[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Here's the political world we're living in right now. Headline from Huffington Post Texas Republican Allen West goes on anti-vaccine rant while hospitalized with COVID-19. I didn't make that up. We'll talk to Huffington Post, Washington bureau chief, Amanda Terkel in a minute, and we'll see some other things they're reporting.

Maybe you know Allen West the former Congressman, who's now running for the Republican nomination for governor of Texas. HuffPost reports that West got monoclonal antibody treatment in a Dallas hospital emergency room as he battled pneumonia and low blood oxygen levels from COVID. From that hospital, he praised the monoclonal antibodies treatment but railed against big pharma making money of the vaccines.

As the article notes Big Pharma makes the monoclonal antibodies too and they're much more expensive than a vaccine, and you have to be hospitalized for days and get them through an IV. From his hospital bed West said, "After this experience, I am even more dedicated to fighting against vaccine mandates." That's one story. Another one on HuffPost by the AP is Georgia election workers fired after allegedly shredding voter registrations. That was in Fulton County, home to Atlanta.

Multiple election workers were allegedly destroying voter registration forms. We don't know who or why yet from what I've seen, but maybe that's the latest way to prevent people from voting in cities. We'll see. Related story, another HuffPost headline, the feds have made 625 plus capital Riot arrests, they still have a long way to go. That's how many people were allegedly involved just at the start. Remember, former national security official Fiona Hill, remember her from the impeachment hearings. Fiona Hill with her career dealing with Russia and other non-democracies for a living. She was on Face the Nation this weekend with this analysis of January 6th.

Fiona Hill: This was an effect, a dress rehearsal for something that could be happening near term in 2022, 2024 we've got election cycles here that will heighten the tensions. Once people start talking about violence once the threshold is crossed, we're in a danger zone.

Brian Lehrer: Fiona Hill on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday morning, even while over on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the second-highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Steve Scalise refused to acknowledge even now that Joe Biden won the election. He said many states did not follow the Constitution in how they certified election results. Think about it, Steve Scalise could become speaker of the house if the republicans pick up just a few seats in next year's midterm elections.

All the more reason from the Democrat standpoint to make sure they have accomplishments to run on next year, especially President Biden's physical and human infrastructure bills. Referring to Senate Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema Senator Bernie Sanders recently said this.

Bernie Sanders: Mr. Manchin deserves to be heard. He deserves to get some compromises, but it is wrong for one or two people to think that they can dictate the outcome of this process.

Brian Lehrer: On Friday, Senator Sanders said, "Is there a possibility, a horrible possibility which would be so terrible for this country that because two people refuse to do what 96% of the caucus wants, that nothing will happen? There is that possibility. I think it's a minimal possibility but that possibility exists," from Senator Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Finance Committee these days, among other things on Friday. With me now HuffPost Washington bureau chief, Amanda Terkel. Hi Amanda. Thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Amanda Terkel: Hi.

Brian Lehrer: We have you. Why is Bernie Sanders talking like that?

Amanda Terkel: No, I can just hear you guys.

Brian Lehrer: You can-- That's right. We're having a little problem with Amanda Terkel's line. We'll get this straightened out in just a couple of seconds. I think you will probably be able to hear her already. In the meantime, listeners, we'll get the phones cooking on this stuff. Your questions welcome here for HuffPost Washington bureau chief Amanda Terkel. If you're confused like many of us are about why the Democrats can't get to yes on the central pieces of their agenda, or what the end game for these central items are, or how either side is going to run in the 2022 midterms for control of Congress 646-435-7280. 646-435-7280.

Or maybe you want to rail against COVID vaccines from your COVID hospital bed like Allen West 646-435-7280, 646-435-7280 for Amanda Terkel, Washington bureau chief for HuffPost. Do we have her yet?

Amanda Terkel: Hi, I am here.

Brian Lehrer: There you are. Hello.

Amanda Terkel: [laughs] Hi, thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Welcome back. Sorry for the technical difficulties. Why is Bernie Sanders talking like that, warning that the whole thing might fail?

Amanda Terkel: It really hinges on what two senators from Arizona and West Virginia want to do. Right now it's pretty remarkable that you have the entire Democratic Party essentially behind Biden's agenda. It could fail, essentially, because of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Right now, it's not entirely clear what they want, especially Sinema who has been less clear than Manchin except that they don't like the fact that it's going to cost potentially over $3 trillion. They want it closer to $1.5 trillion. Obviously, that's a huge difference. It means a lot of important things will be cut.

