 Hi everyone, I have a fantastic guest back again on the program. It's Rebecca Parson running in Washington States 6th Congressional District against Incumbent Democrat Derek Kilmer and she's here to talk about her campaign. Once again, Rebecca, welcome back. Hi, I'm really glad to be back. Thanks for having me on again. Glad to have you back. We also have a special guest. The campaign pug, half-pug. This is Augie. Okay, okay. Well, welcome. Does Augie do any work on the campaign? Distribute flyers, contact supporters. You know, I put her on the phone to follow up with donors and try to do some phone banking, but she just refuses. You know, hasn't worked a day in her life. Typical liberal dog, right? They don't want to work. But in all seriousness, I'm so glad that you're back because you are running for Congress again. So I'll ask you the same question that I asked Isaiah James. What made you want to run again? Because these campaigns are grueling. They are soul-crushing at times. What made you want to do this again? I never want to run once, let alone twice, but you're committed. You're dedicated. So why run again and what makes this run different? I want to run again because I still want to have somebody representing our district who supports Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, Housing for All, and my Democratic opponent, Derek Kilmer, does not and has come out publicly saying he does not support Medicare for all in the Green New Deal. And then why run again? I think that it's really important for candidates to think about this, you know, especially in surging candidates like myself as a, you know, if you don't win the first time, you learn a lot and then use it the second time so that we don't just have in the same districts, you know, progressive candidates starting from scratch each time because you really learn a lot. I got 35,000 votes. Those are voters who would, you know, hope fingers crossed vote for me again, and I would be able to build on it to get through the top two primary to the general. So I think it's, you know, Cori Bush ran twice and before that she ran for the Senate, so actually three times that she ran. And it's just important, I think, to build on the experience you got because you have a, you know, it's just incredible what I learned. And so what's different this time is I'm putting a much greater focus on fundraising and getting what I need to make that happen. Putting in the hours every day, making calls, finding the, you know, really talented people to help me do that, help me raise money, but really prioritizing that because, you know, don't take any corporate money and running against somebody who's taken millions of dollars in corporate money and has, I think, over two million cash on hand right now. And so while it might be difficult to ever reach that level that he has, you know, the more money I can have, the better so I can afford things like advertising to reach voters and more mailers and stuff like that. So, yeah. And I think it's so urgent right now with the climate crisis, too, in the Pacific Northwest, you know, we had a lot of people die during the heat wave and it's just a more and more intense climate change. And that that's one thing that really, really motivates me. Yeah, same. I'm also in the Pacific Northwest and this heat wave, it really was the eye-opener along with the wildfires last year. It seems like if you live here now, I mean, if you live anywhere in the world, it's difficult to ignore climate change. But really, this was a wake-up call for a lot of people, at least in my own social circles and myself, who weren't necessarily paying attention. And so for lawmakers to still see climate change knocking at our door and not take action, not change the way that they speak about this issue or the urgency with which they deal with climate issues, I feel like it's non-negotiable now. If you're not absolutely peddled to the floor attacking climate change head-on, you're not worthy of being in Congress. So to kind of get to that point, what do you believe as a lawmaker you would do different in comparison with Derek Kilmer? Because to me, I view him as kind of a run-of-the-mill corporate Democrat, a milk-toast Democrat. Doesn't really stand for anything. It's just kind of there occupying that seat. He doesn't put himself out there. He doesn't propose anything. So, I mean, I think it's pretty obvious a progressive versus a corporate Democrat, but just speak through legislatively speaking what you'd be doing now if you were in Congress that you don't believe he would be doing. I would be pushing for things like getting Medicare for All on the floor to actually vote on. And then looking at the Green New Deal, the parts of the resolution, and many people have different ideas of what a Green New Deal is, but then introducing legislation to actually make that happen. So what exactly I would like to look at climate change and instead of this kind of mealy mouth, well, net zero by 2050 or more carbon tax, but it's that kind of thing. I think that a politician is not being serious about climate change unless they have dates they're willing to work towards because the scale, the speed of climate change is going much faster than climate scientists predicted. It's, you know, we are getting to thresholds that they hadn't thought we would get to for years. It's happening really fast. So, for example, we need to get off fossil fuels, stop