster, I wish I could agree with that. I think I think that sometimes he will do a faint feint, a change up, you know, so that and you don't know which way he's moving. It's part of his general strategy of keeping everything discombobulated. And it all has a purpose. Even if it seems to be conciliatory, it's not. Because the man is focused on his own power and his own strategy. Don't be fooled. Well, I wanted to hear what you thought that showed about McConnell. You're saying not to be fooled that he's just playing the, it's kind of the opposite of wolf, but come and, you know, I'll, I'll respond to your pushing on getting close to doing something about the filibuster and pretend like that. That's something I care about. But in fact, isn't it? And will he not do that in his own stuff when they get in the majority? And also, how would it, how could it be done right now? Tim, do you know if Biden actually can do it? Is it just the cinema and the, and the mansion disagreement that keeps us from having the filibuster taken out? Again, the filibuster pertaining to what? If the filibuster to be modified pertaining to the debt ceiling, I think you can get 50 votes for that from the Democrats. And I think the mansion may actually agree with that. Who knows where cinema is to mean she's out in the planet. She's with mentioned wherever she is. Well, not on everything. She sounds like she's on planet croutons at the time. I don't know where she's at. And I don't think anyone knows where she's at. But the bottom line is if the filibuster specific to debt ceiling elimination or the vote for that, I think you would have, I think again, you'd have 50 votes for that on the Democratic side. I would like to add that that ceiling is just it's, it's a spurious issue. Yeah, I agree. It's going to get resolved. We have so many more and more important issues that are, that don't have a prayer. I, you know, you should ask us, Stephanie, about infrastructure and how that's going to work, if at all. Even, you know, if you ask, for example, mansion, will he wave the filibuster for the Senate's vote on infrastructure? The answer is no, he's not. He's made that clear. So, so it's, it's not going to happen without him. But Jay, in that filibuster situation, okay, I mean, in the reconciliation, is it not McDonald is smarter, even so, because there's only so many reconciliation packages, passages that you can have. And so what McConnell's doing in this quote blank thing is he's trying to get the Democrats to use up one of their reconciliations on that. Okay, if that, if you agree with that, I want to, don't forget, can't pass it in the Senate without a majority vote. filibuster or no filibuster, you need at least majority vote. You can't get a majority vote with mansion and cinema. Oh, okay. Well, I'm saying if he did get the Democrats to line up, can get it, will he lose his man is McConnell trying to take away one of the reconciliations by not doing any lifting or any help at all on the debt ceiling. Okay, so that way he can draw him in, they use up a reconciliation opportunity. How does that affect then here's your question about the infrastructure Jay, then how, where does that put the infrastructure? They're not going to use one up. But if that's the only way to get the debt ceiling down, they're not going to use one up period. They're going to, they're going to use their mulligan, they're going to use their reconciliation for the infrastructure. It's pure and simple. And I think it's going to get done before December. So that's, that takes that one off the table. They're not going to use one up just for the debt structure. They're not that stupid. McConnell has given the reconciliation way or the regular way. Yeah, well, it's going to have to be the regular way because they're not going to use it up. They can't afford to waste it. But the way is to put a number on it and they don't want to put a number on it. We're going nowhere with this, you know, every day it drones on is like, it is like every day is like the day before and we get no closer to it. It's horrendous that the Democrats are fighting with themselves. It's horrendous that, that McConnell is sworn not to let this get through. And you know what, it was a huge tactical error by both Pelosi and Biden to think that they could link these two. They can't. They won't. McConnell will never let them do it. And they'll have to collapse on it. And one of the big things I think that people are concerned with in evaluating Biden's performance here is he can't get his bills through. You can hear it over and over again every day it's going nowhere. And I mean, you got to blame him. His strategy is not good. Linking that was a bad strategy. Okay, Tim, what let me just address what Jason, I agree with Jay totally about linking the two together was a bad, bad strategy. But if you recall in history, the Affordable Care Act was declared dead umpteen times before it was approved. And I think we're in a similar situation with the infrastructure bill. It's been declared a nightmare and nothing's coming together. Again, I'll eat my humble pie, but infrastructure is going to get done. Now, okay, well, I'm on the record for 1.75 trillion on the second package. You're still there? You're still at 1.75? I am. The infrastructure or the other? The 1.2 passes in the house. The 3.5 gets whittled down to 1.75. It passes. And then it might even be a little higher, but I'm going to stick with 1.75. So how are those going through? Then what are they going through together then? Yeah, they're going to get done together. Okay, that's your point. Jay, what's your picture for the future of them? If they get done, I would not argue with Tim about it. I think the 1.75. We got lunch on it, Jay. Well, I'll buy you lunch anyway, but you know, ever eat lunch on Zoom, it's really wonderful. You know, I think, you know, if this is going to get done, and the only reason it'll get done is that McConnell lets it get done, really, then it'll be at the 1.75 and the 1.2. And yes, they will happen at the same time because that's the way Biden has set it up. A convert. I've got a convert. So many things could happen in the meantime, any day and every way. Tim, I mean, Jay, remember now, they have to take something out or reduce something to get to 1.75. So first, let's hear from you. What's coming out and what's going to get it down? It's easy to say 1.75. So how are they getting it down to 1.75, Jay? Well, we don't know. I mean, this is the big thing that Bernie was on the tube about last night. We don't know what they want. And it's mansion and cinema and you ask them and ask them and ask them. You know, I remember when I practiced law, the worst kind of negotiation was where the other fellow never told you exactly what is. I mean, this is common knowledge in the world of business. He never told you what his position was. And that was essentially keep coming, keep reducing your claim, keep getting lower and lower. And I'll tell you when I'm ready. In other words, asking you to make two offers in a row. You never win a negotiation if you have to make serial offers in a row without