Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We begin today on the intersection of terror and war in the Middle East and national politics in the United States. President Biden's Secretary of State Antony Blinken is now in Israel to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders as well as King Abdullah of Jordan. Here's Blinken just a short time ago this morning US time.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken: They be slaughtered, bodies desecrated, young people burned alive, women raped, parents executed in front of their children, children in front of their parents. How are we even to understand this, to digest this?

Brian Lehrer: Secretary of State Blinken in Israel today. President Biden met yesterday in Washington with American Jewish leaders. Among the speakers on the White House side was Doug Emhoff. You know that name. His title, I guess, is second gentleman which means he is the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris and Emhoff happens to be Jewish.

Doug Emhoff: Like all Jews, I feel a deep visceral connection to Israel and its people. We witnessed a mass murder of innocent civilians. It was a terrorist assault. There is never any justification for terrorism. There are no two sides to this issue.

Brian Lehrer: Doug Emhoff speaking in DC yesterday. Meanwhile, in the House where they may need to authorize more spending to help Israel soon, they need a new speaker to do so. Steve Scalise, the leading candidate does not yet have the votes. Aid to Ukraine in that war is looking shakier than ever. Help for Israel under attack by Hamas draws almost universal Republican support, help for Ukraine under attack from Putin not so much. What's the difference? We'll explore.

Then there's Donald Trump taking a shot yesterday at his old ally, Netanyahu. Did you hear this? Trump actually said if he was in charge, apparently meaning in Israel, Saturday's attack would never have happened. What's up with that? Maybe he meant if he was in charge in the United States, Saturday's attack would not have happened in Israel, but how does he even make that connection? We have a new Republican push to expel New York Congressman George Santos after the latest round of criminal charges that includes stealing the identity of donors to his campaign to use their credit cards. Could that get any weirder? We have RFK Jr. announcing that he has dropped his Democratic primary challenge to President Biden and will instead run next November as a third-party independent. Democrats are saying, "Oh, oh, that could be a much bigger threat to the President's re-election than the primary campaign."

Let's talk about some or all of this with Politico's White House bureau chief Jonathan Lemire, who also hosts the MSNBC show Way Too Early in the 5:00 AM Eastern Time hour. He has a steady presence on Morning Joe there too from 6:00 to 10:00 and is author of the book The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020. Jonathan's latest Politico article is called Biden faces a host of crises and distress tests for his theory of the presidency. Jonathan, always good of you to join us after five hours of live television. Welcome back to WNYC.

Jonathan Lemire: Brian, the pleasure is mine. Good to be here.

Brian Lehrer: What do you mean in your article by Biden's theory of the presidency?

Jonathan Lemire: It's a few things. Joe Biden's pitch when he was elected in 2020, was to try to restore stability to an unstable nation and world wheeling after a Donald Trump administration. We see certainly, as we look overseas, the emphasis he is placed on alliances, repairing NATO, which was so badly strained by Trump, rallying the world to stand with Ukraine and now, of course, being tested by the situation in the Middle East. What is become complicated for Biden, as he talks powerfully about the need to defend democracies overseas, is that the American democracy at home is kind of a mess.

I know we're going to tick through it as the show goes on, but we do not have a-- I'm staring at the Capitol right now. There is not a speaker of the House in place and there may not be for several days. The government is on the verge of another shutdown in just about a month's time, and that is-- The infighting here at home and, of course, the ever-present threat of Donald Trump, probably right now far and away Republican favorite to be their presidential nominee, that has complicated Joe Biden's job in trying to project American strength and stability to the world.

Brian Lehrer: I didn't even mention in the intro other stresses that you list in the article, a government shutdown looming again next month, which means tough negotiations with whoever the new speaker is plus the UAW strike, which you write could soon have tangible economic ripple effects, and oh, yes, the southern border. You quote Democrats saying the next few days and few weeks could fundamentally define Biden's legacy and shift the trajectory of his reelection bid. Shift it how?

Jonathan Lemire: I'll add to that even news just in the last hour or so that inflation is ticking up again higher than expected. That also could have a strain not just on the economy itself, but how voters feel about the economy. That's been the real issue for the president on the fiscal front is that his team likes to point to metrics and say, "Look, we're doing better. Things are getting better," but poll after poll suggests that Americans don't feel it. This is, I think, going to be a critical time.