using them, stop subsidizing them, get to 100% renewables. And so for my date, I set that as 2030 because I think that politicians should have a date they're actually working towards. What is the plan? Treat it like you would any job. You don't go into work and it's like, okay, we're going to try to grow the business by 10% this year, but we're just kind of, you know, do whatever and bumble along the way. You create a plan. Here's the benchmarks and the dates that we're trying to achieve things by and at least introduce that legislation. And then in terms of things like, oh, go ahead. Oh, no, continue. In terms of things like the current, you know, build back better bill, I would be holding the line and not caving to the centrists, like mentioned in cinema, Godheimer, who are trying to tank it. And then also keep calling attention to the fact that 3.5 trillion was the compromise. Originally, even Biden himself was talking about numbers as high as 10 trillion. And even if it were 3.5 trillion, and all of that was for climate, it still wouldn't be enough for climate. And it's not all for climate. And so it's not enough. And so I would keep bringing that up and refuse to cave because as long as progressives keep caving, we can't have progress. Yeah, I'm kind of curious. And it's hard to draw a really clear line, but what would be your number? Because Joe Biden said, all right, the 3.5 trillion, it's got to come down. And now the leadership of the congressional progressive caucus is saying, okay, we're willing to talk numbers with you. What are the specifics that you want to cut? They're saying this to the moderates. So in terms of what is your line, what is it for you? Like, for me, I feel like the floor would be no less than 3 trillion. Otherwise, I don't support the bipartisan infrastructure deal. But even that you can argue is kind of caving in a way, because as you said, this is already a compromise. It's over 10 years. So it's honestly embarrassing that there's even a conversation about coming down from 3.5 trillion. That being said, you know, at this point in time, there's so much in that that if we can get something through that will make a difference during a pandemic, I think it would make a difference. So it's tough. And morally, I don't know where I would have to draw a line. Do you do you have a sense of where you would you would stop and you just you'd check out and say no vote from me? I'd stick to 3.5 trillion and say, like, look, this isn't the way negotiations work. You don't work, walk into a car dealership. And it's like, no, sorry, the amount you're asking for is too much. And then they're like, what do you want to pay instead? And I say, what do you want me to pay instead? You know, it's a two way street. And so the corporate conservative Democrats are holding this up. They're saying we're not going to vote for it. So, okay, come up with an offer. But in the meantime, I'm sticking to 3.5 trillion, because that's what's needed. And if you look at it in terms of what members of Congress should be doing with ideally what they would be doing is trying to help people help their constituents. So say, okay, we're going to cut here. How many homeless people will freeze to death over the winter because you cut housing funding? Or, you know, how many families will put off having children and grandparents won't get their first grandkids? How much longer will they put that off? Because people just can't afford to have a kid without childcare subsidies. And put it in terms of those really concrete terms, like, okay, Joe mentioned, what's your number? How many homeless people do you want to die this winter? And put it back at them that way and be just really blunt because that's what it's about is people's lives. Yeah. And that's a really great point. What's frustrating to me is the way that progressives oftentimes negotiate themselves too much down. Not to say that I have much criticism of the progressives in the house because they have done a great job at holding the line for the most part. But I think that if you rather than coming down from $6 trillion to $3.5, maybe you come down to $5 trillion. And then you work down from there to get closer towards your goal. It's just, it's frustrating because I see these articles and it's about Democratic Party operatives freaking out about 2022, Joe Biden's sinking approval rating. And I mean, there's a gigantic gift that is waiting to be gifted if they just pass this legislation. But they're not doing that. So I like that you would work in, their constituents and whatnot. One thing that I wanted to ask you because you are a grassroots candidate, how would you or would you use the grassroots as part of your legislative process? Because oftentimes in Congress, you give and you take, you make deals, you say, I'll support this if you support my policy with other lawmakers, your colleagues. But how would you bring in the grassroots? Because I think that what people really would like to see is lawmakers trying to galvanize their constituents to take action, to make calls to, if need be, show up in DC. Is that something that you would work in to the equation or do you think it actually requires more members of Congress to kind of all bring their constituents together? Because I think that it might be difficult for one lawmaker to do it. But what's your view on this overall and what the role should be and ideally what you would do to try to boost grassroots