Mo Unity, Mo Problems

In an exercise of “dealing with liberalism’s best arguments,” Jonah plays host to returning guest ...

By

In an exercise of “dealing with liberalism’s best arguments,” Jonah plays host to returning guest Mo Elleithee, a Democratic political strategist. They talk about the first day of the Biden administration and many of the coming political realignments. Would Democrats relish the thought of a “Patriot Party” rising up in opposition to the GOP, or would they reel in horror? Are Americans cautiously optimistic about the incoming administration’s “unity” message, and if so, are they right to be? And in a shocking turn of events, every House Democrat must now bow before the Lord Regent of West Virginia, Joe Manchin.

Show Notes:

–Take our podcast survey

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (37)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    Informative discussion.

    I think there's a lot more "common ground" for the parties than most people realize. There are quite a few policies that have 70%-80% agreement among voters. (Like the time change!) Representatives aren't "compromising" with the "other side" if we already agree!

    Collapse
  2. Melissa

    This was great. This conversation in itself is the work of fixing America. Keep doing it. Seriously great.

    Collapse
  3. Jack Hammond

    In the GA Senate runoff elections, Warnock did well in the "suburbs" because a lot of black voters live in the suburbs. It seems as if it's time to retire the term "suburbs" outside of New York city.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Why would the term suburbs need to be retired?

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Brett Myers

    I am only 15 minutes in, and I just came hear to say that I find it much more intellectually stimulating to hear Jonah talk to someone 'across the aisle', than to hear him have another member of the fraternity come on and slap each others back.

    More of this for us moderate independents, please. And thanks to all at The Dispatch for providing this island in a big, too often shallow ocean.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Brett Myers

      Grammar Police Edit: "other's"

      Collapse
  5. Richard Fulmer

    I agree with the people to whom Jonah was talking who believe that the Democrats don't want Trump convicted. I think that they want Trump to remain a millstone around the GOP's neck for as long as possible. Had they truly wanted Trump convicted, they would have stuck to objectively provable charges, namely that he:
    • Threatened members of his party with retaliation if they didn’t help him try to overturn the election
    • Tried to strongarm state officials into changing election results
    • Encouraged the Vice President to ignore his oath to defend the Constitution by arbitrarily disqualifying electors
    • Tried to intimidate Congress by organizing a rally and ordering the crowd to march on the Capitol building where Congress was certifying the Electoral College
    • Endangered the Vice President by denouncing him via tweet during the riot
    • Initially refused to even try to quell the riot

    Those actions should be more than sufficient grounds to impeach and convict Trump. There was no need to throw in the "incitement of insurrection" charge which depends on the subjective meaning of the words.

    Also, the House Democrats, had they wanted conviction, would have given ample time for pro-impeachment Republicans to speak, nor would Schumer now be strong arming McConnell over timing. Dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's would give Republicans no excuses for not voting to convict.

    On the other hand, getting the necessary votes from Republican Senators to convict Trump would give the GOP a chance at a clean break from the disgraced former president, and that's the last thing that the Democrats want. It's unfortunate because a conviction would be good for the country and not just the GOP. Congressmen should be sending a strong signal to future presidents that trying to use a mob to intimidate Congress is not acceptable.

    In this hyper-partisan day, however, the good of the nation doesn't seem to be a high priority for many political leaders.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Justin Perry-Naw Dawg Doctrine

    I think this was the classic case of a conversation between a thought-leader and an active operative. I don't mean this insulting by any stretch, it's just very different for someone who's job depends on his ability to spin "Democrat" in a good light versus someone who can tell the truth. Maybe a conversation with Yglasias or Klein would stimulate more truth and honest evaluation of rival parties?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Angie

      Are you seriously saying he was lying? What position do you expect him to take...he is a liberal and his job is to promote that side...he is still better than those who refuse to even talk to Jonah et al....it still doesn't mean he is lyng means he sees and hears things we don't? Ad his perspective is different...different doesn't mean you are lying...sigh,,is that what you think we all do?

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    “Politics during the Trump era was just loud.” Only, the President was louder than other Presidents, but not the press. Remember Johnson, Nixon, Carter (not so much), Reagan, Bush (not so much), Clinton & Bush? I left out Obama because as Bernard Goldberg said, the (MSM) press had “A Slobbering Love Affair” with him. The only difference since Clinton is now the press includes conservative/Republican outlets.

    I listened for a while. Mr. Elleithee wears blinders and can only spew Democratic Party gobbledygook (I purposely did not use talking points because he’s clever enough to reword his presentation). Finally, though, I had enough, so I missed the abrupt ending others are noting. This is a one-time criticism not meant to discourage more ‘cross conversations.’

    Collapse
  8. Paul A Sand

    Good news for conservatives, I guess; "liberalism’s best arguments" are indistinguishable from predictable partisan sycophancy.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Angie

      Ah yes , only liberals have an invalid point of view...got it

      Collapse
  9. James Ellard

    I am hearing impaired, and would pay more attention to your podcasts if they were available in print form.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      C C Writer

      Transcripts would also be helpful to those of us for whom the end of the podcast is cut off.

      Collapse
  10. Nicholas Crouse

    These podcasts keep clipping the audio at the end, and we keep commenting letting you all know about it with no update. Why hasn't this issue at least been acknowledged as something that you're trying to resolve? At least this one just ended in am outro and not mid-interview.

    Very frustrated subscriber.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      C C Writer

      Yes, it's starting to really bug me that they won't even acknowledge it publicly and give us some kind of explanation. We are supposed to be important to them.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Angie

        Steve said the other day that they were aware of the problem and they were having trouble with the provider and substack...I can't remember which thread

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          C C Writer

          Yeah, I did see that but I can't remember which thread either.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Don’t you use a podcast provider like apple podcasts?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        C C Writer

        Apple won't work on the portable internet radio I use to listen to podcasts. Listening from the site used to work fine.

        Collapse
      2. Nicholas Crouse

        No, I've just been listening from the site. Good to know about it working from other sources. All I'd seen was others like me having the same issue. Thanks!

        Collapse
Load More