When you start cutting things, the question is, who else do you lose? Do you lose progressives who say, "I can't support a bill that doesn't have these various like healthcare or childcare or other measures that I want." If the price tag is too high, you might not get Sinema and Manchin whose votes you need, because the Democrats have such a narrow majority, the slimmest of majorities in the Senate.

Right now, it's not clear if this will pass so Sanders is right.

Brian Lehrer: The article on HuffPost says, "Manchin and Sinema initially seemed focus on the overall price tag, like you say, but specifics of what they want to cut are not clear. The mystery is feeding fears about the entire project failing," from your colleague who wrote the story at HuffPost. My question is, Amanda, if the two holdout Democrats want certain compromises beyond just the number, and they think it's good for their popularity in their home states to hold those lines, because why else would they be doing it? Why don't they just say what they are?

Amanda Terkel: That's a great question. I've heard some people and again, I think Manchin has been a little bit clearer. He has said that he doesn't like programs that are universal programs, like the child tax credit, for example. He wants it to be more targeted to people in need. The levels and the thresholds he wants, the people making $50,000 has been floated, for example, that's pretty low. The child tax credit has been shown to have really helped families out during the pandemic and made the economic downturn less bad, essentially. A lot of Democrats are uncomfortable with cutting so many people out of these programs.

Sinema, less clear again, she said she's not on board with Democratic Party's proposal to lower prescription drug costs or to raise corporate taxes. I think that Democrats if she tries to take out any prescription drug negotiations, I think there will be a lot of pushback because it's something that's not only popular amongst Democrats, but it's widely popular with the public. I think it's something a lot of Democrats have said that, "We will lower your prescription drug prices." I don't think they're going to let her take that out. If she stands firm again, they need her votes.

Some people have given Sinema the benefit of the doubt that she's been more clear behind the scenes that she's just not letting it play out publicly. So far, I haven't seen much indication of that because I think if she had been clear, things would have leaked out more. It seems right now it's more focused on the overall price tag and less on specifics.

Brian Lehrer: Spencer in Berkeley Heights, you're on WNYC with Amanda Terkel, Washington bureau chief, I almost said, Wash bureau chief for Huffington Post but it's Washington bureau chief for HuffPost. Spencer, hi, you're on WNYC.

Spencer: Good morning, Brian. Good morning, Amanda. I'm probably one of many throngs of Democratic voters who are trying to figure out why our elected representatives in Congress for so many years, can't seem to, for lack of a better phrase, get it together. The Republicans always come across as being monolithic, they come across as being in lockstep. That is, unfortunately, fairly dangerous for the country right now but in a situation where the Democrats should be equally in lockstep trying to get to the finish line, they can't seem to operate in concert or in harmony.

Manchin, to some degree, I can understand but again, he keeps thinking that the Republicans are going to play nice and play fair, they're not. Sinema, as you mentioned, at least publicly, is playing everything's so close to the vest, no one knows what she wants, that makes it hard from an optics level to think that she has any interest in trying to get to a goal that is beneficial for all.

I'm afraid that if the Democrats don't get this legislation passed, as you implied earlier in the program, Biden and the rest of the Democratic leadership are going to lose in the midterm elections and what does that then say for the country going into the next election cycle?

Brian Lehrer: Spencer, thank you. Amanda, you want to compare the two parties from your point of view, to Spencer's point that the Republicans seem to go in lockstep with each other, the Democrats seem to have a harder time getting together on a message that they all stick to or a position?

Amanda Terkel: Yes, I think Spencer gave a great summary of why so many Democrats are frustrated right now. Right, Republicans do tend to get in line more, even if it's on something as crazy [chuckles] as wondering whether Biden won the election or not. There are a few detractors now and then but you do hear this trope of Democrats being in disarray more often whether or not it's true. I think, right now, there's so much focus on the Senate but I think it's pretty remarkable that the house, which does have a larger Democratic majority, has been pretty unified. You have quite a few moderates and Progressives, who disagree on the timing and the priorities, but they're, I think, ready largely to pass Biden's agenda.

Where the trouble comes is in the Senate, where it's more skewed toward Conservatives and Republicans, and it's much harder for Progressives to gain a true majority or a true foothold. I think Democrats right now, the question is, what's worse, passing nothing, passing a much smaller bill at $1.5 trillion, or passing something very large, like what Sanders wants to do?