organizing as it relates to legislative dealmaking? I would definitely use the grassroots and reach out to constituents in my district, but then also progressive nationwide. You know, since the last primary, since my primary, you know, last August and now over the winter, I did a lot of direct action around housing. I co-founded a group called Tacoma Housing Now and together with other groups that were part of that coalition, we occupied empty buildings, including a middle school that had been empty for 11 years, turned it, we just declared we're turning this into emergency pandemic housing, put out a press release, instead of the city, you know, deal with it. This building has been empty for over a decade, you're doing nothing with it. So we're just going to turn it into emergency pandemic housing so nowhere people die over the winter. And then when they kick those out, we went on to do other actions. So we shut down an intersection and put a tent in the middle of it since so many people are sitting in tents and encampments. Since they refused to provide any trash services to the camps, we took a queue from the young Lawrence and we went to the camp, we rented some U-Haul, went to the camps, picked up and it was mountains of trash filled two U-Haul trucks and dumped it in front of City Hall. And lo and behold, they suddenly moved it and when they picked up the trash really quickly, suddenly they were able to provide trash service. And then over Christmas, we paid for people, 43 people to stay in a hotel for Christmas Eve. And then on Christmas day, we announced the county needs to pay with the free money from FEMA that they could be applying for and using right now. And that kind of stuff got action whereas years and years of kind of polite calling and going to city council meetings and setting up meetings, let's meet with a mayor, let's meet with that person, let's have a summit, let's talk some more. It just doesn't work because politicians know how to talk the talk, they'll meet with you and be like, oh yes, I really value equity and equality and we need to adjust it and they just throw in buzz words to them. I mean, these aren't just buzz words used to our important concepts that they just treat like buzz words. And they just kind of talk the talk and nothing changes. But because of us, our action, they added 200 shelter beds to the system. They made an extended shelter was going to end in the middle of winter, they extended it through to the spring and that stuff definitely saved lives because people die every winter here. And so as a legislator, I would want to do the same thing, speak with organizers, develop a plan and what is a nonviolent direct action that we could take to really force Congress's hand. And I would be willing to do that and use the grassroots to take direct action because as one out of 435 votes or one out of, I think it's about 100 in the progressive caucus, that's just one vote. And so I would definitely have a lot more power to pressure other legislators by using nonviolent direct action. Yeah. I like that you have that history as an activist because you know specifically their experience, what gets lawmakers to pay attention, and that's really important. You know what makes them tick. You know what gets them to actually hear people and not just ignore them. So I think that that's really important. Going into Congress, you will inevitably be faced with really, really complex situations that aren't usually black and white oftentimes. You'll see large bills, large spending bills that contain a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. But I want to propose a hypothetical situation just to see how you would handle this as a lawmaker. And I don't really feel like there's any right or wrong answer. It's pretty complex. I don't know how I would deal with this. But let's say that there is another $3.5 trillion spending bill that comes up. And there's lots of really, really great things in it. There is paid family leave. There is additional funding for housing. There's an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to the state so they can expand healthcare. But at the same time, in that same bill, in that same package is a poison pill. It's defunding the U.S. Postal Service or privatizing it. There's something in there that's really bad. What do you do in that instance? Because I mean, as a lawmaker from a marketing standpoint, it could be swung in either way. Progressives can say, well, Rebecca Parsons, she caved. She voted to defund the U.S. Postal Service. Or they could say she voted for paid family leave and housing funding. How do you handle that situation? Because it's bound to come up and we've seen it time again with progressive lawmakers in Congress. And I don't always feel like they've handled these situations in a good way. But at the same time, it's difficult to deal with these things. So what do you do as a lawmaker in that instance? Well, I think what the progressive caucus, this congressional session has been doing is great. And I know they made some structural changes. I read a couple articles saying they moved from having two chairs to having just one so they could get things done faster and make more speedy decisions and not get kind of outplayed by the rest of the Democratic caucus that was able to act faster. And they've been holding the line. So I think encouraging more of that, maybe there also needs to be an additional group