The First 100 Days

Today’s episode starts off talking about every political junkie’s favorite arbitrary threshold, a presidential administration’s ...

By

Today’s episode starts off talking about every political junkie’s favorite arbitrary threshold, a presidential administration’s first 100 days. Hear what everyone thinks are the Biden administration’s greatest strengths and weaknesses. The gang debates what’s the most important aspect of the John Kerry leaking info to Iran story and how the U.S. Census will affect our politics and our country going forward. Then, stick around to hear if everything has gone to [BLEEP].

Show Notes:

–Vice President Joe “put y’all back in chains” Biden

–President Joe “worse than Jim Crow” Biden

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (40)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kristie Hollifield

    Your podcast is so refreshing. The program informs and challenges me. It is reasonable and balanced. It doesn't use anger and name-calling to stir up listeners. Thank you. I am so glad I found your podcast.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    WKDawson

    Dear Sarah,

    That was some real insight on the "John Kerry" matter. I see that you would probably be a shrewd prosecutor on anyone who had something to hide.

    I am on the fence on the matter. Certainly, what Steve Hayes and Commentary say carries some serious weight. Myanmar comes to mind as a place where an "apparent" political leader probably spent the last five years "apparently" leading, where the real shots were called by the military. Likewise, it wasn't hard to conclude that the Medvedev government was just a shadow Putin government. So it would hardly come as a surprise that the Iranian government is really the military with a strong tinge of far-right (Islamic speaking) religious zealotry to boot.

    Nevertheless, having lived outside the US for almost half my life, I have gradually had to come to accept that what people say needs to be filtered with savvy respect for human nature and survival in most of the world. So the reasons for this leaked tape, who leaked it, and what purpose it served are rather opaque to us. We'd have to understand how one survives and propers and navigates themselves in a world like that.

    In the jungle, you have to measure people by their actual actions, not by mere words. I think if the Trumpery of this era doesn't die the death it deserves, we may end up like a lot of those places where truth is defined by who has the power.

    Collapse
  3. Mark Moromisato

    David French is as relentless as he is ridiculous in his assertion that the right wing is the source of alarmism in politics and culture today. Who is it that says not implementing the green new deal is an planetary existential threat (AOC gives us 12 years before it's too late)? Who says that black men are being hunted for mass incarceration at best and are in peril of losing their lives with every encounter with pervasive racism among our police forces? Who says that NOT banning scary looking guns means we are at constant threat to be gunned down at the local malls and schools (if our Blue State Governors...I'm in CA... ever think it's safe enough to fully reopen them)?

    And David brings up the story that VP Harris's book is being distributed to minors detained at the southern boarder as one of his examples of right wing media's Flight 93 approach to political news. Just so stupid. He is making the dispatch podcast a real chore to get through these days. David, don't you need a vacation or something? It could be wonderfully relaxing for you... and it certainly would be for me.

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      I like David, but I agree that he tends to understate the threat of the left. Probably because he was attacked so viciously from the right for not being Pro Trump

      Collapse
      1. Mark Moromisato

        thanks, Matthew - yes, I believe that the tremendous flak he took from the pro-Trump crowd drives a lot of his focus back to them. I suspect that's the case with many other commentators (I think Jonah feels more than a little beat up too and it manifests in his G-file and Remnant podcasts too). But David and the others need to keep their eyes on the ball. They are professionals who are supposed to be grounded and clear-eyed in the face of the vitriol and not thin-skinned, reactionaries like the rest of us (haha). It's why I subscribe and why I'm beginning to wonder if I will renew when the time comes.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Paul Miller

    Sarah is right and the guys are wrong: of course Zarif was lying, or highly exaggerating. He was legacy-building, exonerating himself from the regime's failures and blunders, shifting blame to the IRGC and the military. He's getting his version of history out there so that he looks good (according to his lights) in whatever history book cares to notice him.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    It seems so unlikely that Kerry revealed classified information, or even information that was news to Zarif, that I don't understand why anyone is even discussing it. Well, no, that's not true. I understand it well-enough -- some people have a bone to pick with Kerry (I'm one of them) and some people just like scandal. Still, this is a silly conversation.

    It's also rather pointless trying to read the entrails of this supposedly-leaked interview for clues about Iran. Partly because we can't know how candid Zarif was really being, or who was really behind the leak, or why; partly because it's not as if Iran's intentions have ever been a mystery. It's strange, in fact, that Mr. French thinks that America's leaving the JCPOA strengthens the IRGC's argument that we can't be trusted; as if one had America-philes in the corridors of Iranian power with whom they were arguing, and as if they weren't going to cheat on the deal anyway.

    There isn't a lot of difference between the Iran deal and the Taliban deal. Both are instances of our cutting deals with imaginary interlocutors because the real ones are intractable and our other options are either unpalatable or don't suit our pretensions.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    It seems ‘growth’ depends, in part, on population increase. Presumably, more people conduct more transactions. Hence, population increase has a positive effect on growth. Productivity increases also positively effect growth (i.e., less resources produce more goods). So, advancing technology, particularly robotics, increases productivity while simultaneously decreasing the need for labor. Have we reached a moment in history when increasing population will become a detriment? If this postulation is true government revenue will decrease unless there are massive tax increases, which will do further damage to growth. These possibilities expose our current profligate spending as insanity.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Dana Garvey

    I'm a devoted listener and reader ( and yes a subscriber!). While I found this edition very interesting, I have to admit I found it very depressing. It felt like one consistent stream of data validating the unadulterated mendacity that has permeated our lives. Joe Biden is lying about his objectives. John Kerry consistently deceives, all the way back to Viet Nam. Right and left wing media, (we can't really call them news organizations anymore) lie and fabricate in service to their viewers, advertisers or whoever. The Iranians lie (duh). I live in Ohio, and the candidates for the seat currently held by Senator Portman are racing headlong to win the "half fact derby". It drives one to distraction. I was really hoping there would be a light hearted final question, or at least someone would make fun of David for liking Aquaman...Please keep up the good work, even if it does make me want to throw myself off my elliptical as a useless and silly gesture of frustration.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    BrandonAlleman

    Maybe be it's a purposeful play on words, but I love that when David says 'ecosystem' it sounds like 'echo-system'.