If there were to be widespread war breaking out in the Middle East, that, of course, would dominate, at least for a time, the political discourse here at home as well. So far, that hasn't happened, but of course, we're in the very early days of this crisis. There is certainly a belief that Israel is going to, by their own words, lay a complete siege on Gaza. We don't know yet if Hezbollah will join the fight. We don't know yet what role Iran may have played here. There is a real chance for a destabilizing war there.

It's true that foreign policy doesn't usually dictate too many people's votes in a presidential election, but there are exceptions when it does. Part of this team's pitch is to contrast Biden's leadership on the world stage, particularly when it comes to Ukraine and around the alliances, as I mentioned, with the tumult and chaos from Donald Trump. Anything, of course, that would threaten that would be a concern for any president heading into re-election year, particularly if there's also an economic consequence. Anytime we're talking about the Middle East, you have to talk about oil and gas prices, so that's a concern too.

Brian Lehrer: I guess there have been times when US foreign policy, particularly when we've actually been engaged in wars, have been crucial in presidential elections. It was probably one of the reasons that George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004. More support for him than opposition for him during the early stages of the Iraq war. We could go back to the 1968 and 1972 elections in the United States when the Vietnam War was one of the decisive issues. We'll see if this becomes anything like that with respect to US politics between now and next year.

Secretary of State Blinken is in Israel now. We played that clip showing solidarity with Israel and its emergency unity government, as they call it, but tomorrow, I see, he'll meet with the president of the Palestinian Authority who rules over the West Bank Mahmoud Abbas. Now, for people not familiar, that's a separate leadership over a separate Palestinian population, the one in the West Bank, while Hamas has been in charge in Gaza. What role did the US and Israel see Abbas potentially playing in the current conflict?

Jonathan Lemire: First, I'll note that Secretary of State Blinken made some sad news revealing that the American death total in Israel has now gone up to 25. That has continued to increase and there's a belief that it will even further. Yes, you're right, Blinken made this hurried trip to the region, to Israel standing with Prime Minister Netanyahu today, speaking emotionally, as in the clip you played, about the atrocities committed there, condemning the terror actions of Hamas and echoing what President Biden said the day before, a very stern warning to others in the region saying, "Hey, while this is going on, don't try anything. Don't try to take advantage of Israel's weakness in a period of mourning right now."

In terms of the Palestinians, this is a complicated region and a complicated issue. Part of it is an overture by Secretary Blinken and the Biden ministration to reach out to not just Palestinians, but the Arab world writ large. Then there have been in that same vein, as much as there has been complete support for Israel here, complete support for Israel to exact some retribution, to hunt down the terrorists who committed these actions, at the same time urging to be mindful of the civilians who are in Gaza. It's one of the most densely populated place on earth. We heard Biden yesterday obliquely suggest to Israel, "Hey, show some restraint here." Blinken was more explicit today doing the same to make sure that civilians who have no role in the massacre as of last weekend, that they not pay the price. I think the Palestinians maybe their hope that Abbas can have some leverage, some influence over Hamas, but at the very least it's another signal saying, "Look, we are caring about the innocents in that region too."

Brian Lehrer: Do we know specifically what the United States is asking Netanyahu not to do in Gaza in order to protect civilians?

Jonathan Lemire: Well, first, there is this hope to create a channel some sort of canal or pathway for civilians to try to get out, and they're leaning on Egypt to try to help there as well, so far with limited success. They do hope. They understand there's going to be-- Israel has telegraphed the idea that there will be a ground operation in Gaza. It hasn't happened yet, but they seem to be mobilizing toward it. That there is some restraint, it's not indiscriminate with civilians.

This is going to be very difficult because what complicates here, of course, are these hostages believed to be over 100, likely from Americans too in Gaza. As your listeners may know, Hamas has created a network of really complicated tunnels. It's a war in there. It's very difficult to get through. There's a belief that they're hiding the hostages among civilians, to make it that much more complicated.

There's this fear that if there's an attempt to rescue one, they'll kill others. They're asking Netanyahu just to proceed cautiously but at the same time, they understand that Israel, certainly as the President said has the right to defend itself and to take action.

Brian Lehrer: Understanding that you're a Washington reporter, not a Middle East reporter, I'll ask you about Egypt's role if you know anything about Egypt's role. What a lot of listeners may know, a lot of listeners may not know is that Gaza borders both Israel and Egypt, and that border with Egypt has been closed for a long time. Gazan Palestinians have not been able to move easily into Egypt over time. Is the US asking Egypt specifically to loosen that border during this emergency? Do we know what else is involved in any negotiations between the US and Egypt over that? Bless you.