that's smaller that also decides how they're going to act and tactics and looked at the numbers, whatever the numbers of Democrat Republican would be in the next congressional session. And perhaps, you know, maybe come up with our own tactics as a smaller group of five to 10 people. And then also direct action, like, okay, if you're going to defund the Post Office, I would get in touch with activists, maybe come up with some creative direct action that we could do to get people's attention. And I think it's important with direct action as well to do something that poses a nonviolent threat to the flow of capital or to whatever it might be, whoever you're trying to target. So you're not just kind of waving signs, there's a place for protests and side waving, but with direct action, you want to choose your target and the method to really get their attention. So that's the kind of stuff I would do. And then try to go on, get as much media attention as I could to the fact that there's this poison pill in there. And yeah, that's what I would do. And I'm not going to just hold the line, but I'm not going to vote for this. It has this giant poison pill in it and uses many methods as I can to draw attention to that. Yeah, I like your answer because really what I think that viewers are looking for is at least some instinct to fight it, not just kind of accept it. Well, this is the situation, these are the cards that we were dealt, because I think that there's always some way that you can change things and make a difference. And holding the line really does go a long way. I mean, if progressives in Congress actually did this more frequently, I think that they would have a lot more power in Congress. And I feel like now they're going to see it because of how successful they've been with this $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. They see how when they bind together and they don't break and they hold the line, they really get things done. They shape the narrative and it's really great to see. So I'm glad that you said that. Another question that I want to ask is relatively hypothetical as well, but this is bound to come up. So, you know, let's say you get elected to Congress and you have a couple of bills that you want to introduce and you need lots of cosponsors. You want hearings on these and committees. But one of the members who is heavily considering cosponsoring this bill is a primary opponent to another fellow brand new Congressperson, the 2024 lineup. And so the stipulation is that if he cosponsors your bill, you can't endorse his primary opponent. Now, the bill's important. It's climate change legislation. What do you do in this instance? Because that's really tough. And I feel like that kind of played into AOC's calculation back in 2020 when she didn't endorse Cory Bush because Lacey Clay ended up cosponsoring her Green New Deal resolution. What do you do in this situation? That's a really good question. I think I would still err on the side of supporting their primary challenger and just finding some other way. So I know Congress likes to pass these huge bills that go through because then they can get these poison pills in and say the other side, well, if you don't vote for it, use our own arguments back at us. How many homeless people won't be able to get into a shelter, that kind of thing. Instead of passing, which I think would be much more ideal, this is something that the host of Congressional Dish podcast has talked about is one bill. So this is the Funding for Homeless Shelters bill. And this is the funding for increasing the fish population in a certain area. Very specific individual bills so that you don't have 20 different topics all covered in one bill. I think I would push for that kind of thing. And so then if it's okay, I'm not going to cosponsor your bill because you won't agree to not support my primary opponent, try to find some other way to get it through an amendment. Like the culture of Congress as a whole, it seems from the outside that it would be very hard to change. They're used to passing these enormous bills. And so if that's the way it's going to be, okay, then maybe I go to some other ally and say, well, could you get this small thing through as an amendment to your bill? You don't even have to put my name on it or anything, but try to get it through that way. And I think try to find the little legislative routes that you can get things in so that you still achieve your goal without sacrificing your principles to the greatest extent possible. Yeah, I like that answer. I think I would do the same thing because ultimately, even if we need support for these bills, you know, progressives in Congress need to build power at the same time, nothing will really change if we don't change the makeup of Congress. So I would also prioritize that. So I appreciate your answer there. Okay, last type of that goal, I promise. This one's a fun one. You're on the house floor, you're debating a bill, and Marjorie Taylor-Vehan walks up to you and she calls you a communist and tells you to take off your mask. What are you doing in that situation? Do you run or do you confront her? I ask her if she's carrying, I don't know. That's smart, actually. Because I think during the Civil War, didn't a northern congressman and a southern congressman actually got into a fist fight on the floor and one of them was severely injured? I just want to make sure that I'm physically