knowing what the other guy. So this is all being jammed up and held up by the fact that the people on the other side, the other hand, clapping is not telling you their position or their expectation. Right now it is totally stuck. That's the strategy. I mean, it's stuck, but it's stuck with this strategy in play from the Republicans. Okay, Tim, do you- That's the Democrats. Yeah. You know, the ABCs of negotiation is you don't get in front of a camera and tell people what you're negotiating. I negotiated two union contracts and it almost turned out my hair white. Number one, number two is you do keep your cards close to your chest. You don't reveal everything that you need to reveal. And you certainly don't get in front of a camera to do it. So the fact that they don't know what's going on, I'm not buying that. Joe Manchin has said in front of a camera what numbers he's looking for. I don't know what Bernie Sanders is listening to or not listening to, but all you have to do is turn on an MSNBC and he can hear Joe Manchin throughout some numbers. I've heard it three times now from Joe Manchin. It's not the numbers per se, though, that's really an issue. It's like Stephanie says, what is it? How do you get to that number? What programs do you throw out? You just have to listen to Joe Manchin. And he's a moderate Democrat. And there's a lot of other moderate Democrats that don't want to free another great society that Johnson set up. It took us decades to get over some of the collapses of these social programs that went horribly wrong back in the 70s and 80s. And the old saying, I'm more than willing to pay for someone to get a hand up versus a handout. And I think that's what Joe Manchin is trying to articulate is he doesn't want an entitlement society like we had in the great society with Johnson. That's the big question. What does that mean? What do you knock off? I think Joe Manchin is looking at the child credit thing. I think he's looking at a lot of the high ticket items that... Where is the reducing of the payment? Now, there also has been a suggestion. This is Biden down from a 10-year deal to five years. Yeah, but Joe Manchin wants means testing and I agree with that. But that's throwing in another thing. I think that's kind of dead in the water. That's not becoming... But the point is that with bringing it down, it reduces it significantly. Also addresses your point, Tim, that it has to be renewed in five years by another round. So you do not get that falling into the expectation that it's just going to go on forever. So what about that notion? Does that give you any more hope that this is lively? Yeah, it's a nice option. I think Clyburn is the one that suggested instead of a 10-year package, it's a five-year or a three-year package. And that brings the price tag way down. It's not just the price tag. Jay's right. I think there's elements in that package that are fundamentally disagreeable with Joe Manchin. And that is, again, this complete entitlement environment that he perceives is the case. And so I think there's elements of the program he would like to see eliminated. Okay, I was proposing that that cut in it shorter might have addressed it some of that. I don't think it does. But I mean, there's a lot of stuff on the table. This isn't going anywhere. It is not going anywhere. The way it would go is when you sit in a table privately, without the media over your shoulder, okay, and you say, Joe, what do you really want? Here's a list of what's in the bill. Just make a mark about the ones you want to throw out. And we get to 175 that way, because Tim Appichella said we have to get to 175. Okay. And then we will, and then if we agree on the ones you check off, we go outside where the waiting cameras are. We say, we made a deal. Let's run it through. But Manchin is not sitting at the table. He's not checking off the items that he really objects to. He's not helping to get to the number, whatever it is. So bottom line is this is all wishy-wash. And they say that, you know, it helps when Biden goes down there and talks to them and meets with them. This is now, now boys and girls, but he's not strong enough. You know, I mean, a stronger president would say, come on, you guys, let's do it. And he would squash all this squabbling among the Democrats right away. We're going to shift to another fun topic, which has to do with the subpoena. Can I just say that I agree with Jay entirely on his last comment? Because it's getting repetitious. So what we're going to do is talk about the subpoena process that's in play with the January 6th committee and that they've got 11 out and they got four big numbers ready to come in. Four of them that are on the hot plate right now when they can't find, but they're seriously, are they considering alternative approaches to the subpoena than just letting them do whatever they want? Tim, what do you think? Is that going to happen? Again, the Democrats are known for the old soup ladle to a gunfight routine. And if they have any authoritative powers, exercise them immediately. And by the way, I hear some of these things now are going to take place until the end of October. That's way too late. They've had enough time to get their documents. And for the parties that are not responding to the deadline for the documents, use whatever authoritative powers you have and don't mess around. If you could pick them up and bring them in and force them to sit down in front of the committee, do so. That's what they said they would do. Jay, did you hear that they said they were going to go to the criminal intent way? And even with the handcuffs, they send the bailiff out to get them with the handcuffs. Do you see any of that as becoming a real thing? One of the, I guess, one of the congressmen said they were considering that. One of the members of the committee said they were considering that. But you know what? Think of the optics. Think of the optics with the handcuffs. I mean, it will really rouse up some eyebrows. It will exacerbate the division in the country. People on the other side, the Trump side will. Jay? Out of their minds angry. Would the GOP do it? Would the GOP do it to the Democrats? Well, this is a good point, Tim. They wouldn't be caught in a situation like this, honestly. Well, that's a good point. Yeah, you're right. That's true. They do think ahead. All right. So this has been another wonderful show and very participatory and eager, eagerness to grapple with these challenges and the politics we have. It's time to close. And so I've been informed. So it's a low hot time and we have to wrap it up. So this show discussion reveals we are witnessing how hard it is to rule or govern in these times. And I think that it means asymmetrical politics are in the wind and unpredictable outcomes and maneuvers and strategies are there and maybe sometimes not there. But thanks to Jay Fiedel and to Tim Apochella. We've had a really exciting contributions. Exciting conversation today. I am Stephanie Stull-Dalton, your host of Politics for the People. See you next week, Thursday, same time, Hawaii Standard Time and Mahalo, everyone. Aloha.