Jonathan Lemire: Yes. There have been some conversations. There hasn't been a direct state leader-to-leader ask just yet, but there is concern. As you know right now, Gaza has been cut off from electricity, water, supplies, medicine by Israel but there is some hope that some civilians can leave through Egypt. Egypt, though not always the most cooperative ally, certainly.

On that same note, with news this morning breaking that President Erdoğan of Turkey, who has a relationship with Hamas, has hosted Hamas leaders in Istanbul at times. Has said that he would attempt to broker some deals with the terror group to release hostages. That's a good sign, but at the same time, Erdoğan accompanied that offer with strong condemnation to the United States and the West, for just backing Israel in this, that the West is not listening to what Hamas has to say, is not listening to the Palestinian situation, is only siding with Israel so he will be a-- Complicated, to say the least.

Brian Lehrer: What about the cut-off of food and water and electricity and other fuel to Gaza? How does the Israeli government justify that? Again, I realize you're a Washington reporter so tell me if you don't know that's okay. Is the US pressuring them not to do that or are they accepting that there is some military or security purpose that Israel has articulated that is convincing to them?

Jonathan Lemire: To answer, it's more the second part of that. For now, they understand the encirclement is happening for security purposes if it continues, though. If it stretches on and the situation there becomes a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which many outside experts or watchdogs believe will happen and will happen soon. We may see the US change their tone a little bit with Israel to make sure that at least some of the very basics get in and out. Right now, it seems as if it's just a matter of days, maybe even hours before Israel moves in with some ground operation into Gaza, and the US is waiting and watching like everyone else.

Brian Lehrer: Again, I don't understand and maybe this is outside your purview. What's the relationship between winning in Gaza that is dismantling Hamas's ability to attack Israel and cutting off food?

Jonathan Lemire: The Israeli defense forces believe it's an important part to flush out some of the terrorists, but there have been real concerns raised about that. What happens next? This is I think something that we have to start thinking about is if Israel were to go in there, they have not occupied Gaza in nearly 20 years. I can't imagine they want to again, or at least you wouldn't think so. What is the next step? If Hamas is deposed who runs Gaza next? Who steps into that vacuum?

The United States certainly knows the dangers of occupation in the Middle East not that many decades ago. These are all very thorny and interconnected issues right now. We haven't even touched on Brian, what role Iran may be playing. What happens if it escalates there? There's conflicting reports as to what US intelligence says about what Tehran knew or did not know about these attacks, and as well as whether Hezbollah from Lebanon actively joins the fight as well.

Brian Lehrer: That would make it a two-front war in Israel with Gaza in the south and Hezbollah in Lebanon, in the north. Has the Biden administration articulated under what specific conditions the US would get involved militarily, not just with financial aid and intelligence?

Jonathan Lemire: It's multi-part to answer that. First of all, they are sending equipment. The first shipment has already arrived in Israel. They're sending military supplies, ammunition, and the like. There are some things the administration can do unilaterally, and depending on who's doing that as we speak. Of course, and this relates back to the Speaker of the House, at a certain point, they're going to run out of money they can send. They can't do a huge funding for Israel, or for that matter, Ukraine, without the House of Representatives, and that won't happen until there's a speaker put in place. That's number one.

Number two, there's a primary concern right now for both the US government and the Israeli government, on the fate of these hostages. Actually, some news this morning, definitely national adviser Jon Finer was with us on Morning Joe and said that at this point, the US is ruling out the idea of putting US boots on the ground, military soldiers, special forces to go into Gaza to try to bring those hostages home. That's not something they're considering at the moment. They are deferring to the Israeli.

The US has sent personnel specialists to Tel Aviv to work with the Israeli forces to provide expertise, to gameplan, and such, but there would not be at least as what the White House is saying now, there wouldn't be US personnel actively involved positions. It's also not clear what or if those missions would look like because I'm told by senior officials just in the last few minutes, they simply don't know where these hostages are in Gaza. It's simply too soon to think about anything like that.

Brian Lehrer: Special forces on the ground is one thing. The US has sent a naval carrier group there with the message that that's not for fighting Hamas, but it is for deterring other actors from getting involved. Again, I wonder if they'd been explicit at all about under what circumstances that carrier or carrier group, I'm not sure exactly how many ships it is, would do something that would be considered an act of war.