safe. Priority number one, yes. Yeah, just ask her to back away. No, thank you. I don't want the COVID that you're certainly out carrying. Please get away from me. Yeah, it's something that I think about now, where Congress isn't just full of all of these robotic, mindless corporate drones. We have a lot of really crazy people in there. I mean, it's not like this is a new phenomenon with Marjorie Green. We've had Louis Gomert there for a while, but it's still, I feel like the level of insanity that we're seeing from Congress, it has increased, measurably so. I'm curious how you deal with this. Watching the progressives in Congress deal with Marjorie Green, I know Cori Bush had to move her office. She was screaming at another member of Congress outside on the steps of Capitol Hill. I can't remember who. It's truly bizarre. Just from a human standpoint, I think it's interesting to ask these questions, just out of curiosity. We all want to know how you handle these very weird and bizarre situations. Of course, it's always going to be an answer that is an adult answer. Last question. My viewers, they're familiar with you. They know all of your policies, Medicare for all, Green New Deal. Give us your last pitch. What do you need? How do we help you get elected? Do you need more donors? Do you need people on the ground? What do you need from us? Also, make your pitch as to why you should replace Derek Kilmer. Well, I could really use people's help with all of the things you mentioned. If you can donate, that's a big help. You can go to rebeccaperson.com and click the donate button to do that. A dollar helps every donation, no matter how big or small helps. You can also sign up for the email list and then reply to any of those emails if you want to help with volunteering. You can help with text banking. We're doing that right now for donations. You can help with that. Later on, we'll have phone banking if you're in district. Definitely, and you're interested in as it's safe and as the campaign progresses doing canvassing and knocking on doors. It also helps no matter where you are. If you could tell somebody who you think might be like-minded about the campaign because you're a lot more likely to be persuasive to somebody who knows you and trusts you, then my campaign just cold contacting the same person. It actually helps a lot. Hey, check out this candidate or suggest they donate or sign up for the email list or something like that. Those are all things people could do to help. As to why I should replace Derek Kilmer, he's the 13th most conservative Democrat in the house. He has come out publicly saying he opposes Medicare for all in the Green New Deal. Last session, he was chair of the New Democrat Coalition, which is a conservative corporate large wing of the Democratic Party. He's somebody who's building quietly, building a career for himself, working his way up the ladder. And as a kind of person, we want to stop from going up and up and up in positions of leadership and continuing to block progress because like you said earlier, he is somebody who just follows. Back when he was in the Washington state legislature, a reporter asked him, the debate at the time was about gay marriage. He was asked, do you support it? And he just smiled and said, I don't think we should redefine marriage. And now he puts himself forward as this big, I want my daughter to grow up in a world where everybody can love whoever they want. I was like, well, yeah, 10 years after it's safe to say that. How courageous. I think I should replace him for those reasons. Because our district is really struggling with stuff. People are across the country. Homelessness is increasing. People who are in homes can't afford their rents. It's up to 50% of their income. They are working multiple jobs that don't have benefits. Parents are working all the time and can't afford to have a child or can't afford to have more kids. I mean, the problems that people are having around the country, we're having in this district too. And stuff like the Green New Deal would help so much with the jobs guarantee that's part of the Green New Deal. And this district has benefited from policies like that in the past, the New Deal, FDR's New Deal jobs programs. We had seven of those work camps here in the district that gave people jobs. There's a lot to improve on. Those policies were written and implemented in a racist way. So we, of course, want to improve on them. But this district, and I'm sure probably every district around the country has a history of when the government could actually do something positive, like provide jobs, get people to work at jobs that actually pay. So those are the things that I support and why I think I should replace Derek Kilmer. Well, Rebecca, thank you so much. It's always a pleasure talking to you and we all are absolutely wishing you luck. And we hope that you crush it. And I think that you will. You're a great candidate and it's nice to see you return. I always hope that candidates, when they announce that they're running, they commit to at least two runs because that increases the likelihood that you'll win. So I really appreciate the sacrifice that you're making. Lord knows, I would not want to do that, but I thank you for running and trying to break through this horrible corporate corrupt Congress that we have. So thank you so much. We'll continue to follow your campaign. Yeah, thank you. And thanks for everything you do.