The moderates seem to think passing something large will hurt them in not only the midterms, next month we have Virginia's elections coming up where there's a tight gubernatorial race. I think that a lot of people are afraid that if Democrats can't get their act together and do anything, the base will be discouraged and won't turn out and voters will say, "What's the point of giving you control of White House and Congress if you can't even get this done?"

Brian Lehrer: Is there a political analysis for Virginia, if it's a bellwether state in that respect, a state where either the Democrat or the Republican might win the gubernatorial race next month, that it would be worse for the Democrats to pass nothing, or worse for the Democrats to pass something that's seen as too big, or something that's seen as too small?

Amanda Terkel: I think right now, it's a little too early, and we're going to see the results of that next month. Virginia is obviously traditionally a very Republican state that is turning bluer, even the Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin is having to moderate some of his stances, or at least be less vocal about some of his more Conservative stances than he was in the primary to appeal to a lot of these independent voters in the state.

Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat who is the former governor is saying that, "Look, Biden's not really popular right now." He seems to imply that some voters may not like all this. I think there are also people saying, "No matter what happens in Virginia, don't read into it too much. It doesn't necessarily tell you what will happen in the midterms." I think Democrats are also cautioning that remember, Democrats, the party in power, the party that controls the White House tends to lose seats in the midterm election in Congress and so that's another thing that Democrats are having to work against, another historical trend that doesn't bode well for them.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a caller, I think, who thinks the Build Back Better bill, the so-called Reconciliation or Human Infrastructure bill with the childcare and the eldercare and everything, is too small. Joan in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Joan.

Joan: Oh, hi, thank you. Yes, I'm saying that the glaring omission from this bill is what we need most in this country and we do not have which is a national healthcare system like a single-payer system and it would save money. I know it's counterintuitive to say, "If you insure everybody, it costs less," but every study that has ever been done, most recent one right before the pandemic Yale Medical School came out with a study that said we would immediately save, if we went to Medicare for all, in the first year, we would save $450 billion and about 60,000 lives. Why don't we do it?

Brian Lehrer: Joan, thank you very much. Amanda, you mentioned that healthcare is one of the components in here, along with more funding for people to afford college and universal pre-K and more home health aides for elderly and infirm people to stay in their homes rather than go to nursing homes, so many things. You did say healthcare as being on that list but it's definitely not Bernie Sanders-style Medicare for all, which the caller was promoting. Do you know what healthcare provisions are in the bill?

Amanda Terkel: Yes, right. I think if Bernie Sanders had his way, [chuckles] Medicare for all would be there but that's something that Biden has not supported so that's not something that Democrats are pushing at this time. I think that right now, is Democrats are just fighting for the baseline healthcare provisions to be in there, right now, the house, for example, has proposed investing $190 billion in home healthcare, which is less than half of what Biden initially asked for.

If you're going to cut it from over $3 trillion to say, $1.5 trillion, that number might come down even more, and this is something that people are looking at as being at risk. Then you have to choose, do you give up expanding access to older Americans who need caretakers? Or do you give up raising the wages of those workers, a group that's disproportionately women of color? Giving Medicare the ability to negotiate better prices with drug companies, again, it's something that I think Democrats, overall support and the public supports, but Sinema opposes.

When you have a price tag drop that goes so far, things like this are going to be left out. What climate provisions are going to be cut? The child tax credit, is it going to be less generous? It looks like free community college will probably stay in but again, these are all trade-offs. I think that it's one thing to talk about this trillion-dollar price tag, it's another thing to look at the individual provisions and who's going to get left out and start to talk to people who will be left out. That's when I think Manchin and Sinema are going to start hearing from some of their constituents a bit more.

Manchin obviously comes from a very Conservative state, West Virginia, and I think the politics are sometimes a little bit more clear there, although many of his constituents would be the ones who would benefit most [chuckles] from some of these provisions. Sinema is in Arizona, that's a much bluer state. It's a swing state, but it's a bluer state than West Virginia and you have the other senator Democrat Mark Kelly, who is not being as Conservative as Sinema. The question is, does she really, really need to be like this politically, or is she misjudging her state's politics?

Brian Lehrer: Here is a Kyrsten Sinema question from Sean in Maplewood. Sean, you're on WNYC. Hi, there.