Jonathan Lemire: I'm told they are simply not there yet. One aircraft carrier is there as you say. There is consideration of sending a second, but those are just loud warning signs to Iran and others in the region, "Don't try anything." The least at this moment, those are for a defensive deterrence posture, not for sending any offensive action.

Brian Lehrer: A listener texts, "By the way, to answer your question, Brian about why Israel's cutting off all supplies to Gaza. The BBC reported today that it's to pressure Hamas to release the hostages." There's at least one.

Jonathan Lemire: Yes. To try to--

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead, Jonathan.

Jonathan Lemire: Exactly. That's what we were saying earlier. They're trying to smoke out the terrorists to pressure them into giving up hostages, or to make some other deals. It's a pressure tactic in advance of the potential ground operation.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we invite more comments and questions for Jonathan Lemire, Politico's White House bureau chief, and MSNBC host, as we cover the intersection of terror and war in the Middle East and US politics. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

Another listener texts, "On the siege of Gaza, it is not collective punishment. It's an effort to convince the civilians in Gaza to overthrow their government and get a more reasonable government." Another text from another listener along these lines, "If Hamas was democratically elected, what is the responsibility of those who placed them in power? Was this why they were elected?" Again, here, Jonathan, we get into international politics and history, but I think they were elected more than 15 years ago, and there haven't been repeated elections there.

Jonathan Lemire: That is precisely right. They were elected, their opponents, some of them were then subsequently thrown off the roofs of the buildings and there hasn't been an election since. Hamas likes the talking points that they were elected to power. By no means is this a democracy, by no means have there been any sort of a free or fair effort to remove them from power since. Certainly, this is a terror organization that rules Gaza with an iron fist and has, as there has been various times throughout the years, money sent to the region for things like building hospitals or schools or improving housing. Much of that funding is then taken by Hamas for its own purposes, including building these tunnels in which these hostages are believed to be held.

Brian Lehrer: Brian in [unintelligible 00:20:53] has a question. You're on WNYC, Brian, thank you for calling.

Frank: Hey, Brian. Good morning. It's actually Frank. I hope all is well. I got to ask the obvious here. A month ago or so, we gave Iran $6 billion with bid to release five prisoners or hostages. It's a terrible idea to give bad people money, but my question is, how much of that money-- Is there any audit to that? Do we know if any of this money was used on these attacks to Israel? Then I'm going to back that question up with can we find the line of how many weapons did we leave behind in Afghanistan? Was any of this stuff used against Israel? My question really wants to know how much blood does America have on their hands for these wars.

Brian Lehrer: Frank, thank you very much. We addressed the question on yesterday's show. We'll address it again now. Of the $6 billion of Iranian funds that are being unfrozen, they don't have them yet, so couldn't have spent them yet as part of the deal for the release of five US prisoners from Iran. Jonathan, I imagine the administration is getting versions of that question.

Jonathan Lemire: Oh, constantly. It has become the number one Republican talking point on the 2024 campaign trail. As well we're hearing it from some lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Yet the short version of it is no, that that money has not been spent. The Irans don't have it. It's being held in a Qatari bank. It has been frozen. There's a significant oversight. It's been unfrozen but hasn't been used. There's been significant oversight on it as well. This is certainly still though that the administration and Congress had both floated the ideas of let's refreeze it.

Let's make even doubly sure that it can't be used but this money is not fungible. We can definitively say that it has not been used in these attacks. Now, political questions certainly can persist as to what should come next for that money, but we can answer that part of it. In terms of the weapons yes, certainly, there has been some reporting. We know the US has left weapons behind in the Middle East. There's been some reporting, I think, unverified by the administration that some may have been used in these attacks but we should be clear though returning to the question of Iran, that though there has not been made definitively a link between Tehran and what happened over the weekend.

In fact, the New York Times reports this morning that some of the senior Iranian leaders were surprised. They didn't know it was coming at all. Hamas would not exist without Iran. Hamas has been backed by Iran with supplies including weapons and money throughout its existence. Even if they didn't give the go-ahead, let's say on Saturday, they are at least nominally supportive of Hamas' mission here.