    Collapse
  9. R. James

    A statement against interest is more reliable because it is against the interest of the speaker which reduces the motivation to lie. This concept is recognized in the law of evidence.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I think Sarah herself actually mentioned this as an exemption to the hearsay rule in one of the AO Podcasts!

      Collapse
      1. R. James

        Then, I'm confused as to why she would find the statement against interest so incredible.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          I think it depends on what Zarif's perceived interest is. If he sees Iran as heading for greatness, then he'd perceive it as in his interest to portray himself as being a powerful insider who is heavily involved in the running of the regime.

          But if he suspects that Iran is heading for some kind of disaster, then he would perceive it as in his interest to portray himself as out of the loop and pushed to the side by the IRGC, for if the compost hits the wind turbine he can claim, "I had nothing to do with this, it's all the IRGC's fault, they kept me totally in the dark about it!"

          Collapse
          1. R. James

            Given the long standing doubts about the influence of non IRGC elements in the government. His statement about the functioning of the government does not sound incredible. Further it would be odd that Zarif to think Iran was headed for disaster considering the regime's past resiliency, other parties to JCPOA refusing to follow the US lead in abandoning talks and the Democrats stated intention to rejoin the agreement once regaining the Presidency.

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    kategolden

    I can honestly never tell if Sarah is playing devil's advocate or is sincere. I take it many listeners welcome the contrast, and I suppose it's important to address a different point of view. I just find that often her disagreements are rooted in supposition or emotion. I love The Dispatch and have been reluctant to post this criticism, but if the predictable disagreement in each segment is a contrivance, I'd just suggest it could be more nuanced.

    Collapse
    1. Patrick E

      I just wish she'd interrupt less.

      Collapse
      1. GregS

        Nah I like her interruptions. This is supposed to be a group of coworkers/ equals discussing topics. Interruptions when done civilly allow for more interesting conversations.

        Collapse
        1. Patrick E

          I'm not saying never, it just always seems like she's doing it way more than the rest of them do.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I have noticed she tends to dissent but I don't think she's doing so out of emotion. And I think that it's pretty obvious when she's playing Devil's Advocate, her comments about Tim Scott's speech yesterday NOT actually being a sign of the GOP returning to pre-Trump messaging being one example.

      The only time it really annoys me at all is when the framing is "Sarah expressing the female POV in opposition to the males" as I disagree with her takes at times, and I am just as female as she is.

      Collapse
    3. James D

      I often find myself thinking exactly the same question she raises before she raises it, so I think she's sincere, and a valuable dissenting voice.

      For example, on the conversation she had with the guys about Afghanistan, she was the only one arguing the dissenting viewpoint in favor of withdrawal, even though withdrawal is actually massively popular, putting the rest of the guys well in the minority!

      Collapse
      1. James D

        As far as "emotion", in that case, for example, I'd say that the reactions of the rest of the group were much more rooted in emotion! And I'd say the same here, too. I find her to typically be the most detached and analytical of the gang (and I enjoy the perspectives everyone brings to the table!)

        I felt there was a much more "emotional" desire on the part of the guys to believe their priors with regard to Kerry and Iran than there was any emotional desire on Sarah's part, as she openly stated that she doesn't really like Kerry or his record at all.

        Collapse
    4. GregS

      I hope it's not a contrivance because I often find that she says exactly what I was thinking. There is no reason to believe that Zarif was being 100% truthful. Everything he was saying could be construed as "against his interests" (since it made him look weak and powerless). So either he is the first politician in the history of the world to give a 3 hour interview that is both truthful and against his interests, OR he thought this interview was in his interest even if he thought it was never going to be leaked. And if so, its not so hard to imagine that he exaggerated the Kerry interaction. E.g. Kerry has conversations with others in IRGC who say, "look we know Israel has attacked us in Syria 200 times." Then when he's talking with Zarif he says, "look, as you guys know, Israel is attacking you in Syria." And Zarif doesn't know this because the IRGC doesn't keep him in the loop. Did Kerry reveal classified info? Not really. Does this story help Zarifs thesis that the IRGC is shutting him out? Definitely. I don't see why this argument is based on supposition- it is just as much of a supposition to assume that Zarif is being 100% truthful. And I don't see where emotion comes into the picture at all.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Cornelius O’Brien

        It's hard to tell with Sarah Isgur because I am certain that she takes opposing viewpoints to play devil's advocate. It's hard to tell when she's doing that. Nevertheless, her point was valid. The more valid point made was by David French that, if the fact that Israel had attacked Iranian interests in Syria dozens or hundreds of times was news to Zarif, he must be pretty cloistered. All one has to do is read the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. to know that Israel has engaged in a sustained effort to militarily interdict the flow of Iranian arms to Hezbollah in Syria for the duration of the conflict there. Kerry need only read the paper to state that, he need not draw on knowledge gained as SOS. Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg and others in the media calling him a potential criminal for doing so is mostly them taking the cue to play their greatest hits about the perfidy of John Kerry.

        Collapse
Load More