Sean: Hi, Brian, hi Amanda. I just want to make a couple quick points. One is, it is interesting that if there hadn't been the miracle in the Georgia runoffs the situation Biden would be dealing with, but I bring that up because I wonder, did Democrats really appreciate how tenuous the situation is? That it can change overnight with somebody not waking up in the morning because they're elderly, a member of the Senate or whatever.

Then I also wanted to ask Amanda, is anybody concerned that Sinema, because frankly, I think she is the senator of cinema. She's a narcissist, and is there concern that she might switch parties and become a Republican?

Brian Lehrer: Amanda, switching parties?

Amanda Terkel: I haven't heard anyone suggest that she's going to switch parties yet. I think there has been some speculation on whether or not she's going to run again, because some people find what she's doing so befuddling, [chuckles] that it doesn't seem to make sense if she wants to run again because she's taking off so many people in the Democratic Party. We haven't heard any indication that she won't. There are other arguments that what she's doing is smart politically and she's showing her independence in the-- you could argue in the legacy of John McCain, bucking her party when she thinks it's useful.

No, I haven't heard that so far. I don't know if Mitch McConnell is courting her behind the scenes. I find it a little unlikely that you would become a Republican, to be honest, but he is going out of his way to praise Manchin and Sinema to keep them happy. Obviously, there was some disappointment with her. There is video or photos of her looking friendly with McConnell but I would say so far, it seems like she'll stay a Democrat.

Brian Lehrer: A lot more to do with Amanda Terkel, HuffPost Washington bureau chief, and your call. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Amanda Terkel. No, she's not the WashPost, Huffington bureau chief, she's the HuffPost Washington bureau chief, and we'll get to more of your calls in a minute. Following up on the last caller. Biden's poll numbers are down in many recent polls to around where Trump's were for most of his presidency around 40%. He's lost 20 points from day one, although all presidents spend their political capital. To some degree, this is normal.

The items that we were talking about in the human infrastructure bill itself, poll much better. People are for childcare system. People are for more access to home health aides rather than nursing homes. People are for affordable higher education. People are for universal pre-K. People are for climate prevention. What's the disconnect?

Amanda Terkel: Right, they definitely are. That's why you see, when Republicans are attacking this, they're not attacking specific provisions as much as they are just attacking Democrats' runaway spending, this large price tag. That's part of the reason that Mitch McConnell wants to draw this out as long as possible because as long as it's this mushy, poorly defined bill, Republicans don't have to deal with the specifics.

You saw this a bit with the Affordable Care Act too. It seemed too big, what's going on but when you look at the provisions, oh, allowing children to stay on their parents' healthcare, and making sure people with pre-existing conditions can get healthcare and aren't discriminated against. That's where it started to swing a bit against Republicans.

This is why Mitch McConnell wants to drag out the debt ceiling fight as long as he can. Because if Democrats are having to deal with that, and having to deal with how to figure out the passage through reconciliation, which they can do on their own, but it takes time, they can't move forward on this Build Back Better reconciliation bill. McConnell is smart enough politically to know why that favors him.

I think that's why a lot of Democrats don't like where Sinema and Manchin, I almost combined their names, are because it's like, "Look, voters at the end of the day won't be as focused on final price tags and how much it costs. What they'll be focused on is how this is benefiting them." They can get help for childcare, for pre-K, for home health aide, they can have the child tax credit now. They think that once voters see the benefits, that's what they'll remember. Again, I think Republicans maybe realize some of that and are trying to hold it off.

Brian Lehrer: I think you might have coined a new term there that you could use in a HuffPost headline, call them cinnamon, right?

Amanda Terkel: [chuckles] That's right.

Brian Lehrer: [unintelligible 00:23:50] Brangelina or something like that. They're one person now. They're cinnamon. Julia in Brooklyn has a comment about cinnamon. Hi, Julia. You're on WNYC.

Julia: Oh, hi. I just wanted to say that so often I hear both of them referred to as moderates, I end up yelling at the radio. It happens a lot on WNYC when they really are not moderates. They are radical within the party. Joe Manchin has taken more money from the oil and gas industry than any other senator, any other senator, that includes Republicans. He is not moderate. He is greedy or working within his own interests.

West Virginia has not always been so-called Conservative. I have problems with that word as well. He's working against the interests of his people and using this bill, this package is, of course, the majority of people want this bill because it is the majority of people. It is the greedy people at the top who don't want this bill and that should be the distinction. It shouldn't be even Republican or Democrat. Even Republicans want this. People love social security and Medicaid, which could be referred to as socialist programs.