Brian Lehrer: We will take a break here and then move this conversation more to the Republican side of the aisle. What's going on with Steve Scalise, why Trump is criticizing Netanyahu? Other implications like that, even George Santos. Stay with us. Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Jonathan Lemire from Politico and MSNBC.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue on the intersection of terror and war in the Middle East and national politics in the United States with Politico's White House Bureau Chief Jonathan Lemire, who also hosts the MSNBC show way too early in the 5:00 AM Eastern Time hour and is a steady presence on Morning Joe there from 6:00 to 10:00 AM and is author of the book, The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020.

We've been talking mostly about the politics of the Biden administration and the war in the Middle East. On the Republican side, Jonathan, they often try to position themselves as more staunchly pro-Israel, certainly more pro-Netanyahu than the Democrats. Is there any daylight right now between Republican and Democratic talking points or actual positions regarding Israel at this moment of terrorism and war?

Jonathan Lemire: Not much. Around the edges, and you've probably covered this in recent days, there are some democratic lawmakers who have come under fire for potentially being deemed insufficiently supportive of Israel because they were also giving a voice to the Palestinian side. Some of those are bad-faith arguments but we even heard from the White House podiums Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre yesterday speak out externally against any lawmaker regardless of party who was not standing with Israel fully. Where there is much more--

Brian Lehrer: Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, congresswoman from New York, obviously has spoken out against the pro-Palestinian rally that took place in Times Square on Sunday, or maybe some of the language at that rally, or the appearance of supporting Hamas in these horrific terrorist attacks against civilians. She spoke out against that.

Jonathan Lemire: No question. There are some lawmakers who have been very pro-Palestinian, very critical of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians who are still though denouncing what happened here. Let's make that distinction so clear, the difference between Palestinians and Hamas. There was some pro-Hamas language at that rally in New York, others elsewhere in the country, and we've seen lawmakers denounce them. Even those who are very usually pro-Palestinian have made clear, like, "Look, nothing can excuse this terror attack."

We've also seen some of the Democrats denounce the Democratic Socialists of America DSA because they have been pro-Hamas in the past. Back to Netanyahu, Republicans certainly have always been a fan of his. Donald Trump closely aligned himself with Netanyahu, which is why it's surprising Trump was critical of Netanyahu in the last day or so. We can get into that in a second. Where we're seeing Democrats and Republicans largely lockstep on Israel, what complicates it is they're not lockstep on Ukraine.

At least for now, the administration would like a major spending bill that funds series of priorities all linked together, Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and then border security between the US and Mexico which has some support from both sides of the aisle if, A, there needs to be a speaker but then, B, there are enough Republican holdouts who are really balking at the idea of sending more money to Kyiv, and they're saying Israel should be a standalone measure.

Brian Lehrer: Let's get back to the difference between Israel and Kyiv for some Republicans, but just to not linger on, but get specific about what Trump did. He criticized Netanyahu by saying he has been hurt very badly because of what's happened here. This is on an interview with Fox. Speaking of Netanyahu, Trump said he was not prepared, and Israel was not prepared. Why would Trump go after Netanyahu specifically like that? Is that supposed to be a popular thing to say right now with those American Jews who are swing voters or Republicans?

Jonathan Lemire: Certainly there is some, if not anger, but at least frustration with the Netanyahu government that this could have happened so perhaps Trump is making a play there but that seems really out of step right now. I think the Netanyahu government will have questions to answer down the road about the intelligence failure of this past weekend. Right now, we've seen it in Israel and we've seen it largely among American Jews as well, just rallying around the flag, just supportive of Israel in this period of mourning and the battles to come.

I'm told by some in Trump's orbit that part of why he attacked Benjamin Netanyahu was simply because Netanyahu has been over the top in praising President Biden in recent days and that Trump, who of course plans to run against Biden next year for the presidency, didn't like that. He feels like he was not officially loyal to him.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, there it is. That makes total sense. If Netanyahu is praising Biden for his response to the terror attack, then Trump has reason to try to discredit Netanyahu.

Jonathan Lemire: Yes. That I think is at the heart of it and also as well, we even heard in that same rally, Trump oddly praised Hezbollah, who to this point has been largely on the sidelines of this fight saying they were very smart. This of course comes in a long pattern of Trump praising strong dictators whether it's Putin or Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping.

Brian Lehrer: Why would Republicans not support Ukraine under assault by Putin, if they support Israel under assault by Hamas? What do they see is the difference if they assume that both are innocent parties here and victims of unfair attacks?

Jonathan Lemire: You hit on one part of it already, is that Israel has always been at the center of the Republican foreign policy being strong, and Israel is almost a competition and that some of that, of course, is about winning both the American Jewish voter bloc, but also evangelical Christian voter bloc who care so much about Israel for their own faith. That's a way of proving winning that allegiance. Israel has always been just point-blank support.

With Ukraine, is a little more complicated, there's less of a domestic political ramification at home. I also think that that is obviously a conflict now that is stretched out for a year and a half, so some fatigue has set in there. Also, unfortunately, there is still this MAGA talking points from Trump and some of his disciples who were, if not overtly pro-Putin, but at least not that critical of Putin. I think there's that as well.

There's this complication of not wanting to fully denounce what has happened there, suspicion of the Zelenskyy government at all, and instead not want to totally denounce Putin. Of course, these two things you can't logically do both because we know that Russia, of course, has been very supportive of Iran. In fact, Iran is supplying drones to Russia's war, yet, they're critical of Israel with Iran looming over and supporting Hamas, but yet, don't want to criticize Putin for the same. There's not much of a logical fit there, but they're doing it anyway.

Brian Lehrer: The politics are the politics, and in both wars, of course, civilians have been the target in ways that are war crimes by almost anybody's lights, what Hamas did the other day and what Putin's Russia has been doing in Ukraine. Jay in Woodhaven, you're on WNYC. You have a question about Russia, right?

Jay: Yes, I do, Brian, thank you. Everybody is pointing the finger at Iran of perhaps helping Hamas. I would not put it past them for sure, given all the histories. However, why don't we look at it from a different perspective? What if it's Russia involvement in there because Russia has been upset at Israel for some humanitarian aid and stuff that Israel gave Ukraine? If the West is involved now in assisting Israel, which we should, then that takes away from looking at the war in Ukraine.

Brian Lehrer: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that theory before. Jonathan, have you that maybe Russia to some degree, was promoting this attack by Hamas, for its own international politics purposes?

Jonathan Lemire: People that I have spoken to have said that Russia was directly involved in the attack, but the link I just made, Russia is supportive of Iran, Iran is supportive of Hamas. Indirectly, perhaps that would be a way that they're part of this. I don't think explicitly. To the caller second point is a big one, is that the more the United States and the West suddenly focuses on the Middle East, and literally if this does become a protracted war and becomes a multi-front war, that is just less attention and resources they can devote to Ukraine.

There's no question that developments of last weekend were deemed as a positive development for Vladimir Putin, that this is something that he feels that can test the Western resolve, test its patience. We're already here in the US and some other European capitals as well, seeing a frame a little bit of support for Ukraine, not that these places are suddenly backing Russia, but just that they're going to feel like they're exhausting their voters' patience or exhausting their resources, and so fully backing Ukraine.

It has been Putin's theory throughout after his war's initial stumbles that he needs to try to wait this out, wait out through the US 2024 elections, see if Donald Trump or another Republican who's less sympathetic to Kyiv comes to power, and then draws down US involvement. That of course, would only be a good thing for Russia as well. There's no doubt. Whether Russia was involved or not, there's a pretty clear path here where they could benefit from the developments of the last week.

Brian Lehrer: Now let's talk about the House leadership process. Listeners, I realize some of you might be confused by the terminology in some of the reporting. Congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana has now won the majority vote, what they're even calling the nomination of House Republicans to be their next speaker, but that's not enough. That's not enough Republicans to actually give him the job. Here's a minute of Scalise yesterday, after that closed-door, Republicans-only nomination vote.

Steve Scalise: First, I want to thank my House Republican colleagues for just designating me as the speaker. Obviously, we still have work to do. We're going to have to go upstairs on the House floor and resolve this and then get the House opened again. We have a lot of work to do, not just in the House for the people of this country, but we see how dangerous of a world it is and how things can change so quickly. We need to make sure we're sending a message to people all throughout the world, that the House is open and doing the people's business, making sure that we're unequivocally standing in our first resolution that we pass under speaker Steve Scalise, will need to make it clear that we stand with Israel, the McCaul-Meeks resolution will be our first order of business.