They love it once they get it and the Republicans and I will include Manchin and Sinema in that. Sinema, maybe she's not going to switch to the Republican Party. She doesn't need to, she has way more control as a Republican within the Democratic Party. I would like to know, I don't know the specifics on her but I would like to know why. To me, it's obvious that she won't negotiate prescription drug prices because the pharmaceutical industry, I'd like to know how much money they're giving her.

This is the basic problem with the country is that we are divided because we can't get our politicians, there's corruption in both parties. The Democrats right now, the majority of them are trying to go with the will of the people. That's my [unintelligible 00:26:13]

[crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Julia, thank you. Thank you very much. Call us again. We did a segment largely about this last week. Some of you will remember. Amanda, what's your take on-- Last time we focused mostly on Joe Manchin in particular. He represents a coal-producing state, obviously, so he's taking a lot of money from the fossil fuel interests. There are also a lot of coal jobs in West Virginia. Some people could look at it and say, "Well, he's representing the interest of his constituents."

This theory is coming up a lot, that there is a disconnect between what even Joe Manchin thinks would be in the interest of most of the people of West Virginia, and what he's being in effect paid to oppose by the major campaign donors who he's more beholden to than his voters. How much can you say that is or isn't the case?

Amanda Terkel: I'm sure Manchin's office would dispute this, but I think there's-- When you look at some of the provisions he's opposing and who they would benefit and how much they would benefit individuals in his state, and the fact that he doesn't support some of them, I think it's hard to contest the other factors, who he gets money from, business interests, and all that don't play some role, and that he's not listening to them to some degree.

You see this dynamic. I was just looking up because the caller asked, it looks like Sinema has received more than $750,000 in donations from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, which obviously, pay a lot of money for lobbying and she does benefit from this. She's not the only one.

You have New Jersey, for example, is another state where a lot of money is given from the pharmaceutical industry to the senators and House members. You do have some members there who are aligned with the pharmaceutical industry but not all of them. Some of them are still on board with allowing Medicare to negotiate better prices. I don't think donations can always explain everything, although obviously they can't be discounted.

To the caller talking about moderate versus Conservative, I do think she's right. These people are to the right of every one in their parties, they are Conservative Democrats. I think where people often call moderates, is that when you look at the overall Senate, they tend to be more in the middle. You could argue whether or not people in the middle should be listened to and should have sway. I think that's why a lot of Progressives were upset about the infrastructure bill, for example.

If you look at who negotiated it, it was a lot of those "moderate senators," it was an all-white group, which is not that surprising, because the Senate is all white, but they were from states that are overwhelmingly white. That was leaving out a lot of the voices of people of color who would benefit from provisions for example, in the reconciliation bill. That's why you had a lot of Progressives say, "This infrastructure bill is great, but we're not just going to pass that and forget about everything else that would benefit a lot of our constituents and a lot of people of color."

Brian Lehrer: Does Biden have any leverage over Manchin and Sinema on the one side and Progressives like Sanders on the other? I hear some people in the media say, "Oh, Biden just needs to be stronger and knock heads like LBJ," and things like that. What leverage can Biden assert?

Amanda Terkel: I think those were different days when I think presidents had a little bit more leverage and you had things like you had more pork, you had more earmarks. I think you [unintelligible 00:30:04] earned more favors that were passed around, for example. I don't know how much leverage he has, honestly. You could say that I guess Biden could come out, and he could campaign against them and support primary challenger but realistically, I don't think Biden will do that to Manchin or Sinema.

I think that a lot of Democrats are fairly deferential to Joe Manchin because they think there's a political calculation that he's maybe the only democrat who could win in West Virginia right now and that if Joe Manchin goes, he'll likely be replaced by a Republican. I think there's a case for that. I think that's different with Sinema, where you've seen the Senate seats go back and forth from Democrats to Republicans but right now, there are two Democratic senators there so I think it's a little bit harder to say that Sinema is the only Democrat who could hold that seat.