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan, can you explain the difference between being nominated by the Republicans to be speaker? Assuming no Democrats vote for Scalise, he's got to get the Republicans in the House to be pretty unified behind him. He's got that nomination from them, but it doesn't mean he gets the job, what?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, it is something that a lot of people are looking at today, and going, "Wait a minute, you don't," because prior to this election, it never mattered. Once the party in power was in charge, the party that control the House of Representative, once they nominate the speaker, the rest of the party simply rallied around that speaker candidate, and because they were the majority, apparently, that candidate won and was there for speaker. It points to just a new level of how fractured this Republican Party is that that's not the case here. Addressing the Democrats for a second, they have no inclination to vote for either of these, any of these candidates. They feel like, "We're are the minority party? That's not our responsibility. Don't count on our votes. If you want our help, we'll vote for Hakeem Jeffries."

Instead, here, you're seeing there are enough people who are opposing Scalise, that he does not have the votes right now. We know off and NBC News and other outlets have done a tally. There's at least eight Republican lawmakers who are on record saying, "I'm not voting for Steve Scalise." He can only afford to lose four. Already that's twice the number he can afford to lose, but there's a belief and there's reporting from a number of places today that number is actually closer to 15 or 20 or 25. Therefore, he's not close. There's real doubts right now that whether he will be elected, can he be elected speaker.

A couple of things have happened here. After he was nominated in behind closed doors in conference, the House was going to then have a vote on the floor for Scalise to then be elected speaker. The Republicans and Scalise's team quickly realized they didn't have the votes, they weren't close. That vote was scrapped. They have not yet scheduled one for today. Now, Scalise spent last night, he's spending this morning trying to whip votes.

To our reporting, he's won a couple over but he's still far short, but they don't want to bring a vote to the floor unless it can pass and he can win because we all remember what happened to Kevin McCarthy back in January. It took him 15 votes for him to be able to finally be elected speaker. They don't want to go through that embarrassing procedure again, at least not yet. Maybe tomorrow or on the weekend or next week, they'll finally try to force this through and try to shame Republicans to eventually backing Scalise so they can have a speaker or there's just too much of a chance that they go back behind closed doors and other candidates start throwing their names in the hat and we may have someone else be nominated, but right now, Steve Scalise's pass to speakership is far from certain.

Brian Lehrer: One last question, and we'll leave the George Santos and RFK relative sideshows for another day. Jonathan, I think after hosting your 5:00 AM show and then being on Morning Joe all morning and then doing this and I hear that cough, I think you need a nap, but Scalise is considered somewhat to the right of deposed speaker Kevin McCarthy, but a little less to the right of Jim Jordan, who was also running for speaker, but now Jim Jordan has dropped out and endorsed Scalise. I guess Scalise is the only Republican candidate, so how is it that there are these 15 or however many Republicans who are not supporting him? What do they want?

Jonathan Lemire: Actually, they have that lingering cough or cold that every parent currently has right now. There's not a unifying message because someone like a Nancy Mace who voted against McCarthy has also come out against Scalise but Matt Gates, who led the charge to depose McCarthy, he says he's found Scalise, he's on board. It varies from person to person. Scalise carries a lot of baggage with him. Yes, you're correct, I should say on most issues, he's not quite as radical as Jordan, but he is someone who has a very problematic appearance at a David Duke rally in his past.

He's tried to explain that away. He has apologized for it. He didn't know what it was, but that is something that upsets people. He has a deeply conservative number of issues. He was an ally, close ally of Donald Trump trying to overturn the election. This is a difficult spot for Republican lawmakers who won in Biden districts who have to face voters again next year. They're not sure they want to back someone like Steve Scalise in all that Scalise has promised to bring, which is the impeachment inquiry, potentially shutting down the government and not funding Ukraine, and so on.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this. This is where the Republican Party is right now. You have Scalise, who is the nominee. You have Jordan, who was the runner-up, who if Scalise were to drop out, Jordan could get another shot at it. Republican Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado said he won't support either of them. That includes Scalise because he says neither of them have answered this question. Who was duly elected president in 2020? Because both Jordan and Scalise, both of them have never acknowledged Joe Biden's win.

They believe that Donald Trump had the election stolen from him and Buck who does not want to support someone, doesn't want the Republican party associated with that. That's where they are right now.

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan Lemire Politico's White House bureau chief and MSNBC host and I hear you about the lingering cough that so many parents have. Our children when they're school age, they're very cute, but they're such vectors of disease, aren't they?

Jonathan Lemire: They are such trouble. Look, the pros outweigh the cons with the kids.

[laughter]

Right now I've been coughing for two weeks.

Brian Lehrer: Take care of yourself. Thanks for the generosity of your time. Thanks.

Jonathan Lemire: I appreciate it. We'll do it again soon.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.