Again, it's not really Biden style to come out and play hardball, and to go against them. With Bernie Sanders right now, honestly, I think he's a lot more on board with Sanders's approach. Sanders wants to pass this full robust Biden agenda and it's the Conservative senators who are the ones who are blocking that, but Biden has told lawmakers that the number though, he believes is going to have to come down.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, but with respect to the Progressives from the Bernie Sanders camp, if you want to call it that, in the house, Biden seemed to switch sides to their side recently from saying pass the physical infrastructure bill first, and then we'll go on to the human infrastructure bill. The Progressives were saying, "No, we don't trust the likes of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to pass the human infrastructure bill at all, if we give them the infrastructure bill, the physical one first." Biden flipped, to be on the Progressives' side on that and say, "Okay, we have to pass these two things together."

Amanda Terkel: Right. I think, realistically, Biden knows that the Progressives could tank the infrastructure bill. In the House, there are enough of them, and he needs their votes. But it's remarkable if you look back at the Democratic primary when Biden was not the choice of progressives, Biden was known as more moderate. Progressives were on the side of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and other candidates.

Now Progressives are-- there are some disagreements but are fairly behind his domestic agenda and he's finding that they are some of his most valuable allies and where he's having trouble is with the more moderate and Conservative members of the party.

Brian Lehrer: Why are they so bad at branding? The Democrats?

Amanda Terkel: [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: People who listen to this show regularly know that I've been railing almost daily against the casual nickname for the bill that the media uses, but even that most of the democrats use that winds up with it being called the $3.5 trillion spending bill. Well, it's not a bill whose goal is spending. It's a bill to prevent climate change and provide care to older infirm people in their homes and provide universal pre-k and free community college.

Then it's going to cost money, it's going to cost that much money only over 10 years, not over one year anyway. A lot of it will be paid for if the tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations aspects of it go through. Maybe it's because that takes 75 words instead of 4 words, that it doesn't get branded accurately, but the Democrats themselves aren't branding it accurately, it seems like.

Amanda Terkel: Right and yes, reconciliation bill isn't the catchiest and sometimes it's called the reconciliation bill. Sometimes it's called the Build Back Better act. They haven't even settled on a name for it. Yes, I agree with you and again, I think Republicans know this. This is what Mitch McConnell wants because when you start talking about the specific things that would be in the bill, they're incredibly popular.

When you start saying, "This is the universal pre-k bill, when this is the cheaper prescription drugs bill, fighting climate change," those sorts of things are just overwhelmingly popular. That's what Republicans don't want to talk about. If Democrats can't agree on a bill, what exactly it is, and what exactly is in there, Republicans don't have to address those specifics, because right now, it's not clear what will be in there.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing is a segue to our next segment, which is going to be about how out of town performers and athletes in New York don't have to be vaccinated when they come and perform or play their sports in indoor venues but the audience does and the home team does. That's going to be our next topic. Hello Kyrie Irving and Texas Republican gubernatorial hopeful Allen West who I mentioned at the beginning of the segment, railing against COVID vaccines from his COVID hospital bed.

I'm tempted to laugh, but too many other people's lives are at stake. Does he think that's the road to being elected governor in Texas? Beyond that, why is there this growing movement in the anti-Vax world towards celebrating Big Pharma's expensive monoclonal antibodies treatment, while trashing the vaccine as a big pharma plot to make money? Does it not matter that it doesn't make sense?

Amanda Terkel: That was crazy. He tweeted, "Instead of enriching the pockets of Big Pharma and corrupt bureaucrats and politicians, we should be advocating the monoclonal antibody infusion therapy," which is an expensive medical treatment that he received from doctors. Not everyone is available, it probably saved his life and he probably didn't need it, if he would have been vaccinated but that's from Big Pharma [chuckles] it didn't just arise out of some random person. Pharmaceutical giants are the ones who manufacture this and so he is touting Big Pharma while rejecting the vaccine.

Of course, Allen West while saying, "The vaccine, you can't trust it." He has been in favour of Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, these other "remedies" that these anti-vaxxers believe in, that are completely unproven and not only unproven, show that they can hurt people because they're not meant, and they don't actually help with COVID at all. It's incredibly-- like you said, it's humorous because it's so outrageous, but it's incredibly devastating because there are a lot of people who believe the types of things that Allen West is spouting and it's costing people their lives.

Brian Lehrer: Well, maybe it's going to turn out that Greg Abbott is too liberal for the people of Texas and Allen West will be their next governor. Amanda Terkel, Washington bureau chief for HuffPost. Thank you very much for coming on today.

Amanda Terkel: Thank you.

 

Copyright © 2021 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.